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

Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

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

  • #61
    Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

    [QUOTE=Ransom;1115447]Um, made playoffs 10 of the last 11 seasons, 7 straight 12 win seasons, 2 super bo


    edit - crap, looks like something happened to my post.
    Last edited by SoupIsGood; 12-10-2010, 05:39 PM.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

      Originally posted by Ransom View Post
      Um, made playoffs 10 of the last 11 seasons, 7 straight 12 win seasons, 2 super bowl appearances, 1 win...

      All this bickering and I still don't see how anyone things the Colts have been anything less than a world class organization under Polian.
      Well he is 1-6 in superbowl wins which is kind of crazy to me. I don't mind much Polain keeping his job that Slicks thing but I do mind his son inheriting it when there will be known GM's that are IMO better options.

      Just wait until Bill Polain steps completely down and see what happens.
      Last edited by Gamble1; 12-10-2010, 02:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        The defensive stats are what they are except that in 2010 the Pats have a better defense when you look at points allowed (there again with the facts)
        When I posted, the stats had not been updated with the Jets game, which flip-flopped the positions of the Colts (now 24) and Patriots (now T-18).

        So obviously this year is in doubt.

        I bet you can win a bar bet with just about anyone by asking how many times the Colts have had a better defense than the Patriots, as measured by points given up. A: In 4 of the last 9 years.

        You can focus on all of the tangents you want to in this thread. My central point, whether you like it or not, is that it's hard to tell if it's Caldwell's fault. His team president is terrific at building a 30 or 40 man roster studded with fancy stars on both sides of the ball, but he doesn't extend that to a 53+ man roster. In most years injuries haven't been so severe that it was a major issue. In recent years Polian has down an awful job in finding talent on both lines of scrimmage.
        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


        • #64
          Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          So obviously this year is in doubt.

          I bet you can win a bar bet with just about anyone by asking how many times the Colts have had a better defense than the Patriots, as measured by points given up. A: In 4 of the last 9 years.
          .
          I bet you if you ask 50 colts fans and 50 Pat fans who has had a better defense since 2001 it would 90% in favor of pats. Gessh man when all you have to do to win a superbowl is throw for 145 yards and 1 touchdown all you can do is stand in awe of that kind of defense.

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          You can focus on all of the tangents you want to in this thread. My central point, whether you like it or not, is that it's hard to tell if it's Caldwell's fault. His team president is terrific at building a 30 or 40 man roster studded with fancy stars on both sides of the ball, but he doesn't extend that to a 53+ man roster. In most years injuries haven't been so severe that it was a major issue. In recent years Polian has down an awful job in finding talent on both lines of scrimmage.
          Injuries are no ones fault. Was it Belichicks fault to lose in the first round of the playoffs. If Tom has Welker and Brandon Tate the story might be different. When the Pats had to deal with a lot of injuries or they traded away good players for future picks and depleted the team they struggled. They lost last year do to injuries not because Bill sucks as a GM/coach.

          Take away the talent do to injuries or trades and no one is going to win a lot. Lilja was injury proned. Jake Scott agent couldn't wait until we figured out our salary cap position or Polain would have signed him. Do I blame Polain for Mudd retiring? No. Do I blame Caldwell for not replacing Mudd with a succesful line coach? Yes.

          When Caldwell say this:
          “You're not going to see a huge change,” Caldwell said. “You're going to see some little tweaks and changes, and you may see some additional size at certain positions, but it won't be so much that it's going to change us from a philosophical standpoint.”
          When your dead last in running the ball I want to see a philosophical change.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

            Originally posted by DGPR View Post
            Only because this team could have been so much more with arguably the best QB in the history of the NFL, and they have squandered so many chances at greatness because they can't seem to pick the right guys who do the dirty work in the trenches on both sides of the ball. For every Dallas Clark, Austin Collie, and Dwight Freeney, there is a Tony Ugoh, Jamie Richard, and a Donald Brown. I think since the Colts have started to win games consistently during Manning's prime years, Polian and the coaching staff tried to coast on things and ride the wave. Why did it take so long to get rid of Ron Meeks? Why did it take 12 weeks to take Sanders off the active roster and onto IR? Why is there now a sense of urgency to fix the O-line even though we haven't had a thousand yard rusher since 2006 in Addai? This team has always had a weakness on defense, special teams, and rushing but Peyton has always pulled us through, but now that he is older he needs more help and the other players aren't good enough to help him out. If Peyton wasn't our quarterback this team would be just as bad as the Lions right now and Blair White would be playing in the Canadian League.

            Peyton needs help the same way John Elway needed help to win his final 2 Super Bowls, but I fear time may be running out and we won't be able to find our O-line and our Terrell Davis soon enough.
            Not really buying it.

