Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

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

  • #31
    Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

    I think we all forget that olblu is an all-american armchair GM. Colts weren't smart enough to do it the olblu way so now olblu is singing "It's the end of the world as we know it"



    No one knows how long it will take the Colts to climb back out of their current situation. This year is a pretty safe bet of being under .500 but after that anything is possible with free agency and multiple drafts. No one here is interested in your "sky is falling" crap. We understand where you have put your chips and in the slim chance you are right and Colts still stink after 5 years, then feel free to dance around saying "nanananana in your face". Until then, how about toning down the over-pessimistic predictions of the future?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

      Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
      I am not a troll just because you do not agree with me. I have supplied reasons for my views. I think anyone who calls a person a troll or just about any other name should be banned from this site.....

      When you call people names it means you cannot come with a logic to refute their arguments... I don't call people names or at least I sure try not to do that....

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Well, if you're expectation is he has to win a SB and break all of Peyton's records or he's a qualified "bust", then I gotta strongly disagree with you.



        You have every right to think that, but it tells me you haven't done much actual research on Luck.

        I'd rather have this discussion with someone who actually knows what he's talking about in regards to the subject matter at hand, rather than just generalizing from recent events (of which, weren't common occurrences).

        Go do some reading on Luck, watch his footage. Learn the contexts. You'll find that the stuff he was doing on the football field were way ahead of anyone else in college football, including RG3. By a mile. The stuff he did goes beyond anyone I've ever seen at the college level.

        Peyton threw 28 interceptions his rookie season and went 3-13 with a similar supporting cast (and possibly even better). So I don't wanna hear you yelling "BUST" from the mountaintops when Luck's rookie season looks similar.
        Hmmmm. Didn't RG3 throw for more yards and more touchdowns than Luck last year? I have watched Luck and when I saw him I was not impressed. He doesn't have a long ball and really doesn't even try to make that pass. Corners will not have to watch for him to go deep because he can't with any accuracy. I started this thread quoting what an expert said about Luck and the Colts. I think he had it about right. The team Peyton came to was much better than this team will be. Bill Polian has also said that. If you have a problem with what they say, take it up with them. I just happen to agree with them and I do not believe that Luck is the QB of a decade. There are more than a few people in the know who do not believe he will even be a good NFL QB much less a great one. We will have to see and endure many years of hopeless football until we find that out. I don't think that will be much fun and I think a lot of people will jump the ship. I point out again that the hated Patsies never seem to have this total breakdown and starting over. They just seem to reload and keep on winning..... That is a vast difference in management.... Anyone want to bet that the Pats will trade those two first round picks for a bunch of lower round picks and picks for next year? They have rarely kept their first round draft choices. I will admit they have been low first round but they got a lot of bang out of those lower rounds.......

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

          We know your first point both the Colts and Luck will suck for a long time. You've said that time and again so what are you saying that's new other than both will suck for a long time.
          What does this thread say that you haven't said before in other threads?
          For all the pundits that say Luck doesn't have pro QB credentials there is almost unanimous consensus that he is the top choice. Some obviously think he has talent so why just quote the small minority that don't like him/
          Last edited by speakout4; 04-26-2012, 07:05 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            Hmmmm. Didn't RG3 throw for more yards and more touchdowns than Luck last year? I have watched Luck and when I saw him I was not impressed. He doesn't have a long ball and really doesn't even try to make that pass. Corners will not have to watch for him to go deep because he can't with any accuracy. I started this thread quoting what an expert said about Luck and the Colts. I think he had it about right. The team Peyton came to was much better than this team will be. Bill Polian has also said that. If you have a problem with what they say, take it up with them. I just happen to agree with them and I do not believe that Luck is the QB of a decade. There are more than a few people in the know who do not believe he will even be a good NFL QB much less a great one. We will have to see and endure many years of hopeless football until we find that out. I don't think that will be much fun and I think a lot of people will jump the ship. I point out again that the hated Patsies never seem to have this total breakdown and starting over. They just seem to reload and keep on winning..... That is a vast difference in management.... Anyone want to bet that the Pats will trade those two first round picks for a bunch of lower round picks and picks for next year? They have rarely kept their first round draft choices. I will admit they have been low first round but they got a lot of bang out of those lower rounds.......
            Huh? Luck didn't have recievers to go long thats why he didn't look deep a lot.

            Having a great deep ball means absolutely nothing in the NFL. Jeff George had a big arm that could go deep and the same goes for Rex Grossman.

            What makes a great QB is not a deep ball its the ability to throw accurate and with velocity to beat the CB. Luck has that plain and simple.

            Luck early on will be like Tom Brady in the early 2000's. The colts simply don't have the guys to go deep but if you put a Randy Moss or even a fast small WR on the team he will hit him in stride.

