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

Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

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

  • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    Meanwhile, there are plenty of GM's that would have also started with a LT, RB, and perhaps a WR before worrying about the QB. That was one of the big criticisms of the trade with Atlanta back in 1990 - giving up Chris Hinton and Andre Rison for the opportunity to upgrade from Trudeau to George? That's a bad trade overall, especially since Trudeau-Dickerson-Hinton-Rison was a lot better than George-Dickerson-nobody to block, nobody to pass to. And that would have been true in year #1, year #2, year #3, and year #4 of Jeff George's career. So building a team by having a quality LT and RB in place isn't the craziest idea around. I kinda like the way Bettis and Smith-Faneca set the foundation for Ben, too.
    What happened 20 years ago is completely inapplicable to the current situation because as you mention, what happened then was a *trade*.

    The Colts didn't give up a bunch of solid goods to get Luck. Had they done that, then your Jeff George example would maybe carry some weight. But that's not what happened -he was drafted with a single draft pick that was ours. It was a selection that virtually every NFL mind on the planet would have made. The ones who wouldn't have drafted Luck would have gone with RGIII instead. 99.999999% of people affiliated with the NFL would have picked Luck or RGIII. There was some debate over Luck vs. RGIII, but never did I hear a GM come out and say that they would take a LT over either one of them. Who are these "plenty of GM's" that would have done this? I would like to see some sort of documentation for this, because as we all know, there is plenty of documentation from four months ago of quality NFL minds from all backgrounds saying that you either take Luck or RGIII. Most sided with Luck.

    You can't draft a LT, RB, and WR with one draft pick. There are later rounds of the drafts (which the Colts used on other positions), as well as future drafts and free agency. The Colts will have a ton cap space next year and if they are smart then they will use a decent chunk of it to beef up the lines. But Rome wasn't built in a day with Manning, and it won't be built in a day with Luck either.

    What is your overall point? That the Colts have to draft well and make smart personal moves?
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-28-2012, 10:07 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

      Yea, there's a big difference between landing a superb talent without giving up a bunch of players or picks (Colts/Luck)... and what like, say, the Saints did for Ricky Williams, or the 'Skins did for RG3. Indy has a bunch of assets still to continue to build, while the Saints and 'Skins mortgaged parts of their future.
      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: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        But Rome wasn't built in a day with Manning, and it won't be built in a day with Luck either.

        What is your overall point? That the Colts have to draft well and make smart personal moves?
        And we don't know yet if Rome will be built with the current franchise QB either.

        The big rugged guard that used to protect him college that my team was counting on to protect Ben? Just got mangled by Buffalo's D-line. Absent a better quality line, after 3-4 years of hearing footsteps and rushing throws out of bounds for his own safety, maybe we can call him Couch, Jr.? Nobody knows right now, and it depends on the ability of the front office to upgrade the team quickly.

        3 of the 4 teams that didn't (Buffalo, Cleveland, Oakland and St. Louis) have been perennially mismanaged for years.
        Each of them have made multiple attempts to draft or trade for franchise QBs while not giving said QB much to work with. No-one to block, no-one to hand off to, no-one to throw the ball too, not much on the other side of the ball. The same model the Colts are trying right now.

        This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. The chance of success is low, but if it works out then the Colts will be contenders again in a few years. The new management team's success rate is unknown, and nobody knows how they'll put their stamp on the team. But the past couple of years it seems Pollian might be closer to mismanagement than contender-builder. Some of you are projecting a Bill Tobin quality roster onto Luck, when he's starting with a late-era Bill Polian quality roster instead.

        Some... not you Adam but you can see what I'm referring to... are acting as if the Colts are following a low-risk strategy with predictable success. They aren't.

