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

I told you so!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: I told you so!

    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
    And people wonder why several years ago Polian decided to emphasize offense because he thought Indy fans wouldn't appreciate a team built around defense ...

    Not sure why, after the last 4 years, some people don't understand how the best defense will control the best offense.

    Even if you didn't follow Miami for the Marino years, the way the last few Colts seasons ended should provide just a little bit of a clue.

    Manning didn't play very well vs KC but he did yesterday.
    DK,

    I always respect your opinions, but I must say you have me perplexed on this one. First of all, let me try to find a point on which I think we agree, building a great defense is preferrable to building a great offense. In any sport defense is something that you should fundamentally be able to bring every day. A quarterback can have an off day throwing, or a basketball player can have an off day shooting, but fundamentals of defense don't require the same "Preciseness" (for lack of a better term) that offense does.

    However, when an offense is in a zone, they are unstoppable regardless of the defense. A QB can throw a pass that can not be picked off if the route is timed precisely. The defense is also always on their heals trying to guess is this a run? Where? A pass? What route? Who's getting it? etc. The offense knows what is happening and they are in far more control than a defense. But alas, sometimes if your timing is off on offense, you just can't make it happen.

    And when you are talking about Marino led teams, I think that is what I think about. A team that can score, but sometimes sinks. Again, offense just isn't as reliable week after week like a defense is.

    But here is my gripe with Peyton. Could you once have a good post season offensive game? I remember the shootout with Miami and San Diego, so there is at least one game where Marino really let the guns blaze. Peyton is remarkable in the sense that he hasn't even accidentally had a good post season game, in regards to scoring. At least what somebody posted in a prior thread, he has only scored a max of 18 points.

    Look at the following link as it relates to Superbowl scores:

    http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps

    Do you notice how many Superbowl winners have scored more than 18 points? Practically all of them have, against arguably some of the best defenses ever assembled. How is this possible? Obviously the defense helps score points in certain games, but clearly the offense also has to execute at a high level. And our level of play from the offense drops dramatically in the playoffs. I mean dramatically.

    The Colts primarily controlled the game in the 4th Qtr. with the run, not the pass. Again, that isn't something where I laud kudos to Manning for that. And I am not just looking at this game individually but rather in Manning's entire career. Asking Manning to come up with scores each time he gets a posession is an unreasonable standard. But asking him to get a touchdown is not.
    “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
    motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
    Reggie Miller

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: I told you so!

      Score of a game is a warped stat for the quality of an offense. You don't know how many of those scores were defensive recoveries. Or how many were kick off returns. That and what does a good D do, it gives you short fields which helps a weak offense look better than it actually is. Just look at the bears earlier in the season when their D was playing really really solid.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: I told you so!

        Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
        HOLY CRAP LOL at the people blaming Manning for the Interceptions that never were.

        QUIT LOOKING AT QB RATING.

        Manning led his team down the field in FG range 5 times. QB rating 39.6
        McNair led his team down the field in FG range 2 times. QB Rating 49.9

        Manning has thrown for 45-68 in the Playoffs with 5 Interceptions against Ty Law and the Best D in the league. They had 26 picks they were exceptionally excellent at picking off the ball. For the Amount of pressure he had he did great not to throw 5, which he didn't do shade as much as you want to claim it. He threw one that was a true interception and the other one was basically a QB punt(Much more effective than the real punt)
        Ray Lewis would beg to differ.

        Manning played just well enough, but he was VERY lucky. Those almost-interceptions were thrown RIGHT TO Ravens defenders. They weren't tipped, the were just plain BAD passes. The only reason they weren't actual interceptions is because of butter-fingers Lewis knocking over his own teammates trying to pull them in. If Lewis comes up with either of those other interceptions, we probably lose the game.

        Point is, Manning had better be back on top of his offensive game in the next round, because both SD and NE have much better offenses than Baltimore. I don't expect the defense to be able to hold them in check like they have the Ravens and KC, so Peyton is going to have to put some points on the board.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: I told you so!

          Oh I agree Manning will need to play better. But I don't agree with the assessment of Manning so far, he has played overall Average up to this point.

