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

Tommie Harris cut by Colts

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

  • #61
    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    So let me get this straight.

    Players don't play through injuries? Freeney played in the SB, and probably shouldn't. But by your logic, because he played, he wasn't injured.

    We all know he was, and we all saw how relatively ineffective he was during the last SB because of it.

    Let's not rewrite history based on a box score.


    Yeah, most guys in the NFL who play Freeney's position play through injuries. The whole point here is that your earlier post made it seem like like no other high impact player in the NFL had as bad of injury luck as Freeney. That simply is not true.

    Clearly he wouldn't have played in the SB if it were a regular season game. But when you look at his whole 9 year career, the guy has by and large been pretty fortunate with his health. You can't paint him out to be some cursed injury prone player just because he had one injury that came at the worst possible time imaginable. It's like TO in 04. TO had an untimely injury during Philly's playoff run, but that doesn't change the fact that TO by and large was extremely healthy for most of his career.

    Aside from the foot injury in 07 and the SB injury two years ago, when else has Freeney been hurt? What in his 9 year career could possibly back up your assertion that no other high impact player is as prone as Dwight Freeney? My problem isn't you saying that Freeney has played through injuries. My beef is with you acting that no other player in the league is as injury prone.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Arrogance and headstrong = dumbass.

      If your so arrogant/headstrong you think you can do anything, and it routinely gets you in trouble, then you're a dumbass.

      Whether you screw up because of that, or because of your low level of intelligence, really doesn't matter. You're still screwing up.

      I think we can agree Big Ben didn't try to rape two girls (opinion) because he's that dumb. He's arrogant and thought he could do what he wanted. That's being a dumbass.

      You don't get articles written like this
      http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/24/foo...-managers.html

      When you're routinely making fatal mistakes.
      I don't think they are equal. You can be headstrong in certain areas and be right and not all mistakes are fatal. For example Polain is probably the best GM in finding DB's in the later rounds and hesn't too shabby at finding capable LB's in the later rounds as well.

      ITs alot harder though to find good talent in the later rounds for important positions like DE's, Qbs, LT and in Polains case I would put DT's in that list as well. Just because your good at finding hinden gems at some positions doesn't mean you good at finding good players in the later rounds in all positions.

      Polains mistakes don't lead to a 3-13 team and they aren't fatal (whatever that means). They are costly from the stand point they don't build a complete team. Injuries are a poor excuse IMo to justify the lack of post season success. This team is built to get the lead and force the other team to pass. That assumes a lot IMO and is why I think the team isn't able to win in multiple ways. Its not fatal but its still not a well built team that can win in multiple ways.

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      And once you find that player, please find another high impact player that is also as injury prone as Dwight Freeney.

      I'll be waiting.
      I have never heard Freeney labeled with the injury prone tag before. Not nationally or locally. By the way there are different ways to create pressure than just relying on two DE's. Most good teams don't rely on just one guy to create pressure much like they don't rely on a safety to stop the run on a consistent basis as your pointing out in Sanders.
      Last edited by Gamble1; 09-07-2011, 11:35 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        My problem isn't you saying that Freeney has played through injuries. My beef is with you acting that no other player in the league is as injury prone.
        When have I ever even hinted at the Colts being the only team with injuries? This is starting to get comical.

        First you said that I was placing the blame on injuries alone, and I pointed out that I said it was one of the problems.

        Now I'm doing this? I don't think so. I'm perfectly aware that other teams have injuries. I'm perfectly aware that other teams with injuries win, like Green Bay.

        Since very Dwight Freeney injury search comes back with a thousand different links on his SB injury, I found this line hidden in one.

        “He has had injuries before where they said [he's] not going to play and he has come back,” Colts tight end Dallas Clark said during the Pro Bowl. “He is a competitor, he is one of the toughest guys on our team and I never expect him to miss anything.”
        He's routinely injured, and he routinely plays through those injuries. Digging up how many games he's played and started doesn't really mean all that much to the discussion, since I've never said he's missed a lot of time.

        I've said he's injury prone, because he's always dealing with pretty major injuries.


        And here's an article talking about last years injuries.

        [QUOTE]
        As in, an almost unfathomable 17 of Manning's teammates who ended the regular season on injured reserve, including favorite target Dallas Clark, much of the receiving corps and almost the entire defensive secondary.


        Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/jets/...Ng5[/QUOTE]


        Pretty strong word to be used right there.


        And injuries to major players go further back than just Bob and Freeney. How about Harrison's knee? How about Dallas? Collie? Gonzo?

        Yes, injuries happen in the NFL. Just like Tom Brady. Just like Big Ben. Just like Carson. (And more than just QBs)

        But out of all those teams, did they continue to make the playoffs? Uh, no. Did they continue winning 12 games per season? Uh, no.


