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

NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

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

  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

    Originally posted by Ransom View Post
    Well, I hope no one takes it personally, but the utter glee at losing and Jags avatars, etc, about had me ready to quit the board. And I do feel, not necessarily this board but in general, that Colts fans don't completely appreciate what Manning has done, either because they don't really remember the time before he started or because he's not a Basketball player. Really, I'm not in the habit of gushing over some sports figure at all, but I felt like I had to post it. Again, not going the route of questioning people's 'fanhood' but it's a personal feeling. I'm excited to get Luck if it means avoiding another decade of Jeff George Jack Trudeau QB controversy but if Manning has played his last down as a Colt, it'd feel like he never got the right send off (like Reggie did) and that'd be a bit tragic, at least as sports stories can be called 'tragic.'


    I think most of us appreciate what Manning has done (although I admit I do think we should've gotten more than one SB out of him but that's more of a management issue than a Manning issue with me) however we also do remember what the Colts were like before(a lot of us anyways) and we don't want to revisit it anytime soon either.

    Look at the Dolphins and Broncos who have waited forever to get that next great QB after Marino and Elway and that QB never came(and they are still waiting)

    We don't want the Colts to end up like that and without a great QB and a small market such as this we're on our way to being irrelevant.

    It would suck if the last memory of Manning as a Colt was him looking at Caldwell in disgust for calling a bad timeout but unfortunately not everyone gets the Elway sendoff.

    When it ends it just ends...

    Comment


    • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

      Originally posted by Ransom View Post
      Well, I hope no one takes it personally, but the utter glee at losing and Jags avatars, etc, about had me ready to quit the board. And I do feel, not necessarily this board but in general, that Colts fans don't completely appreciate what Manning has done, either because they don't really remember the time before he started or because he's not a Basketball player. Really, I'm not in the habit of gushing over some sports figure at all, but I felt like I had to post it. Again, not going the route of questioning people's 'fanhood' but it's a personal feeling. I'm excited to get Luck if it means avoiding another decade of Jeff George Jack Trudeau QB controversy but if Manning has played his last down as a Colt, it'd feel like he never got the right send off (like Reggie did) and that'd be a bit tragic, at least as sports stories can be called 'tragic.'
      Of course we appreciate what Peyton has done, and if he were healthy and five years younger, this wouldn't even be a debate. But considering his current condition and age, along with all the key FAs that may be leaving, it's time to look to the future. Peyton can't play forever.

      Comment


      • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        That's almost half the Super Bowls since 1970. Uhhh, I'll take that percentage any day. How many times has a QB drafted #2 overall won an SB since 1970? #3? #4? A QB at #1 is far from a sure thing, but this particular QB is said to be a surer thing, and I like my chances rolling with him. And just because they pick Luck #1 overall doesn't mean they will "ignore" their other problems. They know they are getting older and have problems all across the football field. Now they also have the top pick in the second round, which is where our first round pick usually hovers.
        These arguments can go both ways like you are pointing out Cdash and I have been beating that drum up and down. The whole superbowl ring as a measuring stick for success is silly.

        IF you look at players drafted around pick 25-32 they would probably have more rings than picks 1-10. If your drafted to a superbowl contending team then you should probably have a better shot at winning. I mean how many Barry Sanders type players have been drafted with the 3rd pick vs the Mendenhalls of league that were drafted with a teams late first.

        More draft picks don't promise you anything.. I mean look at the Pats who have over the last 3 years have turned 21 draft picks into 33 by trading down or trading players.

        Much of those picks by the Pats were on defense and its still not a great defense. Their offense is great but thats mainly due to Brady and their savvy TE picks which were a late first and a 4th rounder.

        I would much rather draft a QB who plays a pro style offense and calls his own plays than going after a Qb in the late first or early second and for ever Andy Dalton theres a Pat White, Brain Brohm, Chad Henne, John Beck, Drew Stanton that were also drafted in the second round.

        Give me quality of quantity any day.

        Comment


        • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          Thanks.

          One more college game to go and then I'm on my way.

          It's going to be fun. Looking forward to it.

