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

Colts sign Luck

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

  • #61
    Re: Colts sign Luck

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    They weren't HOF's in 1998. Oh, and Saturday didn't arrive until 1999.
    Saturday will not be a hall of famer. The other two certainly will be and they were stars when Peyton arrived. All Luck has is a worn out Reggie Wayne who can't get separation any more...... ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Colts sign Luck

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      Saturday will not be a hall of famer. The other two certainly will be and they were stars when Peyton arrived. All Luck has is a worn out Reggie Wayne who can't get separation any more...... ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.
      Plainly, you are wrong.

      Marvin Harrison was not a star in 1998. In his two years with Jim Harbaugh, he never had a season as good as Reggie Wayne had last year with the Collins/Painter/Orlovsky triumvirate. So this "worn out" Wayne would have been the team's best WR in 1998, just as he is in 2012.

      And the 1998 offensive line was not better than this "make shift" unit we've got this season. It's basically equal and if anything, Samson Satele is the most accomplished player on either team at this stage. Of course, you probably don't have a clue who that is.

      I don't mind you trolling. I think it's rather cute. But if you're going to troll, at least know the facts a little bit. Because despite your track record, it is possible to troll without being so wrong that you come off looking like the ******* love child of Ernest P. Worrel and Paris Hilton.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Colts sign Luck

        Saturday just might make it in the Hall... guess only time will tell. He's been at the top of his position for over a decade, has a SB win, a ridiculous win-loss record over his career, won a buncha awards, 5 pro bowls, was a 4-time all-pro, and had an active role in the NFLPA.

        It's an impressive resume for a Center.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-24-2012, 12:28 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


        • #64
          Re: Colts sign Luck

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          Plainly, you are wrong.

          Marvin Harrison was not a star in 1998. In his two years with Jim Harbaugh, he never had a season as good as Reggie Wayne had last year with the Collins/Painter/Orlovsky triumvirate. So this "worn out" Wayne would have been the team's best WR in 1998, just as he is in 2012.

          And the 1998 offensive line was not better than this "make shift" unit we've got this season. It's basically equal and if anything, Samson Satele is the most accomplished player on either team at this stage. Of course, you probably don't have a clue who that is.

          I don't mind you trolling. I think it's rather cute. But if you're going to troll, at least know the facts a little bit. Because despite your track record, it is possible to troll without being so wrong that you come off looking like the ******* love child of Ernest P. Worrel and Paris Hilton.
          Plainly I am not wrong and I am not a troll. Fact is that Faulk in in the Hall and Marvin soon will be. Reggie Wayne numbers then were enough to already make Marvin a star. Wayne is over-the-hill and he would have been released if the Colts could have signed Garcon`. Wayne was not the best receiver last year, Garcon` was. I don't care about the numbers, Garcon` was hurt for a bit. Who got the big contract? Garcon` got it and he deserved it. Want to bet on Wayne and Garcon`number this year? ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Colts sign Luck

            I hope people in my fantasy league think Pierre Garcon is a better wide receiver than Reggie Wayne.

            Unfortunately, I don't play with 11 people who need to wear a bib and a helmet whenever they get out of bed.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Colts sign Luck

              It's a bummer how this part of the forum is unreadable thanks to one idiot.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Colts sign Luck

                I honestly think he's not trolling, simply because he makes decent posts in the Pacer section. His Colts' sentiments are just wacked, lol...
                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


                • #68
                  Re: Colts sign Luck

                  Since OlBlu puts so much stock into "experts", here is an "expert" (Clark Judge at CBS sportsline) who believes Luck will in fact have more *immediate* success than RGIII. The reasons he gave are those that have been outlined here many times.

                  2. Who has more immediate success -- Andrew Luck or RG3?

                  Andrew Luck is the more ready of the two to step in and take over a pro huddle. He was trained in a pro-style offense at Stanford, and he thrived in it. But he doesn't have the experience around him that Griffin does in Washington. Nor does he have a head coach like Mike Shanahan, who loves to develop young quarterbacks. Still, I say Luck has more immediate success for two reasons: 1) His background in a pro-style offense and 2) the schedule. Five of Washington's first eight opponents are playoff teams, including the defending Super Bowl champions, and three of Griffin's first four starts are on the road. Now compare that to what's ahead for Luck: Three of his first four games are at home and only one of the Colts' first nine opponents made last year's playoffs -- with only two of those nine producing winning records. Then there's this: Luck's favorite receiver at Stanford, tight end Coby Fleener, is one of his targets in Indianapolis. If you're looking for the early edge -- and we are -- Luck has it.

