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

Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

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

  • Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/070122

    Peyton giveth and taketh away

    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2

    We had it.

    Those are three words you never expect to say as a Patriots fan. Not during the Belichick-Brady Era, anyway. But after a truly remarkable AFC Championship Game – Colts 38, Pats 34 – those were the only three words I kept saying. We had it when we were driving inside the Colts' 20 with a 21-3 lead. We had it when we kicked the go-ahead field goal with five minutes left. We had it when we stopped Manning three-and-out. We had it on our own 40 with 3:30 to play, needing only a first down to finish the game.

    We had it.

    This isn't sour grapes, I promise. (No, really. I promise.) The Colts deserved to win one of the greatest NFL playoff games in recent memory. They made up an 18-point lead in about 20 seconds. They withstood every haymaker and kept throwing punches right back. They came through in the clutch and so did their much-maligned QB. And the Patriots did just enough to blow the game – they couldn't run the ball in the second half and the defense wilted as the game went along, worn down from last week's slugfest in San Diego, the flu and a glaring lack of healthy bodies. By the time the fourth quarter rolled around, cramped pass rushers were getting their legs massaged on the bench, random special teamers were playing key defensive positions and I found myself actually saying things out loud like, "My God, Artrell Hawkins is out, what do we do now???"

    Watching the game in my office and trying to determine how to stop the Colts (who had rolled off four straight scoring drives heading into the fourth quarter), I was so desperate for a momentum change that I hijacked my daughter and brought her in front of the TV for good luck. And you know what? It worked! Indy went three-and-out and Manning banged his thumb on somebody's helmet; CBS even showed a replay of Manning telling backup quarterback Jim Sorgi, "Be ready." Instantly, I remembered Wilt Chamberlain's famous knee injury in Game 7 of the '69 Finals, when Wilt took himself out in the fourth quarter and the Celtics ended up winning their 11th (and last) title of the Russell Era. This was like Wilt, The Sequel. Manning had an out, the Pats would win, and we'd spend the next two weeks making jokes about his thumb. Seemed like a perfect ending to me.

    Even when Manning returned and completed a 50-yard wobbler to Dallas Clark to set up a game-tying field goal (exit: my daughter), he still didn't seem quite right. The Pats responded with a quick drive and go-ahead field goal (in my notebook, I wrote down, "Gostkowski: WATERMELON BALLS"), followed by Manning struggling through a three-and-out series and looking positively A-Rodian. Now the Colts needed the Patriots to self-combust somehow in the final four minutes, even though they owned crunch time in the past (as CBS banged home with a "Bill Belichick is 8-0 in playoff games decided by 7 points or less" graphic right before the drive started). Fortunately for the Colts, all hell has broken loose in 2007 – already, Chris Kattan is engaged to a supermodel, Eddie Murphy might win an Oscar, Steve Nash is headed for a third straight MVP award and Boise State beat Oklahoma in a January 1st bowl game. So really, anything's possible at this point.

    How did the most clutch team of the decade blow the game? They kicked things off with a too-many-men-in-the-huddle penalty to make it first-and-15, followed by two short passes to set up a third-and-4 near midfield with 2:30 left. Naturally, this was the time for Brady to find Troy Brown for a five-yard out for the 10 millionth time … only Brown ran to the wrong spot, Bob Sanders nearly picked the pass off and Brady walked off the field yelling at Brown. (Note: I'm going to have this entire sequence digitally removed from my brain next week.) That was quickly followed by Todd Sauerbrun punting it into the end zone (so much for the Little Things, folks), then Manning jogging onto the field for a career-defining two-minute drive as Jim Nantz made one of those schmaltzy, "You get the feeling so many lives and careers could be affected in the next two minutes and 17 seconds" comments before nearly giving himself diabetes.

    At this point, I was prepared for anything: An interception, a fumble, a long touchdown, an Elway-like drive, Manning's head exploding … you name it. But Manning was ready. Bullet pass to Wayne for a first down. Thirty-two yard strike to Fletcher for another first down. Another pass to Wayne for a first down (which he nearly fumbled away -- a goofy play that didn't even rank among the top-10 goofiest plays in this game), punctuated by a horsecrap roughing-the-passer call that CBS was too embarrassed to even replay. In about 10 seconds, the Colts were on the New England 12 and you could tell the Pats had nothing left. (Note: You know your defense is done when you're rooting for the other team to score so you can get the ball back faster.) Running on fumes of their fumes, the Patriots' defense allowed the last 12 yards on runs and failed to touch Joseph Addai on the winning score -- with backup linebacker Eric Alexander failing to plug the hole and backup safety James Sanders whiffing on Addai completely -- a far cry from the memorable 2003 victory in the RCA Dome when Willie McGinest stoned Edge James on fourth-and-goal.

    (These are the moments when you remember, "Hey, it's really, really, REALLY hard to get a dynasty going." You need to keep replenishing the talent base, you need to replace character guys with more character guys, you need your core stars to stay healthy, and you need a ton of luck in close games. For further explanation, look at the Yankees during 2001-2006. That's why Belichick said about eight words to a quivering Solomon Wilcots after last night's game. He knows. You only get back so many times.)

