Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

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

  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    I agree, RG3 to me(at least at this point) is more accurate and better than Luck, with Luck sometimes I have to make sure that I'm watching the right game because I get confuse and start thinking that I'm watching Tim Tebow throwing it up there.
    Getting jealous of old blu's attention?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

    Comment


    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Luck was the number one overall pick, and Weeden was selected at the bottom of the first round, how do you figure Weeden "should" be better? Age has nothing to do with it, when they entered the league at the exact same time and Luck was selected before Weeden. Doesn't really make sense there.
      You really don't think a 29 year old first round prospect has any advantage over a 23 year old?? Do you think you're skillset is static at the age you're at now? You won't have improved your skillset at your profession at all in 6 years, between the ages of 23 and 29? He's had 6 more years to learn, develop his game. Luck was drafted for his potential, which has yet to be realized. Weeden wasn't drafted for potential, he was drafted for what he is, a fully mature quarterback. I think it's completely feasible to say that RIGHT NOW Brandon Weeden is not at all too far from the category of Luck, RG3, Tannehill, Wilson. The difference is long-term... Weeden's growth curve is much smaller than Luck and those guys. Right now, Weeden is gonna keep it close with every other rookie otu there. Come back to me in a few years and ask the same question.

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Weeden would have won had Gordon not dropped that TD pass in the fourth. BUT he dropped it, and you should never say "if" so that's neither here or there. BUT the colts struggled to beat the Browns, and the Skins barely lost against the defending super bowl champs.
      So? That was this week. Two weeks ago, that "struggling Colts" team posted an amazing comeback over one of the best teams in the NFL. Luck has outperformed Weeden by a pretty large margin over the course of the entire season, in a number of ways. And let's not dismiss Weeden here, he's a good QB for what he is, a 29 year old rookie. Chris Weinke came in and had a few good years too, immediately. Weeden's OK St. just beat the Luck-led Cardinal in the Fiesta Bowl just half a year ago. It's not like Weeden can't hold his own against Luck --- this season.

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Luck has had great high's (the GB game) and bad low's (NYJ) but has mostly been somewhere in the middle when you add it all together. He has a bad tendency to turn the ball over, and he often throws a few floater's where he completely overthrows a receiver coming across the middle. But he also has a tendency to piece together long drives and figures out a way to run it into the endzone.
      Sooo.... he's a rookie. If you don't like Luck's inconsistency and turnover ratio, you absolutely would have been calling for Peyton Manning's removal in 1998. You have to have patience.

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      But man I'm telling you, for a guy that's only throwing to one side of the field and is probably only playing with half of the playbook, RGIII continues to impress and almost dominate in every game. And not just SC highlight type of plays. I'm talking about accuracy (crazy high completion percentage) decision making (only 3 INT) and he's so good he has players from other teams gushing about him. READ
      There's pretty good reason for his statistical numbers, which we've discussed in fairly long length here on these forums. If you're going to base your opinion of RG3 on passer rating and completion percentage, then congratz --- you've just bought into MIke Shanahan's simplied offensive system. Makes rookies look good. RG3 is a very good prospect, he's the 2nd best prospect in this draft. He also has a west coast and option- like style of offense to play in, which does exactly what you're seeing. He also has the #1 rusher in the league to hand the ball off to. He's also not faced very good passing defenses. He's also already missed time due to injury, and despite having an easier system and better supporting cast, he has more losses. We've gone over all of this. There's a lotta hype around that guy, it's gonna come down eventually.

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Statistics aside (where RGII is absolutely killing Luck) I don't see how anyone can honestly say that Luck has played better, looked better, or out preformed RGIII in any way. He's barely looked better than guys like Tannehill and Weeden (who looked a lot better than expected)
      See, this is a big fat myth. The only stats he's beating Luck in are rating, interceptions, and completion rate. Again, all point to the system he plays in. All the reasons I just stated above. He's not beating Luck in passing yards per game, he's not running a no-huddle, he's only using half the field, he's not making as many reads. He has the same # of passing touchdowns in 1 more game than Luck. RG3 has more rushing touchdowns --- while getting his *** handed to him repeatedly on those designed run plays.