        This plan could fail in so many ways. Ask Buffalo, ask Cleveland, ask St. Louis, ask Detroit how long it took them and how many ways the plan failed. Ask the Bengals if Carson Palmer really delivered success, ask the Chargers if Rivers has delivered success (and when he started he actually did have a lot to work with and they've tossed it all away). Ask the Dolphins how many more franchise QB's they'll need to get back to contending, ask the Bears to tell you the difference between Cutler, Grossman, Kordell, Jim Miller, McNown, all of which have been brought in to be the franchise QB in the past 15 years (and probably the most successful of their QBs so far was unheralded Orton.) And even though you think history is irrelevant, history does repeat itself and the Colts have tried many times and been successful twice: Unitas and Manning. Just as the Dophins have been successful twice (Griese, Marino) and are still chasing their next franchise QB.

        And again I ask, why is the NFL board of PacersDigest so much more thin-skinned for non-Homer opinions than the NBA board of PacersDigest? This is a mystery to me.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

          Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
          dude, you can put him on ignore as most of the board probably already has. It is pretty ridiculous how someone can be so disliked and keeps coming back to the board.
          I was just saying the same thing to the other admins. Man, if I were to get kicked off a board I can't imagine that I'd ever want to go back to it for any reason. I'd move on. That's the way I'd live my life. And yet famously we've got a long history of people that try to sneak back in after they've pushed us far as we can take it.

          I just don't get it.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            I was just saying the same thing to the other admins. Man, if I were to get kicked off a board I can't imagine that I'd ever want to go back to it for any reason. I'd move on. That's the way I'd live my life. And yet famously we've got a long history of people that try to sneak back in after they've pushed us far as we can take it.

            I just don't get it.
            You'd be surprised. I once had to ban 50 (yes, FIFTY) accounts from one person who just kept trying to avoid the banhammer so he could pollute the forum with filth.

            Some people are just nuts.
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              And even though you think history is irrelevant, history does repeat itself and the Colts have tried many times and been successful twice: Unitas and Manning. Just as the Dophins have been successful twice (Griese, Marino) and are still chasing their next franchise QB.
              I'd argue that Bert Jones was fairly successful as the Colts franchise QB as well when you consider the circumstances of his career (playing at the same time as Oakland in their prime and the Steel Curtain, plus the fact that his career was cut short by injury).
              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

              Comment


              • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                And again I ask, why is the NFL board of PacersDigest so much more thin-skinned for non-Homer opinions than the NBA board of PacersDigest? This is a mystery to me.
                Omg... where have you been? You're not posting anything profound, we are all aware of the possible ways to fail, we've all been down that road and know what can happen... but why the hell would any true fan focus on that?

                The case of OlBlu goes way beyond thin-skinned homers. It has nothing to do with what he's saying -- it's how he goes about it, and the frequency of it. I don't care if people have dissenting opinions. OlBlu doesn't get that either. It's how he goes about doing it. We start a normal discussion, and you can count on OlBlu entering the thread and just destroying it within a day. And you can count on him insinuating that we're a bunch of non-thinking sheepish idiots who can't form our own thoughts and all we want to do is be mindless rah-rah-rah cheerleaders for our team. He's called more people names on this forum than anyone I can remember. He posts unnecessary negative tangents to threads where he completely didn't stay on topic, and then pulls the ol "oh everyone is ganging up on me, and calling me a troll, poor me" schpiel.

                Let's give you an example. Someone posts:

                OP: Hey guys, what do you think about us getting Vontae Davis?
                Random poster #1: I think he'll be this and that.
                Random poster #2: Yea, but he has this negative, but I think he'll overcome it with this positive.
                Random poster #3: Ya, good pickup, he's 24 and young and this coaching staff will get him in shape.
                OlBlu: It doesn't matter because we'll go 0-16 with or without him. Irsay can't be trusted and Peyton Manning is going to throw 6 touchdowns on him. (Take note that there was no mention of the topic at hand).
                Random poster #1: Haven't you said this in 57 other threads also?
                OlBlu: If you don't like it, then don't read it.
                Random poster #2: Yea, but isn't this excessive? Most people would call this trolling.
                OlBlu: Why does everyoen call me a troll, you're all just stupid rah-rah homers who thinks the Colts are going 16-0 and Luck should be in the HoF. I don't think he'll make it through the season. We should probly draft Barkley from USC next year when we have the #1 pick again since Luck will out of the league by then.
                Random poster #3: Ugh, welcome to ignore.
                Random poster #2: I don't come here often, and I think I'll come here less now.
                OlBlu: I'm 65 and live in a retirement home although my status says I live in a big motorhome and travel the country, and don't have time to wait for the Colts to get good again, and--- Irsay is making Jerry Jones look like a Rhodes scholar.
                Random poster #1: Um, can you show some proof that we all think Indy is going 16-0 this year?
                OlBlu: Look, I've already posted this, go look it up, I'm not reposting something I've already written. Something about CTRL-SHIFT refreshes the page.
                ChicagoJ: Guys, what's wrong with what he said, why are you so thin-skinned.