          And I think he will be able to, he won't being going against his arch nemesis or the best D in the league.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: I told you so!

            Wait, are you trying to say that manning has never had a good postseason game? Whatthe?
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: I told you so!

              Well something I would put in manning's defense is as far as time of posession goes we had a greater time of posession than the team with the best defense in the league and #1 in time of posession. I know a lot of that has to do with how great defense is, but it also has to do with our offense being able to make something happen and string a couple of drives together. We did just that in the last quarter we got the ball with seven plus minutes and just shoved the ball right down their throats. Alot of that was to our running back tandem's credit but also that one pass to Dallas Clark couldn't have been thrown any better and that was the play that I think iced the game for us. Also as far as Manning in the playoffs goes and not being able to score, didn't we have a shootout with the Chiefs AT arrowhead stadium and we won the game? I don't remember how many points were scored in that game off the top of my head but I'm thinkin it was over 18.

              Found the score it was 38 - 31 Colts Peyton Manning threw for 304 yards with three touchdowns and posted a 138.8 passer rating.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: I told you so!

                Besides against KC and Denver I don't think you can say he had stellar games. Last year he didn't do too bad either considering the pressure he was under and the fact he was playing 14 points down pretty much the whole game.

                Thats 3 Stellar games, an above average game for sure, and what I would argue were 2 average games all things considered this year. So in the last 4 years even if you think these two games were horrible. He has put up 4 decent/stellar games and 4 bad/below average games(3 of which were against Ty Law his arch nemesis or the #1 D in the league)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: I told you so!

                  Congratulations all Colts fans .

                  On to the next round
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: I told you so!

                    Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
                    Oh I agree Manning will need to play better. But I don't agree with the assessment of Manning so far, he has played overall Average up to this point.

                    And I think he will be able to, he won't being going against his arch nemesis or the best D in the league.

                    What I keep wondering is how bad a quarterback must suck for you to consider him below average. When you are throwing more Interceptions than touchdowns, I don't see how you are playing average.
                    “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                    motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                    Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: I told you so!

                      Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                      Well something I would put in manning's defense is as far as time of posession goes we had a greater time of posession than the team with the best defense in the league and #1 in time of posession. I know a lot of that has to do with how great defense is, but it also has to do with our offense being able to make something happen and string a couple of drives together. We did just that in the last quarter we got the ball with seven plus minutes and just shoved the ball right down their throats. Alot of that was to our running back tandem's credit but also that one pass to Dallas Clark couldn't have been thrown any better and that was the play that I think iced the game for us. Also as far as Manning in the playoffs goes and not being able to score, didn't we have a shootout with the Chiefs AT arrowhead stadium and we won the game? I don't remember how many points were scored in that game off the top of my head but I'm thinkin it was over 18.

                      Found the score it was 38 - 31 Colts Peyton Manning threw for 304 yards with three touchdowns and posted a 138.8 passer rating.
                      Good call on the stats. I was in another thread and the person looking up games must have looked up the games that knocked us out instead of all games. My bad on that, b/c I did not personally look up the stats.

                      But overall those good games are unfortunately aberrations.
                      “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                      motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                      Reggie Miller

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: I told you so!

                        Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
                        Score of a game is a warped stat for the quality of an offense. You don't know how many of those scores were defensive recoveries. Or how many were kick off returns. That and what does a good D do, it gives you short fields which helps a weak offense look better than it actually is. Just look at the bears earlier in the season when their D was playing really really solid.
                        I think it is suffice to say that defense plays a role in scores, but in general I have vivid memories of offenses answering the bell. Terry Bradshaw launching to Stallworth and Swan against my beloved Cowboys, Joe Montanna marching down the field for a TD to beat the Bengals, or Kenny King on a hit from Dave Plunkett for a big score. How about the Aikman Cowboys just running over their opposition? The amount of TD's scored by kick or punt return has to be a pretty rare event.

                        And remember, the Colts have been given some pretty favorable starting field position in general the last couple of games, or so it seems to me. The last drive they didn't, but it was b/c it was an interception to thwart a touchdown.
                        “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                        motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                        Reggie Miller

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: I told you so!

