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

Tommie Harris cut by Colts

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

  • #76
    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

    Basically it comes down to this:

    Tommie Harris got cut so that we could keep 5 tight ends.

    Nice move there front office....
    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      So the Colts wouldn't have had a better chance to win more?

      You're trying to have it both ways. You're admitting that injuries negatively influence the team while trying to limit it's influence.

      Take away the most important defender from each team and see how they do. We can talk about the Steelers and how they struggled last year when Troy P went down.

      This is an absolute joke of a conversation, that you can't even admit that injuries have routinely depleted the Colts.

      You try and say that Freeney isn't injury prone, and then talk about how his production was limited for two seasons because of injuries!!

      A relatively healthy Colts team in the postseason would perform better than an injury depleted Colts team.

      Just admit it.

      A healthy roster wins more than an injured one.

      Considering the accomplishments the Colts have acheived while injured, one can only assume more postseason wins, and atleast more SB appearances.


      I love how you're trying to blame Polian now for not knowing that Bob would be injured. And he missed 3 games over 3 seasons at Iowa, and they were the first three games of his Jr. year.

      Not surprised one bit.
      So having one serious injury makes you injury prone. Got it and thanks for clearing that one up for me. So Manning is injury prone now I guess that settles it. Might as well move on.

      Second of all get your facts straight. Bob missed games in 01 (Miami of OH), 02 (utah state), and 3 games in 03 his senior year. He also missed the senior bowl I beleive with a foot injury.

      http://www.hawkeyesports.com/sports/...ers_bob00.html

      What other team relies on stopping the run with a safety 15 yards off the line of scrimmage?

      Freeney's injury defaintly impacted our pressure packages but like I said before there are more ways to create pressure than with just 2 DE's. Plenty of teams have overcome injuries to DE's by blitz packages.
      Last edited by Gamble1; 09-07-2011, 05:06 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        [QUOTE=Gamble1;

        What other team relies on stopping the run with a safety 15 yards off the line of scrimmage?

        [/QUOTE]
        Ravens steelers and jets are rely heavily on safeties making game changing plays in the run game...so all of the best defensive teams lol

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

          Originally posted by Psyren View Post
          Basically it comes down to this:

          Tommie Harris got cut so that we could keep 5 tight ends.

          Nice move there front office....
          Tommie Harris got cut because he has terrible knees and a big ego. IT was a used band aid of a move to cover a gaping wound.

          Polain has the black knight approach to run defense.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

            Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
            Ravens steelers and jets are rely heavily on safeties making game changing plays in the run game...so all of the best defensive teams lol
            In a base cover 2 4-3 defense I don't think so. Point is those teams are good at stopping the run not because they have a safety making all the plays. They have all pro defensive fronts and the safeties are the added bonus. They certainly wouldn't have one mediocre Nose Tackle on the team and the safties making all the run stops.
            Last edited by Gamble1; 09-07-2011, 05:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              When have I ever even hinted at the Colts being the only team with injuries? This is starting to get comical.

              Nothing comical about it. You stated in post 56: "please find another high impact player that is also as injury prone as Dwight Freeney"

              Am I wrong to infer that as basically meaning that no other high impact player in the entire NFL is as injury prone as Freeney? Because I think that's pretty much exactly what you're saying there.

              Go back and re-read my two Freeney post. Never did I say that you said the Colts were the only team in the NFL with injuries. The only thing I addressed in the Freeney posts were your comments about Freeney.

              And regarding my Sanders post earlier, I was responding to post 44 you made where you stated: "don't think it was mere coincidence that the playoff year Bob was healthy was the year they happened to win."

              When you say "the playoff year Bob was healthy", that implies (to me at least) that 2006 was the only playoff year he was healthy. All I did was point out that he was completely healthy in 2005 and 2007, both years where we went one and done at home.

              I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm responding to your direct quotes.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                So having one serious injury makes you injury prone. Got it and thanks for clearing that one up for me. So Manning is injury prone now I guess that settles it. Might as well move on.

                Second of all get your facts straight. Bob missed games in 01 (Miami of OH), 02 (utah state), and 3 games in 03 his senior year. He also missed the senior bowl I beleive with a foot injury.

                http://www.hawkeyesports.com/sports/...ers_bob00.html

                What other team relies on stopping the run with a safety 15 yards off the line of scrimmage?

                Freeney's injury defaintly impacted our pressure packages but like I said before there are more ways to create pressure than with just 2 DE's. Plenty of teams have overcome injuries to DE's by blitz packages.