                And never once did he discuss Vontae Davis.

                That's what we get all up in arms about. It's not a productive argument, it's just getting people riled up. He's not out to have a productive convo.

                Take like... Kstat. He's not a Pacer fan, but he comes here and provides a counter-opinion, knows when to stop, and he's part of a productive exchange... but OlBlu, just pisses people off. We can't have a Colts football discussion without him ruining it. We all get it, he thinks they suck, so move on. But he doesn't. He absolutely refuses to let us have 1 stinking positive thought about the Colts, or even a regular neutral thought. He has to ram it into our heads that he thinks they suck.

                And now you seem to joining in... trust me, that's not a path you want to go down if you want to maintain your rep around here, lol...
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-28-2012, 01:16 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


                • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                  Chicago J is simply jealous of the Colts. Once dynasties lose their QB, they are supposed to be terrible for several seasons until they find their new franchise QB. The Dolphins, and to an extent, the Broncos are still trying to replace Dan Marino and John Elway. The Colts don't have to worry about that scenerio because Andrew Luck fell into our laps. The Colts are good now, and we only had one terrible season to suffer through.
                  Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                  Comment


                  • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    And we don't know yet if Rome will be built with the current franchise QB either.

                    The big rugged guard that used to protect him college that my team was counting on to protect Ben? Just got mangled by Buffalo's D-line. Absent a better quality line, after 3-4 years of hearing footsteps and rushing throws out of bounds for his own safety, maybe we can call him Couch, Jr.? Nobody knows right now, and it depends on the ability of the front office to upgrade the team quickly.



                    Each of them have made multiple attempts to draft or trade for franchise QBs while not giving said QB much to work with. No-one to block, no-one to hand off to, no-one to throw the ball too, not much on the other side of the ball. The same model the Colts are trying right now.

                    This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. The chance of success is low, but if it works out then the Colts will be contenders again in a few years. The new management team's success rate is unknown, and nobody knows how they'll put their stamp on the team. But the past couple of years it seems Pollian might be closer to mismanagement than contender-builder. Some of you are projecting a Bill Tobin quality roster onto Luck, when he's starting with a late-era Bill Polian quality roster instead.

                    Some... not you Adam but you can see what I'm referring to... are acting as if the Colts are following a low-risk strategy with predictable success. They aren't.

                    This plan could fail in so many ways. Ask Buffalo, ask Cleveland, ask St. Louis, ask Detroit how long it took them and how many ways the plan failed. Ask the Bengals if Carson Palmer really delivered success, ask the Chargers if Rivers has delivered success (and when he started he actually did have a lot to work with and they've tossed it all away). Ask the Dolphins how many more franchise QB's they'll need to get back to contending, ask the Bears to tell you the difference between Cutler, Grossman, Kordell, Jim Miller, McNown, all of which have been brought in to be the franchise QB in the past 15 years (and probably the most successful of their QBs so far was unheralded Orton.) And even though you think history is irrelevant, history does repeat itself and the Colts have tried many times and been successful twice: Unitas and Manning. Just as the Dophins have been successful twice (Griese, Marino) and are still chasing their next franchise QB.

                    And again I ask, why is the NFL board of PacersDigest so much more thin-skinned for non-Homer opinions than the NBA board of PacersDigest? This is a mystery to me.
                    I would like to talk risk vs reward with you Jay.

                    Part of this all boils down is playing the hand that was dealt to you. I mean no one wanted Manning to get hurt but he did and one of the best QB prospects was there for the taking.

