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, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

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

  • #46
    Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    but Manning played like crap in the post-season.
    In 17 games, pretty much 1 season's worth of games, in the playoffs Peyton's stats are .....

    4,808 yards, 27 TD's, 17 INT's, 62% completion

    How crappy.

    In the playoffs you aren't playing the Detroit Lions anymore. He played similarly to the regular season but he didn't succeed as often because there weren't any push overs in the playoffs, everyone can play obviously or they wouldn't be there.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
      lmfao dude. You had the NFL's top rusher in 99 and 00? Where was he from 01 on? Why did Peyton have to throw the ball 40 times a game? Because the entire team was dependent on him. Why did the Colts win 10 games and go to the playoffs in 2010 and then in 2011 when Peyton misses the entire season they become the worst team in the league? Because the entire team was dependent on Peyton.

      I'm not even a Colts fan. I'm just a guy who has watched a lot of football. To say Peyton was crap in the postseason is a ****ing joke.

      Lets go back to 2000 and look at the Colts playoff game against Miami. So did the defense keep the Colts in the game as they let Lamar Smith run for over 200 yards? Defense did a great job that game. What about that 38-31 win against the Chiefs back in the 03 season? Peyton going 22/30 for 304 yards and 3 TDs certainly wasn't why the Colts won. It was definitely the defense allowing nearly 200 rushing yards again. It was certainly James' 63 rushing yards in the 04 playoffs against the Broncos that lead the 49-24 win. Peyton throwing for 457 yards and 4 TDs was a crap game. The defense holding Jake Plummer to about 300 yards was a pretty good performance too. And the next week against NE it was Peyton who played like crap, not James who ran for a BLAZING 39 yards! Or the defense who gave up 200+ rushing yards. The NFL's top rusher in 99 and 00 really came through against Pittsburgh the next season where he torched them for 56 yards! But it was Peyton who had nearly 300 yards, a touchdown, no turnovers and put up 15 points in the 4th who played like crap.

      And when the Colts finally beat the Patriots it was clear that the NFL's top rusher in 99 and 00 was the reason. Wait a second, he wasn't even on the team! Surely it was the defense who gave up 34 points. Manning who had 350 yards that game had a terrible game.

      I could go on. The Colts didn't have a strong running game when Peyton was at his best. James was not the same player in 03 as he was in 99 and 00. The defense was never the strength of the Colts. The Colts were always super dependent on Peyton. These are not the words of a "Manning apologist" This is the truth.
      Peyton did have his moments in the playoffs. He tore up Denver two years in a row, and he was also magnificent in the KC game. Perhaps his defining playoff moment was the AFC championship game when he finally beat NE. That being said, you can't ignore all the games where he played just mediocre. I don't care what kind of statistics you can pull out about him, Peyton didn't show up in several of our playoff losses. I can't believe you brought up the Pittsburgh game to defend Peyton. I attended that game, and Peyton stunk it up for 2.5 quarters. Once he finally got it going, it was too little too late. Edge only had 39 yards, but I think he only got like 10 carries. I don't want to beat a dead horse, and obviously not every single playoff loss falls on Peyton. You are really just kidding yourself if you aren't going to hold Peyton accountable to some extent
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

        Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
        In 17 games, pretty much 1 season's worth of games, in the playoffs Peyton's stats are .....

        4,808 yards, 27 TD's, 17 INT's, 62% completion

        How crappy.

        In the playoffs you aren't playing the Detroit Lions anymore. He played similarly to the regular season but he didn't succeed as often because there weren't any push overs in the playoffs, everyone can play obviously or they wouldn't be there.
        Can you please give me the numbers in the playoff losses?
        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
          Can you please give me the numbers in the playoff losses?
          While we're at it, we can figure out how many yards per carry Barry Sanders averaged in carries where he didn't run for 5 or more yards.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