            You make me want the season to begin so I can see you eating crow.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              Hmmmm. Didn't RG3 throw for more yards and more touchdowns than Luck last year? I have watched Luck and when I saw him I was not impressed. He doesn't have a long ball and really doesn't even try to make that pass. Corners will not have to watch for him to go deep because he can't with any accuracy. I started this thread quoting what an expert said about Luck and the Colts. I think he had it about right. The team Peyton came to was much better than this team will be. Bill Polian has also said that. If you have a problem with what they say, take it up with them. I just happen to agree with them and I do not believe that Luck is the QB of a decade. There are more than a few people in the know who do not believe he will even be a good NFL QB much less a great one. We will have to see and endure many years of hopeless football until we find that out. I don't think that will be much fun and I think a lot of people will jump the ship. I point out again that the hated Patsies never seem to have this total breakdown and starting over. They just seem to reload and keep on winning..... That is a vast difference in management.... Anyone want to bet that the Pats will trade those two first round picks for a bunch of lower round picks and picks for next year? They have rarely kept their first round draft choices. I will admit they have been low first round but they got a lot of bang out of those lower rounds.......

              See, this shows your ignorance of the college game, and I'm not mad at you for that, just saying that you need to do your homework, because it's clear that you haven't. You're generalizing by pointing to uncommon examples of late-round QBs becoming great. You're going completely by the long ball and stats. You *have* to understand the context. You need to read up on what Luck and RG3 were *actually* doing.

              You need to know the difference between pro-style (which emphasizes offensive balance and is more west-coast style, short dink-and-dunk passes that keep the chains moving) vs. a "spread" offense which is pass-happy, vertical, send out all your receivers and throw it far. Stanford usually ran the ball more than they passed it. QBs in a spread offense will have way more stats than one in a pro-style --- and Luck still nearly matched RG3.

              You need to realize that Baylor had a lot more offensive talent around RG3 than Luck did at Stanford, especially at receiver.

              You need to realize that RG3 was running plays called in from the sideline by his coaches, whereas Luck was running a pro-style offense, and at times was calling his own plays at the line of scrimmage, with great success. He was basically doing what Manning does *now*. In college. It's unheard of. RG3 isn't anywhere close to doing that. That is a HUGE and difficult skill to acquire -- Luck has already done it, I have doubts that RG3 will be doing that anytime soon.

              Luck's arm isn't any weaker than RG3's --- he just played in an offense that rarely went "deep". Luck is capable of uncorking the ball *farther* than RG3, with tremendous accuracy. Luck throws the ball overall a lot better than RG3, with proper release, placement, accuracy, adjustments. His throwing arsenal is the most extensive I've seen. The misconception is that RG3 has a better deep ball --- I would argue that Luck, after watching both, is ahead of RG3 in almost *every* type of throw. RG3 has an almost "sidewinder" throwing motion.

              Go watch Luck bowl over a defensive back on a fumble return... go watch Luck make a 1-handed "Marvin Harrison-esque" out-of-bounds catch.... go watch Luck uncork a 50-yard bomb from his *knees* and threading the needle between 2 deep covers.... go watch Luck make a 60-yard run and bowl over a defensive back like a half-back... he's bigger and faster than Tim Tebow.

              You won't see RG3 doing this. Luck is just a born-and-bred football player.

              Both of their pro days pretty much tell the story of these two:

              - RG3 ran his indoors in perfect elements; he had his "posse" nearby, was more about "looking awesome" and blared his rap music over the loud speakers.

              - Luck showed up in a t-shirt and sweat shorts; executed his pro-day outdoors --- *against* the wind, and actually ran plays that put his teammates on display rather than himself.

              That's a football player. He's got the perfect temperament, he's the most humble guy in the world, he has a better skillset than RG3 on almost every front.

              Luck doesn't party, is in bed every night by 11, watches as much tape as Peyton, doesn't own a car, shares a Honda Civic with his sisters, hates to talk about himself, but loves to talk about his teammates. His favorite hobby is reading. Off the football field, he's described as a goober and somewhat geeky. This is not a man full of himself, despite the fact he's the best QB to come along, imo, since Elway (and yes, I believe he's a better prospect than Manning coming out of college).

              That's the guy I want on my team.

              ---
              RG3 is an impressive prospect, but he's not on the same level, once you dig into the stories. He's the "prettier" pick... but football isn't pretty. Luck is a born football player, shared the womb with a football. RG3 is more like.... an world-class olympic athlete who happens to be pretty damn good at football. I'm not saying RG3 won't be a very good player and won't have some "wow" moments... but Luck is the best player.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-26-2012, 08:01 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


              • #37
                Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                Luck threw it pretty long on his pro day so he has the ability to throw the long ball.