          And hey - sorry 'bout Peyton, but come on - 3 neck surgeries ? Yes, he's a legend. Yes, he's got a ring. Yes, he's the best Indy Colt in history. It's time.

          See you folks soon. Thanks again.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by cdash View Post
            That's almost half the Super Bowls since 1970. Uhhh, I'll take that percentage any day. How many times has a QB drafted #2 overall won an SB since 1970? #3? #4? A QB at #1 is far from a sure thing, but this particular QB is said to be a surer thing, and I like my chances rolling with him. And just because they pick Luck #1 overall doesn't mean they will "ignore" their other problems. They know they are getting older and have problems all across the football field. Now they also have the top pick in the second round, which is where our first round pick usually hovers.
            That's for TOTAL players, not just limited to QBs. The number of #1 draft picks winning Superbowls would be significantly less because most of the SBs have been dominated by non- #1 draft QBs.

            Like Montana, Steve Young, Big Ben, Tom Brady.

            The list of SB winning QBs that have been drafted #1 overall is considerably shorter than total of #1 draft picks in general winning.

            In fact, only 14 QBs selected just in the first round have won SBs.
            http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_f...the_Super_Bowl

            Bradshaw, Plunkett, Aikman, Elway, and both Mannings.

            So out of 14 total first round QBs, only a third of them were selected with the overall #1 pick.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ue_draft_picks
            There's a list of total #1 draft picks. 19 have have been QBs.

            So out of that 19 for 40 overall #1s who have won SB bowls, more than 2/3rds come from other positions.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I don't think a single person on this board is excited to see Manning gone. Not one.
              I don't know why BBfall fan is thanking your post, considering she's already admitted that she would be disappointed if Peyton came back.

              So if she's disappointed that he would come back, I don't think it's that far off to say that she'd be happy to see him gone, considering both are polar opposites.

              So right there is one.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                Give me quality of quantity any day.
                Yes, because there is no such thing as quality outside of the QB position.

                Or there isn't any quality outside of Andrew Luck I should say. Every other player sucks then?

                That's what your arguing when you can't entertain the idea of drafting any other players.


                As for what happens with the new GM. IDK. I would like to see them trade the pick, that's still the best way to rebuild a team, but I thought trading the pick fit the personality of Polian quite perfectly. Now, it's just a waiting game.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Yes, because there is no such thing as quality outside of the QB position.

                  Or there isn't any quality outside of Andrew Luck I should say. Every other player sucks then?

                  That's what your arguing when you can't entertain the idea of drafting any other players.


                  As for what happens with the new GM. IDK. I would like to see them trade the pick, that's still the best way to rebuild a team, but I thought trading the pick fit the personality of Polian quite perfectly. Now, it's just a waiting game.
                  Well are you a talent evaluator or a scout. I personally am not but when I see the vast majority of people praise Luck for multiple years for his accuracy and decision making which is by far the most important part of QB prospect then I tend to believe them.

                  When a ton of talent evaluators are saying that Luck is by far the clear top choice in this draft I tend to believe that. Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't good QB prospects out there but are they better than Luck.. I haven't seen that from a decision making and accuracy stand point. I think the only people who would say RG3 is better is simply from a athletic stand point and to me thats a weak argument when you look at the flops of Vince Young and others.

                  Again each draft is different and this isn't a Jamarcus Russel draft. Its a good year to have the number one and Irsay seems to agree.

                  And please stop with the hyperbole's. Its insulting and pretty lame to suggest that my post remotely say that.

                  I think there will be plenty of talent in the early second and third/fourth round picks which the Colts can rebuild some of the roster with. I just don't think they should give up Luck to do that... sort of like I wouldn't want to give up PM in 1998 to do that.
                  Last edited by Gamble1; 01-03-2012, 12:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                    You're going to compare RGIII with Vince Young?