            Manning was not a "choker" in the playoffs, but he certainly was not as great of a postseason quarterback as he was regular season quarterback. That's just the truth. He really needed that Super Bowl that we lost against the Saints.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
              Peyton did have his moments in the playoffs. He tore up Denver two years in a row, and he was also magnificent in the KC game. Perhaps his defining playoff moment was the AFC championship game when he finally beat NE. That being said, you can't ignore all the games where he played just mediocre. I don't care what kind of statistics you can pull out about him, Peyton didn't show up in several of our playoff losses. I can't believe you brought up the Pittsburgh game to defend Peyton. I attended that game, and Peyton stunk it up for 2.5 quarters. Once he finally got it going, it was too little too late. Edge only had 39 yards, but I think he only got like 10 carries. I don't want to beat a dead horse, and obviously not every single playoff loss falls on Peyton. You are really just kidding yourself if you aren't going to hold Peyton accountable to some extent
              See here you are changing your argument. You go from calling Peyton crap in the playoffs to saying he had "his moments" and and had games where he was mediocre. I don't think anyone will argue with that. But that wasn't what all these responses were to. You called him crap. And that is a ridiculous statement. No where did I say Peyton was amazing. No where did I say he always played his best. All I said is that the Colts were very dependent on him. Which is absolutely true.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                I think we all could stand to revisit the SB winning season. The defense was AWFUL against the run. By the end of the season it was apparent the team was figured out because they couldn't stop the run and get a team off the field. Teams just shoved it down the Colts' throats. Which if that happens in the regular season then you know the playoff teams can do it. IIRC, also that season this defensive breakdown cost us that first round bye... or did we just not shut down before the end of the season? In any case, heading into the playoffs Sanders returned AND the Colts' offense was nowhere NEAR as rusty as usual for the playoffs (and so we weren't plagued by slow starts).

                Personally, I think the besides Sanders being back the Colts' sold out to stop the run at almost all costs during the playoffs. Freeney and Mathis stayed home more often and didn't allow delayed handoffs to burn the team (running to where Freeney or Mathis had just spun themselves away from in their zeal to get the QB). Then the offense did play more ball control.

                The biggest thing I think is teams stayed with the plan to attack the Colts on the ground and played into the Colts' desperation move to sell out to stop the run. With a combination of that and a healthy Sanders it reinvigorated the defense. I assume the Colts had decided they'd force the opposing QB to beat us and if that got us in a shootout, so be it... we have Manning and several weapons for a shootout. But lo and behold, teams kept trying to pound it down the Colts' throats, refusing to take what the Colts were actually giving them.

                That factored in heading to the AFCC game where it looked like all that was out the window, but then it became a classic Colts vs Pats game and the next thing you know the Colts had the Pats guessing wrong.

                That's how I remember it....

                I would've liked to have seen Peyton Manning playing with a defense he knew could get a team off the field. That especially includes the playoffs where the other team almost certainly had more balance than the Colts. Every Colt possession, every Colt offensive play, just had so much pressure to be successful because if not it could lead to the team not seeing the ball again for the rest of the quarter. That kind of pressure cannot be conducive to good decision making. If the offense can't get on the field then even a 3-0 deficit can be fairly daunting.
                Last edited by Bball; 08-24-2012, 12:35 AM.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                  Was never going to happen, defensively, people... with what we had tied up money-wise in the offense. Everyone railed the defense for a decade, but seriously, 35% of the payroll went to defense, maybe 40%. How does anyone expect defense to be great with that kind of money. That was the system they designed here, to bring in revenues off of flashy offense and hope our O could carry our defense through, but it wasn't balanced. The only year we won the SB, we went balanced on offense and then our defense way overplayed their 35% salary in the post-season... seriously it was heroic that we got that much out of our defense that year (in the post-season). Can only applaud Sanders and Co.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                    The defense was good enough that we should have won or at least made it to a few more SB's The offense let us down in almost every single playoff exit. I put this on Peyton
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                      No it wasn't. The defense was terrible, it never got off the field, and it couldn't make stops when it needed to. And it's only gotten worse.
                      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                        Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                        No it wasn't. The defense was terrible, it never got off the field, and it couldn't make stops when it needed to. And it's only gotten worse.
                        The defense definitely let us down in that 07-08 loss at the Dome against SD when they let Volek tear them up.

                        But I don't think the defense was quite as bad as it often gets made out to be.

                        The Saints scored 31 points against us in the Super Bowl. But 7 of those points were off the Manning pick 6. 7 more were because of the ridiculously good field position the Saints got after the onside kick. So I would say that the defense was only really responsible for allowing 17 points against the loaded Saints offense. And that was with a hobbled Freeney. The defense played well enough for the Colts to win that game. That loss was because of three things: 1) The Garcon drop, 2) The onside kick, and 3) The Manning pick 6.

                        The Jets only scored 17 points in what turned out to be Manning's last game as a Colt. The stupid special teams screwed us over after that Viniteri field goal which should have won the game. The defense definitely played good enough to win that game.