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Yes the colts have a better record, but the skins have played a tougher of a schedule. But it's deeper than that. Yes a win is a win, so I guess it depends on what you would prefer. Do you want to struggle to beat the likes of the Browns, only to have to come back to earth when you play a team with real talent? Or do you want to have hope for the future and be able to compete with the likes of the Giants? Some would prefer the W, others would prefer to be able to compete with the best.
      The Colts are 3-3 and just like RG3, lost a game in the final seconds to a long bomb. So could be 4-2. Do you remember what the Colts did this off-season? They overhauled the entire organization. Look at what Luck has around him. Reggie Wayne. That's it. Where is Indy's rookie head coach? Fighting leukemia in a hospital. He has way more working against him, less to work with, and he's damn near 4-2, and even Luck will admit he's not played perfectly, which just goes to show how much of an impact this guy has even when he's not playing to his full potential. Who else are you going to point to for 3, almost 4 wins in 6 games?? Reggie Wayne? He's good, but he's not winning games by himself. It's Luck. He's made this team legit way quicker than we have any right to be. And his full potential is 2-3-4 years down the road --- at least. I think that's all that needs to be said.

      There is absolutely no way I'd trade him for anyone, including RG3.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-22-2012, 10:53 AM.
      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


      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
        Getting jealous of old blu's attention?

        Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
        Probably.

        That or they're actually competing with each other about who can get the biggest rise out of people.

        Comment


        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          I agree, RG3 to me(at least at this point) is more accurate and better than Luck, with Luck sometimes I have to make sure that I'm watching the right game because I get confuse and start thinking that I'm watching Tim Tebow throwing it up there.
          Comparing him to Tebow is a little rank. Comparing him to the other five starting QBs in the NFL is better and sometime, the "fans" have to admit that he is in last place with that group. Yes, he has won three games and that is great. But, his performance is very mediocre or less. People point out that he is even or ahead of Peyton at this point. He won't be by the end of the season and I expect him to finish the season as the fifth best rookie QB in the NFL. But, never fear, the folks here will have excuses ready and waiting for him. Prepare to be doing that for the next ten years or so. The Washington Post today said that goals would have to be reset for the Redskins in light of how well RKIII is playing and they praised his big play ability and the ability to beat a team with his arm or his legs or both. They also mentioned that Andrew Luck was struggling mightily on a very bad Colts team. Struggle is probably the exact right term. I think he will be struggling for a long, long time. But don't worry, at the current rate, the Colts will have several number one picks in the coming years... Andrew Luck? I just don't see it happening for him.....

          Comment


          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            You really don't think a 29 year old first round prospect has any advantage over a 23 year old?? Do you think you're skillset is static at the age you're at now? You won't have improved your skillset at your profession at all in 6 years, between the ages of 23 and 29? He's had 6 more years to learn, develop his game. Luck was drafted for his potential, which has yet to be realized. Weeden wasn't drafted for potential, he was drafted for what he is, a fully mature quarterback. I think it's completely feasible to say that RIGHT NOW Brandon Weeden is not at all too far from the category of Luck, RG3, Tannehill, Wilson. The difference is long-term... Weeden's growth curve is much smaller than Luck and those guys. Right now, Weeden is gonna keep it close with every other rookie otu there. Come back to me in a few years and ask the same question.




            So? That was this week. Two weeks ago, that "struggling Colts" team posted an amazing comeback over one of the best teams in the NFL. Luck has outperformed Weeden by a pretty large margin over the course of the entire season, in a number of ways. And let's not dismiss Weeden here, he's a good QB for what he is, a 29 year old rookie. Chris Weinke came in and had a few good years too, immediately. Weeden's OK St. just beat the Luck-led Cardinal in the Fiesta Bowl just half a year ago. It's not like Weeden can't hold his own against Luck --- this season.



            Sooo.... he's a rookie. If you don't like Luck's inconsistency and turnover ratio, you absolutely would have been calling for Peyton Manning's removal in 1998. You have to have patience.



            There's pretty good reason for his statistical numbers, which we've discussed in fairly long length here on these forums. If you're going to base your opinion of RG3 on passer rating and completion percentage, then congratz --- you've just bought into MIke Shanahan's simplied offensive system. Makes rookies look good. RG3 is a very good prospect, he's the 2nd best prospect in this draft. He also has a west coast and option- like style of offense to play in, which does exactly what you're seeing. He also has the #1 rusher in the league to hand the ball off to. He's also not faced very good passing defenses. He's also already missed time due to injury, and despite having an easier system and better supporting cast, he has more losses. We've gone over all of this. There's a lotta hype around that guy, it's gonna come down eventually.



            See, this is a big fat myth. The only stats he's beating Luck in are rating, interceptions, and completion rate. Again, all point to the system he plays in. All the reasons I just stated above. He's not beating Luck in passing yards per game, he's not running a no-huddle, he's only using half the field, he's not making as many reads. He has the same # of passing touchdowns in 1 more game than Luck. RG3 has more rushing touchdowns --- while getting his *** handed to him repeatedly on those designed run plays.



