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

Luck so far

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

  • Re: Luck so far

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    Schaub sure gets a lot of credit around here for a guy who has made the playoffs a whopping one time.
    Yeah, he played in the same division as Peyton Manning for the majority of his starting career.

    I don't think he's so good as I think Kevin Kolb is just really bad. I'd put Schaub in that Rivers/Cutler/Romo zone--not quite elite, not sure you can rest the load of a team on their shoulders and win a Super Bowl, but definitely playoff caliber QBs.

    Comment


    • Re: Luck so far

      Originally posted by Really? View Post
      I'd like to echo above...can someone post this?


      Comebacks thrill us. Comebacks make our hearts race. Comebacks cause us to stand up and cheer. For all that, though, comebacks do not necessarily provide an accurate measure of NFL quarterback quality. Just ask Tim Tebow, who led five comebacks in 2011, only to find himself a backup on one of the league's worst offenses in 2012. After all, to come back at the end of a game, you must first play badly enough to fall behind. On the other side of the coin, you have a guy like Matt Schaub. The Houston Texans quarterback has put together an 11-3 record as a starter the past two seasons, but has no comebacks in that time because he has provided his team with so many early leads.....
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment


      • Re: Luck so far

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        I'm not sure what your point is here? Comparing Peyton to Schaub in any way is a big stretch.
        NOT COMPARING THEM! Schaub is still good. Peyton a 1000x better than Schayb, but Peyton still had help by having Marvin and Edge as does Schaub, but Peyton is way way way way better. Get my point now?
        Smothered Chicken!

        Comment


        • Re: Luck so far

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Shaking off Clay Matthews to make a ridiculous completion to Reggie Wayne, down 5 points with a minute left in game #4 of his career.... I mean, come on. That **** shouldn't happen. You guys know this. But it did.

          The Colts are better than anyone thought they'd be, and it all starts with #12. There's no logical reason why a team with $40mill in dead money, completely new management and coaching staff, and a plethora of rookies and low-experienced practice-squad players should be in the middle of the pack offensively/defensively and record-wise --- all historical precedence says we should be a train-wreck and competing for the 1st pick again this year, but we're not. The confidence they have in this kid is what lifts the entire team up.
          You are right about the historical record which is part of why my view of them has been so bleak. You forgot to mention that besides making that pass, Reggie made a great catch to reel it in. It is still a long season and there will be many ups and downs. We have played three of our first four games at home and that helped too. Luck is taking a beating that will be just about impossible for him to stand up to for the whole season. So, I am cautiously optimistic but this kind of team could regress or it could continue to get better. I, like all of you, hope for the latter, but I am watching everything closely. I doubt Reggie will ever have another game close to that one, very few players ever have. It wasn't a team record day (I saw that game with Raymond Berry) but Marvin never had a 200 yard receiving day... ...

          Comment


          • Re: Luck so far

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            YOU CAN'T.

            If you don't like my posting about it, just ignore them. See, it doesn't work like that because other people respond to it, the entire topic at hand gets derailed, and the thread no longer has any bearing on what it originally did. I don't give a **** if I am "playing into his hand" or not, it's bull **** that he's even allowed around here.
            Well, I am and I will be because I don't break any rules. Get over yourself.... ...

            Comment


            • Re: Luck so far

              Luck so far...
              I like what I'm seeing. He is more then advertised at this point. For a rookie, he is truely amazing. I hope he stays healthy.
              Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

              Comment


              • Re: Luck so far

                Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                Luck so far...
                I like what I'm seeing. He is more then advertised at this point. For a rookie, he is truely amazing. I hope he stays healthy.
                For a rookie he's amazing? He's amazing period!

                Comment


                • Re: Luck so far

                  Is Luck nursing injuries that we don't know about? how is it impossible for him to last the whole season at the current rate?