            He's had some draft picks not work out, that's the draft. Overall I think this team has been an excellent example of competence in the front office. Just look at other organizations, the Raiders, etc. The Colts know who they are, a passing team with a quick defense. To say they should have won more seems to cut how tough winning a super bowl actually is. To say Polian stinks because he's 1-6 in super bowls doesn't do justice to how difficult getting there is.

            Frankly, as bad as the Colts have looked this year, they're what, 3 or 4 plays from being 10-3?

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              When the Pats had to deal with a lot of injuries or they traded away good players for future picks and depleted the team they struggled.
              Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't...

              They won a Super Bowl with six defensive backs on injured reserve, using a street free agent named Earthwind Moreland, an undrafted rookie free agent named Randall Gay, and a wide receiver named Troy Brown to play cornerback with a previously-unused 2nd year guy from special teams who turned out to be pretty darn good (Asante Samuel). At the time, that Patriots team had more player-games lost to injury than any other team.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-10-2010, 05:43 PM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't...

                They won a Super Bowl with six defensive backs on injured reserve, using a street free agent named Earthwind Moreland, an undrafted rookie free agent named Randall Gay, and a wide receiver named Troy Brown to play cornerback with a previously-unused 2nd year guy from special teams who turned out to be pretty darn good (Asante Samuel). At the time, that Patriots team had more player-games lost to injury than any other team.
                Do you honestly think I want check to see if what you post is true. Randall Gay was on IR in 2005. This is according to their home page. Also 11 players on IR is a normal season in the NFL. ITs not like the colts so don't try to compare it. They also had their starting safety.

                Ya it must of been terrible to lose Chad Scott and his 4 tackles in 3 games. Come on.
                Last edited by Gamble1; 12-10-2010, 07:56 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  Do you honestly think I want check to see if what you post is true. Randall Gay was on IR in 2005. This is according to their home page.
                  Yes, and I wasn't talking about that season, when the Steelers won the Super Bowl. I was talking about the 2004 season.

                  Earthwind Moreland was promoted from the practice squad and found some playing time with the New England Patriots in 2004 due to injuries to the Patriots' secondary (including starters Ty Law and Tyrone Poole), making 2 starts in 9 games. By the end of the season and during the playoffs, Moreland was the 4th cornerback on the depth chart, behind Asante Samuel, Randall Gay, and wide receiver Troy Brown. Moreland was released after the season and has not played in an NFL game since.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthwind_Moreland
                  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


                  • #69
                    Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    Yes, and I wasn't talking about that season, when the Steelers won the Super Bowl. I was talking about the 2004 season.



                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthwind_Moreland
                    Glad you could see my confusion because you said 6 defensive backs were placed on IR and that the pats were depleted so badly.

                    The only problem is that in 2004 the Pats had only 3 DB's on IR not 6 according to their home page.

                    When you have to combine seasons to make your point how can i take it seriously.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      combine seasons to make your point how can i take it seriously.
                      combining seasons gets you to 12 defensive backs injured and out:

                      2004 injured DB's
                      Ty Law-starter, pro bowler
                      Tyrone Poole-starter
                      Gus Scott
                      Dexter Reid*
                      Christian Morton*
                      J'Rod Cherry*

                      2005 injured DBs
                      Randall Gay
                      Rodney Harrison-starter, pro bowler
                      Tyrone Poole (again)-starter
                      Chad Scott
                      Gus Scott (again)
                      Dwayne Starks

                      http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=2005injuries
                      http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=2004injuries

                      *Not listed among the injured reserve list for 2004 are players injured in preseason, before the rosters were finalized. These include S Dexter Reid, CB Christian Morton, S J'Rod Cherry. Cherry was signed to start at FS. All were injured in training camp. Cherry subsequently retired. You can perhaps google them to find the nature of their injuries. I recall that Cherry blew out a knee. You can see all these players on the preseason roster here:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ne...atriots_season
                      (see table in openibg training camp roster)

                      Do I have to keep doing this research for every time you wrongly accuse me of being inaccurate? It gets tiresome.
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-11-2010, 10:07 PM.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        combining seasons gets you to 12 defensive backs injured and out:

                        2004 injured DB's
                        Ty Law-starter, pro bowler
                        Tyrone Poole-starter
                        Gus Scott
                        Dexter Reid*
                        Christian Morton*
                        J'Rod Cherry*

                        2005 injured DBs
                        Randall Gay
                        Rodney Harrison-starter, pro bowler
                        Tyrone Poole (again)-starter
                        Chad Scott
                        Gus Scott (again)
                        Dwayne Starks

