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

Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #16
    Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

    Yep, RG3's decline had little to do with his injury; the league was going to catch up to that gimmick offense eventually, the injury just accelerated the process... which was also fairly predictable; people were stating thus well before he got injured. His style and build were just begging for injury. The only guy who has avoided this is Wilson, but then again, he doesn't exactly run the option all the time, either, and he's also a better passer than the other option QBs, which is something I've stated from the get-go.

    The keys to quarterbacking in this league are mostly intelligence-based. The other factors that are important are durability, ability to make throws, and clutch-factor. Athleticism, in relative terms, is probably the least important trait a QB could have. This is why Brady and Manning are able to dominate. They aren't very athletic. Who would take any of those options QBs over them? That's why these every decade, "athletic running quarterbacks are going to revolutionize the league" statements pain me so much. The class of 2012 was not the maiden voyage of athletic QBs in the NFL. Going back to Cam, and before that, Mike Vick, and before that, Randall Cunningham, it's never proven to actually revolutionize the league. They come in and stir it up a bit, but the league always regresses to the norm. Cunningham had a cannon on him, too, he was a damn good QB.

    When one of these athletic option QBs come into the league with the intelligence of Manning/Brady/Luck, then I'll change my stance, but I've yet to see it. RG3 wasn't it.

    Here's a little fact that I think most people don't think about --- you have to be smart to be a quarterback. Athleticism will only mask so much. Those offensive systems, and conversely, those defensive systems --- are complex. It requires the ability to store, recall, and execute a decision quickly.

    Only a few guys ever possess all the abilities; the intelligence, the ability to make the throws, the clutch factor. You have smart guys who struggle to deliver the ball. They make the right reads, make the right decision --- and miss their receivers. Guys like Dalton and Fitzpatrick and Shaub... they have the smarts, they lack the ability to consistently get the ball where it needs to go, even if they process everything correctly and time it all --- the ball just doesn't have the placement consistently.

    Other guys like Romo --- he does actually process things, and he actually does make the throws --- but he melts down under pressure. He has most of the desirable QB'ing traits in spades, but in clutch-factor, he just bombs.

    To me, the two quarterbacks in this league who possess the entire spectrum of great QB traits are Luck and Rodgers. Brady and Manning, as great as they are, both have *something* that knocks them down a notch. For both of them, it's mostly just the ability to make plays out of the pocket. Manning has never been an athletic freak, so when the pocket breaks down and he hasn't gotten rid of the ball, he mostly throws it away or takes the sack. Brady is similar. Luck and Rodgers actually have the athleticism to escape and then make a play on the run to great success. It's the one time athleticism comes in to play for QBs, imo. Where Luck actually exceeds Rodgers, imo, is his ability to shed defenders. He's a lot stronger than Rodgers. Rodgers, otoh, is a better passer, imo. Luck is a great passer, but Rodgers is just unreal...

    Right now Rodgers is playing lights out, but I think Luck has all the ability to eventually exceed Rodgers. Luck is still a young pup relative to Aaron... Aaron never had the stress of coming in and starting from his first game... he got to sit back for three years, work on his craft, watch and learn from one of the best. He never had to do what Luck had to do. He's also older by 6 years and is further into his prime than Luck.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-11-2014, 12:21 PM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment

    • #17
      Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      The only people high on RG3 his first year are people who don't know what they're looking at --- in other words, a large portion of the fan base. His success was circumstantial, and those circumstances were always going to be short-lived.
      Figures you would miss the point which was I get that people had expectations for RG3 after his rookie year why he got attention.

      Manziel hasn't done anything in the NFL to warrant this attention beyond what he does off the field and his college career(which is overshadowed by what he did off the field) its like Tebow except Tebow actually was the starting QB for most of a season.