                    http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/...e-young-1.html

                    http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/...fin-iii-1.html

                    They're both good athletes and they're both black. The comparisons stop just about right there.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      I think there will be plenty of talent in the early second and third/fourth round picks which the Colts can rebuild some of the roster with. I just don't think they should give up Luck to do that... sort of like I wouldn't want to give up PM in 1998 to do that.
                      Would you have given up Ryan Leaf to do that? People hang their hat on the whole "Andrew Luck is the best prospect since Peyton Manning." No, actually he's the best prospect since Peyton Manning AND Ryan Leaf.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Would you have given up Ryan Leaf to do that? People hang their hat on the whole "Andrew Luck is the best prospect since Peyton Manning." No, actually he's the best prospect since Peyton Manning AND Ryan Leaf.
                        If you are going to argue that there is no sure thing then obviously you win but if you want to rely on stats then building around a highly regarded college QB makes much more sense than building around any other position. Sure there are difference makers who were picked #1 but do they have the impact of a Manning, Brees, or other great QBs. No other position influences the game as consistently as the QB does.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                          The Colts have had the biggest impact player in the entire league on their roster for the past 11 seasons (not including this one), and they only have one SB ring to show for it.

                          QBs with less of an impact on the game than Peyton have more rings than Peyton does.

                          That's my point. We've already wasted 10 years of the Greatest QB to ever play the game, because we relied solely on him, rather than buidling a good team.

                          Excuse me for not wanting to go down the same exact path so soon.


                          Or atleast I should have said "wanted." With Polian's gone, who knows what they'll do. I have a lot more faith in a new FO building an actual team with Andrew Luck than I did with Polian.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Yes, because there is no such thing as quality outside of the QB position.

                            Or there isn't any quality outside of Andrew Luck I should say. Every other player sucks then?

                            That's what your arguing when you can't entertain the idea of drafting any other players.


                            As for what happens with the new GM. IDK. I would like to see them trade the pick, that's still the best way to rebuild a team, but I thought trading the pick fit the personality of Polian quite perfectly. Now, it's just a waiting game.
                            You keep saying this but show me proof. Was it the right move for the Chargers even though they were forced to do it? What have they won.

                            And as for Vince and RG3 yes I will compare them. Doesn't mean one isn't better than the other but both are dual threat Qbs and are highly successful being as such. That also doesn't mean you should trade down to get one or reach for one.

                            For the person who thinks you know the right path to go about this not one colts FO staff has said that we should trade down in this draft for more picks. IRsay hasn't said it.. Polain hasn't said it?? What am I missing?

                            Maybe your the one who should shoot the resume over to 56th street if you think your right.

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                            That's my point. We've already wasted 10 years of the Greatest QB to ever play the game, because we relied solely on him, rather than buidling a good team
                            .
                            Relying solely on him is the GM's and coaches fault not the players fault.

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post


                            Or atleast I should have said "wanted." With Polian's gone, who knows what they'll do. I have a lot more faith in a new FO building an actual team with Andrew Luck than I did with Polian.
                            I have always been genuinely confused by this. In one thread you'll argue that Polain is a HOF GM and has been voted best GM by Forbes for working with players with less team salary.

                            So which one is it? You a fan of Polain or not? Are you happy with 2 superbowl appearances winning one or are you not?
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 01-03-2012, 02:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              The Colts have had the biggest impact player in the entire league on their roster for the past 11 seasons (not including this one), and they only have one SB ring to show for it.

                              QBs with less of an impact on the game than Peyton have more rings than Peyton does.

                              That's my point. We've already wasted 10 years of the Greatest QB to ever play the game, because we relied solely on him, rather than buidling a good team.

                              Excuse me for not wanting to go down the same exact path so soon.


                              Or atleast I should have said "wanted." With Polian's gone, who knows what they'll do. I have a lot more faith in a new FO building an actual team with Andrew Luck than I did with Polian.

                              True, having an all-world Quarterback guarantees nothing. But let's say hypothetically that Manning doesn't play again (again, this is purely hypothetical as none of us know what's going to happen with him). QB is obviously a major need if Manning can't play again as we saw how awful our team was this season with the pitiful quarterbacks we threw out there. If we just had an average NFL quarterback on our team, we could have maybe won 6 or so games. Our team is flawed, but it's not so bad that it would be 2-14 with someone competent playing QB.

