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

  • #46
    Re: I told you so!

    See the thing is the same people ripping Manning are going to praise Brady for being cool under pressure against a lesser defense.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: I told you so!

      Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
      See the thing is the same people ripping Manning are going to praise Brady for being cool under pressure against a lesser defense.

      Brady has a reputation for being cool in the playoffs and Peyton does not. Peytons post season ability has been ridiculed at a college and Pro level. I do think Brady has had better teams than Peyton, but you have to respect the guy as a competitor and as a pressure player.
      “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


      • #48
        Re: I told you so!

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
        Uh, I thought he sucked vs KC. Much better yesterday.

        I knew you were going to say that.

        Anyway, out of both weeks I've not heard much on the shiny happy side.
        “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


        • #49
          Re: I told you so!

          Originally posted by brichard View Post
          I knew you were going to say that.

          Anyway, out of both weeks I've not heard much on the shiny happy side.
          Really? Here's some:

          1. The Colts won
          2. Manning completely altered the team's approach to the game adopting a ball-control type offense - something many people, myself included, thought the Colts could never be successful with against the Ravens
          3. During the season Baltimore was the number 1 team in the league in Time of Possession. Indy was 22nd. Indy finished the game ahead in time of possession. Obviously, the defense shares in this but not throwing the ball 3 straight times on a possession certainly helped.
          4. Four times Indy started drives deep in their own territory against the best defense in the league. Indy never failed to get the ball out to where Baltimore started the ensuing drive at better than their own 32 (though once this was from a long pick on 3rd and 17)
          5. The team stuck with the run, even though it wasn't working very well - 2.9 YPC - but by sticking to the run they wore out the Ravens, which I never thought they'd be able to do, and were able to basically run out the clock the last 8 minutes of the game.
          6. The team scored 5 times vs the Ravens. Been nice if one had been a TD (and the Morehead pass was the biggest single bad play Manning made IMO) but teams don't generally drive up and down the field vs the Ravens, even if it's between your own goal line and the 20 (I was gonna say between the 20's but most drives started deeper than that)
          7. IMO, once you went up 9-3 after the long Vinateri FG, the Colts were in total control of the game
          8. Vs the team best at not allowing 3rd down conversions at under 29% (2nd place isn't very close) the Colts converted over 42%

          If you assume that Peyton does most of the play calling at the line - which is what's always been reported - then he gets quite a bit of (not all) the credit for all of the above.

          9. By now I'd hope every Colts fan knew that Peyton Manning wouldn't be able to carry you to the SB by himself. In this game he didn't have to.
          10. He was only sacked once by a team that had 60 during the season.
          11. Did I mention the Colts won?

          Manning didn't have his best passing game but IMO he managed the game better than I've ever seen him do against a tough defense. Unless you're caught up in the fact that he didn't throw a bunch of TD passes. Well, people don't throw many TD passes against that team.

          Can't give you much sunshine vs the Chiefs. He sucked then. But that was a different game against a completly different type of team. That game he looked flustered and hesitant. Yesterday he looked in control.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: I told you so!

            Originally posted by brichard View Post
            Brady has a reputation for being cool in the playoffs and Peyton does not. Peytons post season ability has been ridiculed at a college and Pro level. I do think Brady has had better teams than Peyton, but you have to respect the guy as a competitor and as a pressure player.
            Whats that have to do with the fact he sucked today against a weaker D than we played against.

            Either Both Sucked, or they both controlled the ball and did what was needed to win.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: I told you so!

              I had to catch the first 3 qtrs of the game via audio only yesterday... with only glimpses of a TV here and there thru the 3rd. I was able to catch the 4th qtr via TV.

              So tonight I put played my recording of the game...

              Peyton played a good game. He had a couple of questionable throws that were interesting, and that hurry up on 3rd downs didn't work out too well, but overall he was in control of the game. It didn't look like he was out of sync or that the Ravens could keep him flustered or take us out of what we wanted to do.

              That said, sometimes all it takes is one bad play to turn a game so I know where the detractors are coming from when they are casting a critical eye at Peyton. OTOH... now that the defense has decided that Freeney and Mathis don't have to pash rush and try and spin around the outside every.... single... down.... our defense is making it possible for our offense to play without a ton of pressure (the pressure to be perfect) on each possession. We don't have to have perfect offense when the defense plays like this.

