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

Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

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

  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

    If you judge crucial or important throws on the number of touchdown throws, or points in general, then sure, but that's not how crucial or important throws are judged by most spectators.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      If you judge crucial or important throws on the number of touchdown throws, or points in general, then sure, but that's not how crucial or important throws are judged by most spectators.
      Lets just say taking a knee with 30 sec left in regulation and calling a run play on 3rd and 7 is NOT making the crucial play. That is called being a coward! Brady, Montana, Unitas, or Elway would not have been afraid in that situation, they would have at least tried to win the game.

      Comment


      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        You can't throw for 350 yards and 3 touchdowns every game. That was a smashmouth game in cold weather against an elite defense. Manning managed the game smart and didn't do anything stupid. The context of the interceptions are important. When they are basically as good as punts in a smashmouth game, they aren't that big of a deal. We beat Baltimore at their own game and Manning managed a smart game.
        Not only that, but IIRC he broke their back with a long late drive that was run basically to perfection. Through the whole game he kept putting the offense in winning situations and came through in a few clutch situations that required nuts of absolute freaking titanium. That's basically exactly what you want from your QB in the playoffs. You have to eventually win one or two of those games, and no one cares if you normally pass for 650 yards with 8 TD's if you can't win those games.

        Do people forget how good the Ravens were that year, and how well they played in that game? Their defense was the points and yards leader, and they were all over the field that day. Honestly I think 9 times out of 10 no quarterback or NFL offense would be up to playing a defense as great as they were that night. Just a special performance.

        Even the performance against NE in the AFC championship--as great as it was, you could tell that the air had sort of been let out of NE during our rally. They were kinda out of gas. Playing Baltimore was like walking facefirst into a chainsaw the entire 60 minutes.
        Last edited by SoupIsGood; 01-15-2013, 03:51 PM.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

          Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
          Lets just say taking a knee with 30 sec left in regulation and calling a run play on 3rd and 7 is NOT making the crucial play. That is called being a coward! Brady, Montana, Unitas, or Elway would not have been afraid in that situation, they would have at least tried to win the game.
          It was a direct order from John Fox. He was asked about it today, and said he would call the knee again. If Bilichick/Walsh/anyother coach told their QB to take a knee, the QB is going to take the knee. I think it's a horrible call, but come on.

          Not only that, but this has nothing to do with what was said.
          Last edited by Since86; 01-15-2013, 03:55 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

            Speaking of the Indy years, Peyton's productivity seem to best best in a dome and best in mild weather. Most QBs at like that (Brady's numbers are best in domes even though they're road games) but PM seems more so.

            In the playoffs you seldom get any mild weather on the road, and at some point unless you're a dome team and a #1 seed you have to get it done outside and on the road. I's like to see Peyton's dome numbers regular season vs. postseason- I'd bet that they are more similar than are his outdoor game numbers, regular season vs. postseason.

            So my guess, not running the numbers, is that you just get tougher conditions for PM to perform, more often, and against better teams in the playoffs. I don't think it's playoff pressure, it's just how weather affects a precise timing-based offense. To be honest, the bigger drop-off in performance in the postseason seemed to be guys like Marvin Harrison, again, just my eyeball guesstimate, but somebody could get the numbers.
            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


            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              It was a direct order from John Fox.
              Fox isn't going to throw Manning under the bus now, but I thought that Manning can overrule any call, and usually does. Manning said that he called for the run on 3rd and 7. I don't think anyone asked PM about taking a knee, but I think that the widespread assumption that it was Fox's call is dubious. If Fox were to now say "That was what Peyton wanted" then obviously there would be a firestorm. Fox may be taking the bullet.
              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


              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                I thought taking the knee was anti-Peyton. Especially with two timeouts.

                Here's the article.
                http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-...CBSNews.com%29

                As for what Elway would have done in the situation?
                "I thought it was the right thing at that time," Elway said. "I think with where the team was mentally and the situation we were in, I thought that it was a good move."
                Denver had a 99.9% probability of winning when Balt. was at the 30 with 41seconds left.
                Last edited by Since86; 01-15-2013, 04:09 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  I think it does. When you're ranking all time quarterbacks, every little detail matters. Virtually everyone agrees that Manning is a top 5 all time QB, or at the very worst top 7 or 8. But when you're ranking the top three or deciding who is the best ever, then post-season record is inevitably going to enter the discussion.

                  Let's compare Brady and Manning. I think their regular season successes are about even. Both have won a ton of games, both have won their division a billion times, and both have put up freakish stats. Brady from 2007-present has been putting up ridiculous statistics. Manning gets Brady on MVP's and obviously has higher career totals since he started playing three years earlier, but overall I think they are a wash in the regular season. Maybe slight edge to Manning since has played a bit longer and has the two extra MVPs.

                  The biggest difference between Brady and Manning is the playoff record. It's not necessarily the 11 losses that hurt Manning because anyone who is extremely successful for a long time and makes the playoffs every year is inevitably going to have postseason losses. You can't win the Super Bowl every year. What kills Manning are the eight one and dones and only nine wins in twelve postseason appearances. Four of those wins, almost half, occurred in one single postseason. Outside of the 06 miracle, Manning's postseason career has been filled with disappointment. Is it all his fault? Of course not. But as Kravitz said, the offense only averaged 14 points in his 10 Indy playoff losses. It's happened so many times that it really can't be ignored.

                  Brady only has two playoff home losses (compared to Manning's 5) and two one and dones. That's not to say that Brady is the sole reason for that, but who is the common denominator on the field for the Pats over the course of the last 12 years? It's Brady. He deserves a ton of credit for taking care of his home field in the playoffs.

