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

Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

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

  • Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

    With the Colts now standing at 0-10, and a full two games ahead of the next team in the Luck Sweepstakes, it's time to start considering what would happen if the Colts get the #1 pick and the right to draft Andrew Luck.

    Even if the Colts ultimately decide to keep Manning, I'd like to think that they'd still be smart enough to draft Luck and then trade him if that's the route they decide to take.

    If you were in charge, what would you do?
    40
    Draft Luck, then trade him
    5.00%
    2
    Draft Luck, then trade Manning
    32.50%
    13
    Draft Luck, and put him on the bench behind Manning for 2-3 years
    62.50%
    25

  • #2
    Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

    Draft Luck and let him sit for two years as Manning's understudy. My gut feeling is Peyton will be back and after getting hit for two seasons he'll be willing to retire. Irsay will let Peyton choose a position in the Colts organization if that is what he wants.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

      Draft Luck and have him sit behind Manning is the ideal situation. I think you can easily sell that to Luck. Just tell what sitting behind great quarterbacks did for Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers.

      Now if Luck wants to start right away and throws a fit, then I think you trade down, draft another QB and acquire some other good players.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

        Andrew Luck is NOT going to come to Indy and sit for two years. This is his jr. season. He will either force Indy to trade him, or he will go back to school. But the #1 draft prospect in the last 10+ years isn't going to go come and watch from the bench.

        You can talk about Aaron Rodgers all you want, but Rodgers was taken 24th and wasn't anywhere near Luck's perceived level.

        The most NFL ready QB since Peyton Manning isn't going to sit for two years.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Andrew Luck is NOT going to come to Indy and sit for two years. This is his jr. season. He will either force Indy to trade him, or he will go back to school. But the #1 draft prospect in the last 10+ years isn't going to go come and watch from the bench.

          You can talk about Aaron Rodgers all you want, but Rodgers was taken 24th and wasn't anywhere near Luck's perceived level.

          The most NFL ready QB since Peyton Manning isn't going to sit for two years.
          Nor does it make all that much sense on the field. OK, Peyton's good enough to play, but instead of trading the #1 pick for a king's ransom and making this a contender again we use it on a guy that'll ride the bench. Keeping them both is the worst option. You don't have an asset like Luck/Manning, take your pick, and not capitalize on it.

          For the question, too early to tell. All depends on The Neck.
          Last edited by Heisenberg; 11-14-2011, 11:14 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

            Maybe he would back to school, but that #1 money would really be hard to turn down. Those thoughts of blowing out knee and not getting paid for another year of college ball would really mess with the head. It's pay day time friends and Luck should be smart enough to grab the cash. You would also think he is competitive enough to think he'll beat out the old man for the starting job.
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

              Luck's coming out, he said so. Maybe he pulls an Eli or something, but he's absolutely coming out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Andrew Luck is NOT going to come to Indy and sit for two years. This is his jr. season. He will either force Indy to trade him, or he will go back to school. But the #1 draft prospect in the last 10+ years isn't going to go come and watch from the bench.

                You can talk about Aaron Rodgers all you want, but Rodgers was taken 24th and wasn't anywhere near Luck's perceived level.

                The most NFL ready QB since Peyton Manning isn't going to sit for two years.


                I agree 100% with this. The Colts aren't going to be able to have their cake and eat it too. It's either going to be Peyton or Luck.

                Peyton respected the hell out of Dan Marino, but that doesn't mean that he would have wanted to sit behind him for a few years. He knew he was good enough to play immediately and that there were several teams (like the Colts) who would gladly start him immediately. Luck is in the same boat. Yeah you could learn a lot from sitting behind Manning, but you can learn even more by getting out there and playing immediately and getting actual in-game experience. Manning is a huge advocate for rookies playing immediately (I remember reading comments a few years ago about how he thought Sanchez should start on day 1), so he would probably think it to be a disservice to Luck to make him sit.

                A guy like Luck or Peyton just isn't going to want to wait until age 25 to play. You lose out on some key years if you have to wait.