            The Colts are 3-3 and just like RG3, lost a game in the final seconds to a long bomb. So could be 4-2. Do you remember what the Colts did this off-season? They overhauled the entire organization. Look at what Luck has around him. Reggie Wayne. That's it. Where is Indy's rookie head coach? Fighting leukemia in a hospital. He has way more working against him, less to work with, and he's damn near 4-2, and even Luck will admit he's not played perfectly, which just goes to show how much of an impact this guy has even when he's not playing to his full potential. Who else are you going to point to for 3, almost 4 wins in 6 games?? Reggie Wayne? He's good, but he's not winning games by himself. It's Luck. He's made this team legit way quicker than we have any right to be. And his full potential is 2-3-4 years down the road --- at least. I think that's all that needs to be said.

            There is absolutely no way I'd trade him for anyone, including RG3.

            Don't worry, you will never get that opportunity. Washington wouldn't make that trade with any other five players or picks the Colts want to throw in. They have a superstar on their hands. The Colts have at best a project......

            Comment


            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

              Sort of like the Panthers have a superstar on their hands? You're pretty good at callin' this stuff.
              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


              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                Getting jealous of old blu's attention?

                Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
                Did you think I was the only one who feels this way about Luck? Well, you would be wrong. There are lots of Colts fans and former Colts fans who feel this way. Many of them send PMs because they don't want to take the flak they will get by criticising the Holy Luck. Now don't get me wrong, I really don't care about Luck at all, I will never like him. What I care about is the owner lying his *** off to the fans and damning the Colts to losing for years and years..... I wouldn't have been any happier if they had drafted RGIII even though I think he miles and miles superior to Luck in every facet of the game. It will take years to develop an offensive line and a defense since we switched systems and shipped out every decent player we had.

                Comment


                • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                  This is totally new information, Blu. We never knew this about you. Why don't you go into detail, we'd love to hear this totally new information.
                  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


                  • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Sort of like the Panthers have a superstar on their hands? You're pretty good at callin' this stuff.
                    They still do. He is off to a rough start but that kid, unlike Luck, is a great football player in a very tough division. Do you think they would trade Cam for Luck? I know damn well they won't. That team, like the Colts has lots of holes in it and lots of problems. It isn't all Cam Newton. It isn't all Andrew Luck in Indy either. They are about 25 players short of having an NFL team.....

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      This is totally new information, Blu. We never knew this about you. Why don't you go into detail, we'd love to hear this totally new information.
                      I don't know what you are babbling about....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                        I guarantee that Cam Newton won't finish the season with more than 12 touchdown passes and won't win more than 2 games. I also guarantee that RGIII will end his first season struggling to throw more touchdowns than interceptions. Tom Brady is probably going to be traded at the end of the year because he just doesn't have what it takes anymore and Tony Romo will be MVP of the league. I like throwing out baseless guarantees too.

                        "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          You really don't think a 29 year old first round prospect has any advantage over a 23 year old?? Do you think you're skillset is static at the age you're at now? You won't have improved your skillset at your profession at all in 6 years, between the ages of 23 and 29? He's had 6 more years to learn, develop his game.
                          Weeden played minor league baseball for a number of years. Yes he is older AGE WISE but he is the same "age" as Luck in terms of NFL experience. Had Weeden been in the league for 6 years, you would have a point, but these are both rookie QB's--age difference aside. Him being older but being in the same draft class gives him ZERO advantages over Luck. Especially when you take into account that Luck was drafted number one overall and has been heralded as the best QB prospect in years whereas Weeden didn't even know if he'd start over Colt Mccoy in training camp.

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          So? That was this week. Two weeks ago, that "struggling Colts" team posted an amazing comeback over one of the best teams in the NFL. Luck has outperformed Weeden by a pretty large margin over the course of the entire season, in a number of ways.
                          You're right, Luck has out-preformed Weeden throughout most of the year. But again, I'd expect that when comparing a QB who was drafted number one overall and a QB that was drafted at the bottom of the first round. It's not impressive to be better than Weeden when you're supposed to be better. That's why he was drafted higher!
                          Also the Packers game was two weeks ago, the past two weeks we have struggled against the Jets and the Browns, and before the Packers game we struggled against the Bears, Vikings and the Jags. So far, the Packer game was an anomoly while 2nd half scoring struggles against the other 5 teams has been the norm.



