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
    I don't agree. The only reason we've won two SBs and played in another in the past decade is our defense.
    Don't agree with what?

    Hopefully you're not saying that's the only way to build a team.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-30-2012, 09:11 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

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Don't agree with what.

      Hopefully you're not saying that's the only way to build a team.
      Hasn't worked for the Ravens yet.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
        Hasn't worked for the Ravens yet.
        Well.... it DID work... once. Twelve years ago. I think the point is... you can build a SuperBowl team a number of different ways, it's pretty foolish to say you should only do it this way or that.
        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 Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Don't agree with what?

          Hopefully you're not saying that's the only way to build a team.
          I don't agree that the only reason we're 2-1 in SBs in the past decade is our running game. Mendenhall barely did anything in SB45.

          Its our defense.

          And no, I don't believe that building an elite defense is any more the one single way to build a team than I believe building around a franchise QB is the one single way to build a team.

          My point all along has been, building a team around one player - especially a QB - is a risky strategy. I didn't say it never worked, but there are many more failures than successes.
          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 speakout4 View Post
            Hasn't worked for the Ravens yet.
            Well, they've built the second-best defense in the division. If they want to follow our strategy and get past us to the Super Bowl, they've got to do it better. So far they haven't. But our D is aging and Aaron Smith's retirement will hurt our run defense. We'll miss Farrior's leadership. But those guys lost a step or two before retiring. This is Baltimore's window.
            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

              The Ravens don't look half bad this year, even offensively. I have them as one of the contenders in the AFC. I have some concerns about the Steelers. I'd say Baltimore's window isn't too big, however, with Reed and Lewis being 55 years old each.
              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 ChicagoJ View Post
                I don't agree that the only reason we're 2-1 in SBs in the past decade is our running game. Mendenhall barely did anything in SB45.

                Its our defense.

                And no, I don't believe that building an elite defense is any more the one single way to build a team than I believe building around a franchise QB is the one single way to build a team.

                My point all along has been, building a team around one player - especially a QB - is a risky strategy. I didn't say it never worked, but there are many more failures than successes.
                1) We're not building around one player. We just happen to have one really good prospect, but I don't believe they are "building" around him, I think they have plans for the entire team. Going from a 4-3 to a 3-4 shows me that it's not just the QB position that they are looking to address. All the cornerbacks and receivers we've brought in... aren't quarterbacks.
                2) I think building a team with a focus on QB is no less risky than one of defense, it's not like the defensive juggernauts of the past decade have a stranglehold on Super Bowl titles. To be honest, it's the balanced teams that usually win it. NE, NY, Indy when they won it, you could even argue Pitt, because Roethlisberger & Co. are no slouches offensively.
                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 ChicagoJ View Post
                  I don't agree that the only reason we're 2-1 in SBs in the past decade is our running game. Mendenhall barely did anything in SB45.

                  Its our defense.
                  I wouldn't say the defense "won" you Superbowl 43. The Cardinals didn't have many running yards and the Harrison interception return was certainly crucial, but Warner completely carved you up for 3 touchdowns and 377 yards. That game ultimately came down to offense and which quarterback could get the final clutch play in. Luckily for the Steelers, Ben and Holmes had one of the most beautiful hookups in Super Bowl History. An incredible throw and a fantastic catch.

                  The defense certainly shut the Seahawks down back Super Bowl 40, but both Warner and Rodgers completely carved you up in the latter two. On the whole, the Steelers defense has been less than stellar in the three recent Super Bowls they've played in.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-31-2012, 11:07 AM.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    I don't agree that the only reason we're 2-1 in SBs in the past decade is our running game. Mendenhall barely did anything in SB45.

                    Its our defense.

                    And no, I don't believe that building an elite defense is any more the one single way to build a team than I believe building around a franchise QB is the one single way to build a team.

                    My point all along has been, building a team around one player - especially a QB - is a risky strategy. I didn't say it never worked, but there are many more failures than successes.
                    No team builds around one player alone Jay.

                    Its a philosophy of either pass over run or stop the pass over the run that really I think is the hang up in all of this discussion.

                    Its make the opposing team one dimenisional and try not to be one dimensional yourself.

                    The Steelers had a great defense because they could do both but also the rules largely favored the CB's holding and clutching the WR after 5 yards before 04. Now that the refs call more holding and pass interference calls that strategy is still good but not as effective as it once was.