                We are in for a roller-coaster ride for the next few months. The Super Bowl is going to be here, yet it may not even be the biggest story in town at the time. We are likely going to be sitting with the number 1 draft and contemplating whether we take a 22 year old phenom or have enough faith that our soon-to-be 35 year old HOF QB can play a few more seasons. Wow, this is going to be huge. We have to know by early March if Peyton is healthy enough to justify passing up one of the most hyped draft picks ever, because that's when we have to make the decision on picking up Manning's monster option. A mere 3 and a half months seems like a very tight window to know if he will be healthy enough to justify doing something as bold as trading this pick. It's very likely that we never see Peyton take another snap here again. If you trade a phenom with 15 years ahead of him because you are going with a 36 year old QB, then you better know damn well that that 36 year old is very healthy. And it may be impossible to know that in such a short window. The Colts and Manning might not be able to answer that question.

                Think of all the drafts over the years where there is no great QB, yet Manning goes down in a year where one of the most hyped guys ever is coming out and the team is so bad without him that they are in prime position to draft him. You couldn't make this up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                  So, how many 1st round college players have been drafted and then set out the year to go back into the draft because they didn't want to go to a secific team?
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                    Originally posted by RWB View Post
                    So, how many 1st round college players have been drafted and then set out the year to go back into the draft because they didn't want to go to a secific team?
                    He would just do what Eli did to San Diego which I hear is a possibility with the Lucks.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Andrew Luck is NOT going to come to Indy and sit for two years. This is his jr. season. He will either force Indy to trade him, or he will go back to school. But the #1 draft prospect in the last 10+ years isn't going to go come and watch from the bench.

                      You can talk about Aaron Rodgers all you want, but Rodgers was taken 24th and wasn't anywhere near Luck's perceived level.

                      The most NFL ready QB since Peyton Manning isn't going to sit for two years.
                      You may be right or you may be wrong.. Its hard to say that a guy will NOT do anything before you ask him to do it.

                      The Colts need a lot more information here. They won't know if Manning will be healthy by the decision time and they don't know what Mannings trade value will be on or after draft night.

                      Do the Polains go up to Luck or his agent and say we are going to trade Manning if he is healthy? Is that what is commonly done?

                      I still like having both on the team even if its for one year. Luck trade value IMO is at the highest it will be but Mannings is at the lowest. IF the Colts trade Manning I would hope its after next year where he can be fully healthy and increase his trade value by playing.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 11-14-2011, 11:26 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        Luck's coming out, he said so. Maybe he pulls an Eli or something, but he's absolutely coming out.
                        Pryor said he was coming back too. Until he signs with an agent, he always has the option.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          He would just do what Eli did to San Diego which I hear is a possibility with the Lucks.
                          The leverage is different with this CBA.

                          The number one overall pick this year got paid 22 mill over 4 years. Thats a lot different than paying Eli 54 mill over 6 years with a 20 million dollar signing bonus.

                          The Chargers had a young Brees already and it was his contract year. There were more unknowns with the Chargers than there are with the COlts.

                          IT was a different situation all together. Luck has leverage but its not the same as Eli had. Basically all Luck can do is go back to college and if he makes that decision than it has to be well before the draft.

                          One QB doing this under an old CBA doesn't set a precedent IMO.
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 11-14-2011, 11:48 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                            It's a terrible thing to say but it's possible the best scenario for the team would be Manning's injury to be career ending. That at least takes the guesswork out of things.

                            Ideally, having Luck sit on the bench for 2-3 years behind a healthy Manning would put the Colts in a great situation. But as everyone says, that's probably not a realistic situation with a young QB who has the ability to make some demands.

                            And there's all kinds of scenarios that pop up with the above plan. What if Manning leads the team to a SB or two in those supposed final 2-3 years? Then do you still want to 'Leno' him? Does he change his mind about retirement and force your hand? And do you kick Luck to the curb at that point or do you take the PR hit and trade Manning?

                            Arguably, maybe that's a good problem to have looking forward... I don't know...

                            ...And remember, you're betting against the clock because how many years would Manning have left anyway?

                            And does it matter who the QB is if Polian doesn't do a better job of building a football team around him?
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              One QB doing this under an old CBA doesn't set a precedent IMO.
                              So that explains how John Elway and how he forced the Balt. Colts to trade him to Denver?

                              There's more examples out there than just one.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X