                  Nothing like misguided posts

                  Every QB takes hits but from what I've seen (and granted i haven't been able to watch every game) Luck does a good job not taking the big hit when he decides to run. Similar to Marvin Harrison who was a master and not letting opponents get a big hit on him.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck so far

                    Originally posted by travmil View Post
                    For a rookie he's amazing? He's amazing period!
                    No, he is a rookie, not a veteran like Manning, Brady, Breeze, Rogers, Marino, Montana, Aikman, ect.. So for now he is an amazing rookie, nothing more!
                    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck so far

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      It's good to see people finally seeing what Luck can do. I've been saying for months now how special of a guy we have, and I know some of my comments months ago seemed outlandish, but I know they were the truth then and I still believe it. He's the best QB I've ever seen come out of college, ever, and that's including Peyton Manning. He has the talent, skillset, mindset and ability to be the greatest ever. His game is so absolutely perfectly balanced and complete, it's awesome. I don't gush about guys like this often, if ever -- most of you know that. I've been posting here for 8 years and for 5-6 years before that on RATS, I've never posted thoughts like this about a player ever. For any team.

                      He has all the makings to be damn near the most perfect football player I've ever seen, and he's still green. That's what you have to do, look at what makes him tick and put it all together and try to project into the future what this guy will be like when he actually "blossoms" and becomes comfortable. As good as he's looked, he's still very much green, young, and inexperienced.

                      I didn't make those claims months ago on blind homerism. I watched him extensively and compared him to everything I've known about this game. To me, there is absolutely no comparison between him and RG3 or any other QBs in this league. It's in all the little things he does, the fundamentals, his footwork, his arm motion, his demeanor and humbleness, his mental traits and habits, his clutchness, his balance, strength, and intelligence. I've never seen a guy this young exhibit such a complete palette of traits like this. It's just a matter of time before he's the best damn quarterback in the entire league. His only mistakes right now are due to inexperience. Once he gets the experience.... it's just going to be friggin over for the entire league. I'm not saying that because I'm a Colts fan and he's a Colt. I'd say it if he was the Jags quarterback. I'd say it because I know it's the truth. I know it sounds outlandish still... it sounds outlandish to my ears to even say it, but I don't know any other way to express it, it is what it is, lol. I thought we as Colts fans had experienced the pinnacle of quarterbacking play during Manning's tenure.... but here we are.

                      It's ironic that this last name is Luck, because there is no luck involved. He's good. You make your own luck. It's embodied by the saying he goes by himself: "Competence over confidence." He's competent. When you're competent, you make plays and you increase your chances of success. The goofballs will call it luck.

                      And of course I'm speaking of the future, not right now, I know Luck is still a ways off from seeing his pinnacle. But it's not far off. 2-3 years. The team likely still won't have caught up to him, but he'll be carrying them. All we can do is sit back and watch and enjoy it.
                      I agree with this... he's so far adapted to the pro game much faster than Peyton did. Remember, 18 had that one great San Francisco game that was stolen by the refs, then late in the season you literally saw him adjust to the game (especially during the BAL game that year) and you could start to see the brilliance. If Luck has that same effect happen to him.... the sky is the limit on how good he can be.
                      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck so far

                        Originally posted by Really? View Post
                        Not really good with this posting format stuff but here you go:

                        Comebacks thrill us. Comebacks make our hearts race. Comebacks cause us to stand up and cheer. For all that, though, comebacks do not necessarily provide an accurate measure of NFL quarterback quality. Just ask Tim Tebow, who led five comebacks in 2011, only to find himself a backup on one of the league's worst offenses in 2012. After all, to come back at the end of a game, you must first play badly enough to fall behind. On the other side of the coin, you have a guy like Matt Schaub. The Houston Texans quarterback has put together an 11-3 record as a starter the past two seasons, but has no comebacks in that time because he has provided his team with so many early leads.

                        With that in mind, what can we make of Andrew Luck and his big comeback that led the Indianapolis Colts to a 30-27 win over the Green Bay Packers on Sunday? On one hand, we must credit him for 31 completions, 362 yards, 16 first downs and three touchdowns (two passing, one rushing). On the other hand, we can't ignore his 24 incompletions, his four sacks taken, his interception or his fumble.

                        The fact is, Luck made a lot of good plays Sunday, but also many bad plays. He dropped back 30 times in the first half and produced only 157 net yards and five first downs. He was one of the biggest reasons the Colts fell behind in the first place. And though Luck had 11 first downs after halftime, including all three touchdowns, we can't forget that even during the comeback he had his struggles. He threw his interception while driving for a potential go-ahead score in the fourth quarter, and he also threw two incompletions as part of a three-and-out drive deep in Indianapolis territory that provided the Packers with excellent field position to set up a go-ahead score of their own.