                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Sooo.... he's a rookie. If you don't like Luck's inconsistency and turnover ratio, you absolutely would have been calling for Peyton Manning's removal in 1998. You have to have patience.


                          I never once said we should get rid of Luck or even that he was bad. I've said, in other threads, he's blowing Peyton's rookie year out of the water. Rookie QB's nowadays are head and shoulders above the learning curve when compared to rookies in 1998. Luck will improve, but RIGHT NOW he has been out played by RGIII. That was the point I was making.



                          There's pretty good reason for his statistical numbers, which we've discussed in fairly long length here on these forums. If you're going to base your opinion of RG3 on passer rating and completion percentage, then congratz --- you've just bought into MIke Shanahan's simplied offensive system. Makes rookies look good. RG3 is a very good prospect, he's the 2nd best prospect in this draft. He also has a west coast and option- like style of offense to play in, which does exactly what you're seeing. He also has the #1 rusher in the league to hand the ball off to. He's also not faced very good passing defenses. He's also already missed time due to injury, and despite having an easier system and better supporting cast, he has more losses. We've gone over all of this. There's a lotta hype around that guy, it's gonna come down eventually.


                          If it were THAT easy, then every team in the league with a rookie QB would make their offense work that way. If it were that easy to look good in that offense, Rex Grossman, John Beck, D. McNabb, and whoever else Shannahan has had at QB while he's been there would look good. I'm a results type of guy. Idc if he's running a simplified offense, if it puts points on the board then what's it matter? One could argue the fact that if Griffin is more dangerous than Luck while running a simplified, dummied down offense, what's going to happen when he learns the entire playbook, runs a no huddle consistently, etc. YES he has a ground game to lean on. That is something nobody can deny. BUT the Colts ran the ball very well against the Browns yesterday, and still stalled offensively in the second half.

                          Alot like the Colts, the Skin's defense is one of the worst in the league, especially in the secondary. RGIII's only job is to direct the offense and put points on the board and he's got a top 5 offense without a number one, and maybe without a bonafide number two receiver.


                          See, this is a big fat myth. The only stats he's beating Luck in are rating, interceptions, and completion rate. Again, all point to the system he plays in. All the reasons I just stated above. He's not beating Luck in passing yards per game, he's not running a no-huddle, he's only using half the field, he's not making as many reads. He has the same # of passing touchdowns in 1 more game than Luck. RG3 has more rushing touchdowns --- while getting his *** handed to him repeatedly on those designed run plays.
                          Griffin has far less turnovers (5) to Luck's (11), better ypa (8.47 to 6.70), and total touchdowns (13 to 10). Also, the stats that you mention (QB rating, interceptions, and completion %) are pretty darn important when grading a QB. Those are the tools that we've used for years to grade QB's (along with 3rd down completion percentage/conversion rate) and now all of a sudden they don't mean as much?


                          The Colts are 3-3 and just like RG3, lost a game in the final seconds to a long bomb. So could be 4-2. Do you remember what the Colts did this off-season? They overhauled the entire organization. Look at what Luck has around him. Reggie Wayne. That's it. Where is Indy's rookie head coach? Fighting leukemia in a hospital. He has way more working against him, less to work with, and he's damn near 4-2, and even Luck will admit he's not played perfectly, which just goes to show how much of an impact this guy has even when he's not playing to his full potential. Who else are you going to point to for 3, almost 4 wins in 6 games?? Reggie Wayne? He's good, but he's not winning games by himself. It's Luck. He's made this team legit way quicker than we have any right to be. And his full potential is 2-3-4 years down the road --- at least. I think that's all that needs to be said.
                          Yes RGIII has a MUCH better running game (emphasis on the MUCH) but it's not like he has an offense loaded with firepower. His number one receiver is.....Fred Davis? His second receiver is Santana Moss. Also, much like the colts, the Redskins have been killed with injuries (Orakpo, Carriker, Garcon (lol), and now his leading receiver Davis) Yes the Colts went through an ENTIRE organizational overhaul, but if you're lauded as the best QB to come out of college in years, then I expect you to handle it--which to Luck's credit he has done very well so far. But I don't think he is the MAIN reason we are winning these games. A reason? Yes. The Main reason (ala Peyton Manning all those years) no. If he were, he'd be putting up insane numbers, he wouldn't be turning the ball over, etc.