                Luck is intelligent, hard worker, can make all the throws with accuracy and pretty fast in his own right. If this were baseball, he'd be a 5 tool prospect that everyone drools over.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  Wayne couldn't get a contract with another team.
                  You assume far, far too much.

                  I would guess Luck struggles like Peyton as a rookie too. Most NFL QB's wish they could struggle to 3,700 yards and 26 TD's.

                  -
                  Last edited by xBulletproof; 04-26-2012, 08:19 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    Wayne couldn't get a contract with another team. That Indy team in 1998 had Marvin Harrison and Marshall Falk. This team isn't close. The defensive end talent we have is negated by the fact we are going to play a 3-4 and we do not have a nose tackle.........
                    Wayne had a larger contract offer from the Patriots and turned it down to stay with the Colts.

                    The Colts do have a nose tackle and the draft is barely underway.

                    How many times do I have to call out your BLATANT lies and moronic assertions before it starts to sink in that you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                      wait....i thought lies were considered logic

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        That is not true and I'll be the first to say I was wrong. When he falls on his butt or gets injured and out for the season will you admit that he is a bust?


                        No, considering Peyton Manning threw more picks than touchdowns in his rookie season. He was brilliant in his second and third years, but also played very poorly (by his standards, at least) in his fourth season (the miserable 6-10 "PLAYOFFS!?" year). It wasn't until 03 that he became *consistently* great. We also didn't win a playoff game until Peyton's 6th year here. That's a fairly long time when you have one of the greatest ever.

                        No one is going to argue with you that things will likely be rough next year. Where we differ is that most of us don't think the franchise is doomed for the next 5 years. 5 years is so far down the road that you cannot accurately predict what will happen. San Francisco basically got good overnight. If we are bad again this year then what happens? You get another high draft pick. That would be deja-vu to 1999 with us picking up Edge after our 3-13 1998 Manning rookie season. There are going to be so many opportunities for this team to build a solid roster. We have so much dead cap coming off of the books after this year and will thus likely be a big free agent player next year. Free agency was largely a foreign thing to the Polians, but I'm hoping the new regime treats it differently.

                        Everyone looks back on the Manning years with fondness for obvious reasons. But there were a lot of bumps along the road from 1998-2002. It wasn't until 03 that we were a consistent force in the league.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-26-2012, 11:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          No, but I will bet that RG3 is going to have a better season this coming year. Luck is four or five years away from having enough talent to compete. Washington is much better. I read an article the other day that said the odds were that either Luck or RG3 was going to be a bust. If one of them is a bust, I think it will be Luck.... RG3 is a MUCH better long passer, Luck is a little better at the short game..... Not my words, the words of experts who have watched them both.....

                          Besides, it will be five years before we will know if Luck is boom or bust. I may not live that long.....

                          But don't get your hopes up.....
                          Can we see quotes and sources that state that RG3 is a "MUCH better long passer?" From what I gathered, they are on par and RG3 typically throws to wide open receivers down field whereas Luck is very good at making tight windows even down field much like another former Colt. :P Everyone that is a realistic Colt's fan knows that this team is very young and very inexperienced. You should not expect anything above 4 wins. We do have a VERY soft schedule though, and I would not be surprised if we wind up with a few more wins. We certainly aren't going to the PLAYOFFS though...Lol. Andrew Luck will certainly struggle, but you are making him out to be the next Blaine Gabert. Sorry, I just don't see him being a Ryan Leaf and neither do the majority of NFL analysts. I call

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            Hmmmm. Didn't RG3 throw for more yards and more touchdowns than Luck last year? I have watched Luck and when I saw him I was not impressed. He doesn't have a long ball and really doesn't even try to make that pass. Corners will not have to watch for him to go deep because he can't with any accuracy. I started this thread quoting what an expert said about Luck and the Colts. I think he had it about right. The team Peyton came to was much better than this team will be. Bill Polian has also said that. If you have a problem with what they say, take it up with them. I just happen to agree with them and I do not believe that Luck is the QB of a decade. There are more than a few people in the know who do not believe he will even be a good NFL QB much less a great one. We will have to see and endure many years of hopeless football until we find that out. I don't think that will be much fun and I think a lot of people will jump the ship. I point out again that the hated Patsies never seem to have this total breakdown and starting over. They just seem to reload and keep on winning..... That is a vast difference in management.... Anyone want to bet that the Pats will trade those two first round picks for a bunch of lower round picks and picks for next year? They have rarely kept their first round draft choices. I will admit they have been low first round but they got a lot of bang out of those lower rounds.......

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                              I understand that he's playing the role of "Forum Skip Bayless." Always take the opposite stance of everyone else and see what sticks.
                              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


                              • #45
                                For every Brady, olblu, you have 10-15 Reggie McNeal (06 6th round) level players.


                                Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
                                Senior at the University of Louisville.
                                Greenfield ---> The Ville

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X