Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Whitlock speaks again...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Whitlock speaks again...

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...k/050915&num=0


    By Jason Whitlock
    Special to Page 2


    Surely one of the toughest assignments in sports is making sense of the first weekend of the NFL season. There are those among us who will simply swear that it cannot be done. And then there are those who know better -- the select group of men and women exposed to my writings.

    Not to brag, but I have quite a reputation for diagnosing NFL madness. Given a weekend to overlook results and second-guess excuses, it becomes rather easy for me to figure out whom and what to believe from Week 1.

    Clayton, Salisbury, Mortensen and Jaworski pay handsomely for the information and predictions that I'm about to share for free with you, Page 2 readers. Why are you getting such a bargain? I'm tired of underground success. I'm tired of Clayton and Co. getting the glory for my expertise and refusing to share the spoils.

    Week 1 of the season, as it is apt to do, created far more questions than it provided answers for the average football fan. Readers of this column recognize that I'm not the average football fan. As a former elite-level athlete, a man in his youth who protected Jeff George's blind side in high school and opened gaping holes for Bernie Parmalee in college, I have keen insight into America's game.

    OK, enough with the hype. Here are 10 facts that can be gleaned from Week 1:

    With speedster Derrick Johnson added, KC's defense is much improved.


    10. Kansas City's defense is closer to being fixed than Indianapolis' defense.

    Listen, I love the addition of Corey Simon to the middle of Indy's D. Simon, who looked like he swallowed Jerry Ball, is exactly what Tony Dungy's unit needed: a human bowling ball to plug running lanes.

    But Indy's near shutout of the Baltimore Ravens has more to do with Brian Billick's continued offensive ineptness than the Colts' unveiling a defense capable of winning in January. Billick might be the worst offensive coach in the history of the NFL. Billick is the man who decided Kyle Boller was a franchise quarterback. If not for Marvin Lewis and Ray Lewis' carrying the Ravens to a Super Bowl title, Billick would be in the unemployment line.

    Meanwhile, Kansas City's rebuilt defense showed off its added speed (linebackers Derrick Johnson and Kendrell Bell and corner Patrick Surtain) and a new look (12-15 snaps in a 3-4 scheme) in demolishing the Jets.

    9. The Eagles lost to the Falcons because Donovan McNabb refused to run the football.

    You can blame McNabb's unwillingness to run on his bruised chest. I don't. McNabb has spent the past two years trying to prove he's a pocket passer, not a mad scrambler. It's a mistake. The evidence of McNabb's error was all over Philly's Monday night loss to the Falcons, who scored 14 points because Michael Vick was effective on several designed running plays.

    McNabb threw the ball 45 times. He was credited with one rush, which really wasn't a run. McNabb can run the football damn near as well as Vick; McNabb was the second coming of Steve Young. Had McNabb run the football three or four times, the Eagles wouldn't have settled for two 49-yard field-goal attempts, which David Akers missed. Had McNabb run, the Eagles would've scored at least 17 points, and they'd be 1-0.

    If McNabb doesn't use his legs this season, the Eagles won't be playing in a fifth straight NFC Championship Game.

    8. Warren Sapp, my favorite NFL player, is officially washed up.

    The Oakland Raiders switched from a 3-4 to a 4-3 so Sapp could go back inside, where he's most effective. The move didn't help Sapp at all in the season opener against the Patriots. Sapp is 25 pounds overweight and has none of the quickness that once made him as dominant as Joe Greene.

    Sapp can now be easily blocked one on one. He's not a threat against the run or the pass.

    7. Everyone -- including yours truly -- who suggested the Minnesota Vikings and Daunte Culpepper would be improved by the subtraction of Randy Moss should be beaten.

    I feel so stupid. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers do not beat the Vikings if Randy Moss is still wearing purple.

    6. The feel-good New Orleans Saints will fade quickly because Aaron Brooks is the most fraudulent QB in the NFL.

    Saints fans better enjoy the Week 1 miracle because Brooks will continue to get in the way of the Saints' enjoying consistent success. The Saints have the necessary personnel to field a potent offense -- a decent line, top-flight receivers and a big-play running back.

    However, Brooks is the anti-Tom Brady. Brooks makes stupid decisions, has zero leadership ability and isn't particularly tough or poised in the pocket.

    5. Miami's Nick Saban may prove to be the best coach in the history of the NFL, but beating the Broncos in his opener didn't say anything about him.

    That Denver disaster was all about Mike Shanahan. I take that back. That Denver disaster was all about John Elway. I've long contended that Elway is/was the greatest player to ever play the game. Watching Shanahan unravel as a "mastermind" without Elway further proves my point.

    Denny Green has learned the truth: Kurt Warner can't play anymore.


    Shanahan simply can't coach without Elway. Shanahan's ego isn't out of control. He hasn't changed from his Elway days; he's just the same coach Al Davis fired in Oakland.