              Not only did the overused outside pass rush of Freeney and Mathis create gaping holes for the opposition to run to but it also was forcing the opposition away from their throwing game anyway (because who wants to throw when there was such an intense pass rush coming (seemingly) every down?). So IMHO it was failing on two levels. Someone finally figured out that stopping (and slowing) the run first, even if we did invite the other team to throw, was actually a benefit for the Colts (our pass defense isn't bad, plus the opposing offense can't be as safe throwing as opposed to running and might just make some unforced errors of their own when putting the ball in the air (like receivers running the wrong routes, QB's over/under throwing the recievers, bad snaps, or plain old dropped balls). And this has allowed us to start mixing it up again and keep the opposition guessing as the game wears on. So all of a sudden we can take advantage of Freeney and Mathis as pass rushers again as long as we keep things less predictable. Maybe it's a whole lot more complicated than that but that's at least that seems to me to be what we've changed (plus added Bob Sanders).

              I'm a sucker for watching a defense be a big factor in wins. And that's what they are doing so far in these playoffs.

              .02
              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: I told you so!

                What is the common thread between the game Manning played and the game Brady played? Brady threw the ball 51 TIMES with 3 picks. The common thread - they both won! That's why they are considered the best.
                The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: I told you so!

                  Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
                  Whats that have to do with the fact he sucked today against a weaker D than we played against.

                  Either Both Sucked, or they both controlled the ball and did what was needed to win.

                  I have no comment on Brady's performance yesterday as I did not watch it. I am just saying that historically Brady has shown he is a solid performer in the playoffs. I don't think anybody walks around and says "Man wait until the playoffs, Brady really mails it in then." Even Peyton was giving props to the Patriots after our win saying that "The Patriots are a whole different team in the playoffs." Mr. Brady has a couple of Superbowl rings on his finger as well. Although Trent Dilfer proved you don't have to be a good QB to win a Superbowl, I think most agree that Brady is solid.

                  Now, count on your hand how many people say the same thing about Peyton. How many people say "That Peyton has ice in his veins in the playoffs!"
                  “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


                  • #54
                    Re: I told you so!

                    DK,

                    I'm just saying that I haven't heard anything positive regarding Peyton in conversations I have had with people regarding our playoff performance. Obviously everbody is happy to get the win, but I've heard nothing but harsh words regarding Peytons individual performance. I mean 100% of the people I have encountered feel the same way as Shade and I do.

                    Props to the defense? All day long! Props to the offensive line! You betcha! Props to Addai week one and Rhodes Week 2? Constantly! Mention Peyton and all I have heard, with the exception of this thread, are grumbles and moans.

                    I keep hearing how he controlled the game and I just don't see it that way. I've suggested for the past 2 weeks that we needed to start controlling the clock, and I think the thought for running the football is probably more attributable to Dungy/Moore and Co. in terms of their strategy than Manning. But since we don't know, he could potentially have some props here.

                    As good as the Ravens are as a football team, we are very lucky that they missed some very fortuitous opportunities. We are also very lucky our defense came up with some well timed turnovers or we easily could have wound up with a loss. Part of Peytons "success" on passing is the fact that Baltimore rarely capitalized on his miscues. If the defenders aren't holding on to the ball and you throw "X" amount of passes, you will get completions.

                    Just so I end this thread on a positive note... we did win. And I still say we have won in spite of Peyton rather than because of him. And since he knows he has played poorly in 2 consecutive games and the team has still won, perhaps he can unclench his buttocks and bring us a victory. I would like nothing more and he is certainly capable.

                    “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


                    • #55
                      Re: I told you so!

                      For what it's worth, I have a great friend who used to live next door to me when I lived in Boston, who is a rabid Patriots fan. He loves the Patriots, and he loves Tom Brady, but he thought Brady did not play well at all yesterday. He felt lucky that the Patriots were able to get the W with the effort they put in. I thought Brady was fortunate that he didn't get more picks...because he was really forcing the ball yesterday into double and triple coverage.

                      My view on Peyton is that he has not played well in the playoffs so far, and I sincerely don't think the grand concensus is that he has. As a fan, to a certain point I don't care, because we won, but I am concerned. In the playoffs, everybody is going to have to step up at one time or another, and so far, our defense has stepped up HUGE. I am still hopeful that Peyton will have a big game or two.