                        In the infamous Pittsburgh loss, the Steelers scored 21 points against us. We held them to just 7 in the first half. But their D completely owned Manning that game and baited him into trying to beat them with his arm. If he goes to Edge more then we maybe win that game. Our defense without question played well enough to win that game.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                          Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                          No it wasn't. The defense was terrible, it never got off the field, and it couldn't make stops when it needed to. And it's only gotten worse.
                          these are the words of a delusional, blindly loyal Manning supporter. The defense kept us in almost every single playoff loss, the lone exception was the 2003 blowout loss to the NYJ (BTW we scored 0 points that game so the offense also stunk).

                          2000 - lost to Tennessee 16-19
                          2001- lost to Miami 17-23
                          2004- lost to NE 14-24
                          2005- lost to NE 3-20
                          2006- lost to Pitt 18-21
                          2008- lost to SD 24-28 (I'll give the offense a pass on this game, 24 should be enough to win)
                          2009-lost to SD 17-23 in OT (offense scored zero points in the fourth quarter)
                          2011- lost to NYJ 16-17

                          Can anybody see a trend here? The offense simply didn't score enough points. This falls primarily on Manning. You would think any offense featuring Peyton Manning would be able to score at least 3 TDS a game. In most of these losses, it wasn't the case at all.
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                            these are the words of a delusional, blindly loyal Manning supporter. The defense kept us in almost every single playoff loss, the lone exception was the 2003 blowout loss to the NYJ (BTW we scored 0 points that game so the offense also stunk).

                            2000 - lost to Tennessee 16-19
                            2001- lost to Miami 17-23
                            2004- lost to NE 14-24
                            2005- lost to NE 3-20
                            2006- lost to Pitt 18-21
                            2008- lost to SD 24-28 (I'll give the offense a pass on this game, 24 should be enough to win)
                            2009-lost to SD 17-23 in OT (offense scored zero points in the fourth quarter)
                            2011- lost to NYJ 16-17

                            Can anybody see a trend here? The offense simply didn't score enough points. This falls primarily on Manning. You would think any offense featuring Peyton Manning would be able to score at least 3 TDS a game. In most of these losses, it wasn't the case at all.

                            You need to stop calling people delusional Manning supporters. If you have an argument to make, make it.

                            Now, for those games in question. Until the last couple years, you cannot rely on an offense to win you games in the playoffs. The level of difficulty ramps up, and teams scheme for you a lot better than they do in the regular season. Also, the teams you are playing are a lot better than those in the regular season. Passing numbers always go down in the playoffs because it's just more difficult to pass. There's no secret why teams have generally won more with a better run game and better defense rather than better passing. All the best passing teams (Colts included) just don't win easily in the playoffs if that's what they rely on. Look at GB and NO last year. By all intents and purposes, they should have easily gotten to the SB. But notice it's NYG, the team with better running and defense and not as good passing as GB/NO that gets in.

                            That similar problem plagued the Colts in this past decade. You cannot rely on a QB completely to win a game. I don't disagree that the offense should have played better. But by the same token, the running game and defense should have played much, much better. And I blame Polian for that, not Manning.

                            Tennessee and Miami, and the 2 NE teams were better at that time. You say we didn't score enough, that's because the defenses we played were just better. Plus, I maintain that NE manhandled our receivers at the time, and we played in snow where we obviously don't do as well. Again, no running game that is reliable. Pitt? Blame Vanderjagt, not Manning. The 2 SD losses suck, I felt we should have won those. The 2nd was probably due to their ridiculous punter and the horrendous field position that we got in that game. We should have scored more, but again, our defense could never stop them. And ST was terrible that game. NYJ? You do remember that we had no healthy players that year. Pass.

                            The only trend I see is that the running game and defense were not good. Sure, Manning could have played better. But you're skipping over a bunch of playoff games where he played excellent. He's had plenty of those in the playoffs, and you can't conveniently ignore those.
                            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                              Trader Joe, these are the words of a Manning apologist. Key words- non existent running game (we had the NFL's top rusher in 99 and 00), playing from behind (implying it was the defenses fault when the defense kept us in every single playoff game besides the Jets blowout in 03)
                              He's an Eagles fan...


                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Luck, He's Getting An Insane Amount Of Praise

                                I think we're not giving enough credence to one of the biggest reasons we played so well in the playoffs in our Super Bowl winning year...we didn't really shut down the starters. Now yes this didn't matter the year we lost to the Saints, but do I think it hurt us a ton in Manning's earlier years? Absolutely, asking an offense as complicated and high powered as ours was to go from being shutdown for 3 weeks to scoring 4-5 TDs a game is a lot to ask (which is how we had to win games from 99-2006). It's the equivalent of putting your Ferrari into storage for 6 months, then starting it up and immediately revving the engine to 8,000 RPMs. It's probably going to put some stress on it.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X