                    IMo the run game has been de-emphasized and the passing game has been elevated in its importance to about 90% of the teams in the NFL and its in large part of that 2004 rule change and roughing the passer rule changes IMO.

                    Like Sollozzo said choosing Luck doesn't put the Colts on some high risk path when you consider who the GM is and who the coach is. I mean if Bill Polain was still in the FO then ya I could see your point but the coach has a strong run defensive philosophy and the GM is a former offensive lineman who largerly values a good offensive line.

                    I really can't understand why you said that this wasn't the year to draft a QB when it was the best year. I mean this was the lotto of all years to draft a QB in the early first round IMO.

                    Much of what you use to back up your point of bad teams staying bad by reaching for Qb's shouldn't be used here since Luck was or was one of the best QB's that merited that pick and was largely argued to be one of the best in the last decade.

                    Now obivously you don't believe the hype around Luck if you don't believe he merits that pick but IMO he does and I would still argue that 95% of the NFL FO's would have taken him regardless of other team needs.

                    Let me just say I will agree with you if Grigson has a largely offensive draft in 2013 and the 2013 FA's are stop gap guys that won't largely improve the defense. Until then I won't mind having a largely inferior team for one year.
                    Last edited by Gamble1; 08-31-2012, 12:35 PM.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      I wouldn't say the defense "won" you Superbowl 43. The Cardinals didn't have many running yards and the Harrison interception return was certainly crucial, but Warner completely carved you up for 3 touchdowns and 377 yards. That game ultimately came down to offense and which quarterback could get the final clutch play in. Luckily for the Steelers, Ben and Holmes had one of the most beautiful hookups in Super Bowl History. An incredible throw and a fantastic catch.

                      The defense certainly shut the Seahawks down back Super Bowl 40, but both Warner and Rodgers completely carved you up in the latter two. On the whole, the Steelers defense has been less than stellar in the three recent Super Bowls they've played in.
                      There's no doubt in SB43 and SB45 that those were two of the most explosive offenses that our defense has played in the past 7 seasons or so. Warner and that Cardinals team was red-hot, offensively, in the playoffs, scoring 34 in week #17 and then 30, 33, and 32 in the playoff games. So we kept them 9 points below their playoff average. They cut us a bit in the second half, but not the same way they carved up the Eagles (who also had a top-five defense that season) and Panthers earlier in the playoffs.

                      I wouldn't totally discount the impact of that defense on the team's overall success based on the statistics of two games against two of the five or six best QBs of this century.

                      And SB45 was Dom Capers v. Dick LeBeau - such a great matchup on the defensive side. Sure, the score was high and there were potent offenses on the field to shut down and Dom Capers version of the Blitzburgh-North got the takeaways just the way he, Dick and Cowher designed the defense to do twenty years ago.
                      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

                        There have been 3 total posts in this thread regarding the actual trade since the trade was confirmed. Pity.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          This just wasn't the year to draft a QB. Trade down from #1 for as many lower first and second round picks as you can accumulate and draft offensive and defensive linemen. The Steelers also have had a lousy o-line, yet were able to pick up two guys (DeCastro, Adams) that "should" form the foundation of the line (along with Pouncey and Gibson selected over the past couple of years) long after Big Ben is gone. Solidify the lines first and address the "skills" positions second. Time will tell, but I think the team with DeCastro and Adams set themselves up better for success three-to-five years down the road regardless of who might be playing QB.



                          Okay.



                          I disagree. There are several that would start on the lines first and address the skills positions next. Football games are still won in the trenches.



                          I wouldn't ever put a franchise QB behind a makeshift line. I'd fix the line first, and those are the "weapons" that Luck needs - not receivers. You need a very, very, very good QB. We agree on that. But a best-in-generation QB is not very valuable when he's on his back, or hearing footsteps, or on crutches, or has no one to hand the ball to, or barely has time to throw a quick-read pass.

                          Thanks for engaging.

                          There is more than one way to do build a team and the high-risk, high-reward stuff can bring about high rewards some of the time. Who would have ever thought, even in the year 2000, that we'd see a Colts-Saints Super Bowl? Two franchises with decades of poor management desperate for one of their franchise QBs to pan out. We have no idea who the Super Bowl contenders will be three years out. Many of you would argue that it will be the team with the best QB. I think it will be the team with the best lines, as the best OL can make a very, very, very good QB look like a great QB and an average line can make a superstar QB look average.