                      I think alot of Peyton's legacy, whether it be fair or not, will hinge on how he plays against the Patriots. Many people still think Belichick gets in Peyton's head, and I can guarantee you that many people I know in Boston who are Pats fans think that is the case. To a point, Peyton, and the Colts have put that to bed with their regular season performances, but they have not been able to prove they can beat them in the playoffs.

                      The media will spin this as Peyton vs. Brady and Belichick. If the Colts win, then I think history will be forgiving if his stats aren't good. If they lose it will be an albatross around his neck. I am not saying this is fair, but perception is reality, and I think that is how it would be perceived. That is my opinion anyway.

                      I hope Peyton has a great game and we get the W...but if he throws 5 INTs and we win, then I will still be happy.
                      When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder. Show the world how much you'll fight for the winners circle. If you do, someday the cellophane will crackle off a fresh pack, one that belongs to you, and the cards will be stacked in your favor.
                      -Pat Riley

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: I told you so!

                        Originally posted by brichard View Post
                        I have no comment on Brady's performance yesterday as I did not watch it. I am just saying that historically Brady has shown he is a solid performer in the playoffs. I don't think anybody walks around and says "Man wait until the playoffs, Brady really mails it in then." Even Peyton was giving props to the Patriots after our win saying that "The Patriots are a whole different team in the playoffs." Mr. Brady has a couple of Superbowl rings on his finger as well. Although Trent Dilfer proved you don't have to be a good QB to win a Superbowl, I think most agree that Brady is solid.

                        Now, count on your hand how many people say the same thing about Peyton. How many people say "That Peyton has ice in his veins in the playoffs!"

                        So the **** What people say, the world once thought the world was flat doesn't mean people are right.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: I told you so!

                          Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
                          So the **** What people say, the world once thought the world was flat doesn't mean people are right.
                          Tom Brady's Playoff Record- 12-1
                          Peyton Manning's Playoff Record- 5-6

                          You're right, Tom Brady sucks.

                          Please enlighten me, just out of morbid curiosity, what makes you think Tom Brady is not a steallar QB? Even if he did have a crappy game yesterday, one game a player does not make.
                          “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


                          • #58
                            Re: I told you so!

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I thought Baltimore's defense was fantastic. That was why the Colts offense didn't look so good
                            glad to see you get in on some action over here w/ the colts mr. buck.
                            you are the die hard pacer guy that supports even in dark times gotta love that.
                            the colts could use your support.
                            yes, peyton had to face t. law and then the entire ravens d.
                            the bears still have a tough d, and the pats will be well game planned.

                            correct me if i'm wrong but i was in the stands when the pats stopped edge on the 1 yard line and that was the year they went on to win ring 1. i know they put in the injury time out rule, because W. Mcgginst played like he had hurt his knee. that gave the bigger, but slower pats the final breath they needed to stop the run. i also saw d. clark hurt his leg badly right in front of my row 6 mid feild seat.
                            we have played the pats a ton since, but that had to be 5 years ago. clark was a rookie. have the pats had a game here since? if so name it please.

                            sorry for my spelling and grammer i've been sipping a littlte, well alot.
                            1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
                            3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
                            5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
                            7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: I told you so!

                              brady & manning are the best qb's playing in the nfl today.
                              i know i used to shun brady and say its just his team and gameplan.
                              he was like big ben to me, just in a good situation. i have found alot of new found respect for him. he has lost a ton of weapons and here he is. his 3rd down conversion rate is a killer. he killed me by getting my hopes up and then converting the 1st down on a 3rd and long many times. i saw alot of the same against the chargers. he is and the pats offense is just sneaky good and frustrating. of course the chips had to fall the pats way and they got pretty damn lucky, but hey i still say so did pitt against us last year. to win it all the chips will have to fall your way a few times.

                              drew brees is also looking like he is going to be right there w/ manning & brady. if he gets a ring or throws up another year or 2 on par w/ this year he's there. i think he will continue to be this good, but he's still gotta go do it.
                              1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
                              3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
                              5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
                              7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: I told you so!

                                Nobody anywhere said Brady overall played a great game. They (the media) are saying he led a great 4th quarter comeback. There is a difference.

                                He wasn't awful. The Chargers D was incredible and he had to force it often. Most of his COMPLETIONS were to well-covered receivers.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X