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

  • #46
    Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

    He played last game, although he injured his ankle. He's been just as healthy as Brown, or so it seems. Or should I say unhealthy.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

      Originally posted by dal9 View Post
      insane # of injuries?
      Thank you. No team in the NFL has had to cope with so many injured players. The players started landing on IR during training camp through this past game - it's like they have to IR someone every single week.

      Jim gets a pass because its hard for a coach and GM to field a good team and develop consistency when you have guys dropping like flies and only half the team can practice.

      Additionally, Jim Caldwell hasn't thrown 11 interceptions in 3 games and single-handedly given the last 3 games away.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        You do have a a big IR list and probably have more starters lost than most. 3 of the 16 on IR were hurt early and were very unlikely to make the roster: Kicker Swenson, S David Caldwell, CB Jordan Hemby. I don't have the analysis, but I hear that Green Bay has lost more starters among their 15 players on IR.

        The most damning evidence against Bill Polian is that everyone cites 2 reasons for the 6-6 record:

        1) terrible offensive line
        2) injuries

        One remarkable thing is when you look for an intersection of these factors, you find that not a single offensive lineman is among the 16 on injured reserve. You have all of the offensive linemen that Bill Polian wanted you to have.
        So whats the big difference between last years offensive line vs this year? Are you saying Ryan Lilja was just that good?

        Howard Mudd retiring is probably the biggest factor on why this line sucks and I don't know how you blame Polian for that. The coach needs to have those ducks in a row not Polain.

        The line was hurt before the season even started. Charlie Johnson, Jeff Saturday, Kyle Devan all had injuries before hand. I am not saying Polain isn't to blame for some of the personel moves but come on. Injuries have had a very large impact on this teams success or the lack there of.

        4 out of 6 losses were by 3 points or less. If we have a "normal season" of injuries then we are ahead of the division. As it is we are just like the Packers who are struggling to win their division.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          Fair point... call him a second rounder and call Branch a 4th rounder, since that was used to acquire him from the Seahawks.

          Patriots current healthy and active skill position players average draft round (or pick used to acquire): (2+4+3+2+4+8+8)/7 = 4.4

          Colts current healthy and active skill position players average draft round: (1+6+8+4+5+8+1)/7 = 4.7

          Collie should replace White soon (and he would be there now had they not approved him to play too soon vs. the Patriots). Colts skill position players average draft round, with Collie in pace of White but no Addai, Hart, Gonzalez, or Clark: (1+6+4+4+5+8+1)/7 = 4.1

          bottom line: Both of these two teams seem to have comparable talent, active at this very moment, as perceived by the people running their teams drafts and making trades.

          What is odd is that you may have been expecting Addai/Brown, Clark/Tamme, and Wayne/Gonzalez/Collie: (1+1+1+4+1+1+4)/7 = 1.9. I would be quite surprised if many other teams are so fully invested in skill position players drafted quite so high. It is one clear advantage Peyton has always had.
          Just to show you how wrong this analysis is.......

          For one most skill positions are drafted high and if they pan out they are kept. So cherry picking like you did in this anaylsis is clearly not the way to do it.

          You say you would be surprised huh? Ok.

          The Bears since 2004 have selected in the first 3 rounds of the draft 9 skill position players.

          The Steelers since 2004 have selected 8.

          The Pats since 2004 have selected 7. (this isn't including the Welker trade.
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .

          The weapon heavy colts since 2004 have selected 4.



          Clearly Manning has had a huge advantage. FYI, since 1998 the Colts have drafted 9 skill position players total in the first 3 rounds.
          Last edited by Gamble1; 12-09-2010, 04:54 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

            Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
            Thank you. No team in the NFL has had to cope with so many injured players. The players started landing on IR during training camp through this past game - it's like they have to IR someone every single week.

            Jim gets a pass because its hard for a coach and GM to field a good team and develop consistency when you have guys dropping like flies and only half the team can practice.

            Additionally, Jim Caldwell hasn't thrown 11 interceptions in 3 games and single-handedly given the last 3 games away.


            The Chargers game yes but the other two games we probably wouldn't even be in those games without him either. Its just to me when a QB plays bad the coach is also scrutinized regardless and I don't see that with Caldwell at all. It was never exempt with Wade Phillips or Brad Childress I don't get what makes Caldwell exempt.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              And you still have it wrong calling Branch a 4th rounder. He was drafted in the 2nd round by the Pats in 2002. Therefore his ranking should be a 2nd round pick, not a 4th. But yeah....details details.
              I had him a 2nd rounder in my initial analysis. Then somebody insisted that Welker should more fairly be considered a second rounder since they traded one for him. If you do that, then it makes no sense to also list Branch as a 2nd rounder since they traded a 4th rounder to get him. clear? If that's going to be the guideline it should be evenly applied.
              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


              • #52
                Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                So cherry picking like you did in this anaylsis is clearly not the way to do it.
                And then you proceeded to cherry pick your own analysis. Why "since 2004?" if the Brady-Manning rivalry began in 2001? To avoid counting Wayne and Clark? Why pick three rounds? Obviously any analysis has to have guidelines, but saying mine is any more cherry-picked than yours is simply not accurate in the least.

