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

Luck vs. RG3

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

  • #61
    Re: Luck vs. RG3

    I don't care to quote folks, so Ill make a few points (as the resident Skins fan) then go hide back in my cave.

    • I love people comparing these guys to players currently in the NFL. Be in Manning, Vick, or Jeff George. These guys havent played a down in the NFL for cripes sake, how can we know if they will have good decision making or will have good or bad games in the 2nd season. hint. We cant and we dont. Period
    • The Redskins have CHANGED their whole philosophy, a LOT. They have a LOT of YOUNG talent, and even let Eddie Royal walk cause he wanted too much money (and I love Eddie, went to HS with him, and would have loved him on the Redskins, but I am glad we didnt over pay)
    • The one thing I see fans knock the Redskins on this off season is Garcon. While I agree we overpaid (hell Mike admitted as much as the owner meeting yesterday) we are taking a chance on a guy we expect to be a big play receiver, as Moss cannot carry the load anymore (not that he could). Not to mention his deal is really 2 years XX million (cheaper then what was reported by the media, but I am too lazy to look it up right now)
    • Did I mention the Skins are finally building with youth through the draft, last year was great having young O-lineman and young RB's. Vinny Cerrato is gone, there is a new sheriff in town (Bruce Allen)
    • I have not seen the Redskins signing a bunch of players at the same position....unless you mean wide receiver. You know, the one position we have sucked at and where we have ONE player (at least Santana is the only one who has seemed to stay healthy for 16 games)
    • One could easily argue we overpaid for RG3, but as Bruce said "everyone wants a better deal then the one they got when they bought their home". If he is our QB for the next 5-10 year giving up 2 draft picks will be well worth it
    • Gamble good post. Time will tell how is better at what, though I will say the less pressure they put on the young QB, whoever it is (read the better they run the ball) will dictate how the QB does, regardless of if we are talking about the Colts or Redskins. If the young man takes 2 - 3 years to learn, at least it will be progress from watching Sexy Rexy and Johnny Beck....who we all knew were not long term solutions.
    • Redskins SWAPPED a pick this year, and gave up a 1st and 2nd rounder next year. A small price to pay for a franchise QB. Oh btw, if we end up making the playoffs this year that pick doesnt mean jack ****. So yeah, I dont see it as anything close to the Ricky Williams trade (where they literally mortgaged everything on one player). swap one pick and trade 2 next year versis all pick this year and a 1st and 3rd next year. One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong.....

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Luck vs. RG3

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Ricky Williams numbers : 2431 Carries, 10,009 yds, 66 TDs. 342 Catches, 2,606 yds, 8 TD's.

      And he missed the entire 2004 and 2006 seasons.

      Though he wasn't always a model teammate. I'd say he had a pretty successful career.
      True he was productive, but that is why I said he had it all, just not mentally there. If he was mentally there he would have been a dominate back in the NFL and might have been able to justify all the picks he was traded for, lol
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Luck vs. RG3

        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        I don't care to quote folks, so Ill make a few points (as the resident Skins fan) then go hide back in my cave.

        • I love people comparing these guys to players currently in the NFL. Be in Manning, Vick, or Jeff George. These guys havent played a down in the NFL for cripes sake, how can we know if they will have good decision making or will have good or bad games in the 2nd season. hint. We cant and we dont. Period
        • The Redskins have CHANGED their whole philosophy, a LOT. They have a LOT of YOUNG talent, and even let Eddie Royal walk cause he wanted too much money (and I love Eddie, went to HS with him, and would have loved him on the Redskins, but I am glad we didnt over pay)
        • The one thing I see fans knock the Redskins on this off season is Garcon. While I agree we overpaid (hell Mike admitted as much as the owner meeting yesterday) we are taking a chance on a guy we expect to be a big play receiver, as Moss cannot carry the load anymore (not that he could). Not to mention his deal is really 2 years XX million (cheaper then what was reported by the media, but I am too lazy to look it up right now)
        • Did I mention the Skins are finally building with youth through the draft, last year was great having young O-lineman and young RB's. Vinny Cerrato is gone, there is a new sheriff in town (Bruce Allen)
        • I have not seen the Redskins signing a bunch of players at the same position....unless you mean wide receiver. You know, the one position we have sucked at and where we have ONE player (at least Santana is the only one who has seemed to stay healthy for 16 games)
        • One could easily argue we overpaid for RG3, but as Bruce said "everyone wants a better deal then the one they got when they bought their home". If he is our QB for the next 5-10 year giving up 2 draft picks will be well worth it
        • Gamble good post. Time will tell how is better at what, though I will say the less pressure they put on the young QB, whoever it is (read the better they run the ball) will dictate how the QB does, regardless of if we are talking about the Colts or Redskins. If the young man takes 2 - 3 years to learn, at least it will be progress from watching Sexy Rexy and Johnny Beck....who we all knew were not long term solutions.
        • Redskins SWAPPED a pick this year, and gave up a 1st and 2nd rounder next year. A small price to pay for a franchise QB. Oh btw, if we end up making the playoffs this year that pick doesnt mean jack ****. So yeah, I dont see it as anything close to the Ricky Williams trade (where they literally mortgaged everything on one player). swap one pick and trade 2 next year versis all pick this year and a 1st and 3rd next year. One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong.....
        Just comment on a few of those points, I agree that WR has sucked for you guys for a long time, but most of the guys you have on your roster are #2 and #3 guys, through free agency you grabbed another #2 guys, so now you guys have 2 #2 Garcon, Moss, #2/3 Josh Morgan, Lenard Hankerson, #3 in Armstrong, and the guy from Nebraska I think his name is Austin, and then you try to bring in another #3 in Eddie Royal, that does not add up.