                  http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...e-high-manning

                  The schedule cannot be ignored. The Skins are not near as good as the Giants, Eagles, and Cowboys, teams they have to play a combined 6 games against each season. The Colts OTOH play in a crap division and have an absurdly easy home schedule.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-25-2012, 01:42 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Colts sign Luck

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    Plainly I am not wrong and I am not a troll. Fact is that Faulk in in the Hall and Marvin soon will be. Reggie Wayne numbers then were enough to already make Marvin a star. Wayne is over-the-hill and he would have been released if the Colts could have signed Garcon`. Wayne was not the best receiver last year, Garcon` was. I don't care about the numbers, Garcon` was hurt for a bit. Who got the big contract? Garcon` got it and he deserved it. Want to bet on Wayne and Garcon`number this year? ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.
                    That's not what he said. Faulk and Marvin were not close to hall of famers when Manning arrived. Harrison was a nobody until Manning made him what he was. That team was not good, and I would argue that this team was much better off than the one in 1998. This team has a lot more experience and talent than that team.

                    RB: Faulk is definitely better, no question. But look at the WRs: Outside of Harrison (who was nothing before Manning), you had Pathon, EG Green, Torrence small. They sucked. Dilger and Pollard were the real options for Manning. Meanwhile we have Wayne (who is better now than Harrison in 98), Collie, Avery, a couple rookies, and Fleener/Allen. That's much, much better than 98.

                    The offensive line we have now is much more experienced than the one in 98. Sure, they are new to us, but that doesn't mean that they can't gel and be good as a unit.

                    Oh, and Garcon got paid because Washington is stupid and he's younger. No one will give Wayne a contract in his mid-30s. And no, Wayne was a better receiver. He doesn't have butterfingers.
                    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Colts sign Luck

                      Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                      That's not what he said. Faulk and Marvin were not close to hall of famers when Manning arrived. Harrison was a nobody until Manning made him what he was. That team was not good, and I would argue that this team was much better off than the one in 1998. This team has a lot more experience and talent than that team.

                      RB: Faulk is definitely better, no question. But look at the WRs: Outside of Harrison (who was nothing before Manning), you had Pathon, EG Green, Torrence small. They sucked. Dilger and Pollard were the real options for Manning. Meanwhile we have Wayne (who is better now than Harrison in 98), Collie, Avery, a couple rookies, and Fleener/Allen. That's much, much better than 98.

                      The offensive line we have now is much more experienced than the one in 98. Sure, they are new to us, but that doesn't mean that they can't gel and be good as a unit.

                      Oh, and Garcon got paid because Washington is stupid and he's younger. No one will give Wayne a contract in his mid-30s. And no, Wayne was a better receiver. He doesn't have butterfingers.

                      Here, you need to read about a great football player and a very good team. You won't see that from the Colts this year......http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201..._a14&eref=sihp

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Colts sign Luck

                        Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                        Harrison was a nobody until Manning made him what he was.
                        I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that Harrison was a "nobody" before Manning. Harrison had only been in the league for two years when we drafted Manning, so he was still a pretty young player himself when Peyton arrived. In 1996 as a rookie, he had 8 TDs, 64 receptions, and 836 yards. 8 of Harbaugh's 13 TD's that year were to Marvin. That is a pretty damn good rookie campaign considering he had a QB who clearly wasn't an elite passer.

                        In 1997, he had 6 TDs, 73 receptions, and 866 yards with a decrepit Harbaugh and Paul Justin.

                        Marvin clearly showed in his first two seasons before Peyton arrived that he was a pretty talented receiver. He put up really good stats with QB's who were not elite passers. When Peyton got going, Marv's stats exploded. There's no way Peyton would have been so great early on in his career if he didn't have Harrison to rely on. In Peyton's later years here, he could make any scrub look like a decent receiver. But when he was a young guy, he needed a security blanket like Marv who he knew could always bail him out.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-29-2012, 01:03 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Colts sign Luck

                          You should also argue, howver, that Harrison benefitted a tad from having someone named Peyton Manning throw to him for most of his career. Harrison was great, but he had someone on the other side of the ball that was juicing up his resume a bit. No coincidence that before Peyton, Harrison was fairly little-known, and then afterwards he skyrocketted. Not to take away from Marvin... he's my 2nd favorite Colt of all-time. But Manning proved he could make *any* receiver look really really good.. he elevated the production of *every* receiver he ever threw to.