                I'm not going to dig through all the drafts, but tables of 1st rounders are an easy get, and I'll cover the whole Brady-Manning rivalry

                5 Colts 1st round skill players picked since 2001: Wayne, Clark, Addai, Gonzales, Brown

                3 Patriots 1st round skill players since 2001: Graham, Watson, Maroney
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                  Why did I chose top 3 rounds? Because everyone values the top 3 rounds and considers them highly valuable and in your analysis you also put them in and you said this......


                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  . I would be quite surprised if many other teams are so fully invested in skill position players drafted quite so high. It is one clear advantage Peyton has always had.


                  Why did I chose since 2004? Simple, it sucks to actually do the work but i can sure waste my time to prove the same point. Since both GM have been with their teams the Pats have had more skill positions drafted in the top 3 rounds. If you want to include the 4th round it still holds true.

                  Since 2000 when BB and Pioli were hired the Pats drafted 11 skill position players in the top 3 rounds. The colts however drafted 6 since 2000.

                  Your assumption is wrong when you actually "do" the analysis. Its not only wrong it's opposite of what you are saying.

                  Now you want to include just the first round......lol. Sure the only picks that are valuable are the first round picks.
                  Last edited by Gamble1; 12-09-2010, 07:50 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                    Yes, and you want to include only the first 3 rounds. The fourth round isn't valuable? The fifth? The Colts had penciled in 5 first round picks at skill positions into their lineup THIS YEAR and because of injury they have the services of only two. The Patriots planned on one (Moss) and he flaked out so they are making do with zero. Yet Brady has all the talent around him and Manning is getting guys off the street up to speed.

                    Okay...

                    or maybe Deion Sanders had it right:

                    WHY DO WE HAVE TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY EVERY TIME HE PLAYS LIKE GARBAGE?!" While the other commentator sticking to their guns, Deion went on to say that Peyton Manning is the least sacked quarterback in the league and still has an All-pro receiver in Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garcon who everyone thought was great last year.

                    He then went on to ask the others what Tom had that Peyton didn't. The exchange went like this:

                    Theisman: Deion Branch
                    Deion: He's 60
                    Marriucci: Woodhead
                    Deion: He's 12
                    Millen: Gronkowski and Hernandez
                    Deion: Rookies
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Yes, and you want to include only the first 3 rounds. The fourth round isn't valuable? The fifth?
                      You set the standard not me. You said high draft picks which for most die hard nfl guys that means the first 3 rounds or atleast the first 2 rounds. We could take a poll but I think I would win.

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      The Colts had penciled in 5 first round picks at skill positions into their lineup THIS YEAR and because of injury they have the services of only two. The Patriots planned on one (Moss) and he flaked out so they are making do with zero. Yet Brady has all the talent around him and Manning is getting guys off the street up to speed.
                      So I guess Maroney (1st round pick) and Fred Taylor (1st round pick) don't count. I know the actual facts don't help much but lets be fair. The 2009 Pats had 5 1st round picks at the skill position penciled in.
                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      or maybe Deion Sanders had it right:

                      WHY DO WE HAVE TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY EVERY TIME HE PLAYS LIKE GARBAGE?!"
                      I am not trying to make excuses for him. He threw the picks and he has played like garbage the last couple of games.

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post

                      He then went on to ask the others what Tom had that Peyton didn't. The exchange went like this:

                      Theisman: Deion Branch
                      Deion: He's 60
                      Marriucci: Woodhead
                      Deion: He's 12
                      Millen: Gronkowski and Hernandez
                      Deion: Rookies
                      No mention of a pro bowl wr called Wes Welker? I know its not a career year for him but neither is this a record setting year for Wayne either. By the way Deion is younger than Wayne so I guess wayne is 61...

                      Lets talk about what Tommy does have besides dumb TV quotes. How about a 13th rank run offense which is more of a reflection of a good offensive line. How about good pass protection. You think being able to run the ball helps your QB. Give Tommy a 32nd rank run offense (colts rank) and see how his interceptions go up. Keep in mind the completion percentage between Manning and Brady is the same. The difference is that one guy has to do more with his arm which gives you more mistakes.