    That was that. After Brady got picked on a desperation drive to end the game, a slightly stunned Manning kneeled to end the game and kick off a massive celebration capped by the blood-curdling sight of Vinatieri and Manning hugging (around the year 2036, I'll recover from that one). I spent the next 20 minutes making excuses, shaking my head and passing blame around. On the phone, my father was even more distraught, bringing up the offensive pass interference call on Brown – leading 21-3 and driving for another score, when they whistled Brown for the same exact pick play that New Orleans used to spring Reggie Bush for an 86-yard TD earlier in the day (you know, the same pick play that every team uses and never, ever, EVER gets called) – at least 300 times during our conversation, as well as the aforementioned bogus roughing-the-passer call that moved Indy from the 27 to the 12 and apparently isn't allowed to be mentioned ever again. Eventually, we realized that we sounded like the Rams fans in Super Bowl XXXVI, or the Eagles fans in Super Bowl XXXIX, or the Chargers fans last week … nobody cares if you could have won the game, just whether you did.

    Besides, Sunday night was about Manning over everyone else. A lightning rod over the years for sports radio hosts, football experts, talking heads and snarky columnists like myself, Manning seemed profoundly snakebitten after last year's Steelers loss and utterly incapable of carrying his team when it mattered. He had become the A-Rod or C-Webb of his sport, a mortal lock to melt down in every big game. Hell, any football fan has probably attempted an off-the-cuff imitation of the Manning Face at some point. Even last week against the Ravens, Manning was throwing the ball up for grabs and dancing in the pocket like a contestant on "You're the One That I Want." His body language never seemed right, not even during the first half last night, after the Pats scored on a fumble recovery by their left guard and CBS showed a great replay of Manning reacting like a little kid who just had his Big Wheel taken away. Nothing about the guy inspired real confidence. He needed a borderline miracle to turn things around.

    As strange as this sounds, I headed into halftime believing that the 21-6 score removed much of the pressure off him. There were eerie parallels to the Dave Roberts Game in that the Colts (A) were handicapped by their collective history (much like the Red Sox heading into that 2004 ALCS), (B) were battling their long-time nemesis who always owned them (much like the Yankees), and (C) needed to hit rock-bottom to set up the whole "miracle comeback that makes everyone forget that this team was snakebitten in the first place" thing (like the Red Sox being three outs away from a sweep). Nothing's scarier than a home team playing with house money in front of a desperate crowd dying for a reason to jump back into the game.

    Still, Manning needed to come through. He had four legitimate outs last night -- after the brutal Samuel interception made it 21-3, after Wayne's pass interference got overturned right before the half, after the thumb injury, and after the three-and-out with four minutes left -- and didn't take any of them. For once, he got better when it mattered, even if there was never a moment when anyone thought, "Wow, he's cutting the Pats up with a SCALPEL right now." Unlike the famous QBs from the '80s and '90s (Marino, Elway, Montana, Favre) or even Brady right now, Manning never gives you that feeling that he stepped right off the set of a sports movie to save the day. He's exceedingly human, dorky and endearing, the kind of guy who might have a giant pimple pulsating on his forehead during a big game. Even as Brady was trying to save the game in the last minute, Manning remained sitting on his own bench, his head bowed, staring at the ground and terrified to look up. Almost like he was sitting in a hospital waiting room awaiting the results of a blood test. He certainly didn't seem like your typical football hero.

    And if Brady had pulled off a miracle in those final 54 seconds, we wouldn't be discussing Manning for the next two weeks. But that's the crazy thing about sports: One moment can alter the entire history of somebody's career. Ask Tony Romo. Ask Earnest Byner. Ask Kevin Dyson. Hell, poor Dan Marino sits there on the CBS studio show bristling every time Boomer Esiason compares him to Manning, with the implication being, "If Manning's not lucky, he could end up with an unfulfilled career just like Dan the Loser over here." Sure, you need talent over everything else, but you also need timing and luck, and you need to come through when it counts. Until last night, just like Marino, Manning couldn't get all four things working at the same time.

    Now he's one win away from putting that "can't win the big one" label to rest and getting to enter the John Elway Zone – loosely translated to mean, "All right, here's my ring, now you guys can all shut the hell up and leave me alone." And if he ends up beating the Bears and winning a Super Bowl, 30 years from now, nobody will remember that the Patriots needed only to convert third-and-4 to win the 2007 AFC Championship Game. They'll remember that Peyton Manning came back from 18 down, toppled his arch-rival and prevailed in one of the greatest playoff games in NFL history.

    Of course, I won't remember this. I'll just remember that we had it – we had it – and Manning and the Colts took it away.

    (And some day, I might even believe that I just wrote that sentence.)

    Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine.
    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!).