                When have I ever said 1 injury makes you injury prone? Way to put words in my mouth.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Nothing comical about it. You stated in post 56: "please find another high impact player that is also as injury prone as Dwight Freeney"

                  Am I wrong to infer that as basically meaning that no other high impact player in the entire NFL is as injury prone as Freeney? Because I think that's pretty much exactly what you're saying there.
                  No, I said go find one, which you haven't done. My comment is pretty straight forward. You're taking a direct comment and trying to apply it to other players, which I haven't done. If you can prove me wrong, then do it.


                  I've admitted several times on here that other teams have injury problems. Have I not?
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    In a base cover 2 4-3 defense I don't think so. Point is those teams are good at stopping the run not because they have a safety making all the plays. They have all pro defensive fronts and the safeties are the added bonus. They certainly wouldn't have one mediocre Nose Tackle on the team and the safties making all the run stops.
                    Maybe you should have watched some of the Steeler games when Troy P was out, something I've already mentioned.

                    But make no mistake about it, without Troy on the field, don't look for the Steelers to go far in the playoffs.
                    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5...-any-questions

                    Hmmm, how interesting. You mean to tell me a DPOY is a vital piece to a team's defense? NO WAY!!!
                    Last edited by Since86; 09-08-2011, 09:14 AM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Maybe you should have watched some of the Steeler games when Troy P was out, something I've already mentioned.


                      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5...-any-questions

                      Hmmm, how interesting. You mean to tell me a DPOY is a vital piece to a team's defense? NO WAY!!!
                      You just pulled an article from Bleacherreport? I think that says enough right there. Troy is much more valueable in the passing game becasue the steelers have average DB's.

                      Again I have never heard anyone call Freeney injury prone. As far as I know he has had one serious injury which is common to have atleast one bad injury after 9 years of NFL. The nick nack crap injuries are common and everyone has to play through them in the NFL. It really doesn't matter because the Colts are still only good in 2 phases of the game and that won't change unless personnel change. There is only two guys who can change the personnel and both of their names end with Polain.

                      As far as Bob is concerned its pretty foolish to rely on a injury prone safety to get you far in the playoffs. Thats poor planning and there is no ways around that. Basically the guy has had injury concerns throughout his amateur and pro career and you want him to stop the run in base cover 2 defense? Really?

                      We suck in the run because our front seven are small and are built to stop the pass. Again reling on a safety to consistently stop the run is silly but go on and blame injuries as the reason why we the Colts haven't gone far in the playoffs.

                      We had Bob in 2005 and 2007 and the Colts still lost. We had the DPOY and still lost. IN 2007 he had big whooping 3 tackles in the plyaoff loss to the Chargers.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                        You just claimed Freeney isn't injury prone, because he had one major injury (when in fact he's had multiple) but then you go on to call Bob Sanders injury prone in college, because he missed THREE GAMES BECAUSE OF ONE INJURY!

                        1) You're misrepresenting facts
                        2) You're changing your tune whenever you see fit

                        I mean my goodness, you admitted yesterday that Freeney was limited during the 2006 2007 seasons from injury, you know when I showed stats that he only had 9 sacks combined for those two years, and now suddenly he's only been injured once?



                        And even a broken clock is right twice a day. You're going to have to atleast show why bleacherreport is wrong, instead of just throwing out the whole "that's your evidence." Except you can't refute the evidence becasue everyone saw Pitt struggle last year when Troy went down.

                        Their defense isn't as good and it's obvious. Please try to tell us that the Steelers defense is just as good with Troy on the sidelines.

                        I'll hold my laughter.

                        And that's the bottom line.

                        Are the Colts better, worse, or equal when Bob was playing?


                        Obviously better. There's no denying it. What does a better decade look for the Colts?(A better decade than the one they just had)
                        Last edited by Since86; 09-08-2011, 11:08 AM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          Its well known that Freeney suffered a Lisfranc fracture which is hard difficult injury to come back from. His sac totals drop in that year for that obvious reason.
                          Here is you admitting that his sack totals took a hit because of his injury.

                          Was he also injured during the SB against the Saints? I forget......


                          But yeah, keep acting like he's only been injured once.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            You just claimed Freeney isn't injury prone, because he had one major injury (when in fact he's had multiple) but then you go on to call Bob Sanders injury prone in college, because he missed THREE GAMES BECAUSE OF ONE INJURY!

                            I mean my goodness, you admitted yesterday that Freeney was limited during the 2006 2007 seasons from injury, you know when I showed stats that he only had 9 sacks combined for those two years, and now suddenly he's only been injured once?

                            Their defense isn't as good and it's obvious. Please try to tell us that the Steelers defense is just as good with Troy on the sidelines.

                            I'll hold my laughter.

                            And that's the bottom line.

                            Are the Colts better, worse, or equal when Bob was playing?