                          Can anyone please explain to me what team would have traded the rights to the draft pick that happened to be the most nfl read prospect since John Elway and played the most important position on the field for a couple of picks to build around nothing???? This is the most irrelevent and idiotic arguement that has ever been argued...NO TEAM and I repeat NO TEAM would have passed on Andrew Luck or RGIII to try and build around nothing, I mean there is no guarantee that a halfway decent quarterback would even be available when your "rebuilding" process was over, then what? Hope Curtis Painter can lead us to a superbowl? Hell even a win? Please name one team who would have passed over Andrew Luck or RGIII that didnt already have a quarterback in place? And name just one success story that a team did this, just one that passed over a John Elway or Peyton Manning to build around a Curtis Painter?????

                          Comment


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

                            Ya, lol.... the best QB class in 30 years and possibly in history, and he says "it's not the year to draft a QB". Whoo-boy.
                            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 Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Ya, lol.... the best QB class in 30 years and possibly in history, and he says "it's not the year to draft a QB". Whoo-boy.
                              Yeah, because looking back to 30 years ago,

                              Elway finally won a SuperBowl when the Broncos were Terrell Davis's team. He did get to a couple earlier in his career, getting his butt kicked in three of the biggest Super Bowl blowouts by Phil Simms, Doug Williams, and Joe Montana.

                              Moving down the list,
                              Todd Blackledge played in one playoff game in his career
                              Jim Kelley did play and lose in four Super Bowls
                              Tony Eason played in five playoffs games in his career and I'm sure he'd prefer nobody every talked about his 0-6 performance in Super Bowl XX
                              Ken O'Brien was 0-3 in his playoff games
                              And then there's the saga of Dan Marino. Got to the Super Bowl in his second season and was shredding the record books. But the Dolphins failed to build a team around him (so it does happen, look out!), and while he played in 18 playoff games in his career, a record of 8-10 is not what Dolphins fans would call a lot success for the dizzying numbers he put up.

                              6 QBs, three Hall of Famers, a combined 2-11 record over 13 Super Bowls and would have been 0-11 if Terrell Davis wasn't the league's MVP and carried Elway to the Super Bowl with him.

                              The class of 2004 has already vastly exceeded that.

                              Eli and Ben are a combined 4-1 in Super Bowls and Schaub, Rivers, Eli and Ben are still leading teams that have been or are becoming consistent contenders for deep playoff runs.

                              Its way too early to tell if the current draft class will be the best QB class of the last decade, but the legendary class of 1983 produced Hall of Famers but not many championships.

                              And Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco are certainly poised to rep the class of 2008 over the next few seasons (but Flacco shouldn't count in this conversation since he was such a low first-rounder.) And 2005 is looking better since Alex Smith might be about to join the top-half of QBs in the league and Aaron Rogers is pretty darn impressive (but he shouldn't count in this conversation either).

                              One other way to to look at this, the following historical drafts had QBs taken at both #1 and #2,

                              1999, Couch and McNabb. Obviously Couch was Ouch, but McNabb's been pretty frustrating too
                              1998, P. Manning and Leaf. What if the Colts goofed this up and took Leaf?
                              1993, Bledsoe and Rick Mirer. Rick Mirer at #2? Oh boy.
                              1971, Plunkett and A. Manning. There's the example you're looking for, 40+ years ago.

                              PS, I've been waiting for someone to actually go back to 1970. You might have actually had something legit to call me on for that, can't believe nobody even tried. And if you try you don't get credit for it now. And while the Steelers did take Bradshaw #1 overall that year, there is something to be said for their 1969 draft as well as 1/2 of their Steel Curtain DL for all four Super Bowls (Mean Joe Greene and LC Greenwood, along with the starting LT for all four Super Bowls teams - Jon Kolb - were drafted the year before they drafted Terry. Foundation. But to say that QB was the Steelers biggest need in 1970 (coming off a combined three wins over two seasons) is to ignore the fact that QB was a big need for the Steelers in '69 when they drafted the foundation of the offensive line and 1/2 of the defensive line that led them to four Super Bowls.
                              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

                                To place Eli and Ben in the same category as Marino, Kelly, and Elway is some funny stuff. Sure they have more SBs, but they are not better quarterbacks, and whatever on Schaub and Rivers. Marino not having a SB is one of the big travesties in sports, he was an amazing QB.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X