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

  • #16
    Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

    Bill Simmons is a patriots homer and doesnt know what he is talking about. It would disregard just about anything this guy says.


    2006 WORLD CHAMPION INDIANAPOLIS COLTS

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

      Originally posted by pacertom View Post
      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:

      fans freaking out during a game (at least first half) where the Colts were getting manhandled is understandable. Also completely different from being 'much-maligned' in the press during the week in between games....

      I'm not against the 'much-maligned' statement, as I kind of agree with it. People have been "maligning" Peyton for not stepping up when it matters for years....of course, until now, he hasn't really stepped up when it matters, so I don't know if justified criticism can even be called maligning....

      I was mostly complaining that Simmons was whining about every call that he didn't agree with and acting more like "if we hadn't have made all these mistakes, we woulda won!".....The reason they DIDN'T win is because they made all those mistakes, and the Colts came through in the clutch finally...That would be like me whining after the last couple Foxboro playoff beatdowns that if Manning hadn't of had a ton of interceptions and they hadn't of made their mistakes they would've won.....

      That is the homerism I can't take....OF COURSE you might've won if your team had not made a bunch of mistakes and had a few questionable calls not go their way! He BARELY gave credit to the Colts, and in just a sentence or two, while spending the majority of the article whining about "if's"......That's all I was complaining about...



      RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

        Originally posted by heywoode View Post
        He BARELY gave credit to the Colts, and in just a sentence or two, while spending the majority of the article whining about "if's"......That's all I was complaining about...

        I just don't see that at all. The whole summary of the article is

        The Patriots had the AFC title in their hands and Bill can't believe Peyton Manning took it away.

        He is not saying the game was given away, and isn't blaming
        -the refs
        -the untimely penalties
        -the play calling
        -the poor execution

        but rather he is saying very precisely that the game was taken away by Peyton Manning.


        It seems to me that his past anti-Colts rants have made it impossible for Colts fans to given him the benefit of the doubt on any analysis.

        the very central theme of this piece was that Payton Manning killed them. You may quibble with the idea that Bill Simmons seems surprised that this could happen, but I can't see how people seem to miss the main point. They even put it in the title.
        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


        • #19
          Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

          I rather enjoyed it. I like Simmons, he's not meant to be Mike Hollinger or someone like that. His stuff is homer-dom at it's finest and that's ok with me because it's amusing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
            I just don't see that at all. The whole summary of the article is

            The Patriots had the AFC title in their hands and Bill can't believe Peyton Manning took it away.

            He is not saying the game was given away, and isn't blaming
            -the refs
            -the untimely penalties
            -the play calling
            -the poor execution

            but rather he is saying very precisely that the game was taken away by Peyton Manning.


            It seems to me that his past anti-Colts rants have made it impossible for Colts fans to given him the benefit of the doubt on any analysis.

            the very central theme of this piece was that Payton Manning killed them. You may quibble with the idea that Bill Simmons seems surprised that this could happen, but I can't see how people seem to miss the main point. They even put it in the title.

            Originally posted by the Pats homer

            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...

            ...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....

            ....That was quickly followed by Todd Sauerbrun punting it into the end zone (so much for the Little Things, folks)...

            ...punctuated by a horsecrap roughing-the-passer call that CBS was too embarrassed to even replay....

            ...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....

            ...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)...

            ...as well as the aforementioned bogus roughing-the-passer call...


            ...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....
            Nah. You're right. Must just be ME...



            RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

              Here is another good take on the game, from the same ESPN edition as the Simmons column, by Tuesday Morning Quarterback Gregg Easterbrook. He thinks the Colts' clock timekeeper stopped the clock on an out of bounds pass at 2:01 to play, thereby giving the Colts an extra play (which they ended up not needing). Also, interesting commentary on the Pats' well-known penchant for roughing up our receivers:

