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

I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

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

  • #46
    Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    Kerry Collins might not be the best QB of all time or anything, but to say he sucks is a joke. The guy has flaws, but in terms of steady, winning QBs over the past I dunno 15 years, Collins has to be in the top 10. Took three teams to division titles, two of them to conference championship games, and one to a Super Bowl. He's earned his keep. He's not a hall of famer or anything, but he's not exactly Rex Grossman either.
    No one said he sucked but he is average at beast i am just shocked he past one of the best QBs of all time in Joe.

    and the last part

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

      Rexy shredded NY yesterday from what I saw. Also, Kerrigan's pick 6

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

        I was just using Rex Grossman as an example of a QB who always rode his defense to his one winning season. Colilns has had some success where he's actually been the focal point of the team. He's better than average in his prime. No doubt about it.


        Comment


        • #49
          Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          No one said he sucked but he is average at beast i am just shocked he past one of the best QBs of all time in Joe.

          and the last part
          I'll say it: He sucks.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

            Collins sucks? Eh...no...but he's not that good. I'll say mediocre. Nice option for a backup, but he requires a lot of balance around him so he can play the more of a steer the ship, manage the team role.

            I'll give him that he's got a strong arm, but he takes an hour to release the ball, has always been iffy on pocket awareness, is a chronic fumbler, and has virtually zero mobility.

            Put him on a team like Baltimore or Pittsburgh that plays tough D and can count on the threat of a consistent running attack, and he's a great back-up plug in. Obviously, that's not the case here. Although, I'm not so pessimistic to think the O-line can't improve throughout the season to the point where the protection and run game can make incremental progress.

            The big issue in Indy minus Manning is the exposure, or should I say confirmation, of just how abjectly awful the defense is - scheme, personnel, you name it. If there's one key thing that will push us over the cliff of unable to compete in the absence of PM, it will be the D.
            Last edited by D-BONE; 09-13-2011, 05:34 AM.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

              The big issue in Indy minus Manning is the exposure, or should I say confirmation, of just how abjectly awful the defense is - scheme, personnel, you name it. If there's one key thing that will push us over the cliff of unable to compete in the absence of PM, it will be the D.
              Ring the bell... we have a winner...
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                Colts should have tried to get Bledsoe out of retirement.. He hasnt played in years though and probably isnt in shape mentally anymore.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                  Any rebuilding of the team that doesn't include significant changes in the coaching staff, and particularly at the top, will have limited success IMO.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                    The Colts' entire defensive scheme and personnel is built to funnel opposing teams to the perfect strategy to beat the Colts WITH Manning. ...That is to run the ball and control the clock and keep Manning off the field. Teams just need to stay with the plan and play solid football.

                    TPTB seem to be stuck on the idea that the Colts' offense will force teams to try and keep up with it.... yet most of the better teams figured out long ago that isn't necessary. Why the Colts didn't adjust when that flaw was exposed, I have no idea. And it's a major flaw. It's a flaw that has limited the Colts in playoff success.

                    So now we have that same flawed defense with an offense that is no longer capable of playing perfect or near perfect games.

                    I'll never understand why TPTB didn't change gears a long time ago though. Once the flaw was exposed it's not like it was a revelation to any decent coach on what needed to happen to keep yourself in the game with the Colts. I'm sure there was probably some thought the Colts would/could adjust but obviously someone in the Colt hierarchy saw no reason to allow for the possibility of the flaw in the system to being exposed. Just imagine a Colts team who could consistently stop the run and get opponents off the field and an offense led by Manning. Even with an injured Manning on the bench we might still have a chance to weather the current storm and be competitive. But now? Thin ice.... It's a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                      Definitely agree with what Bball said.. The team has been terribly built for the most part. Peyton is just so freakin good he has still been able to win a lot of games. HOPEFULLY this will wake up the management and see how bad the team really is built. We have never had a good special teams, defense is always shaky without Bob Sanders and the Offense hasn't been near as dominant since the OL has decreased in skill. REALLY hope TPTB are jolted to this fact and aren't just gonna say "Eh, we didn't have Peyton. Of course we aren't going to be a top tier team." ...Most top tier teams would be OK if their QB went down, because they are well built all-round. The Colts however are very lopsided and are nothing without 18. This even includes changes that should be made in Coaching.. I have been one of the Caldwell supporters in the past, but i am starting to find that i was just being defensive for my coach more than seeing that he really isn't that good of a Head Coach. I'm ready for a real, tough, vocal football coach. (I am a big IU fan and i love their new coach, Wilson)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                        What I'll never and I mean never understand is why we didn't conduct a legitimate coaching search after Dungy left. Why was it necessary to appoint Caldwell as Dungy's successor a full year before Dungy left? Why did we basically let Dungy pick our next coach for us......essentially Dungy-lite?