                    Do you suggest not taking Luck and playing with an inferior team with bloated contracts and late 1st round picks to rebuild. Knowing a little about you I would say that you wouldn't prefer that but pleast correct me if I am wrong.

                    Luck and more importantly Grigson is inheriting a bad team so no arguments there but this isn't really a high risk way to build IMo. All franchise rebuilds are risky but the most successful rebuilds have one thing in common. They play the hand that was dealt to them.

                    So what was Grigson's poker hand? A young but talented LT and underachieving RB, a old wr, a young talented wr in Garcon (who would cost too much to keep), a porous DL and a secondary to match and bloated contracts that would hinder the rebuilding process.

                    Really I am more concerned if a GM ignores the talent staring him in the face and doesn't seize the opportunity to draft those guys.

                    I think all 32 GM's would agree that starting off with one of the most highly praised rookie QB's of this generation (under a decent contract) is a good start to a rebuilding process. Notice I said good start because much of your examples are GM's/presidents that don't finish the process. They ignore the problems until its too late or they have untimely injuries and bad misfortune as is the case of the Chargers with Bree's injury and Eli's trade request.

                    The only hope I have in Grigson is that he is not one to ignore the problem of not having weapons for a QB or a team that ultimately sucks on D. He won't ignore problems or holes that have to be filled and thats a good thing IMO.

                    For one if his picks suck or his trades stink he will be replaced sooner than later which to me is very improtant not to hang on to incompetent people in the FO. Those above mention teams often do so which ultimately leads to their demise or lack of success.

                    Much of this rebuild will happen next year do to the team salary cap. IF Grigson tries this low cost patch work on the o-line and d-line next year then I will start to worry but much of this years moves have to do with having no cap so I can't understand your point of how this is a high risk rebuild since really the hard moves of cutting players and the rewards of doing so is yet to pay off.
                    Last edited by Gamble1; 08-28-2012, 01:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      Chicago J is simply jealous of the Colts.
                      I hate his team, but I doubt he is jealous of the Colts given that his Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls in recent years and played in a third one.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-28-2012, 01:30 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        I hate his team, but I doubt he is jealous of Colts given that his Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls in recent years and played in a third one.
                        He is jealous. I can admit I am jealous of the Patriots, and I would be furious if they were still contenders once Brady retires. Colts haters were looking forward to us stinking for a long time once Peyton was gone. However, they know now we won't suck because we have a future MVP QB in Andre Luck
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          And we don't know yet if Rome will be built with the current franchise QB either.

                          The big rugged guard that used to protect him college that my team was counting on to protect Ben? Just got mangled by Buffalo's D-line. Absent a better quality line, after 3-4 years of hearing footsteps and rushing throws out of bounds for his own safety, maybe we can call him Couch, Jr.? Nobody knows right now, and it depends on the ability of the front office to upgrade the team quickly.



                          Each of them have made multiple attempts to draft or trade for franchise QBs while not giving said QB much to work with. No-one to block, no-one to hand off to, no-one to throw the ball too, not much on the other side of the ball. The same model the Colts are trying right now.

                          This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. The chance of success is low, but if it works out then the Colts will be contenders again in a few years. The new management team's success rate is unknown, and nobody knows how they'll put their stamp on the team. But the past couple of years it seems Pollian might be closer to mismanagement than contender-builder. Some of you are projecting a Bill Tobin quality roster onto Luck, when he's starting with a late-era Bill Polian quality roster instead.

                          Some... not you Adam but you can see what I'm referring to... are acting as if the Colts are following a low-risk strategy with predictable success. They aren't.

                          This plan could fail in so many ways. Ask Buffalo, ask Cleveland, ask St. Louis, ask Detroit how long it took them and how many ways the plan failed. Ask the Bengals if Carson Palmer really delivered success, ask the Chargers if Rivers has delivered success (and when he started he actually did have a lot to work with and they've tossed it all away). Ask the Dolphins how many more franchise QB's they'll need to get back to contending, ask the Bears to tell you the difference between Cutler, Grossman, Kordell, Jim Miller, McNown, all of which have been brought in to be the franchise QB in the past 15 years (and probably the most successful of their QBs so far was unheralded Orton.) And even though you think history is irrelevant, history does repeat itself and the Colts have tried many times and been successful twice: Unitas and Manning. Just as the Dophins have been successful twice (Griese, Marino) and are still chasing their next franchise QB.