        Manning must be a pretty good wizard, or he must have a deal with the devil, because if the Colts can continually win with unfathomable injuries and an arrogant hardheaded GM then there has to be something else supernatural going on.

        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          I have never heard Freeney labeled with the injury prone tag before. Not nationally or locally.
          Here's a stampede blue article talking about injuries and how they affect Bob and Freeney, back from 2009.

          I love Bob. I very much appreciate his contributions. But, for us fans, we just saw Dwight Freeney sustain a rather serious quad injury against the Cardinals two games ago. Many experts thought he'd miss several weeks. Turns out, those experts under-estimated Dwight Freeney. He did not miss this past Sunday's game, and his presence made an immediate impact. And while I understand that a strained quad is very different from the many "knee scopes" Bob has gone through, there is no doubting the perception that Dwight Freeney is "tougher" than Bob Sanders, and he does not allow injury to cost him games.
          And then you can look at his 2006 season and his 2007 season where he had 9 sacks TOTAL between them.

          http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/...L_bo1T_l3.uLYF

          He's had more than 9 sacks in every year, besides those two. Maybe, just maybe, injuries?
          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

            http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo.../injuries.html

            Quite a list.

            Colts defensive end Dwight Freeney, who usually finds a way to overcome injuries, won’t be playing on Sunday against the Texans.
            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...out-for-colts/

            http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com...gets-big-shot/


            The Colts play injuries very close to the vest, and Freeney isn't anything different. He always seems to have injury concerns around him.

            I'm not trying to pick on DFree, I love him as a player and I hope he ends his time in a Colts uniform. And I have the utmost respect for him playing through injuries. It really gives an indication on his personal character.

            But the fact still remains, he's hurt. A lot.
            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

              I am not sure what your point is exactly. Playing through injuries is a part of the game and its especially true of linemen/OLB's. IF you put a list of sac leaders on teams your going to find a large amount of those guys playing through injuries.

              Last year Clay Matthews played half the season with a stress fracture in his lower leg.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                I think my point is pretty clear.

                The Colts have to deal with high profile injuries every stinking year, and maybe that has more to do with their shortcomings in the playoffs than their arrogant/hardheaded GM that thinks he's smarter than everyone.

                Placing the blame on one person, like you guys continually do, isn't anywhere near the whole story.

                Has Polian made mistakes? Yep, every GM does. Does it hurt the Colts? Sure.

                Is it the reason why they've only won one SB? Hardly.

                And like clock work we now have to deal with a significant injury to Peyton. At a certain point in time, there isn't anything you can do other than pray it stops.
                “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  He's had more than 9 sacks in every year, besides those two. Maybe, just maybe, injuries?
                  Its well known that Freeney suffered a Lisfranc fracture which is hard difficult injury to come back from. His sac totals drop in that year for that obvious reason.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    Its well known that Freeney suffered a Lisfranc fracture which is hard difficult injury to come back from. His sac totals drop in that year for that obvious reason.
                    But yet you place the their failure in the postseason on the shoulders of their GM? Odd.

                    When you're two most important pieces of the defense are routinely out with injuries, or are fighting with serious injuries while playing, it's not a surprise they don't win in the postseason.
                    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      But yet you place the their failure in the postseason on the shoulders of their GM? Odd.

                      When you're two most important pieces of the defense are routinely out with injuries, or are fighting with serious injuries while playing, it's not a surprise they don't win in the postseason.
                      Again most teams have to overcome some sort of injury to key players every year. Those injuries don't always put the player on IR but other guys have to step up. If you don't have a guy to step up then it becomes a big problem.

                      The Colts have shown that they can overcome injuries to key players in the past. The list is long and this is why I don't list it as an excuse for why 13 years of Manning has lead to one superbowl win. I in part blame the GM because he helps hire the coach and adds the talent to the roster. The cover 2 doesn't ask for a mediocre NT nor does the offensive scheme ask for a bad run offensive line.

                      The colts can't win in multiple ways consistently and thats what gets you past the first round of playoffs year after year. THey can't run the ball down the throat of the opponent or stop the run on a consistent basis.

                      Polain is at fault for such things IMo. He's not the only one but he a big part of why this team is built to be good in 2 phases of the game and be bad in the other 2.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        Again most teams have to overcome some sort of injury to key players every year.
                        And again, how many of those teams continually win 12 games per season and make the playoffs? Only the Colts.


                        And once again, Bob Sanders completely changes the run defense. The year they won the SB, the Colts had the worst rushing defense in the league. During the playoffs, with Bob, they gave up an average of 73 yards.