                        Is there any other team that has done this in recent years? Who else appoints a head coach in waiting? I can't think of anyone. Sure, sometimes a coach is fired and if the assistant who takes over does well enough then they get hired (Garrett, Frazier). But who essentially appoints a head coach in waiting without seeing the guy coach OR without conducting a legitimate coaching search by actually interviewing other candidates?

                        And guys like Frazier or Garrett who takeover were at least coordinators who had a substantial effect on the team in the years prior to taking over as head coach. You can get at least get a sense of a coach's worth through their work as a coordinator. Caldwell OTOH was a QUARTERBACKS COACH for a team with Peyton Manning. What in the world could Caldwell have possibly taught Manning that he didn't know or hadn't already learned from Tom Moore? I'm certainly not privy to the inner-workings of the team, but I doubt that Manning's greatness comes from the fortune of having Jim Caldwell as a "quarterbacks coach" from 02-08.

                        I don't think following Dungy with a Dungy-lite version was the best course for this franchise. We have now had 10 years of mild-mannered coaching and need a change of philosophy. I'd love to have a screamer and a yeller here like Rex Ryan. We need someone intense who could bust some *****

                        Dungy was a nice guy, but he didn't have the right to chose his successor. He had the right to give all the input he wanted, but we still should have conducted a legitimate search. We got Dungy through a coaching search and we should have picked his successor from one after all.

                        We should have had a process of interviews, with Caldwell interviewing like everyone else. If Caldwell is the best candidate then hire him. Were we really afraid that someone else was going to hire him? I don't think anyone else was dying to hire a guy who's resume' consisted of being 29-63 at Wake Forest and being the QB coach for Peyton Manning (easiest job ever).
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-15-2011, 11:00 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          I'll never understand why TPTB didn't change gears a long time ago though. Once the flaw was exposed it's not like it was a revelation to any decent coach on what needed to happen to keep yourself in the game with the Colts. I'm sure there was probably some thought the Colts would/could adjust but obviously someone in the Colt hierarchy saw no reason to allow for the possibility of the flaw in the system to being exposed. Just imagine a Colts team who could consistently stop the run and get opponents off the field and an offense led by Manning. Even with an injured Manning on the bench we might still have a chance to weather the current storm and be competitive. But now? Thin ice.... It's a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.
                          The blame can be shifted around and I have a hard time really assigning it.

                          Bill Polain- Works under the salary restrictions of Irsay and the Colts don't put up the cash IMO like the Rooneys. Largely Polain has shown that he can adjust and get a gifted DT when he wants to. Polain has a hard job of balancing cap vs need and owners wishes.

                          Caldwell- I don't like settling and Caldwell seems like a coach we have settled on. I think there are pros and cons to him and he certainly is a top 15 coach IMO but there are top 5 coaches on the market which begs the question why don't we get them? Irsay's loyality and Polains preference is my best guess. Also what happen to the blitz? I thought the Colts were going to blitz more and was one of the reasons why Wheeler was drafted.