              New England at Indianapolis Analysis: The big play of this contest was the Indianapolis field goal with 11 seconds remaining in the first half, making it New England 21, Indianapolis 6 at intermission. The Colts had fourth-and-goal on the Flying Elvii 8 when they sent in the kicking unit. Kick Early Go For It Late! Indianapolis absolutely had to score at the end of the first half. The field goal made it a two-touchdown game and gave the hosts realistic hope; had Indianapolis tried for the touchdown and failed, the contest would have been over. A field goal might not seem like much when you're behind 21-3, but these three points -- plus the fact that the Indianapolis cheerleaders changed outfits at halftime and appeased the football gods, see below -- let the Colts know victory remained possible. To the point of the last-second first-half field goal, Indianapolis had gone 20 consecutive postseason possessions without a touchdown. The next three Indianapolis possessions? Touchdown, touchdown, touchdown.

              The Colts' epic comeback exemplifies a point TMQ often makes about comebacks -- when you're way behind in the second half you are probably toast, but when you're way behind in the first half, you have just as much time remaining to come back as your opponent took to get ahead. Let's christen this the Law of Remaining Clock. The biggest comeback in NFL history, Buffalo back from 35-3 to beat Houston in the playoffs, began two snaps into the second half; the key point was that the Bills had just as much time to come back as the Oilers had expended getting ahead. In the second-greatest comeback, San Francisco back from 35-7 to beat New Orleans in the regular season, the comeback began on the first play of the second half; the key point was that the Niners had just as much time to come back as the Saints had expended getting ahead. My sons badly wanted Indianapolis to win, and when it was 21-3, their hearts sank. "Look at the clock, it's still the first half," I told them. Most likely Colts' coaches were rallying their players with the same words.

              Resisting the urge to panic helped the Colts' comeback. Taking the second half kickoff and trailing 21-6, Indianapolis coaches called eight rushing plays on the 76-yard touchdown drive that turned the game into a tense, close contest. Then on the next possession came the play that Colts players, coaches and front office people, especially Bill Polian, have been waiting for since the 2004 AFC Championship. In that game, New England was never called for defensive pass interference, despite numerous obvious muggings of Colts' receivers. Bill Belichick, knowing officials tend to call defensive pass interference and offensive holding (the two most damaging penalties) less as the postseason progresses, had instructed his defensive backs to interfere with Colts receivers mercilessly until such time as a flag was thrown -- and a flag was never thrown. Polian complained bitterly after that game, and should have; the league changed its officiating procedures, instructing zebras to end the traditional practice of switching to "let the boys play" in the postseason. Then in 2005, New England beat Indianapolis again in the playoffs, and again was never flagged for defensive pass interference. Now it's the third quarter of the 2007 AFC Championship, and once again New England has not been flagged for defensive interference. Eleven consecutive postseason quarters between the Pats and Colts and we're supposed to believe New England has never once interfered with an Indianapolis receiver? Finally the yellow flies -- Ellis Hobbs called for pass interception in the end zone. Polian must have yelled, "Finally, FINALLY!" Ball spotted on the 1, and on the next play, Peyton Manning threw a touchdown pass to defensive tackle Dan Klecko, lined up as a blocking back. Putting a big defender in as a blocking back at the goal line, then throwing to him, is one of Bill Belichick's favorite tricks. How the football gods must have chortled to see Belichick's own trick used against him.

              The RCA Dome was weirdly quiet when the Colts took possession on their 20 with 3:49 remaining, trailing 34-31. I'm thinking: Now's your chance, go win the game! The crowd was obviously thinking: Ohmygawd they're gonna lose again. The RCA Dome was again weirdly quiet when the Colts got the ball back, again on their 20, with 2:17 remaining and one timeout, still trailing 34-31. I'm thinking: The football gods just gave you a second chance, go win the game! The crowd was obviously thinking: Ohmygawd. First Peyton Manning threw a short out to Reggie Wayne, who stepped out of bounds to stop the clock. Then Manning threw a perfect strike to Bryan Fletcher, the Colts' third tight end, who was on the field owing to an injury to someone else -- coming into the game, he had 18 receptions on the season. Fletcher promptly dropped the ball as if it was a live ferret. On the next snap, Colts' coaches or Manning or both did something beautiful and inspired that, of course, the announcers utterly missed. They called a play for Fletcher -- the same backup who had just dropped the ball -- and what they called was a deep pass. Fortune favors the bold! Thirty-two yard completion to Fletcher, and a few snaps later, ecstasy in the RCA Dome.

