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

Playoff Thread

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

  • Re: Playoff Thread

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I don't think the Pats were expected to blow the Giants out. The Pats only beat the Giants by 3 points (38-35) in Week 17 to complete the 16-0 season. The Giants were red hot coming into that Super Bowl after incredible road playoff victories against Dallas and Green Bay. I think most people felt that the Giants were a decent threat to the Pats, regular season records aside.
    They were favored by 14 points. Then Plaxico made the prediction they would beat the Pats and they would only score 17(yeah he gave them a bit too much credit with that one) Sounds like a blowout to me at least by SB standards.

    My point is the Giants were rather mediocre that year and they got hot at the right time and won it all. Despite the Pats being considered one of the greatest offenses in NFL history. It didn't matter come postseason.

    Regular seasons are worthless beyond determining who's in it that's all its for.

    Comment


    • Re: Playoff Thread

      It's well beyond me how anyone can consider a team making an 18-0 run all the way to the super bowl to be an "epic fail", losing in part due to one of the most unlikely plays in sports history that was pulled off by a young unheralded player making the last catch of his entire career.

      Every team that ever played and did not make it to the Super Bowl or that lost in the Super Bowl was far more of an epic fail than that one, including all but one Indianapolis Colts team in their history.

      An epic disappointment? Sure. To not win a title with probably their second most-talented team in their history was disappointing (talent IMO: 2004>2007>2003>2012>2001) But that is an entirely different argument.

      Losing on Saturday would not be close to an epic disappointment. This is no more than the 10th-12th most talented team of the Brady-Belichick era, owing to 7 injured starters (4 of them pro bowlers) and poor salary cap-related roster moves in the last offseason (Welker & Woodhead mostly)
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-08-2014, 12:40 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: Playoff Thread

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        They were favored by 14 points. Then Plaxico made the prediction they would beat the Pats and they would only score 17(yeah he gave them a bit too much credit with that one) Sounds like a blowout to me at least by SB standards.

        My point is the Giants were rather mediocre that year and they got hot at the right time and won it all. Despite the Pats being considered one of the greatest offenses in NFL history. It didn't matter come postseason.

        Regular seasons are worthless beyond determining who's in it that's all its for.
        Like I said in my EDIT, I seem to remember quite a few people thinking that the betting line was way too high. Besides, it's just a betting line (though I understand that the odds makers obviously know what they're doing). The Pats had only beaten the Giants by 3 points in the regular season and the Giants were coming off of two huge road playoff games.

        I agree with what you're saying though. The talent gap between teams at the playoff level is pretty small. Often teams have disappointing regular season records because of injuries they suffered throughout the season, but then they get guys back healthy and are a way better team for the playoffs (Ravens last year). With the unpredictable one and done format, anyone can win it all. It's gotten to a point where you almost expect a team that had to play in the wildcard round to win it all: 05 Steelers, 06 Colts, 07 Giants, 10 Packers, 11 Giants, 12 Ravens. 2009 was an aberration when the two regular season powerhouses (Colts and Saints) actually both made it.

        Comment


        • Re: Playoff Thread

          Epic fail is the 2013 Texans. I would never consider making it to the title game as a failure except for Scott Norwood of the Bills.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • Re: Playoff Thread

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            Every team that ever played and did not make it to the Super Bowl or that lost in the Super Bowl was far more of an epic fail than that one, including all but one Indianapolis Colts team in their history.
            Isn't that the way most think about the Colts/Peyton? If you don't win, it's a choke/fail. That's the standard, whether we like it or not.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Playoff Thread

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              It's well beyond me how anyone can consider a team making an 18-0 run all the way to the super bowl to be an "epic fail", losing in part due to one of the most unlikely plays in sports history that was pulled off by a young unheralded player making the last catch of his entire career.

              Gee I don't know probably because every team in the Patriots way that season had no chance to beat them we heard that ALL SEASON LONG until you know it happened.

              The goal was to win the SB not have the perfect season and lose the SB. Hence "Epic Fail" but when it comes to Manning especially how come he's so great in the regular season but only has one SB yet there are great regular season teams through the years and never won a ring. The 1998 Vikings, 2011 Packers list goes on... Regular season doesn't guarantee postseason success never has is my point. But for the Colts/Manning it was supposed to go figure.