                      So ya give Tom a terrible run offense and make him throw it 150 times more (thats the difference) and see if he doesn't throw more picks....

                      I don't care who is better overall but saying one has more talent around him is wrong. Both have skill players that are good. The most important part of a team is the QB then the line. The qb is a wash the line however isn't. Tom has a big edge this year. The colts however took this line minus Lilja to the superbowl last year.

                      Whats changed? Early injuries and a retired coach which is why i don't blame Polian for it entirely.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 12-10-2010, 12:26 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        saying one has more talent around him is wrong.
                        That's my point exactly, and people are saying that peyton is getting it done with nothing around him. False. He is getting it done with less than he is used to.

                        Here's a list of pro bowl players that each quarterback has had at his disposal for skill positions:

                        Brady's Pro Bowl Players- Randy Moss (2), Wes Welker (2), Troy Brown (1), Corey Dillon (1), total of 6.

                        Manning's Pro Bowl Players- Marvin Harrison (8), Edgerrin James (4), Reggie Wayne (4), Marshall Faulk (1), Dallas Clark (1), Joseph Addai (1), total of 19.

                        But, but... Brady always has a DEFENSE!

                        Here's how the Patriots and Colts have stacked up since the rivalry really began in 2001. I'm putting which team had the better defense based on points allowed, the most relevant defensive stat.

                        '10- Colts
                        '09- Patriots
                        '08- Colts
                        '07- Colts (led NFL in fewest points allowed)
                        '06- Patriots (2nd in NFL)
                        '05- Colts (2nd in NFL)
                        '04- Patriots (2nd in NFL)
                        '03- Patriots (1st in NFL)
                        '02- Colts
                        '01- Patriots

                        Final Result- In ten seasons, the Colts defense has allowed fewer points five times. The Colts have had a top-2 scoring defense twice, while the Patriots have three times.

                        So ya give Tom a terrible run offense...
                        Good teams are built so as not to have a terrible run offense. That's been my major point in this thread- Polian needs to be fired. He is wasting the talents of the 2nd best QB in the last 20 years. The Colts have at least if not more more running back talent than the Patriots and always have, even back when Corey Dillon was a Patriot. I'd trade nearly-waived Green-Ellis for Donald Brown in a heartbeat. They don't have a system and an O-line to get the job done, despite having no injury issues at all with their O-line.
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-10-2010, 09:26 AM.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          I had him a 2nd rounder in my initial analysis. Then somebody insisted that Welker should more fairly be considered a second rounder since they traded one for him. If you do that, then it makes no sense to also list Branch as a 2nd rounder since they traded a 4th rounder to get him. clear? If that's going to be the guideline it should be evenly applied.
                          No, because Branch was selected in the 2nd round, so that pick was gone. If you're going to do that then he needs to be both a 2nd round pick and a 4th round pick.

                          Those picks were "used" on him. They have "used" multiple picks mulitple times to get his services.

                          If I trade two picks for a player, then that player is worth both picks, not just the one and especially not just the higher one.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            That's my point exactly, and people are saying that peyton is getting it done with nothing around him.
                            No your point is that the Colts have drafted more skill postion players higher than the Pats. You know thats not true. The Colts have just done it better so they don't have to rely on signing aging vets.

                            As far as the Pro bowl goes you know thats a fictitious way to say one team has more talent on per "team" basis. LOl, Kerry Collins and Clinton Portis got into the pro bowl in 2009. In 2010 David Garrard and Vince Young got in. Come on man...... Thats some weak .........

                            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). Anyone can look at the Pats defense since the 2001 and tell you it was better overall. It was better coached and better over all when you look at who they played and how they played.

                            Who was the last GM to get fired for his 0-line? Seriously when has that ever happened? The Colts have one of the best offenses still given early injuries to their line and inexperienced WR aside for one.

                            Do I think Polain has wasted some of Peyton Mannings years? Of course. Same could be said of Belichick and Brady. Why not draft better skill position players. I mean its not like Addai was chosen before Maroney. ITs also not like Dalls Clark was selected higher than Daniel Graham. The greatness of Wayne got him selected 30th. THe Pats traded up to in 2006 to get Chad Jackson at 36 giving up a 3rd round pick.

                            Point is both have done some things good and some things bad. Polain crutch is that 0-line and that really true since MUdd has left.

                            By the way who would you replace him with? There is only one guy who I would consider above Polain espcially when looking at a running offense.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 12-10-2010, 01:16 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Serious question: How come Jim Caldwell hasn't been criticized by the national media?

                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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.
                                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.
                                Last edited by DGPR; 12-10-2010, 02:10 PM.

                                "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X