    4. Kurt Warner stole two league MVP trophies from Marshall Faulk.

    I'm not saying Warner wasn't an outstanding player with those great Rams teams. He was. But he was never as important to the Rams as Faulk. I've enjoyed watching Warner disintegrate with the Giants and now the Cardinals.

    I'm a huge Dennis Green fan. But I can't figure out why he'd make Warner his starting quarterback. Warner is just too immobile and too erratic after contact to play behind an average offensive line.

    3. Speaking of immobile quarterbacks, I don't expect to see Drew Bledsoe leading the Cowboys to a playoff run.

    The Cowboys upset the Chargers solely because Marty Schottenheimer forgot to get the football to the game's best running back, LaDainian Tomlinson. L.T. touched the ball twice in the final 10 minutes of Dallas' upset victory.

    The Cowboys win six or seven games this season, max.

    2. I know this is a column about the NFL, but I have to sneak in one take about college football: Charlie Weis deserves significant praise for Notre Dame's impressive 2-0 start.

    Weis' best move at Notre Dame so far was bringing back former Lou Holtz assistant Rick Minter as defensive coordinator.

    After leaving Holtz's Notre Dame staff, Minter was head coach at Cincinnati for a decade and then rejoined Holtz at South Carolina after the Cincy athletic director canned Minter for making Bearcats fans believe Cincy could be a top-20 program.

    Minter is an awesome football coach, the best defensive mind in college football. If Notre Dame continues to shine this season, some wise athletic director at a BCS school would be wise to hire Minter.

    1. Tom Brady is still a better quarterback than Peyton Manning.

    Period.





    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Whitlock speaks again...

    Fatlock.
    :thepacers

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Whitlock speaks again...

      I'm going to laugh when KC's defense gets its *** kicked by someone. Especially Randy Moss. The funny thing in sports, you can't go out and sign a bunch of high name FAs and expect to be great. Kinda like NE. I don't see Washington doing well. Or any other team from other sports.
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Whitlock speaks again...

        This guy gets on my nerves. How he has this hatred for anything from Indianapolis.

        He sees that the Colts D has improved, so what does he do? Make up some stupid crap about how KC's D is better. Just because he's mad that the Colts might be getting better.

        Quit being so damn biased.
        Super Bowl XLI Champions
        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Whitlock speaks again...

          This dude is an idiot.
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Whitlock speaks again...

            DimWhitlock is whining about the Colts; it must be football season.
            Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Whitlock speaks again...

              Originally posted by Lord Helmet
              This guy gets on my nerves. How he has this hatred for anything from Indianapolis.

              He sees that the Colts D has improved, so what does he do? Make up some stupid crap about how KC's D is better. Just because he's mad that the Colts might be getting better.

              Quit being so damn biased.
              How is KC's D being better than the Colts' "stupid crap"? The Jets have ten times the offensive capacity as the Ravens, and KC's D almost shut them out as well. Sounds like they've got a head start to me.

              At least no one is trying to contend that Manning is better than Brady.

              IndyToad
              How's the thing going to work?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                Originally posted by indytoad
                How is KC's D being better than the Colts' "stupid crap"? The Jets have ten times the offensive capacity as the Ravens, and KC's D almost shut them out as well. Sounds like they've got a head start to me.

                At least no one is trying to contend that Manning is better than Brady.

                IndyToad
                How's the thing going to work?
                In terms of skills, yes, Manning is better than Brady. Brady gets the perception the he's better because his team has done better than Indy. But Brady is not better than Manning.

                And the Jets don't have 10x the capacity of the Ravens. Jets O is almost as bad as the Ravens. I'd say by 2x better. Pennington has no arm strength whatsoever. They have no receivers that are any good. Coles is only soso. And Martin is like 66 years old. I'm sorry, their offense isn't that great.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                  Peyton is a better QB than Brady, the Pats would be completely unbeatable if they had Peyton instead of Brady at QB.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                    Originally posted by indytoad
                    How is KC's D being better than the Colts' "stupid crap"? The Jets have ten times the offensive capacity as the Ravens, and KC's D almost shut them out as well. Sounds like they've got a head start to me.

                    At least no one is trying to contend that Manning is better than Brady.

                    IndyToad
                    How's the thing going to work?
                    Will you ever try to praise any of your teams?

                    Also, both D's look good. Time will tell who's better.
                    Super Bowl XLI Champions
                    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                      Originally posted by Suaveness
                      In terms of skills, yes, Manning is better than Brady. Brady gets the perception the he's better because his team has done better than Indy. But Brady is not better than Manning.

                      And the Jets don't have 10x the capacity of the Ravens. Jets O is almost as bad as the Ravens. I'd say by 2x better. Pennington has no arm strength whatsoever. They have no receivers that are any good. Coles is only soso. And Martin is like 66 years old. I'm sorry, their offense isn't that great.
                      Manning puts up better stats then Brady, for sure, but Brady just finds a way to win in any and all situations. It's insane. If the quarterbacks had been switched in that last playoffs, Brady may not have won but he surely would have gotten at least one TD, probably more.