        As far as the comparison, we are talking about similarities to their games for the most part, no one knows how anyone will turnout but projecting a player based on the skills he has shown in tape at the collegiate level is a useful tool in evaluating and projecting how they will be in the future.

        True I agree you have gotten younger and that is a good thing.

        I am not too worried about the trading of the picks, it is what it is, you guys have needed a QB that you can feel good about for a while, this is putting you in the right direction, and there are other ways to get young talent besides the draft so you all should be fine.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Luck vs. RG3

          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
          I love people comparing these guys to players currently in the NFL. Be in Manning, Vick, or Jeff George. These guys havent played a down in the NFL for cripes sake, how can we know if they will have good decision making or will have good or bad games in the 2nd season. hint. We cant and we dont. Period
          This is what drafts are about. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't pay attention to them. It's all about the probabilities of being good, great, or bad. Which is what these comparisons are based on. You're making it sound like all things are equal and Andrew Luck has the same odds to be good as does ... say ... Kirk Cousins.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Luck vs. RG3

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
            This is what drafts are about. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't pay attention to them. It's all about the probabilities of being good, great, or bad. Which is what these comparisons are based on. You're making it sound like all things are equal and Andrew Luck has the same odds to be good as does ... say ... Kirk Cousins.
            Really? I thought drafts were about how many beers they could chug and how many coed they could hook up with.

            No, I am making it sound like the comparisons were long ago worm out (thanks 24/7 news cycle that has nothing to talk about), and since none of of us know what will happen I think its funny when people say "x person will definitely be a star" or "X person is going to suck so why waste our time drafting him"

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Luck vs. RG3

              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
              Really? I thought drafts were about how many beers they could chug and how many coed they could hook up with.

              No, I am making it sound like the comparisons were long ago worm out (thanks 24/7 news cycle that has nothing to talk about), and since none of of us know what will happen I think its funny when people say "x person will definitely be a star" or "X person is going to suck so why waste our time drafting him"
              You've said that you believe RG3 will be a good NFL player becuase you believe Washington didn't go wrong by getting him, how do you know that?

              It's called a prediction. People make them, and they're allowed to be wrong. Lighten up.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Luck vs. RG3

                I said I believe he could be a good player. Did not predict his demise or his great success. Cause guess what, I don't know. If I did I would not be posting here, I would be out buying lottery tickets.

                I am allowed my opinion. Lighten up.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Luck vs. RG3

                  Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                  Really? I thought drafts were about how many beers they could chug and how many coed they could hook up with.

                  No, I am making it sound like the comparisons were long ago worm out (thanks 24/7 news cycle that has nothing to talk about), and since none of of us know what will happen I think its funny when people say "x person will definitely be a star" or "X person is going to suck so why waste our time drafting him"
                  I think most people predict both players will be good but greatness will come if they work harder than they ever have in there life for years.

                  Luck is more of a timing passer like manning and RG3 is more of a Jay cutler type. Both can improve though and become elite QB in league it just what you prefer. Would you rather have a phliip river in luck with the potential to be manning or would you rather have jay cutler with the ability to run and turn into Aaron rodgers.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Luck vs. RG3

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Ricky Williams numbers : 2431 Carries, 10,009 yds, 66 TDs. 342 Catches, 2,606 yds, 8 TD's.

                    And he missed the entire 2004 and 2006 seasons.

                    Though he wasn't always a model teammate. I'd say he had a pretty successful career.
                    Not doubting he had some success, but he was never worth the amount they gave up for him. Something like 9 draft picks. At the time, Ricky was damn near declared an NFL Hall of Famer before he was drafted, so he didn't really live up to expectations. It was utter shock that we took Edge ahead of him for most of the country.

                    In fact, it's hard to find a single instance of a player being acquired for a large sum and actually panning out..... Even in Williams' case, he had his best season for Miami... not New Orleans, the team who paid the huge price for him.
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-28-2012, 08:30 PM.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Luck vs. RG3

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      I said I believe he could be a good player. Did not predict his demise or his great success. Cause guess what, I don't know. If I did I would not be posting here, I would be out buying lottery tickets.

                      I am allowed my opinion. Lighten up.
                      I'm not the one acting like some people aren't allowed their opinion. I am light.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Luck vs. RG3

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        I don't care to quote folks, so Ill make a few points (as the resident Skins fan) then go hide back in my cave.