      Comment

      • #18
        Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

        He's a rookie QB who won the Heisman and torched the SEC. Of course he's gonna have hype. He had a hell of a college career. Any highly touted college QB is gonna have hype. Will he be a good NFL QB? I honestly have no idea. I think he has the talent. Unlike Tebow, he can throw the ball. I had my questions on him early on in college, but watching him pick apart Bama, he is a QB. And if he does flame out these last few games, I don't think it means he is a bust at all.

        The questions around Johnny are his size and his off the field ****. But in a day in age where Brees and Wilson are some of the top QBs, its clear that if you are good enough, size doesn't matter.

        Comment

        • #19
          Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Kaepernick is another good case to look at. He's actually healthy and plays for a fantastic well-coached team. Quarterbacks like Kaepernick and RG3 confuse the hell out of defenses when they first show up and there's no tape on them. But give NFL defenses a couple of seasons of tape to look at, and those option quarterbacks will inevitably fail if they can't make NFL throws.
          I'd argue that point. They were a well coached team, but Harbaugh and staff have pissed that away. Team is undisciplined, the offense is a mess, the play calling is terrible. That team isn't well coached. Not to mention they have completely lost the locker room. I said they shouldn't have gave Kaep that contract yet, but the coaching staff isn't doing him any favors this year. They aren't playing to his strengths. Guy plays off instincts, are they aren't having him play that way this year. They need to look at Seattle and how they use Wilson.

          Comment

          • #20
            Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Yep, RG3's decline had little to do with his injury; the league was going to catch up to that gimmick offense eventually, the injury just accelerated the process... which was also fairly predictable; people were stating thus well before he got injured. His style and build were just begging for injury. The only guy who has avoided this is Wilson, but then again, he doesn't exactly run the option all the time, either, and he's also a better passer than the other option QBs, which is something I've stated from the get-go.

            The keys to quarterbacking in this league are mostly intelligence-based. The other factors that are important are durability, ability to make throws, and clutch-factor. Athleticism, in relative terms, is probably the least important trait a QB could have. This is why Brady and Manning are able to dominate. They aren't very athletic. Who would take any of those options QBs over them? That's why these every decade, "athletic running quarterbacks are going to revolutionize the league" statements pain me so much. The class of 2012 was not the maiden voyage of athletic QBs in the NFL. Going back to Cam, and before that, Mike Vick, and before that, Randall Cunningham, it's never proven to actually revolutionize the league. They come in and stir it up a bit, but the league always regresses to the norm. Cunningham had a cannon on him, too, he was a damn good QB.

            When one of these athletic option QBs come into the league with the intelligence of Manning/Brady/Luck, then I'll change my stance, but I've yet to see it. RG3 wasn't it.

            Here's a little fact that I think most people don't think about --- you have to be smart to be a quarterback. Athleticism will only mask so much. Those offensive systems, and conversely, those defensive systems --- are complex. It requires the ability to store, recall, and execute a decision quickly.

            Only a few guys ever possess all the abilities; the intelligence, the ability to make the throws, the clutch factor. You have smart guys who struggle to deliver the ball. They make the right reads, make the right decision --- and miss their receivers. Guys like Dalton and Fitzpatrick and Shaub... they have the smarts, they lack the ability to consistently get the ball where it needs to go, even if they process everything correctly and time it all --- the ball just doesn't have the placement consistently.

            Other guys like Romo --- he does actually process things, and he actually does make the throws --- but he melts down under pressure. He has most of the desirable QB'ing traits in spades, but in clutch-factor, he just bombs.

            To me, the two quarterbacks in this league who possess the entire spectrum of great QB traits are Luck and Rodgers. Brady and Manning, as great as they are, both have *something* that knocks them down a notch. For both of them, it's mostly just the ability to make plays out of the pocket. Manning has never been an athletic freak, so when the pocket breaks down and he hasn't gotten rid of the ball, he mostly throws it away or takes the sack. Brady is similar. Luck and Rodgers actually have the athleticism to escape and then make a play on the run to great success. It's the one time athleticism comes in to play for QBs, imo. Where Luck actually exceeds Rodgers, imo, is his ability to shed defenders. He's a lot stronger than Rodgers. Rodgers, otoh, is a better passer, imo. Luck is a great passer, but Rodgers is just unreal...