                          Originally posted by brichard View Post
                          DKHowever, when an offense is in a zone, they are unstoppable regardless of the defense. A QB can throw a pass that can not be picked off if the route is timed precisely. The defense is also always on their heals trying to guess is this a run? Where? A pass? What route? Who's getting it? etc. The offense knows what is happening and they are in far more control than a defense. But alas, sometimes if your timing is off on offense, you just can't make it happen.
                          I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

                          Great defenses don't allow offenses to get "in a zone." That's why they're great defenses.

                          And there haven't been that many great defenses that I can remember. The 70's Steelers did. Some of the 90's Steelers came close. A couple of Carolina teams recently were close (but their offense sucked).

                          There haven't been any defenses in the NFL I'd call great over the past 5 years. The Steelers and Pats have been very good but not great. They had something you could exploit.

                          With the Ravens you have a front line that had either the most or 2nd most sacks in the league this year. The linebackers are the best in the league IMO - NE and SD might have an argument. The weakest part of the defense is the secondary - and they led the league in picks.

                          Sometimes the defense doesn't let you do what you want to. With Baltimore you can throw short - and the LB's will be on them instantly. You can try to throw long - except you might get sacked and if you get pressured the team tops in the league in interceptions is there. You can try to run - but the D-line is one of the better ones in the league and you have those LB's again.

                          Indy scored 5 times against that defense - 2-3 times more than I expected. But it's the same old story. In this age of the salary cap you can't pay enough to have a great offense and defense like teams could 20 years ago. If you're very good on one side of the ball and average on the other you should be able to win (see Chicago this year or Pittsburgh last year - or even Indy last year). Better yet is to be above average on both like NE has been and SD is this year.

                          Manning's worst throw yesterday by far was the miss to Morehead. The first int he looked off the DB who didn't get "looked" on a deep ball that probably shouldn't have been thrown but against 90% of the teams in the league the play works. And the long INT was what amounts to a Hail Mary. I'd also suggest people look at the "almost's". On one, Manning threw to Marvin who quit on his crossing pattern (my comment at the time was I wouldn't blame Peyton if he didn't throw him another ball). On another Clark turned up the field right as he threw instead of across. There was one that I don't know what he was doing.

                          But as for running the game, managing things in a tough, tight, grinding game, calling plays to be able to keep moving the chains, etc., I'm not sure how anyone can say Manning had a bad game. It wasn't like last week vs KC or last year vs Pittsburgh - then he had bad games. But not yesterday, not against that team.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: I told you so!

                            Originally posted by brichard View Post
                            What I keep wondering is how bad a quarterback must suck for you to consider him below average. When you are throwing more Interceptions than touchdowns, I don't see how you are playing average.
                            First you have to be able to prove he sucks which you don't seem to be able to do. And your whole argument about Offenses if I am to rely on your memory, not really swayed.

                            Peyton managed the game, any other QB going against that D, with that much pressure would have thrown more than 1 true interception.

                            And of course the Ty law factor in the other game.

                            What I keep wondering is when you bring actual content and examples to your posts instead of just opinions.

                            You need to quit looking at Stats. The stats say mcnair played better. But that was not case.

                            Peyton got us within scoring range 5 times, McNair got his team in scoring range 2 times.

                            Stats are stupid, you probably didn't even watch the game did you?

                            Manning Marched us down the field four times to get FG's. Distances of 45, 47, 65, 67. 9 times he passed to keep the drives going converting for 1st down, especially when it mattered most at the end of the game. There is more to the game than Stats. You think after how hard I am on JO you think I am going to give Manning a break when he doesn't deserve it.

                            Also for most of the game we were not getting much run support, they pretty much knew he was going to have to pass it. That changes the complexion of the game, that is why its important to watch it. Until that very last drive where he passed like once, they were like 22 rushes for 60 yards. That consistently put him in 3rd and long.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: I told you so!

                              Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
                              First you have to be able to prove he sucks which you don't seem to be able to do. And your whole argument about Offenses if I am to rely on your memory, not really swayed.

                              Peyton managed the game, any other QB going against that D, with that much pressure would have thrown more than 1 true interception.

