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 so far

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

  • Re: Luck so far

    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
    Dude, EVERYONE was commenting on how many cheap-shots the Rams threw that game. On RG3, on Moss, or Sleepy.....on everyone. The Rams beat us physically that game, then we started getting caught up in stupid **** (see Josh Morgan, penalty, 15 yards, missed field goal....)

    God forbid a player who is hit out of bounds twice (and quite late hits at that) get pissed off about that. Esp. when that players plays a position that the modern NFL freaking treats with a kid glove

    I dont know enough about turning down the workout, but I wouldn't be surprised if his agent had more to do with that (Maybe he even already knew that Luck was the unanimous number 1)

    I agree he should not had said anything, but I guarantee you any NFL QB would have *****ed after that game. IMO his mistake wasnt *****ing, it was who he *****ed to. It should have been to a veteran captain or coach, and let them mention it to the media. Its not a good look on a rookie in any sports, and especially not a high profile one.

    Not that I care one way or the other. In 10 years I doubt we remember that game ever happened (unless it comes out Fisher has a bounty program running, which wouldn't surprise me as dirty as all of his teams have been)....but I disgress

    Fair enough. I maybe shouldn't have criticized him like that since he's just a kid. He's a special talent and I'd be excited too if I were a Skins fan.

    Comment


    • Re: Luck so far

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      So he made one. Good. He has floated a lot more and even the most avid Colts fan will see that after a year or two, if he lasts that long playing behind that line.... ...
      For all the incessant babbling about 'playing behind that line', just thought I'd bring up the FACT that Luck has been sacked 5 times this year, Griffin has been sacked - as Mr. Rooney would say - 9 times.

      But - that's a fact and some people choose to ignore them.

      Comment


      • Re: Luck so far

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        He has floated a lot more...
        So Luck floats his passes huh? Well since he's "floated" so many of them, it should be pretty easy for you to come up with specific examples of the passes you believe he floated. I'll even do the legwork for you. Here are links to NFL.com Luck highlights for all three of our games. Give us some indication as to which of these passes you think are "floated" please. I realize you're a busy and important man, and that you may not have internet where you're RV is currently parked but just get to it when you have some spare time. Thanks.

        http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...uck-highlights
        http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...uck-highlights
        http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...uck-highlights

        Comment


        • Re: Luck so far

          He's mostly hanging his "floating ball" hat on Luck's first game, when yes Luck did underestimate the speed of the NFL and did float a few balls, or didn't put enough zing on them. That has been cut down drastically in the subsequent two games. Just shows that Blu doesn't actually watch the games, or just sees what he wants when he does watch them.

          I made the same comments about Peyton 14 years ago. I know what I'm lookin' at. Luck is a guy who's greatest strength is his ability to absorb information and make adjustments into winning plays almost instantly. Just like Peyton. They both rarely make the same mistake twice, and when you have that ability, you eventually just stop making mistakes, or very rarely. What's amazing to think about is, Luck can throw the ball better and is more athletic than Peyton. Think about that. Luck also has an improvisational ability that exceeds Manning. When things broke down, Manning usually threw the ball away or took a sack. Luck enters a whole different mode...

          I will say though that I said it before the draft and I'll say it again -- Luck's ability to sense pressure and avoid a sack/tackle is stupidly ridiculous amazing. His subtle moves make it harder for defenders to get to him, but when they do, he has a lower-half strength about him that allows him to shrug off defenders a large part of the time. I've seen some defenders get their arms around his legs/waist, and he just pulls away and leaves them on the ground. I've never seen a rookie as good as him at it. Even having a worse line than RG3 (and RG3 is also supposed to be "faster" than Luck), Luck still has less sacks.

          I'm not tryin' to hate on RG3, so I won't post most of my thoughts on him, but it's not as glowing as most of NFL fans want to make it. Lotta people are hyped up on some gimmicks right now. Here's hoping he fixes some things and can change his game.... but I know how these movies end. Seen it before.