            Right now Rodgers is playing lights out, but I think Luck has all the ability to eventually exceed Rodgers. Luck is still a young pup relative to Aaron... Aaron never had the stress of coming in and starting from his first game... he got to sit back for three years, work on his craft, watch and learn from one of the best. He never had to do what Luck had to do. He's also older by 6 years and is further into his prime than Luck.
            I mean, traditional pocket passers still exist and can be dominant, but to say the athletic QB has only stirred things a bit and the league regresses to the norm is just wrong. Look at the amount of athletic QBs in the game today compared to 20 years ago. Its been rising and rising. Its not gonna change over night man. One, it has to be coached at a young level rather than the traditional pocket passer.

            Obviously you have to be able to throw the ball as a QB, that will never change. But very few guys are gonna be able to be elite and just be a pocket passer. We got Manning and Brady right now, arguably the two greatest QBs of all time. But lets look at the younger QBs that are taking over now? How many are just pocket passers? Luck? No. Rodgers? No. Wilson? No. Newton? No.

            Saying athleticism is the least important trait is just wrong. Its pretty damn important. Yes, to be a good QB you need to be smart so you make the right decisions. Same with being a good offensive lineman or a great linebacker. The ability to extend plays with your feet as a QB is HUGE. It is extremely difficult for DBs to cover receivers the longer the play goes on. Athleticism for a qb isn't just about running the ball like Mike Vick did in Atlanta. Its more about what McNabb did in Philly, keep plays alive, be a threat that the defense needs to account for. Its what Wilson is doing now. Its what Cunningham did years ago.

            RG3 is an interesting case. If you watched him in college, the kid could throw the ball. He wasn't just an option QB. Look at his rookie year. He threw the ball very well. He wasn't just running. 3200 yards, 65.6% completion rate, only 5 interceptions all year. He was making good decisions. I think he just got too cocky. I think he didn't put the work in during the offseasons. I think his injuries had a good bit to do with it. I think he rubbed his teammates the wrong way. I also think Washington as a team overachieved greatly in his first year, due to a weaker division which is now very strong and because the NFL didn't see RG3 before. Yes teams figure out QBs, but teams figured out Washington. And its not like he's got top notch WRs. And the coaching fiasco in D.C.

            Comment

            • #21
              Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

              Woah, they *can* exist?? They make up a majority of QBs today. You make it sound like pocket skills is a diminishing breed. That couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, I'd argue it's at an all-time premium.

              I'm not saying you can't be athletic. I'm saying you have to have the pocket skills. These guys who are flaming out lack in the pocket skills. The athletic QBs in our league who DO have success have the necessary pocket skills. Luck, Rodgers, Wilson...

              You're also confusing being able to throw the ball with being a good QB. RG3 and Kaep have always been able to rocket the ball and look awesome doing it. They struggle in reading defenses. They struggle in their ability to make a wide variety of throws. They struggle with placement in tighter NFL windows. They run by design. Luck and Rodgers run as a last resort. RG3 and Kaep are more throwers and runners than they are quarterbacks. Poor concept of touch or placement. Those things can be masked in college, but not in the pros.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-12-2014, 02:35 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment

              • #22
                Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Woah, they *can* exist?? They make up a majority of QBs today. You make it sound like pocket skills is a diminishing breed. That couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, I'd argue it's at an all-time premium.

                I'm not saying you can't be athletic. I'm saying you have to have the pocket skills. These guys who are flaming out lack in the pocket skills. The athletic QBs in our league who DO have success have the necessary pocket skills. Luck, Rodgers, Wilson...