              The home timekeeper had a big play on Fletcher's reception, too. The ball snapped with 2:08 showing, and as Fletcher strove out of bounds the Indianapolis timekeeper stopped the clock with 2:01 showing, thus handing the Colts an extra play before the two-minute warning. It turned out the extra snap had no role in the outcome, as the home team scored the winning touchdown at 1:02. Had the Colts scored to win on the final down, today a huge controversy would be swirling over the mysterious clock-stop at 2:01. (There's no way the play in question took only seven seconds.) Reaching first-and-10 on the New England 11 with 1:53 remaining, the Colts acted very New England-like by rushing three straight times to kill some clock before scoring. The winning touchdown came up the middle behind a Hall of Fame block by undrafted center Jeff Saturday, who shoved out of the picture the huge, first-round defensive tackle Vince Wilfork. Saturday is the kind of guy who could be the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-QB Non-RB NFL MVP.

              As for the Patriots, they vary game plans week-to-week more than any NFL team, and opened on offense with something they hadn't showed much lately -- "bunch" formations as opposed to spreads. Two early Flying Elvii touchdowns resulted, and the Patriot offense continued to perform well -- 27 points on the road in a championship game is a good day. New England always runs a creative play that causes you to say "Wow, that was sweet." Games scoreless, the Patriots had third-and-9, and lined four-wide with receiving-downs back Kevin Faulk on Tom Brady's left. The Colts looked like they would blitz from the offensive right; Tom Brady madly motioned Faulk over to the right, as if instructing him to blitz-block. Then Brady handed off to Faulk running left behind pulling right guard Steve Neal. The eight-yard gain set up a 35-yard run by Corey Dillon on fourth-and-1, in turn setting up New England's first touchdown. Later, game tied at 21, New England facing third-and-goal on the Indianapolis 6, Brady threw a perfect strike to Jabar Gaffney at the back of the end zone, and the latest Belichick reclamation project made a perfect catch. Brady openly tells people that he looks to the back of the end zone in this situation because defenders lose track of the back of the end zone, and they did on this play. Brady tells people where he's going to look and still fools them!

              There was a colossal hidden play at the endgame -- hidden plays being ones that never make highlight reels, but stop or sustain drives. Game tied with 8 minutes remaining, New England had first down on the Indianapolis 18. Reclamation project Reche Caldwell, who's had a fine year, lined up right and was uncovered by any Colt. He waved madly for Brady to snap the ball and toss it his way. When Brady finally did -- nothing but turf between Caldwell and the end zone -- Reche dropped the pass as if it was a live ferret. New England settled for a field goal, four lost points helping determine the outcome.

              Good as New England always is, its offensive strategy in the endgame seemed puzzling. Leading 34-31 with 2:39 remaining, facing second-and-8, the Patriots came out empty backfield. This is a clock-killer situation, run the ball! Short pass, Indianapolis timeout. Now facing third-and-4 with 2:30 remaining, the Patriots came out empty backfield. This is a clock-killer situation, run the ball! Incompletion stopping the clock, and the home team gets possession back with plenty of time.

              The New England defense had a fine season, finishing second-best behind Baltimore in points allowed, then had two good playoff outings versus Jersey/B and San Diego before finally running out of steam against a Colts' offense that was due for a breakout. Ty Warren, Asante Samuel, Mike Vrabel and other Pats defenders had Pro Bowl caliber years, though only Richard Seymour received a free ticket to Hawaii. For the last two seasons, Samuel has been the best cornerback in the NFL, but shut out of Hawaii because he's not the flashy, boastful type of corner the Pro Bowl voters favors. Now that Samuel has returned two interceptions for touchdowns in the same postseason, he should get his due in ink. (Warning to Colts' coaches -- three of Peyton Manning's six postseason interceptions have come on short turn or hook passes to the right intended for Marvin Harrison; corners have noticed some cue that tips them this action is coming.) But bear in mind that concentration and fundamentals, not flashy plays, are the best aspects of Asante Samuel's game. Samuel is the kind of guy who could be the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-QB Non-RB NFL MVP.