                        Honestly, the Indianapolis defense deserves as much credit for the comeback as Luck does. The Colts D let the Packers take the lead on a touchdown drive that started in Indianapolis territory, but Green Bay's seven other second-half drives resulted in four punts, two missed field goals and an interception.

                        Despite his big comeback, Luck barely makes Football Outsiders' top 10 quarterbacks this week, and actually falls slightly short of his Green Bay counterpart, Aaron Rodgers. Remember too that these numbers account for the quality of defense faced. If we ignore that, Rodgers comes out way ahead of Luck.

                        HTML Code:
                        First- or second-year starting rookie QBs by DVOA
                        Quarterback	Year	Team	DVOA
                        Ben Roethlisberger	2004	PIT	34.5%
                        Tom Brady*	2001	NE	29.3%
                        Cam Newton	2011	CAR	16.7%
                        Daunte Culpepper*	2000	MIN	13.0%
                        Kerry Collins	1995	CAR	-1.1%
                        Matt Leinart	2006	ARI	-1.7%
                        Brett Favre**	1992	GB	-2.0%
                        Drew Brees*	2002	SD	-8.7%
                        Matt Ryan	2008	ATL	-9.8%
                        Carson Palmer*	2004	CIN	-12.1%
                        --	--	--	--
                        Robert Griffin	2012	WAS	4.2%
                        Andrew Luck	2012	IND	0.9%
                        Ryan Tannehill	2012	MIA	-11.5%
                        Russell Wilson	2012	SEA	-18.5%
                        Brandon Weeden	2012	CLE	-26.9%
                        * Second-year starter
                        ** Second-year starter. Includes one game in which Favre threw 39 passes off the bench.
                        Still, while it wasn't a great game for Luck, it was a good one, and that's getting to be routine for the rookie. His first game against Chicago was slightly below replacement level, but he has been well above that line every week since. He passed fellow rookie Robert Griffin III in passing DYAR (Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement, explained here) this week and ranks 14th out of 33 qualifying quarterbacks. One month into his career, he is playing like an average starting passer, and has been much better than experienced veterans like Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler and Tony Romo.

                        Is this performance unusual? Yes, but it's not unprecedented. The table on the right shows a semi-complete list of the top quarterbacks as measured by DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) in the first four starts of their career before this season. This includes passing only, not rushing. It only includes players who were starting in their first or second season, so there's no Rodgers, Kurt Warner or Rivers. It also omits passers whose first four starts were not consecutive, which eliminates Michael Vick, Cade McNown and Steve McNair. Below them is a list of the five rookie quarterbacks who are starting this season, along with their DVOA figures:

                        (Note: Griffin ranks ahead of Luck in DVOA but not DYAR because DVOA is a rate stat, like completion percentage, while DYAR is a counting stat, like yards, and Luck has dropped back 31 more times than Griffin this season.)

                        Four games is an awfully small sample size for projecting a player's career, but those quarterbacks who have made the strongest first impressions have usually held up over the long haul. Matt Leinart flamed out quickly, and Cam Newton is regressing in his second season, but the other names on this list proved to be quality starters for the better part of a decade or more. That's good news for Griffin, Luck and even Ryan Tannehill. It's bad news for Russell Wilson and Brandon Weeden. Then again, Peyton Manning's DVOA after four starts was minus-20.0 percent, and he turned out OK in the long run.

                        WEEK 5 DYAR BEST AND WORST
                        DYAR is Football Outsiders' proprietary metric that measures performance on every play against expected performance for that situation. For a deeper explanation and a full breakdown of the numbers, visit Football Outsiders.

                        HTML Code:
                        QB | RB | WR/TE
                        THE GOOD
                        Player	Team	DYAR
                        Eli Manning	NYG	188
                        Alex Smith	SF	168
                        Peyton Manning	DEN	126
                        Drew Brees	NO	89
                        Tom Brady	NE	89
                        Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	84
                        Jay Cutler	CHI	63
                        Ryan Tannehill	MIA	53
                        Aaron Rodgers	GB	52
                        Andrew Luck	IND	51
                        THE BAD
                        Player	Team	DYAR
                        Blaine Gabbert	JAC	-146
                        Cam Newton	CAR	-85
                        Joe Flacco	BAL	-75
                        Matt Cassel	KC	-63
                        Kirk Cousins	WAS	-57
                        Obviously, it's far too early to project what Luck is going to do over the next 10 years. What we can say now is that he's definitely ahead of the curve for quarterbacks at this stage of his career, and that the Luck-versus-Griffin race for rookie of the year is going to rage for 16 games.