                      And at the very least KC and Indy's D should be looked at equally at this point. See how it looks at the end of the season.

                      I do agree that the writer seems kinda like a jerk. I hope the arrogant *** thing he was exuding at the beginning was a schtick, otherwise. Bleh. And the Manning/Brady thing at the end seemed like a cheap shot. I'm not sure what that has to do with what happened in week one - neither one particularly outplayed the other. *shrugs*

                      IndyToad
                      Five to twelve times a day

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                        Originally posted by indytoad
                        Manning puts up better stats then Brady, for sure, but Brady just finds a way to win in any and all situations. It's insane. If the quarterbacks had been switched in that last playoffs, Brady may not have won but he surely would have gotten at least one TD, probably more.

                        And at the very least KC and Indy's D should be looked at equally at this point. See how it looks at the end of the season.

                        I do agree that the writer seems kinda like a jerk. I hope the arrogant *** thing he was exuding at the beginning was a schtick, otherwise. Bleh. And the Manning/Brady thing at the end seemed like a cheap shot. I'm not sure what that has to do with what happened in week one - neither one particularly outplayed the other. *shrugs*

                        IndyToad
                        Five to twelve times a day
                        Well Whitlock seems to hate the fact he's from Indiana. I don't know why, but whenever he finds the time, he makes a conscious effort to demean the Colts and the Pacers.

                        Brady is a terrific QB, no question. But why do they win every year? It isn't the offense. They make plays when necessary. They know how to change the momentum. They know how to win. And that defense of theirs is incredibly opportunistic. They just have that knack. Brady is part of that team, so no doubt he is quite the QB. But Manning is just better. If he were on that team, as mentioned, they would be unbelievable. But this is one of those debates that won't ever end until Manning wins a title. Or two.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                          Originally posted by indytoad
                          Manning puts up better stats then Brady, for sure, but Brady just finds a way to win in any and all situations. It's insane. If the quarterbacks had been switched in that last playoffs, Brady may not have won but he surely would have gotten at least one TD, probably more.

                          And at the very least KC and Indy's D should be looked at equally at this point. See how it looks at the end of the season.

                          I do agree that the writer seems kinda like a jerk. I hope the arrogant *** thing he was exuding at the beginning was a schtick, otherwise. Bleh. And the Manning/Brady thing at the end seemed like a cheap shot. I'm not sure what that has to do with what happened in week one - neither one particularly outplayed the other. *shrugs*

                          IndyToad
                          Five to twelve times a day
                          Originally posted by Since86
                          Peyton's numbers in last year's playoff game weren't that bad, just everyone else was.

                          Here's Peyton's stat line.
                          PASSING ATT CMP YDS SK/YD TD LG IN RT
                          P.Manning 42 27 238 1/8 0 18 1 69.3

                          The rating is so low, because of the no tds and the interception. He completed 64.3% of his passes, and his career % is 63.5.

                          Here's Tom's.
                          PASSING ATT CMP YDS SK/YD TD LG IN RT
                          T.Brady 27 18 144 3/29 1 17 0 92.3

                          That's a 66.7% pass completion.

                          The difference in that game wasn't the first player behind the center, but the second.

                          RUSHING ATT YDS AVG LG TD
                          E.James 14 39 2.8 7 0
                          P.Manning 1 7 7.0 7 0

                          Total 15 46 3.1 7 0

                          RUSHING ATT YDS AVG LG TD
                          C.Dillon 23 144 6.3 42 0
                          K.Faulk 11 56 5.1 13 0
                          T.Brady 4 6 1.5 3 1
                          D.Branch 1 4 4.0 4 0

                          Total 39 210 5.4 42 1

                          NE outrushed them by 146yds.
                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/n...reply&p=230645


                          So by saying that Brady finds a way to win in all situations, you mean he hands the ball off well or just gets into field goal range, I completely agree with you.
                          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                            Originally posted by Suaveness
                            With speedster Derrick Johnson added, KC's defense is much improved.


                            10. Kansas City's defense is closer to being fixed than Indianapolis' defense.

                            Listen, I love the addition of Corey Simon to the middle of Indy's D. Simon, who looked like he swallowed Jerry Ball, is exactly what Tony Dungy's unit needed: a human bowling ball to plug running lanes.

                            But Indy's near shutout of the Baltimore Ravens has more to do with Brian Billick's continued offensive ineptness than the Colts' unveiling a defense capable of winning in January. Billick might be the worst offensive coach in the history of the NFL. Billick is the man who decided Kyle Boller was a franchise quarterback. If not for Marvin Lewis and Ray Lewis' carrying the Ravens to a Super Bowl title, Billick would be in the unemployment line.

                            Meanwhile, Kansas City's rebuilt defense showed off its added speed (linebackers Derrick Johnson and Kendrell Bell and corner Patrick Surtain) and a new look (12-15 snaps in a 3-4 scheme) in demolishing the Jets.
                            Well I have to say I'm not convinced.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Whitlock speaks again...

                              This is the first thing that I have ever read from this guy and I already don't like him.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X