                        • The Redskins have CHANGED their whole philosophy, a LOT. They have a LOT of YOUNG talent, and even let Eddie Royal walk cause he wanted too much money (and I love Eddie, went to HS with him, and would have loved him on the Redskins, but I am glad we didnt over pay)
                        Not that I really care... yer a 'skin fan, so whatever... but it cracks me up how you first claim that Washington is finally doing things right, changing their philosophy and making smart frugal moves, and then spend the next 3 bullet points justifying moves that were the exact opposite of that, lol...

                        Ya, they overpaid for RG3... ya, they overpaid for Garcon.... Ya. They're the 'Skins. Snyder has a rep. If RG3 ends up panning out, it will be the first time in a loooong time I can remember that a player actually lived up to such a lofty transaction.

                        • Did I mention the Skins are finally building with youth through the draft...
                        That's a fine theory, but practice would prove otherwise --- they just traded their next two 1st rounders and this year's 2nd rounder.... whoops!

                        Now, I'll give you that, if RG3 is everything he's hyped up to be, then it lessens the blow... but whether he proves his worth or not --- it's still a loss of some pretty big-time picks over the next 2-3 years. Indy will get to choose an arguably better QB without giving up a single pick. That's good business there. Washing is mortgaging some of their future, no matter how good RG3 turns out.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-28-2012, 08:48 PM.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Luck vs. RG3

                          Where did I say they overpaid for RG3? I did not....

                          I said one could argue. I would think they are wrong, but you could argue that. Then again, if Ricky Williams is worth a whole years worth of picks and two the next years 2 picks really isnt anything, is it?

                          Yes, I think they may have overpaid for Garcon. But if he ends up being a legit number 1 like they think he can, then he will be worth the price.

                          So yeah, they are the Skins. Just under new management and with a new philosophy

                          Lastly, yes, because Chris Cooley and Fred Davis have been terrible moves Dan Snyder fully supported. Those moves just totally blew up in our faces.

                          Ninja edit:

                          Yeah, ... 'cept they just traded their next two 1st rounders and this year's 2nd rounder.... whoops!
                          Yeah, a risky as hell trade, especially since they have finally started to realize they can find young talent and this new regime seems to value draft picks.

                          But like you said, if it pans out then its worth it. If not I would be pissed, but at least I would know the team has a real franchise QB for the first time since................Theisman. Campbell was a project, but one that failed early on

                          As far as Indy, you guys are in a sweet position. It opens up a whole can of worms of it is better to lose for draft picks, but me personally I would rather win and mortgage a few picks. Esp if you are high on a player that you think can make a huge impact (thanks Jay)

                          Indy will get to choose an arguably better QB without giving up a single pick. That's good business there. Washing is mortgaging some of their future, no matter how good RG3 turns out.
                          sucking really, really, really, really, really bad = good business? If that was the case, I would think your whole staff from last year would still be in fact. A lot less good business, a lot more good luck, IMO.
                          Last edited by vapacersfan; 03-28-2012, 08:52 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Luck vs. RG3

                            Everytime I get concerned that the Colts won't take RG3 and we'll miss out... I go watch some Andrew Luck highlights. I see his aggressive dropback. I see how decides to throw the ball very quickly, with confidence. I see his comfort and control in the pocket. I see him outrun linemen and linebackers seemingly with ease. I see him run absolutely nasty play-action fakes and bootlegs. I see he is built like a tank.

                            Griffin certainly is more athletic. He can certainly make all of the throws. But for me, he spends too much time with the ball thinking about what to do. Luck looks decisive.

                            Oh, and then i watch the play where Luck levels the USC db hahaha
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Luck vs. RG3

                              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                              sucking really, really, really, really, really bad = good business? If that was the case, I would think your whole staff from last year would still be in fact. A lot less good business, a lot more good luck, IMO.
                              I just enjoyed about 12 years of incredible football before 1 bad season, so no, sucking isn't exactly what I'd call Indianapolis Colts for the most part. :P Not since about 1999. They got sloppy in the last few years with contracts and older players, and then injuries got them. It was still a helluva run.

                              Irsay is cleaning house, which is what he needs to do. Ya, I'd say the moves he's made, while not popular, are good business decisions. We'll see how it goes, but basically what Indy is doing right now is ripping the band-aid off instead of tryin to make it stick for a few extra years.
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Luck vs. RG3

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                I just enjoyed about 12 years of incredible football before 1 bad season, so no, sucking isn't exactly what I'd call Indianapolis Colts for the most part. :P Not since about 1999. They got sloppy in the last few years with contracts and older players, and then injuries got them. It was still a helluva run.

                                Irsay is cleaning house, which is what he needs to do. Ya, I'd say the moves he's made, while not popular, are good business decisions. We'll see how it goes, but basically what Indy is doing right now is ripping the band-aid off instead of tryin to make it stick for a few extra years.
                                None of that has anything to do with them sucking (I guess sucking all year is good business?) to have the number 1 pick. Which is the claim you made comparing them to the Redskins in the 1 versus 2 pick debate.

                                Not that it matters....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X