                          Harrison hadn't proven much before Peyton's arrival, except he was a serviceable receiver. Harbaugh wasn't *that* bad.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-29-2012, 02:01 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


                          • #73
                            Re: Colts sign Luck

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            You should also argue, howver, that Harrison benefitted a tad from having someone named Peyton Manning throw to him for most of his career. Harrison was great, but he had someone on the other side of the ball that was juicing up his resume a bit. No coincidence that before Peyton, Harrison was fairly little-known, and then afterwards he skyrocketted. Not to take away from Marvin... he's my 2nd favorite Colt of all-time. But Manning proved he could make *any* receiver look really really good.. he elevated the production of *every* receiver he ever threw to.

                            Harrison hadn't proven much before Peyton's arrival, except he was a serviceable receiver. Harbaugh wasn't *that* bad.
                            Harbaugh was a gritty player, but by 1996 and 1997 he was clearly nearing the end of the line. He was not an elite passer then, not even close. Yet Harrison had very solid stats for the first two seasons of his career and made up a sizable % of Harbaugh's throwing stats. Harbaugh threw 23 COMBINED touchdowns in 1996 and 1997. Harrison had 14 TDs in those two years. He was a young stud.

                            I never said that Harrison didn't benefit greatly from Manning because clearly he did. He would not have such obscene career statistics if he didn't have such an elite QB throwing him the ball. All I'm saying is that having Harrison helped Manning immensely in the early seasons of his career. That's evident by the number of times Manning targeted Harrison in his first few seasons. From 1999-2002, Harrison had 115, 102, 109, and 143 receptions. After 2002, Harrison never again had a 100 reception season, even though he was still arguably the best receiver in the league. That's because Manning was turning into one of the greatest QB's ever and was much better at throwing the ball to different players.

                            The Harrison-Manning relationship was mutually beneficial. Harrison proved in 1996 and 1997 that he was an extremely talented young receiver who was capable of putting up very solid numbers with a QB who was not a premier passer. Having a player of his talent helped young Manning gain confidence. But of course, Harrison clearly doesn't retire with such gaudy numbers if he doesn't have a Peyton Manning throwing him the ball. No question about that.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Colts sign Luck

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Harbaugh was a gritty player, but by 1996 and 1997 he was clearly nearing the end of the line. He was not an elite passer then, not even close. Yet Harrison had very solid stats for the first two seasons of his career and made up a sizable % of Harbaugh's throwing stats. Harbaugh threw 23 COMBINED touchdowns in 1996 and 1997. Harrison had 14 TDs in those two years. He was a young stud.

                              I never said that Harrison didn't benefit greatly from Manning because clearly he did. He would not have such obscene career statistics if he didn't have such an elite QB throwing him the ball. All I'm saying is that having Harrison helped Manning immensely in the early seasons of his career. That's evident by the number of times Manning targeted Harrison in his first few seasons. From 1999-2002, Harrison had 115, 102, 109, and 143 receptions. After 2002, Harrison never again had a 100 reception season, even though he was still arguably the best receiver in the league. That's because Manning was turning into one of the greatest QB's ever and was much better at throwing the ball to different players.

                              The Harrison-Manning relationship was mutually beneficial. Harrison proved in 1996 and 1997 that he was an extremely talented young receiver who was capable of putting up very solid numbers with a QB who was not a premier passer. Having a player of his talent helped young Manning gain confidence. But of course, Harrison clearly doesn't retire with such gaudy numbers if he doesn't have a Peyton Manning throwing him the ball. No question about that.
                              Harbaugh in those days did not have the arm strength to throw a deep sideline pass. Harrison was very good. If he had started with Peyton, you would have seen two more 1000 yd. + seasons. Harrison was a star when Peyton arrived. I note not may people are talking about Faulk who was also a star then.....

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Colts sign Luck

                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                Harbaugh in those days did not have the arm strength to throw a deep sideline pass. Harrison was very good. If he had started with Peyton, you would have seen two more 1000 yd. + seasons. Harrison was a star when Peyton arrived. I note not may people are talking about Faulk who was also a star then.....

                                I think people are overlooking Faulk because him and Peyton played only one season together.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X