                          Irsay- It used to be that everyone thought Irsay was a hands off owner... Does everyone feel that way now? I think the biggest weakness of his is the loyality factor. Its admirable but it can prevent change when change is needed. The bottom line is the Colts could be in worst shape but most of the fans know that they could be in better shape if certain moves were made.

                          Chris Polain- Here is the X-factor. Does he stay under what his farther has built or does he choose a different path. No one will know but if he trully ran the draft board this year then I say he did a heck of a job. Getting bigger on the offensive line seems to be a deviation from what Bill did in the recent past. At least in some aspects Chris seems to be trying to address the run game even if it may take a couple of years for the rookies to develop.

                          Like I said the blame can be shifted around but this team has seen 2 coordinators leave and the best Qb go down for atleast 3 months. I can be alright with going 2-14 as long as it brings change to the team. What I fear is that the Colts will use the Manning excuse to explain the record rather than the poor defense and run game.
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 09-15-2011, 11:27 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            What I'll never and I mean never understand is why we didn't conduct a legitimate coaching search after Dungy left. Why was it necessary to appoint Caldwell as Dungy's successor a full year before Dungy left? Why did we basically let Dungy pick our next coach for us......essentially Dungy-lite?

                            Is there any other team that has done this in recent years? Who else appoints a head coach in waiting? I can't think of anyone. Sure, sometimes a coach is fired and if the assistant who takes over does well enough then they get hired (Garrett, Frazier). But who essentially appoints a head coach in waiting without seeing the guy coach OR without conducting a legitimate coaching search by actually interviewing other candidates?

                            And guys like Frazier or Garrett who takeover were at least coordinators who had a substantial effect on the team in the years prior to taking over as head coach. You can get at least get a sense of a coach's worth through their work as a coordinator. Caldwell OTOH was a QUARTERBACKS COACH for a team with Peyton Manning. What in the world could Caldwell have possibly taught Manning that he didn't know or hadn't already learned from Tom Moore? I'm certainly not privy to the inner-workings of the team, but I doubt that Manning's greatness comes from the fortune of having Jim Caldwell as a "quarterbacks coach" from 02-08.

                            I don't think following Dungy with a Dungy-lite version was the best course for this franchise. We have now had 10 years of mild-mannered coaching and need a change of philosophy. I'd love to have a screamer and a yeller here like Rex Ryan. We need someone intense who could bust some *****

                            Dungy was a nice guy, but he didn't have the right to chose his successor. He had the right to give all the input he wanted, but we still should have conducted a legitimate search. We got Dungy through a coaching search and we should have picked his successor from one after all.

                            We should have had a process of interviews, with Caldwell interviewing like everyone else. If Caldwell is the best candidate then hire him. Were we really afraid that someone else was going to hire him? I don't think anyone else was dying to hire a guy who's resume' consisted of being 29-63 at Wake Forest and being the QB coach for Peyton Manning (easiest job ever).


                            Mike Holmgren picked Jim Mora Jr as his replacement went around the Rooney Rule and everything in Seattle.

                            Fortunately even Seattle realized that was a mistake.

                            Will the Colts?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                              It's truth telling time:

                              There's no such thing as a perfect football team. If there were, it would never reside in Indianapolis. Hard caps make parity, which is a good thing in Indianapolis, otherwise we'd go back to the dynasties of the 80s and 90s.

                              Truth is that the Colts have tried to stop the run. That's why they hung on to Bob Sanders and his ridiculous contract longer than what was reasonable. It's cheaper to get a Bob Sanders than it is a Haynesworth. Not to mention that you can't just get one Haynesworth, you need 2, and you also need some linebackers. You are also handcuffed in that with the money spent on offensive weapons for Manning, you can't spend a ton on defense. Doesn't matter how good your QB is if nobody is open, just ask Matt Cassell.

                              Bill Polian has been nothing short of miraculous over the last 10+ years. Anyone who complains about him should stop watching football.

                              Speaking of Cassell, he's better than Collins at this point by a fairly wide margin, and even the year he started for the Patriots when Brady got injured was a fairly large downgrade in terms of offensive production. You can't replace a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady.