                          And again I ask, why is the NFL board of PacersDigest so much more thin-skinned for non-Homer opinions than the NBA board of PacersDigest? This is a mystery to me.

                          There's no question that Luck could fail. But I just don't see what is "high risk" about it. Luck was one draft pick, and it's a pick that the majority of NFL GM's would have made. The rest would have taken RGIII. I don't think anyone would have passed on both.

                          Trading Hinton and Rison for the opportunity to draft Jeff George was high risk because the Colts were trading proven players for the opportunity to draft a guy that had never played a game in the NFL. But that's not what happened this go around. Like with Manning in 1998, the Colts simply drafted Luck with the draft pick that was theirs. I know that you obviously aren't big on the strategy of revolving your team around a QB, but even you have to admit that you must at least have competent QB play. And the QB play that the Colts had last year was some of the worst QBing ever. The team actually competed at the beginning of the season, as I'm sure you know if you watched the Colts/Steelers game last year. But the QB was just too damn bad to win games. Anyway you slice it, QB was a big need for this team this off-season as we simply couldn't roll with the types of QBs that we had last year. So what better way to fill that position than to draft a phenom that the majority of expert GMs would draft if they were in your position? We can debate all day just how important a QB is, but you at least have to have someone competent and skilled to play the position. And the Colts had no such player on the roster.

                          But he was just one draft pick. Drafting Luck with the number 1 pick in 2012 does not preclude this team from using other picks and free agency signings on positions like LT, RB, WR, and the defense. This team can still make the types of moves that you advocate with Luck on the roster. If we expect Luck to carry flawed rosters at the beginning of his career like Peyton did at the end of his then I agree, that's a very bad strategy. But I'm going to give management the benefit of the doubt that they will attempt to create a complete football team. The Colts have a large amount of cap space next year, as well as the draft (of course, we lost our second round pick for Davis). If it doesn't work then it doesn't work.

                          As to your comment about the NFL board being more "thin skinned" than the Pacers board, I think that is because the Colts were on top for the majority of the years that this site has existed, while the Pacers were mostly in the cellar. This site was created before the 03-04 season. That was a great year for both the Pacers and Colts, as they both made the conference championships. After that though, they went completely opposite ways. The Pacers had the brawl followed by years of horrible basketball, while the Colts had Manning setting records and playing in Super Bowls. So if you like the Pacers and Colts equally, as I do, then you were likely much more emotionally excited about the team that was a championship contender year in and year out.

                          I don't think opposing fans were very interested in coming here during 08 to tell us how bad our Pacer team was. That would have been kind of redundant.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-28-2012, 01:30 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                            I don't understand the risk/reward thing at all. We had a horrible year and earned the #1 pick. What are we sposed to do, pick Nick Foles over Luck? This is a team who understands the value of an elite quarterback. Taking Luck wasn't high-risk. These sames examples were used when we drafted Manning 14 years ago. "Do you realize how often a #1 pick takes their team to a Super Bowl? Not often, the chance that Manning will fail and be a bust is just as high as him being a serviceable QB." Heard it a million times. Well, guess what --- Manning won us a Super Bowl. The "chances" were against us, eh? Well guess they're against us again.
                            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: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                              You cannot win in the NFL today without an elite QB. You really can't even make it to a SB without one. The game has evolved since Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson won SB's. Drafting Luck was 100 percent the correct decision
                              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                              Comment


                              • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                                You cannot win in the NFL today without an elite QB. You really can't even make it to a SB without one. The game has evolved since Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson won SB's. Drafting Luck was 100 percent the correct decision
                                You can win... It's just difficult. Maybe not the Superbowl, but you can at least make the playoffs. Case and point: 49ers. I'm not saying it isn't very hard, just pointing out that it isn't impossible.
                                Never half-a** two things. Whole-a** one thing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X