              Comment


              • Re: Playoff Thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Isn't that the way most think about the Colts/Peyton? If you don't win, it's a choke/fail. That's the standard, whether we like it or not.
                Well, that's what is beat into our brains by the broadcast folks. Personally, I think different teams can have different levels of success - or failure. Last year's Colts for example. Rookie QB, new coaching, bunch of new players and yet they go 11-5. Failure ?? Not in my opinion. Quite successful - i thought.

                I guess every team and all their fans are supposed to sulk around after the season if their team doesn't take the title. I just disagree.

                Comment


                • Re: Playoff Thread

                  Gee I don't know probably because every team in the Patriots way that season had no chance to beat them we heard that ALL SEASON LONG until you know it happened.


                  When they eeked out a 3 point win over 5-11 Baltimore, a 3 point win over 8-8 Philadelphia, and a 3 point win over the Giants you were thinking that nobody had a chance to beat them? How about the 4 point win over the Colts? Really, the Colts had no chance, with the league's #1 rated defense + Manning, at home?

                  Seems like agenda-driven revisionist history to me.

                  In the last half of 2007 the Patriots were very much beatable. It was in fact quite remarkable that they always seemed to find a way to win those games.




                  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: Playoff Thread

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Isn't that the way most think about the Colts/Peyton? If you don't win, it's a choke/fail. That's the standard, whether we like it or not.
                    wow, I hope not.

                    To you, every season but one in the history of the Indianapolis Colts has been a choke/fail? Really?

                    Every game has a win probably associated with it. Winning three or four playoff games in a row is difficult. Michael Jordan made 83.5% of his free throws for his NBA career. Thus the odds of him making 4 in a row when he needs to are 48.6%. Has any NFL playoff game struck you as being as sure of a win as Michael Jordan making a free throw?

                    You can have the best team in the NFL by far, in the regular season, and the odds are way less than 50% that you will win the title in any one season.

                    It is when you go one and done roughly 70% of the time that the choke/fail label gets tossed out there. As a team you are then shooting free throws like Shaq, blindfolded, when you had before shot them like Reggie Miller back when the pressure was off.
                    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: Playoff Thread

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      [/COLOR]When they eeked out a 3 point win over 5-11 Baltimore, a 3 point win over 8-8 Philadelphia, and a 3 point win over the Giants you were thinking that nobody had a chance to beat them? How about the 4 point win over the Colts? Really, the Colts had no chance, with the league's #1 rated defense + Manning, at home?

                      Seems like agenda-driven revisionist history to me.

                      In the last half of 2007 the Patriots were very much beatable. It was in fact quite remarkable that they always seemed to find a way to win those games.




                      Yeah that's it not because the media kept going on about the Patriots pursuit of perfection(not to say it wasn't warranted to an extent because its not as if perfect seasons happen all the time) but yeah they kept "running up the score" so to speak yeah teams had no chance.

                      They did give the Colts a chance better than other teams but really I was referring to the playoffs and namely the Super Bowl. Where what they did in the regular season had no bearing on if they would win that game or not.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoff Thread

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        wow, I hope not.

                        To you, every season but one in the history of the Indianapolis Colts has been a choke/fail? Really?

                        Every game has a win probably associated with it. Winning three or four playoff games in a row is difficult. Michael Jordan made 83.5% of his free throws for his NBA career. Thus the odds of him making 4 in a row when he needs to are 48.6%. Has any NFL playoff game struck you as being as sure of a win as Michael Jordan making a free throw?

                        You can have the best team in the NFL by far, in the regular season, and the odds are way less than 50% that you will win the title in any one season.

                        It is when you go one and done roughly 70% of the time that the choke/fail label gets tossed out there. As a team you are then shooting free throws like Shaq, blindfolded, when you had before shot them like Reggie Miller back when the pressure was off.

                        To me? No. But as a Peyton Manning fan, I've had that standard pushed down my throat by the media, and by NE fans who think SB rings is the end to all arguments. It's just kind of funny reading a NE fan rebuke the idea when that's the legs they stand on when discussion Brady V Manning.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoff Thread

                          Manning got a national media free pass for every one and done, all of the way until 8 of them had piled up after last season. Then a few (a very few) speak-your-mind types like Deion Sanders and Chris Carter started at least mentioning it.

                          Did any national media person every say a peep of criticism about the pick-6 Super Bowl INT? No. The ratio of criticism for Brady's intentional grounding safety on the opening play in 2011 to Manning's game-ending pick six would be infinite, because division by zero is not allowed. If there was one criticism of the INT that I missed, then the ratio would not be in the single digits.