                        http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=2005injuries
                        http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=2004injuries

                        *Not listed among the injured reserve list for 2004 are players injured in preseason, before the rosters were finalized. These include S Dexter Reid, CB Christian Morton, S J'Rod Cherry. Cherry was signed to start at FS. All were injured in training camp. Cherry subsequently retired. You can perhaps google them to find the nature of their injuries. I recall that Cherry blew out a knee. You can see all these players on the preseason roster here:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ne...atriots_season
                        (see table in openibg training camp roster)

                        Do I have to keep doing this research for every time you wrongly accuse me of being inaccurate? It gets tiresome.
                        Well yes because you have posted inaccurate information multiple times. When you say the IR list that's the actual list not some made up thing before the roster is finalized.

                        Being placed IR means you stay on IR not being waived.?

                        Should we have a preseason IR list so you can make your point valid?

                        Edit: When your not on the IR list but your waived because of injury before the season that means you suck so bad that there is 50 DBs like you on the waiver wire. Also Db's are easier to replace than any other position outside of a punter.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 12-12-2010, 02:27 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?



                          Caldwell is Jesus. Polian is God. Manning is Buddha. All are infallible and their team can only lose when refs and opponents cheat.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post


                            Caldwell is Jesus. Polian is God. Manning is Buddha. All are infallible and their team can only lose when refs and opponents cheat.
                            Come on now, this thread is proof that almost no one thinks that.
                            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post


                              Caldwell is Jesus. Polian is God. Manning is Buddha. All are infallible and their team can only lose when refs and opponents cheat.
                              You know whats funny Slick is that you sound like me....... In June of 2009.

                              Citing previous success doesn't mean he would have had been able to reproduce it with the Colts and without Peyton. The fact that he once again he has a HOF quarterback (hardest thing to get by the way) and is unable to build a complete team gives me a reason to question his ability to get the Colts in the same category as the Pats, Steelers, etc.

                              THe question is not whether the colts have been a contender but why they are not like the Pats/Steelers who are the best. The reason is that they don't have the players to be a complete team. I hope this changes by the way.

                              The colts are very good in 2 phases of the game. Passing the ball and defending the Pass. They are not great at running the ball or defending the run. In 10 years we have gotten worse at running the ball and defending the run.

                              Now I am not a genius but shouldn't one of the best GMs if not "the best" GM improve a team overall in 10 years. The colts over ten years have a run defense that ranks 21.9. The colts over ten years have a run offense that ranks 18.4.

                              Thats right... below average.
                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...566#post901566


                              Since86 by the way criticized Dungy so its not like we are blind sheep following Polainism.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                When your not on the IR list but your waived because of injury before the season that means you suck.
                                Before this season the Patriots signed Torry Holt to a 1 year contract, to play the role that Deion Branch plays now- posession receiver, good route runner, knows defenses, goes to the right place. He tore up his knee in camp. The team even announced he was being placed on IR:

                                http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/f...icleid=1274969
                                Wide receiver Torry Holt arrived in New England with high hopes and the belief he could still make a difference in the Patriots [team stats] offense. The 34-year-old veteran, however, won’t get the chance to prove it, as he was placed on season-ending injured reserve due to a knee injury that will require surgery this week.
                                Is Torry Holt on the Patriots injured reserve list for this season? No. http://www.nfl.com/teams/roster?team=NE

                                Why not?

                                I'm thinking that it must have to do with that it happened before roster cuts were finalized, or maybe before the preseaon games were played, otherwise he would be there.

                                I am not arguing that Holt was some key irreplaceable loss to the team this year. I am merely pointing out that sometimes injured players lost for the season don't show up on the injured reserve list, and perhaps it's if they are lost before any of the preseason games are played. I'm not explaining the phenomoneon (because I don't know the rules that govern it), but I'm just pointing out that this inconsistency can exist. It doesn't mean they suck. I don't think they asked for a "he sucks" exemption to keep from listing Torry Holt as injured.

                                I was wrong, though, in remembering 6 DBs on IR in the 3rd super bowl season when officially it was 3 (though all three were starters). Since six were out the next year, it's too much of a coincidence to think that it was that season where that number stuck in my mind. Some of the additional depth for 2004 was cut, after injury, in training camp. Only in hindsight did we know that Asante Samuel was something special. It was blatantly obvious that Earthwind Moreland, Hank Poteat, Randall Gay as an undrafted rookie, and Troy Brown (though I loved him as a WR) were nothing special as defensive backs. It still has to be up there as one of the more impressive patchwork jobs any champion ever pulled off.
                                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-13-2010, 01:46 PM.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X