                          Again, just because I say RGIII has outpreformed Luck, doesn't mean I think Luck has played poorly. I think Luck is good, and has been great given his circumstance. But RGIII has looked better, with only half a field and half the playbook.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Weeden would have won had Gordon not dropped that TD pass in the fourth.
                            There are multiple issues with what you said in your post, but this is a statement with simply no basis for any meaning. That incompletion occurred with 6:38 left in the game, not 0:05. That would-be TD pass would have given the Browns a 3 point lead, not 30 point lead. Saying Weeden would have won if it was caught means about as much as me saying Luck's 5 Yd TD run in the second quarter actually did win the game.

                            I can appreciate you trying to be the impartial poster who balances out the trolling that compares Luck to Tebow and such, and with the Colts homers, but you're starting to slip more and more onto the side of those who continue to say a lot of things, hoping for something to stick.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Weeden played minor league baseball for a number of years. Yes he is older AGE WISE but he is the same "age" as Luck in terms of NFL experience. Had Weeden been in the league for 6 years, you would have a point, but these are both rookie QB's--age difference aside. Him being older but being in the same draft class gives him ZERO advantages over Luck. Especially when you take into account that Luck was drafted number one overall and has been heralded as the best QB prospect in years whereas Weeden didn't even know if he'd start over Colt Mccoy in training camp.

                              [/B] You're right, Luck has out-preformed Weeden throughout most of the year. But again, I'd expect that when comparing a QB who was drafted number one overall and a QB that was drafted at the bottom of the first round. It's not impressive to be better than Weeden when you're supposed to be better. That's why he was drafted higher!
                              Also the Packers game was two weeks ago, the past two weeks we have struggled against the Jets and the Browns, and before the Packers game we struggled against the Bears, Vikings and the Jags. So far, the Packer game was an anomoly while 2nd half scoring struggles against the other 5 teams has been the norm.





                              I never once said we should get rid of Luck or even that he was bad. I've said, in other threads, he's blowing Peyton's rookie year out of the water. Rookie QB's nowadays are head and shoulders above the learning curve when compared to rookies in 1998. Luck will improve, but RIGHT NOW he has been out played by RGIII. That was the point I was making.





                              If it were THAT easy, then every team in the league with a rookie QB would make their offense work that way. If it were that easy to look good in that offense, Rex Grossman, John Beck, D. McNabb, and whoever else Shannahan has had at QB while he's been there would look good. I'm a results type of guy. Idc if he's running a simplified offense, if it puts points on the board then what's it matter? One could argue the fact that if Griffin is more dangerous than Luck while running a simplified, dummied down offense, what's going to happen when he learns the entire playbook, runs a no huddle consistently, etc. YES he has a ground game to lean on. That is something nobody can deny. BUT the Colts ran the ball very well against the Browns yesterday, and still stalled offensively in the second half.

                              Alot like the Colts, the Skin's defense is one of the worst in the league, especially in the secondary. RGIII's only job is to direct the offense and put points on the board and he's got a top 5 offense without a number one, and maybe without a bonafide number two receiver.




                              Griffin has far less turnovers (5) to Luck's (11), better ypa (8.47 to 6.70), and total touchdowns (13 to 10). Also, the stats that you mention (QB rating, interceptions, and completion %) are pretty darn important when grading a QB. Those are the tools that we've used for years to grade QB's (along with 3rd down completion percentage/conversion rate) and now all of a sudden they don't mean as much?




                              Yes RGIII has a MUCH better running game (emphasis on the MUCH) but it's not like he has an offense loaded with firepower. His number one receiver is.....Fred Davis? His second receiver is Santana Moss. Also, much like the colts, the Redskins have been killed with injuries (Orakpo, Carriker, Garcon (lol), and now his leading receiver Davis) Yes the Colts went through an ENTIRE organizational overhaul, but if you're lauded as the best QB to come out of college in years, then I expect you to handle it--which to Luck's credit he has done very well so far. But I don't think he is the MAIN reason we are winning these games. A reason? Yes. The Main reason (ala Peyton Manning all those years) no. If he were, he'd be putting up insane numbers, he wouldn't be turning the ball over, etc.

                              Again, just because I say RGIII has outpreformed Luck, doesn't mean I think Luck has played poorly. I think Luck is good, and has been great given his circumstance. But RGIII has looked better, with only half a field and half the playbook.
                              Great post.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                                Lets not forget that almost half of Luck's interceptions happened in the first game of his career against the Bears. Luck is also the first rookie quarterback EVER to top 1200 yards in his first 4 games. One more 300 yard game this season and he will tie Manning's record with four 300 yard games in a rookie season for the Colts. Something tells me that he's going to break that record with 10 more games remaining on the schedule. I don't want to say that Luck is going to be better than Manning but he is still having a hell of a start to a career and so is RGIII.

                                "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X