                        Three surprising players
                        QB: Alex Smith, San Francisco 49ers
                        Smith completed 18 of 24 passes for 303 yards and three touchdowns against Buffalo, with no sacks or interceptions. It was the third 300-yard game of his career and the third time he has thrown for three scores without a turnover. Plus, he set career highs with 12.6 yards per pass and a near-perfect QBR of 99.2. At various times against Buffalo, Smith completed four passes in a row for 85 yards, four passes in a row for 95 yards, three passes in a row for 29 yards, and five passes in a row for 80 yards.

                        RB: Stevan Ridley, New England Patriots
                        Ridley's day against Denver was mildly surprising (28 carries for 151 yards), but not as surprising as the polar shift in football philosophy that has overcome the New England offense. The Patriots lead the league with 185 rushes. They were 17th in that category in 2011, though that was something of a fluke. Before that, they had ranked in the top 10 for five years in a row. Ridley was a model of consistency Sunday, with only one run going for fewer than 2 yards, and 12 runs of 5 yards or more.

                        WR/TE: Reggie Wayne, Colts
                        When Wayne re-signed with Indianapolis this offseason, it seemed an odd match for both player and team. The Colts figured to get more benefit by finding a younger receiver to be the Marvin Harrison or, well, Wayne to Luck's Manning, while Wayne's best shot at landing another Super Bowl ring in the twilight of his career seemed to be elsewhere. Wayne decided to stick around, though, and it's hard to imagine where Indianapolis would be without him. He leads the club with 36 catches and 506 yards; no other player on the team has even half that total in either category. Wayne caught 13 passes in 20 targets for 212 yards against Green Bay, a personal best for yardage. Like his quarterback, Wayne got off to something of a slow start, but finished strong. Each of the last five passes thrown to him was caught for a first down -- one for a touchdown -- for a total of 64 yards.
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck so far

                          Originally posted by Really? View Post
                          Not really good with this posting format stuff but here you go:
                          THANK YOU!!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck so far

                            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                            No, he is a rookie, not a veteran like Manning, Brady, Breeze, Rogers, Marino, Montana, Aikman, ect.. So for now he is an amazing rookie, nothing more!
                            I think Rogers dropped several notches on my list of top ten QBs after Sunday. I saw something in his face and eyes at the start of the second half. I think it was over confidence and taking a win for granted. Farve for all of his failings would never have done that and Rogers played that way when he came out too. I think our guys played great. I think they were also very lucky. It took:

                            Two missed FG from a very good kicker
                            A missed attempt at a two point play
                            A bad call of a helmet to helmet hit against our QB that was only a very good hit
                            It took the best day of Reggie Wayne's career
                            A break down and loss of a play before the final kick

                            I am willing to give credit to the Colts for all of these things but I also think Green Bay deserves a lot of blame for this loss.... ...

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck so far

                              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post

                              Two missed FG from a very good kicker
                              A missed attempt at a two point play
                              A bad call of a helmet to helmet hit against our QB that was only a very good hit
                              It took the best day of Reggie Wayne's career
                              A break down and loss of a play before the final kick

                              I am willing to give credit to the Colts for all of these things but I also think Green Bay deserves a lot of blame for this loss.... ...
                              Hahaha.

                              Colts also...

                              Missed FG from a very good kicker
                              A missed attempt at a two point play
                              A bad no-call of Woodson tackling Wayne in the endzone
                              A breakdown of the defense losing Cobb for the big reception on their final drive.

                              Similar to just about any other game, each team has breakdowns, missed opportunities, bad calls, and bad plays. Green Bay had injuries? Well the Colts had injuries.

                              Also, in 2010, Reggie had games of 15 rec for 196 yds and 14 rec for 200 yds and 1 TD and the Colts lost both of those games.

                              But thanks for being willing to give credit to the Colts...lol

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck so far

                                Best comment I heard from a Packer fan walking out of the stadium on Sunday, someone goes, REGGIE REGGIE REGGIE. Packer fan turns around and says, "If you didn't have Reggie Wayne today you wouldn't have won the game." No **** sherlock.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X