                          No national media criticism of Peyton Manning as a Colt was ever pushed down your throat, because it simply didn't exist. Did Patriots fans recognize the emperor's clothes? Yes. A number of Colts fans now seem to have joined them. Most media haven't gone anywhere near there though, even now. Or will they, most likely, even with a San Diego win this weekend.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-08-2014, 05:20 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: Playoff Thread

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            Manning got a national media free pass for every one and done, all of the way until 8 of them had piled up after last season. Then a few (a very few) speak-your-mind types like Deion Sanders and Chris Carter started at least mentioning it.

                            Did any national media person every say a peep of criticism about the pick-6 Super Bowl INT? No. The ratio of criticism for Brady's intentional grounding safety on the opening play in 2011 to Manning's game-ending pick six would be infinite, because division by zero is not allowed. If there was one criticism of the INT that I missed, then the ratio would not be in the single digits.

                            No national media criticism of Peyton Manning as a Colt was ever pushed down your throat, because it simply didn't exist. Did Patriots fans recognize the emperor's clothes? Yes. A number of Colts fans now seem to have joined them. Most media haven't gone anywhere near there though, even now. Or will they, most likely, even with a San Diego win this weekend.

                            Hmm, I remember a ton of "Peyton can't win the big game" talk for years before he won the Super Bowl. First it was that he couldn't win a playoff game period. That was the narrative before the wildcard win against the Broncos 10 years ago (his first playoff win). Then the talk was that he couldn't beat the Pats and get to the Super Bowl. In fact, didn't Boomer Esiason say something like, "Peyton Manning better start looking for a house in A-Rod's neighborhood?" when the Pats were up 21-6 at halftime in the 06 AFC Championship game? The Colts and Peyton were also absolutely roasted after they lost that Pittsburgh game at home in 05.

                            Winning the Super Bowl 7 years ago obviously caused a lot of that talk to go away for a while. He was a champion who slayed the Patriots in one of the most epic comebacks in NFL history, so he deserved massive props for that. But I remember plenty of criticism after the pick 6 against New Orleans. Of course, it was definitely overshadowed by the main story of that game, which was the onside kick.

                            Him and the Broncos will get roasted plenty if they lose this game, trust me. And as bad as the Ravens loss looked at the time, it didn't look quite as bad once they went on to beat New England and San Francisco. Peyton's offense looked better against the Ravens than the Pats' did the following week, but Peyton get the "one and done" label because he happened to run into them first. I seriously doubt that the Broncos would have lost to the Texans.

                            I just don't buy the idea that the whole "Peyton can't win the big game" talk is something that only a few Pats fans whispered about. It's been a huge narrative in a national media for over a decade, though it certainly lost some steam after he slayed the Pats and won the Super Bowl.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Playoff Thread

                              Esiason's quote:

                              Here’s the deal for Peyton Manning, perception is reality. If he doesn’t win on Sunday and doesn’t get to the Super Bowl, he might as well buy a house next to A-Rod -- Alex Rodriguez -- because they’re going to be living in the same neighborhood. And that’s the neighborhood of the guys making the most money without the championships with the most stats in the regular season. I don’t feel that way because I think it’s horrific that these two great athletes have to be looked at in that vein. But that’s unfortunately the way it’s going to be perceived."

                              so this scathing rebuke was basically

                              "I think that this guy is the greatest and that that nobody should be saying anything at all about his losing playoff record, but if he suffers another big loss, especially against Brady and where he makes some key mistake, then I think that he will start being viewed as a choker and that would be both very unfair and a shame"

                              http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...ms_boomer.html

                              I do remember being absolutely gobsmacked that a national media person (while himself not taking a shot at Peyton) would even suggest that someday someone in the media might take a shot a Peyton, if what eventually didn't happen (a loss in the next game) did in fact happen.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-08-2014, 06:28 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: Playoff Thread

                                Well it figures you would live in your own bubble of reality as a Pats fan because as Sollozo pointed out we've heard about it ad nauseum(Time Magazine even did an article about it) and still hear about it today(despite winning a SB) because apparently nobody else's "failures" are interesting enough except for Tony Romo but he barely can get into the playoffs these days so that storyline can only go so far.

                                So yes its rather laughable for you to say otherwise. Rest assured nobody in the media wants Manning to actually win the SB(even though they will publically claim they do) because then they may have to come up with another "storyline". Instead of you know reporting things as they are at the moment and not some melodrama.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X