                              The Colts defense is built around speed. The Colts are essentially the SSOL of football. They're looking to force one or two turnovers per game, giving the offense two more possessions than the opposing offense. The theory is if you give Manning two more possessions than the opposing QB, he'll win the game for you. I think it's good game planning, and done cheaply on the defensive end. But when your QB doesn't operate with laser precision, or worse, gives those two extra possessions back to the other team, you end up giving up 34 points in a half, because the defense can't be on the field that much in this system.

                              Good luck with the season, the way it looks the Colts will still be better than the Chiefs this year, but bagging on the front office or Kerry Collins is poor form. There was no reason to expect Peyton Manning to miss an entire season, so there should be no expectation for there to have been a contingency plan to replace a Hall of Fame QB who had started every game for the last umpteen years.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: I'm not selling on Kerry Collins yet

                                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                                It's truth telling time:

                                There's no such thing as a perfect football team. If there were, it would never reside in Indianapolis. Hard caps make parity, which is a good thing in Indianapolis, otherwise we'd go back to the dynasties of the 80s and 90s.

                                Truth is that the Colts have tried to stop the run. That's why they hung on to Bob Sanders and his ridiculous contract longer than what was reasonable. It's cheaper to get a Bob Sanders than it is a Haynesworth. Not to mention that you can't just get one Haynesworth, you need 2, and you also need some linebackers. You are also handcuffed in that with the money spent on offensive weapons for Manning, you can't spend a ton on defense. Doesn't matter how good your QB is if nobody is open, just ask Matt Cassell.

                                Bill Polian has been nothing short of miraculous over the last 10+ years. Anyone who complains about him should stop watching football.

                                Speaking of Cassell, he's better than Collins at this point by a fairly wide margin, and even the year he started for the Patriots when Brady got injured was a fairly large downgrade in terms of offensive production. You can't replace a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady.

                                The Colts defense is built around speed. The Colts are essentially the SSOL of football. They're looking to force one or two turnovers per game, giving the offense two more possessions than the opposing offense. The theory is if you give Manning two more possessions than the opposing QB, he'll win the game for you. I think it's good game planning, and done cheaply on the defensive end. But when your QB doesn't operate with laser precision, or worse, gives those two extra possessions back to the other team, you end up giving up 34 points in a half, because the defense can't be on the field that much in this system.

                                Good luck with the season, the way it looks the Colts will still be better than the Chiefs this year, but bagging on the front office or Kerry Collins is poor form. There was no reason to expect Peyton Manning to miss an entire season, so there should be no expectation for there to have been a contingency plan to replace a Hall of Fame QB who had started every game for the last umpteen years.

                                Good post.

                                Polian was very very very good from 1998-2006. But since we won the Super Bowl almost 5 years ago, his drafting has been very suspect.

                                http://www.pro-football-reference.co...e=any&show=all

                                That is pretty much the textbook definition of poor drafting right there. Gonzales was OK when he was healthy in 07 and 08 but has been banged up ever since. We essentially traded our 08 first rounder for the bag of garbage that was Tony Ugoh. Donald Brown is a third year back who can't even get on the field right now. Jerry Hughes can't get on the field either. It's gotten to a point where you have to question if Polian has lost his touch when it comes to drafting.

                                From 1998-2006 there is no question that Polian drafted extremely well. He drafted the likes of Edge, Reggie Wayne, Freeney, Mathis, Clark, Sanders, Addai and found Saturday out of nowhere. He clearly knew how to find pro-bowl quality talent.

                                But just like a coach or player can lose their touch, so can a GM. Since we beat the Bears in the Super Bowl, Polian has done a lot of whiffing. I'm not expecting the guy to draft a pro-bowler in the first round every single year. But I do expect him to draft guys that can at least play in their second or third year (Hughes and Brown) or aren't being cut like Ugoh.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-19-2011, 12:18 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X