                        And around and around we go.

                        EDIT: Did you even read the Forbes article I posted? They call Polian the best GM of the decade, and then proceed to support that argument with winning totals.

                        Listening to this board you'd think Polian was in the lower half of GMs.

                        I don't agree with everything he does, I've said that MULTIPLE times this summer alone, but he's not the major reason why the Colts have fallen flat.

                        You guys can't even admit that injuries have played a pretty damn important role in the scenario. I mean, my goodness.

                        You're argument is that every team gets hurt. NO JOKE! Not every team goes through the injuries the Colts do every year, and consistantly win.

                        Once again, that's not saying other teams don't have injuries or other teams haven't won with injuries. I'm talking about a span of 10 years, not one season.
                        Last edited by Since86; 09-07-2011, 01:52 PM.
                        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          And again, how many of those teams continually win 12 games per season and make the playoffs? Only the Colts.


                          And once again, Bob Sanders completely changes the run defense. The year they won the SB, the Colts had the worst rushing defense in the league. During the playoffs, with Bob, they gave up an average of 73 yards.

                          And around and around we go.

                          EDIT: Did you even read the Forbes article I posted? They call Polian the best GM of the decade, and then proceed to support that argument with winning totals.

                          Listening to this board you'd think Polian was in the lower half of GMs.

                          I don't agree with everything he does, I've said that MULTIPLE times this summer alone, but he's not the major reason why the Colts have fallen flat.

                          You guys can't even admit that injuries have played a pretty damn important role in the scenario. I mean, my goodness.

                          You're argument is that every team gets hurt. NO JOKE! Not every team goes through the injuries the Colts do every year, and consistantly win.

                          Once again, that's not saying other teams don't have injuries or other teams haven't won with injuries. I'm talking about a span of 10 years, not one season.
                          I look at the win streak as a product of Mannings abilities. A great qb can cover up a multitude of issues. You saw that last year with Green Bay. Not every team has a qb like Manning and thats why you don't see them with long win streaks. The Pats do and they win a lot just like the colts.

                          Again if the Colts were good in 3 out of the 4 phases of the game then we aren't having this discussion. The fact that they are only good in 2 and have been for a long time is why I blame Polain. He can make the Colts into a good run defensive team and he has in the past in short stints. Getting Simon was great and trading for Booger was another plus. Carrying one NT on the team now is not especially when you consider the same personnel failed last year in run defense.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                            So injuries don't negatively influence the team?

                            That's pretty much what you're saying. If the Colts, or Manning, are good enough to win 12 games every season and go to 2 different SBs, don't you think they might do even a tiny bit better if they were relatively healthy?

                            I would think that a DPOY caliber player would be good for one or two extra wins over a 18-19 game season. One or two extra wins, when you've been to 2 SBs could be more SB appearances, or even more SB wins.
                            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So injuries don't negatively influence the team?

                              That's pretty much what you're saying. If the Colts, or Manning, are good enough to win 12 games every season and go to 2 different SBs, don't you think they might do even a tiny bit better if they were relatively healthy?

                              I would think that a DPOY caliber player would be good for one or two extra wins over a 18-19 game season. One or two extra wins, when you've been to 2 SBs could be more SB appearances, or even more SB wins.
                              No thats not what I am saying. Having Bob would help but its not like our safeties are bad. We have a pro bowl safety in Bethea and Bullit is solid as well. Again if you have to rely on a safety to consistently stop the run your screwed. Win in the trenches and everything else becomes much easier.

                              By the way Bob has been missing games since he was a starter in Iowa back in 01. ITs not a surprise that a guy like him wouldn't be able to hold up in the NFL for an entire season.
                              Last edited by Gamble1; 09-07-2011, 04:07 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                                So the Colts wouldn't have had a better chance to win more?

                                You're trying to have it both ways. You're admitting that injuries negatively influence the team while trying to limit it's influence.

                                Take away the most important defender from each team and see how they do. We can talk about the Steelers and how they struggled last year when Troy P went down.

                                This is an absolute joke of a conversation, that you can't even admit that injuries have routinely depleted the Colts.

                                You try and say that Freeney isn't injury prone, and then talk about how his production was limited for two seasons because of injuries!!

                                A relatively healthy Colts team in the postseason would perform better than an injury depleted Colts team.

                                Just admit it.

                                A healthy roster wins more than an injured one.

                                Considering the accomplishments the Colts have acheived while injured, one can only assume more postseason wins, and atleast more SB appearances.


                                I love how you're trying to blame Polian now for not knowing that Bob would be injured. And he missed 3 games over 3 seasons at Iowa, and they were the first three games of his Jr. year.

                                Not surprised one bit.
                                “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X