              Small puzzle: Why didn't Belichick challenge the Saturday fumble recovery ruled a touchdown for the Colts, tying the game at 28 early in the fourth quarter? Replays clearly showed Saturday was down before the ball broke the plane, and New England had all three timeouts. A successful challenge would have made it New England 28, Indianapolis 21 with the Colts facing third-and-goal on the Pats' 1. Probably the hosts would have scored anyway, but something might have gone wrong for Indianapolis on third-and-goal at the 1, too. This seemed a rare case of Belichick showing less than complete attention on a small detail. (The Colts would not have gotten a first down from Saturday's recovery; if the offense recovers its own fumble shy of the "line to gain," a first down is awarded only if the loose ball was in the possession of the defense at some point during the down.)
              http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...t&lid=tab1pos1

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                Am I the only one that didn't read Bat Boy's article because I thought it would somehow end up praising the current administration's policy in Iraq? I keed, I keed.
                Play Mafia!
                Twitter

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                  Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                  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.
                  I agree. And on top of that he doesn't exactly pass up chances to allude to how the Pats were robbed or list the excuses (ahem, injuries...yeah, because Sanders felt great, Utech made that last TE catch, and Manning didn't need an Xray after the game, just for starters).

                  Don't be fooled, this was still him whining, but with the smug air of "we've won so much that it doesn't really matter, parity caught up with us".

                  He even covered Brady's butt with this lame excuse - Brown ran the wrong route, it was supposed to be an out route. Hmm, funny thing that, Brady threw the ball to the inside slant anyway, right to Bob Sanders. In fact when you watch the replay you see that had Brady thrown the ball to the outside (to Brown's left hand) instead of to the inside, Sanders wouldn't have got to it and Brown probably would have had the 1st down. Brady freaking choked that play big time, it's pretty obvious actually. That cost them the game. And then Brady does what he always does after stuff like than happens...he blames others, and a lot more than Manning mentioning the OLine's shoddy effort one time when it was deserved.

                  He threw a bullet right for Brown and if it wasn't for Sanders it would have been a completion and the first down. He also had to throw because Freeney was breathing down his neck. The Pats play "machine ball", 3 steps and fire, bam, bam, bam, right down the field in tiny chunks. No long progressions taking tons of time. In this case Tom looked at Brown the entire play, which is exactly why Sanders read it and almost stole Manning's moment.


                  See, Simmons is just the reason I wanted the Colts to win by 30. He's the type that needs to see that his team is done. Otherwise it will be more articles like this one.



                  Nah. You're right. Must just be ME...
                  Not just you. Nice presentation of exactly what I'm talking about. He peppered the whole article with those off the cuff comments, just enough for him to say "but I did give the Colts credit". This is the best he can muster.

                  He didn't mention how close the fumble TD for the Pats was (in the hands of 3 Colts on the ground before becoming free again) or how close the TD in the back of the endzone was to being invalid...as in if they called it the other way the replay wouldn't have overturned it. He didn't mention how Wayne's foot clearly hit the Pats DB which made it come forward awkwardly into his other foot and sent him tripping to the ground (check the replay, it's clear as day).

                  Riche drops a pass and its a big problem, Harrison drops one right in his hands due to his nagging hand injury and it's not worth mentioning (and again, the Colts didn't have the injuries that the Pats did, even though Harrison sat out the rest of that drive before returning to catch the 2pt conversion).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                    I'm thinking: Now's your chance, go win the game! The crowd was obviously thinking: Ohmygawd they're gonna lose again. The RCA Dome was again weirdly quiet when the Colts got the ball back, again on their 20, with 2:17 remaining and one timeout, still trailing 34-31. I'm thinking: The football gods just gave you a second chance, go win the game! The crowd was obviously thinking: Ohmygawd.
                    I'm thinking some nimrod hasn't been the Dome recently. Shutting the F up when the offense gets the ball is just as much a priority as yelling when the defense comes out is. When the Colts got the ball to the 5 the crowd stayed just as quiet. After every catch or good run the crowd got briefly loud before shutting up again for the next snap. That wasn't worry just before Addai scored, we all knew that the FG was certain and that a TD seemed likely. We just don't yell when Manning is calling plays at the line because we aren't a bunch of idiots.