                              So if you draft Luck (again, assuming for argument's sake that Peyton doesn't come back), then I'd say he at least gives you a pretty good chance at filling that massive QB void. Then in years to follow you can fill in the other gaps on the team. It's not a one or the other thing. Just because we draft an other elite quarterback doesn't mean that we can't try to build a great defense too. A competent GM should be able to do both. Things would probably be a bit rough in the early years of Luck, so we would probably have some more high draft picks in years to come. And if you didn't re-sign any of these old FA's on our roster, you could maybe direct some of that money to younger FA's.

                              Having an elite Quarterback certainly doesn't guarantee you a Super Bowl. Nothing does. But in today's NFL, it almost guarantees that you will field a very competitive team. Three of the best teams (Packers, Saints, Pats) are teams with great quarterbacks and suspect defenses. Of course, no one knows how good Luck will be, but if Manning's health is sketchy then I think it's worth a shot. Hopefully a competent GM could build a complete roster around him.

                              Just because we made mistakes with Manning doesn't mean that we have to make them again. And while there was certainly an over-reliance on Peyton in recent years, Peyton and the players themselves bear a decent amount of the blame for not having more than one ring. You'll probably agree with what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway: It's not like the front office is the only reason Peyton doesn't have more rings.....far from it, actually. That 2005 Colts team was EASILY the best Colts team I've ever seen (loaded offense AND defense), and I think most would agree with me on that. We actually had a competent defense that year as Sanders was completely healthy and Corey Simon played (with the usual contributions from Freeney and Mathis of course). But we couldn't take care of business at home against the Steelers. That falls 100% on the players. That team was easily good enough to win the Super Bowl that year and should have. Beat the Steelers at home and then you have Denver at the Dome for a third straight year (we would have killed them again) and then the Seahawks in the Super Bowl at Detroit (we would have had a ton of fans there). But we failed to get the job done and that falls on Peyton, the players, and the coaching staff.

                              Same with two years ago. Maybe that 09 team was flawed in some areas and was carried by Peyton all year, but we were still in a position to beat the Saints. If Garcon doesn't drop that gimme, or if Hank Basket recovers the on-side kick, or if Peyton doesn't throw that pick 6....then maybe we have that second Super Bowl ring. Then what's the criticism on Polian? That he only won 2 rings with Manning?

                              The main reasons I wanted Polian gone were 1) Sometimes you just need change for change's sake (see Walsh with the Pacers) and 2) I think he had become too hostile and arrogant toward the fans and Indianapolis press. Clearly those at the Star despised him, as is evidenced by Wilson calling Polian out this year (and vise-versa when Polian called Kravitz a "rat" or when he went to an ESPN New York station to break news on Manning, clearly an "F U" to the Indy press). The President of a team in a small market having such a hostile relationship with the local press is never a good thing. Irsay, a guy who prides himself on the Colts' relationship with the Indy community, clearly had to be taking note of that. And of course, our recent drafts were very suspect and the refusal to change philosophy in certain areas was unforgivable. When you look at all of that together, it was definitely time for the man to go. But while I'm certainly not the biggest Polian fan, I don't think it's completely fair to say that Peyton would have more rings if only he didn't have a poor front office. Peyton would have more rings if he and the players executed better in certain situations (2005 and 2009 particularly). It's as simple as that.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-03-2012, 02:57 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Would you have given up Ryan Leaf to do that? People hang their hat on the whole "Andrew Luck is the best prospect since Peyton Manning." No, actually he's the best prospect since Peyton Manning AND Ryan Leaf.
                                Let me put it like this... "IF" Luck shows up overweight and blows off the Colts interview like Ryan Leaf did then I'll get behind trading the first overall pick for RG3 or another QB. You see that happening?? Me neither.. And everyone acts like Leaf and Manning were close to be picking number one. If you show up fat and lazy to your job interview,,,, check that you don't show up at all what is your real chances of getting hired?

                                Manning and Leaf wasn't as close as people make it out to be.

                                The difference between Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning was that one was willing to make football his life and the other one was not.. I think its safe to say that Luck is all business unlike Leaf, Leinart, Young, Russel or any of the first round draft bust at QB.
                                Last edited by Gamble1; 01-03-2012, 02:30 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X