                              And of course the Ty law factor in the other game.

                              What I keep wondering is when you bring actual content and examples to your posts instead of just opinions.

                              You need to quit looking at Stats. The stats say mcnair played better. But that was not case.

                              Peyton got us within scoring range 5 times, McNair got his team in scoring range 2 times.

                              Stats are stupid, you probably didn't even watch the game did you?

                              Manning Marched us down the field four times to get FG's. Distances of 45, 47, 65, 67. 9 times he passed to keep the drives going converting for 1st down, especially when it mattered most at the end of the game. There is more to the game than Stats. You think after how hard I am on JO you think I am going to give Manning a break when he doesn't deserve it.

                              Also for most of the game we were not getting much run support, they pretty much knew he was going to have to pass it. That changes the complexion of the game, that is why its important to watch it. Until that very last drive where he passed like once, they were like 22 rushes for 60 yards. That consistently put him in 3rd and long.
                              Okay, you don't want me to use stats... which you have used above for your conclusions, and you don't want me to use opinions. If we take away statistics and opinions, we pretty much eliminate any discussion on this and all sports threads. But apparently the "Ty Law" factor passes the litmus test of what you consider sound logic. Which seems a little to me. I mean you call stats stupid and then you give the details of the yards of each drive. Are we using them or not?

                              But for the record, I did watch the game. I have watched every play of the playoffs Peyton Manning has been in. I've played the game of football, certainly not at a professional level, but I understand the game. I actually understand it far more than I do basketball. I've been watching football for over 30 years at a professional level and I've seen quite a bit during those years.

                              I originally jumped on this thread to support Shade b/c I saw the exact same thing he did. As a matter of fact, among the many people I've talked to over the past two weeks, you and DK are the only folks saying Peyton has performed solid. Now for a Colts fan to say that, including the Homer factor, I can believe anything. When you get to some folks who have a favorite player or team, logic goes out the window. It is kind of like that die hard Democrat or Republican who thinks there respective party can do no wrong.

                              But when DK, a non-partisan fan, comes in and says Peyton played a good game, it makes my He has explained himself well, but as he has noted we will have to agree to disagree. You explain away statistics when they don't support your claim, for example the incredibly poor interception to touchdown Ratio Peyton is working on. And when somebody uses some non-statistical data, for example the observation that Peyton was continually throwing in double and triple coverage and right in the hands of defenders several times, you say "ah no big deal. Can't count the almosts."

                              The announcers pointed out, which I noticed, that the stretch play wasn't working. So as the architect of the offense, why wasn't Peyton pushing it up the gut more? Rarely does a run offense pay big dividends until the second half b/c you have to wear your opponent down. And we milked a large part of the 4th quarter b/c of solid running. I can't tell you what quarter they were in, but Shade has listed several plays where Peyton threw into insane coverages and almost got picked. DK mentions the poor throw to Moorehead. Why did he stop exploiting the Reggie Wayne matchup and start throwing to Marvin? I think you will find a much shorter list of things he did well than he did poorly.

                              I have high expectations of Peyton b/c he is that good in my opinion. And there are guys like Joe Montanna that found a way to elevate their play in the post season. I don't see how anybody can argue that Peyton has demonstrated that ability. You can use all your stats and observations in the world, and you won't come up with a compelling argument.

                              I am dumbfounded and I mean dumbfounded that people are defending his performance. Peyton has laid the proverbial egg in the playoffs this year. Has the offense done well at times? Absolutely, but I credit some pretty great interior blocking and Addai and Rhodes stepping up when they needed to. I'll give ya' the Peyton pass to Dallas Clark, but man... that is one play.

                              I can't even come to grips with how this is debatable, let alone understand the opinion, but hey anyway and Go Colts!!!
                              “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                              motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                              Reggie Miller

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: I told you so!

                                Originally posted by brichard View Post
                                I originally jumped on this thread to support Shade b/c I saw the exact same thing he did. As a matter of fact, among the many people I've talked to over the past two weeks, you and DK are the only folks saying Peyton has performed solid.
                                Uh, I thought he sucked vs KC. Much better yesterday.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X