                    NONE of us were thinking "Oh my god, not again". We were thinking "here's your moment, go take it" and saying things like "10 yards at a time". Literally, many people around me said those exact words, not just me. You could feel an Elway/Montana moment coming, it was long overdue and the offense had been rolling most of the 2nd half and had more than enough time to get into FG range at least. Downs would run out before the clock did.


                    The home timekeeper had a big play on Fletcher's reception, too. The ball snapped with 2:08 showing, and as Fletcher strove out of bounds the Indianapolis timekeeper stopped the clock with 2:01 showing, thus handing the Colts an extra play before the two-minute warning. It turned out the extra snap had no role in the outcome, as the home team scored the winning touchdown at 1:02. Had the Colts scored to win on the final down, today a huge controversy would be swirling over the mysterious clock-stop at 2:01. (There's no way the play in question took only seven seconds.)
                    Dude needs to buy a Tivo, or maybe he thinks CBS was part of the trickery too. You can time it yourself if you trust neither source. He steps out of bounds almost more on 2:02 even.

                    Good as New England always is, its offensive strategy in the endgame seemed puzzling. Leading 34-31 with 2:39 remaining, facing second-and-8, the Patriots came out empty backfield. This is a clock-killer situation, run the ball! Short pass, Indianapolis timeout. Now facing third-and-4 with 2:30 remaining, the Patriots came out empty backfield. This is a clock-killer situation, run the ball! Incompletion stopping the clock, and the home team gets possession back with plenty of time.
                    This is just retarded, seriously. First he complains about a COMPLETION, which was identical to a run. It was a short POSSESSION style pass meant to avoid a clock stoppage. And the 2 passes were due to the penalty which required them to gain decent chunks of yardage on all 3 plays.

                    And that magic run on 3rd. If it doesn't get the first down then the Pats still lose, except that Brady gets less time to throw the ball to Marlin at the end. Considering what the Pats had done well all game (short passing) vs what they'd struggled with (the run after that big run early in the game on 4th and 6 with the line stacked tight) I'd say it was a good call and bad execution.

                    Complete that pass and the game is OVER. Not some time off the clock but over. Time for knees almost.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      He didn't mention how Wayne's foot clearly hit the Pats DB which made it come forward awkwardly into his other foot and sent him tripping to the ground (check the replay, it's clear as day).
                      To be fair, whether or not their feet touched is irrelevant. The ref didn't come out and say it, but he did say both were playing the ball. It was incidental contact, and that isn't considered passing interference.

                      As long as the DB is making a play on the ball, there can be some contact as long as it isn't blatantly obvious they were holding/pushing/tripping. That's why pass interference was called later in the endzone when there was little contact. The DB was face guarding Reggie all the way.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sports Guy: Peyton giveth and taketh away

                        Originally posted by Since86
                        To be fair, whether or not their feet touched is irrelevant. The ref didn't come out and say it, but he did say both were playing the ball. It was incidental contact, and that isn't considered passing interference.

                        As long as the DB is making a play on the ball, there can be some contact as long as it isn't blatantly obvious they were holding/pushing/tripping. That's why pass interference was called later in the endzone when there was little contact. The DB was face guarding Reggie all the way.
                        I agree, but I brought it up because on the telecast it was stated by the announcers that there "was no contact", which wasn't true. There was and it was a judgement call. If he doesn't get tripped (accidentally) on that play it's probably a TD, and this was just part of the examples of the myriad of "almosts" that a Colts fan sees in contrast to all the bad breaks that went against the Pats.



                        The face guard later was a textbook example of what the penalty was, it wasn't even close to being a non-call type of play.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X