                You're also confusing being able to throw the ball with being a good QB. RG3 and Kaep have always been able to rocket the ball and look awesome doing it. They struggle in reading defenses. They struggle in their ability to make a wide variety of throws. They struggle with placement in tighter NFL windows. They run by design. Luck and Rodgers run as a last resort. RG3 and Kaep are more throwers and runners than they are quarterbacks. Poor concept of touch or placement. Those things can be masked in college, but not in the pros.
                Pure pocket passers in the sense of Manning and Brady and on the decline. Especially ones that dominate the game. Thats just a fact. And look at the young guys coming into the NFL. Very very few would be categorized as one. Look at the three QBs taken in the first round this year? All are athletic QBs. Hell go back even further. 2013 only first round qb taken, EJ Manuel, athletic. 2012: Luck, RG3, Tannehill, Weeden. Only one who isn't athletic isn't even thought about as a starter. 2011: Newton, Locker, Ponder. Teams are looking for athletic QBs. They are investing in athletic QBs. This isn't some gimmicky thing one or two teams are doing. The game is changing. Its just really ****ing hard to be a successful QB in the NFL, whether you are athletic like Luck or a pocket passer like Manning.


                RG3 could make the wide variety of throws, he did it in college and in his first year in the league. Kaep not as much. But he's no Tebow out there and is still young. Pretty much every young qb needs refinement, athletic QBs are not immune to that. Hell that throw that Sherman broke up in the NFC Champ game, that was a hell of a throw by Kaep, but Sherman just made an amazing ****ing play. Kaep's biggest problem this year is that the coaching staff has him thinking too much. He's best when playing off instinct. They have him doing too much, trying to make him something he's not. Let him go play out there.

                There are plenty of pocket passers who flame out because their pocket skill suck too you know.

                Comment

                • #23
                  Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                  That is absolutely not a fact, sorry, huge disagree.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    That is absolutely not a fact, sorry, huge disagree.
                    Who are these pocket passers coming into the NFL right now? And how many of them are elite?

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                      Hahaha he sucks.

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                        Yeah, that was atrocious.

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          Who are these pocket passers coming into the NFL right now? And how many of them are elite?
                          First of all, I never said "pocket passers". I said you have to have "pocket skills". There's a difference. A pocket passer rarely leaves the pocket, but a guy who has pocket skills simply has the *ability* to perform a majority of the pocket skillsets to a high degree of success, regardless of their athleticism or out-of-pocket niftiness. Luck has pocket skills... he's also big, fast, and athletic. But first and foremost, he is a tremendous pocket passer. And he's a beast out of the pocket, as well. He's the whole package, that's why he's the best QB prospect in 30 years.

                          And to answer your question ---- all of them. The only QBs that are coming in and showing long-term declines are these "option" QBs with designed run plays who struggle to make reads and throws. The top 4-5 QBs right now ALL possess elite pocket skills. If you want to have any success at all in this league, your QB has to have pocket skills. You absolutely cannot sit back there with limited playbooks, throwing to receivers with limited route trees, making limited reads and checkdowns, and making limited throws and expect to have any long-term future in this league just because this otherwise poor QB can run fast and throw it hard and wear colorful socks.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-15-2014, 12:20 PM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                            Wait a QB needs pocket skills? No one has every argued that... Just because the game is moving where a more athletic QB is becoming the norm doesn't mean they no longer need pocket skills.

                            And 2, name some names. "All of them" is a cop out. When I said traditional pocket passers still exist, but the amount of them are on the decline you responded, "Woah, they *can* exist?? They make up a majority of QBs today."

                            So yeah, pocket passers.

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                              I don't think even you know what you're arguing about.
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                                Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
                                Hahaha he sucks.
                                While I don't think Manziel will last in the NFL I never understood judging a player either way by one game. I mean Andrew Luck was pretty bad in his first game RG3 was great in his.

                                Look at them now.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                                Working...
                                X