                            Obviously better. There's no denying it. What does a better decade look for the Colts?(A better decade than the one they just had)
                            I never said he has been injuried once. The hypocrisy is laughable. He has had one serious injury thats different than saying he has had only one injury.

                            Bob missed multiple games in college due to multiple injuries. Read the freakin link before you respond and misrepresent information out of convenience.

                            In any case you're getting no where just like the Colts defense. You want to rely on empty arguments then go ahead. We lost those two games in 05 and 07 due to not having Bob Sanders,, oh wait we did.. Nevermind.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 09-08-2011, 11:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo.../injuries.html

                              Quite a list.


                              http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...out-for-colts/


                              http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com...gets-big-shot/


                              The Colts play injuries very close to the vest, and Freeney isn't anything different. He always seems to have injury concerns around him.

                              I'm not trying to pick on DFree, I love him as a player and I hope he ends his time in a Colts uniform. And I have the utmost respect for him playing through injuries. It really gives an indication on his personal character.

                              But the fact still remains, he's hurt. A lot.

                              I get that he was injured in 07 and 09. I've already acknowledged that. My point is that looking at the ENTIRE CONTEXT of his career, he has not been an injury prone player. He has had FAR MORE seasons where he is healthy than seasons where he is not. If you play DE the way he has for a decade then yes, you are going to get hurt here and there. But calling him an "injury prone" player is a tremendous stretch. Freeney himself would probably balk at that notion. By and large, he has been healthy for the bulk of his tenure here. Yeah, I'm sure there are lots of weeks he's played where he is beat up. The same can be said for most NFL players who have played for 10 years.

                              You can't post a link about the 2007 injury to make the point that he is injury prone. He had someone step on his foot as he was making a spin move. That's not an injury caused by being "injury prone". It's a freak accident that would have taken anyone out. It's like the Harrison injury in 07. Marvin Harrison was never injury prone, but he just happened to be caught in a freak situation that took him out.

                              The 2007 injury was a freak accident that has nothing to do with being "injury prone". The 09 injury was magnified because it took place at the worst possible time. Aside from those two injuries (one of which clearly had nothing to do with being injury prone), where is your evidence that he is injury prone?

                              I don't remember him being injured in 2006. Just because he had a low amount of sacks doesn't mean he was hurt. He had more tackles in 06 than he did last year, 08, and 09, but obviously had more sacks that year than in 06. Just like a WR can have a year with low TD's, a DE can have a year with few sicks.

                              2002: has great rookie season. Career high in tackles
                              2003: Misses just one game, has a ton of sacks and tackles. No injuries in the way
                              2004: Has a career high in sacks and a ton of tackles. Maybe his best season. No injuries
                              2005: Another fantastic season, playing in every game and getting a ton of sacks/tackles
                              2006: Low sacks but still plenty of tackles. Plays every game.
                              2007: Season cut short by freak injury
                              2008: Another fantastic season. Gets the last game of the year off to rest. Has another year of a ton of sacks/tackles. Clearly injuries weren't bothering him.
                              2009: Injury causes him to miss some games during the season and he suffers one in the AFC title game that comes at the worst possible time. Clearly a year that is hobbled by injury
                              2010: Plays/starts in every game. Second highest season sack total of career.

                              http://www.pro-football-reference.co...F/FreeDw00.htm

                              He has had TWO OUT OF NINE SEASONS substantially affected by injury. Clearly, by any objective measure, he is not injury prone. You are using a freak 2007 injury and a poorly timed 2009 injury to paint him as being injury prone. The fact is, he isn't. He has generally been healthy for his entire career here.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-08-2011, 11:31 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                I never said he has been injuried once. The hypocrisy is laughable. He has had one serious injury thats different than saying he has had only one injury.
                                So a torn ligament in your ankle isn't a serious injury then?



                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                Bob missed multiple games in college due to multiple injuries. Read the freakin link before you respond and misrepresent information out of convenience.
                                I did read the link, and I also read his bio from the hawkeyes athletic website. He wasn't injured his freshman year. He left ONE game early with a concussion his soph. year, and didn't miss any other time. He missed three games due to surgery his jr. year. That's it.



                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                In any case you're getting no where just like the Colts defense. You want to rely on empty arguments then go ahead. We lost those two games in 05 and 07 due to not having Bob Sanders,, oh wait we did.. Nevermind.
                                Notice you don't answer a direct question? Why? Because we all know the answer.

                                The Colts defense is better with Bob Sanders on the field. Everyone knows it. You can't deny it. So instead of answering the question, you pretend like it's not there.

                                I'll ask again.

                                Is the Colts defense better, worse, or equal when Bob Sanders is on the field compared to when he's not on the field?
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X