                  The glaring difference between Manning and Brady in the playoff record is enough to tip the scales in Brady's favor since they are similar on most everything else, IMO.
                  Well if we're going to look at EVERYTHING from Manning's career, shouldn't we nitpick other players to the same degree as well?

                  Joe Montana played with Jerry Rice (best receiver of all time) on a team that was pro-bowl caliber within most positions before the salary cap era. He played for Bill Walsh, a coach who was regarded as the best during his era, and a guy who created the west coast offense which was new and pretty much unstoppable at the time. He also had the help of an elite defense

                  He's got 4 rings and a playoff record of 16-7. Of his 16 victories, 12 came in the years they won the SB, with 4 1st playoff game exits. His teams failed to make the playoffs in 3 seasons. He doesn't have the stats that many modern QB's have because he played during a different era.

                  One of the first of the "clutch quarterbacks". I NEVER got to see him play except for when he played for KC, but I know enough about football to know he was a great great player.

                  Tom Brady: played with the greatest coach of his era in Bill Belichick. Leaned heavily on the running/short passing game early on within his career. Is 17-6 in the playoffs with 3 SB rings, and 5 SB appearances (about to be 6) Has failed to make the playoffs once in his career, and has lost the first playoff game twice. Was involved in "spygate" where the Pats were basically accused of filming practice walk through's of the rams before the SB. In spite of having record setting offenses, team has yet to win a SB following spygate scandal. In fact, as Brady's stats have risen (starting in the 2007 F-U season) the Pats have been 5-4 in the playoffs.

                  Prior to 2007, Brady averaged 226.5 passing yds/gm. He was 12-2 in the playoffs.
                  Since 2007, Brady has averaged 289.6 yds/gm and is 5-3 with 2 SB losses to the Giants.


                  Obviously both of these guys are great. But I feel they have had some benefits that Peyton hasn't, mainly in the coaching department. Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, and Fox are good to very good coaches. None of them are known for exotic/groundbreaking trailblazing with X's and O's the same way that Belichick and Walsh are. (Dungy was known as a Master motivator, and defensive guru with the "tampa 2" but he was never an innovator offensively at all)

                  (and Yes I know Peyton played under Tom Moore, so I'm not trying to understate that fact)

                  Comment


                  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                    Here are a few links that dive deeper into Manning's post season career. Takes into account field positioning, average td drive length, etc. Some interesting info:

                    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=8700

                    And the Manning vs Brady argument

                    http://18to88.com/Articles/manningbrady.htm

                    Comment


                    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      ...Was involved in "spygate" where the Pats were basically accused of filming practice walk through's of the rams before the SB...
                      100% factually inaccurate! This may seem a minor point, but I've learned that 95% of people actually believe this made-up crap.

                      Taping of practices was a February 2008 pre-super bowl media surprise allegation that emerged 5 months after spygate, was denied, was refuted, and then was retracted on the front page of the paper that broke the made-up story, one week after the super bowl.

                      "On Feb. 2, 2008, the Boston Herald reported that a member of the New England Patriots' video staff taped the St. Louis Rams' walk-through on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. While the Boston Herald based its Feb. 2, 2008, report on sources that it believed to be credible, we now know that this report was false, and that no tape of the walk-through ever existed...The Boston Herald regrets the damage done to the team by publication of the allegation, and sincerely apologizes to its readers and to the New England Patriots' owners, players, employees and fans for our error."
                      http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3395152

                      Spygate was the practice of using a staff member, in plain sight and wearing team apparel, during games, to videotape from the sidelines. Nothing more, nothing less.

                      You can of course try to argue that spygate may have helped Brady, but if you do so I think it's important to separate myth from fact first!
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-15-2013, 06:46 PM.
                      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


                      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        100% factually inaccurate! This may seem a minor point, but I've learned that 95% of people actually believe this made-up crap.

                        Taping of practices was a February 2008 pre-super bowl media surprise allegation that emerged 5 months after spygate, was denied, was refuted, and then was retracted on the front page of the paper that broke the made-up story, one week after the super bowl.


                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3395152

                        Spygate was the practice of using a staff member, in plain sight and wearing team apparel, during games, to videotape from the sidelines. Nothing more, nothing less.
                        Lol didnt know it was crap when it was being reported. I retract it from my argument

                        Comment


                        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                          nfl.com article suggests that the Ravens DBs were getting increasingly confident as the game went on, creeping up, on the theory that Peyton was unwilling to try to throw deep.

                          http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...il.1st10.Daily
                          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


                          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                            This isn't as well-done as the other fake "texting" conversations but some might still get a chuckle out of it:

                            http://profootballmock.com/peyton-ma...-still-stands/
                            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


                            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                              Okay, who's ready to tell me that going 30/42 396yrds 3td 1int gets the blame for not winning?
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Okay, who's ready to tell me that going 30/42 396yrds 3td 1int gets the blame for not winning?
                                A quarterback whose offense does not put up a single point in the second half at home in a dome without question deserves some blame. Ryan also committed two critical turnovers in the second half: The botched snap and a costly pick. He also couldn't make a winning play at the end of the game when they were in the red zone.

                                Atlanta took a 17-0 lead with 14:54 left in the second quarter. That's essentially taking a 17-0 lead with three quarters left. Yet they'd only score seven more points the entire rest of the game, and zero in the second half of the ball game. Ryan had a great overall day statistically, and if fantasy football were still going on then I'm sure his owners would have been happy. But he didn't do enough to win the game at home. If you're up 17-0, you gotta put a choke hold on the other team and win the game. Ryan played phenomenal at the very beginning of the game, but didn't do enough to win it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X