  • #2
    Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

    He sounds like every one of us usually sound after something inexplicable turns the tide away from the Colts (or Pacers) favor....

    If we sound like that, I will certainly shut up the next time it happens to us, because that had to be the most annoying article I have ever read and I don't want to be that annoying. EVER.



    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

      Originally posted by heywoode View Post
      He sounds like every one of us usually sound after something inexplicable turns the tide away from the Colts (or Pacers) favor....

      If we sound like that, I will certainly shut up the next time it happens to us, because that had to be the most annoying article I have ever read and I don't want to be that annoying. EVER.
      I thoght it was pretty tame.

      He could have gone on a rant hating on the Colts and blaming the refs, and while he did mention a few BS calls (I still never saw a roughing the passer but I wasnt looking hard either) he generally did not come across as annoying as I expected him to.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

        By the NFL rules, any time you touch a QB's helmet it's roughing. That's what happened - a defender's hand brushed across Peyton's head. Ridiculous call - but technically correct.

        Though the way the Colts were going right then, what it meant was that Brady had a minute to work with instead of about 20 seconds
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
          By the NFL rules, any time you touch a QB's helmet it's roughing. That's what happened - a defender's hand brushed across Peyton's head. Ridiculous call - but technically correct.

          Though the way the Colts were going right then, what it meant was that Brady had a minute to work with instead of about 20 seconds
          Is that right. So even if I just touch a QB's head with my finger technically that is considered "roughing"?

          Wow, that is ridiculous

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

            I really don't enjoy Simmons, since he is a Boston homer, but reading one of his columns after beating one of his teams is almost a delight.
            Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

              I think it's as much of a congratulations as to be expected from a die hard Pats fan.

              Originally posted by Sports Guy
              Of course, I won't remember this. I'll just remember that we had it – we had it – and Manning and the Colts took it away.
              I think this is very telling, he didn't say that the Pats gave it away, but that the Colts took it. I think he's right on the money there and that takes some balls from a Pats fan.
              Play Mafia!
              Twitter

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                I've read this guy's crap for so long ... I can't shed one little once of sympathy and I can't give one ounce of respect or appreciation for what's written here.

                Hey Sports Guy: I hope it hurt.

                Hey Sports Guy: I hope it doesn't get better.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                  See, I respect the guy because he is good at what he does, which is display his homerish New England tendencies with humor. I think that he knows a good deal about sports but I always take him with a grain of salt regarding the Pats. Maybe that's why I'm not as worked up about this, especially since it seems he's eating his crow here.
                  Play Mafia!
                  Twitter

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                    I quit reading when I got to this phrase about Manning...
                    much-maligned QB
                    Same old Simmons crap.
                    Paddle faster, I hear banjos!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      Is that right. So even if I just touch a QB's head with my finger technically that is considered "roughing"?

                      Wow, that is ridiculous
                      It's considered a blow to the head.

                      And it is ridiculous. Most refs don't call it that tight - and I don't know why they decided to throw that one in.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                        Ever since Larry Johnson got continuation I've quit caring if Indy sports teams got a call from the refs. It happens both ways and to win a game you have to beat the refs too.

                        As far as Simons I enjoy him for sporting red carpet events. He's a funnier Joan Rivers of sports.
                        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                          I think Simmons is a great writer. He is the most human sports writer around. He is a diehard Boston fan and I respect him for that. In the end he gave credit to Peyton and the Colts. What do you want the guy to do crown us the greatest team ever? Were you guys chomping at the bit to do that when we lost to the Pats or Steelers? I didn't think so. Let the first who has not been a homer on this forum cast the first stone.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                            their much-maligned QB
                            He needs to check himself here. I like his non Celts, non Pats articles but he should be punched in the face for this.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                              Originally posted by Bill Simmons
                              their much-maligned QB.
                              Originally posted by bosk View Post
                              He needs to check himself here...he should be punched in the face for this.
                              Here are some gems from the game thread. You decide if Peyton was being maligned, even by his own fans, before the second half Sunday night. His second half performance put that behind him FOREVER (IMO), but up until about 8 o'clock Sunday night it was an understandable (though not entirely justified) criticism:

                              Originally posted by forum members in the game thread, and not just Shade!

                              who's the backup
                              get Manning out of there
                              cause he'll NEVER RECOVER from this

                              Manning sacked. This crowd is going to riot soon.
                              The city wanted to believe so much this time...
                              The team has fallen apart so quickly.

                              I didn't know dan marino played for the colts!

                              speaking of CHOKING ---------here's PAYTONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

                              peyton looks like a defeated man! and we have almost 9 minutes to go in the 2nd!

                              I would have a lot more confidence if Peyton had done anything at all in this postseason so far.

                              Keys to the offseason:
                              - Upgrade the defense
                              - Fire Dungy
                              - Trade Peyton for Brady

                              Pats are simply a much better team. They have a better QB, and they're better coached.

                              Peyton with 0 first half TD's for the third straight playoff game. He has 1 TD and 6 INT's this post-season so far.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X