          I said it before the draft and I'll say it again --- players that get big boosts by combine results are usually flash in the pan or rarely live up to expectations, because 40-speed and long-bombs generally don't work out long-term in the NFL. Luck moves better than RG3 in the pocket and outside the pocket, and throws better on the run, didn't matter that he didn't run a 4.4 forty. He just moves better.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-29-2012, 02:43 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: Luck so far

            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
            It's one thing to argue if you have an argument, but all you are doing is arguing for the sake of getting a rise out of people. We've tried to have a conversation with you, but you say the same things over and over again with no interest in providing a counter argument. You keep saying he's chucking the ball 50 times a game, but he hasn't once hit 50 times in a game (46, 31, 45). His yards per attempt you say is bad, yet he's at 20th in the league with a crappy offensive line, no time to throw, and no running game to help him out. You say he can't throw the long ball, yet if you watch the games they point out that he's in the top 3 in the league with 20+ yard passes with 15 so far in 3 games. Luck's QBR is 2nd in the league. He has multiple 2 minute drives in all 3 games where we've either scored or gotten into position for scoring. He has multiple times avoided numerous sacks and used his athleticism to get a first down. Meanwhile, your boy RG3 is getting pummeled every game and he is way more likely to get injured than Luck is. All of your arguments are ridiculous and predicated on some ridiculous hatred of an owner who has proven that he's a fun guy and wants to win. If you want to have a conversation, fine, but don't keep saying the same thing over and over again and expect people to take you seriously.
            Ol Blu, I want you to respond to this and other posts in this thread. You make the same arguments in every thread when it suits you and ignore the facts when presented to you. And then you claim you use the "facts" to prove your point.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • Re: Luck so far

              Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
              Ol Blu, I want you to respond to this and other posts in this thread. You make the same arguments in every thread when it suits you and ignore the facts when presented to you. And then you claim you use the "facts" to prove your point.
              50 was meant as an example. 46 and 45 are close to 50 and I think he will keep chucking it at that rate or higher. He should get 300 yards per game throwing it that much. I don't have any problem with his passes of 20 and 30 yards. What I see is that when he cranks it up to 40 or a big more, the ball floats and doesn't come down and the receiver has to wait on it. Jenning in Chicago (Luck certainly made him look like a star) took advantage of this and made interceptions. The Vikings defender evidently didn't see the film on this because Luck did the same thing on a 40 yd + pass and the defender stumbled giving our receiver the chance to stand still and wait for the ball to get to him. That should have been intercepted and if it had been, the Colts would 0-3 right now. RGIII was just named the offensive rookie of the month. What other rookie QB has come out and gotten a 100+ QB rating in his first four games? RGIII has always been a runner and is used to taking the punishment. Luck is not. You may not like it but after four games, RGIII is a superstar ala Cam Newton and Luck is just running for his life every game. I think Luck will take a terrible beating in the game with Green Bay, even worse that what happened in Chicago. I hope I am wrong but I am sure that I am not.....

              Comment


              • Re: Luck so far

                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                50 was meant as an example. 46 and 45 are close to 50 and I think he will keep chucking it at that rate or higher. He should get 300 yards per game throwing it that much. I don't have any problem with his passes of 20 and 30 yards. What I see is that when he cranks it up to 40 or a big more, the ball floats and doesn't come down and the receiver has to wait on it. Jenning in Chicago (Luck certainly made him look like a star) took advantage of this and made interceptions. The Vikings defender evidently didn't see the film on this because Luck did the same thing on a 40 yd + pass and the defender stumbled giving our receiver the chance to stand still and wait for the ball to get to him. That should have been intercepted and if it had been, the Colts would 0-3 right now. RGIII was just named the offensive rookie of the month. What other rookie QB has come out and gotten a 100+ QB rating in his first four games? RGIII has always been a runner and is used to taking the punishment. Luck is not. You may not like it but after four games, RGIII is a superstar ala Cam Newton and Luck is just running for his life every game. I think Luck will take a terrible beating in the game with Green Bay, even worse that what happened in Chicago. I hope I am wrong but I am sure that I am not.....
                He also threw 31 times in the 3rd game, so there's no guarantee that he'll do that. Our running game sucks so it's possible he'll throw around 40 times a game, but you look at all the other big QBs in the league and they are doing the same thing. I don't think there's a problem throwing that much, as I feel that gives Luck an opportunity to learn as much as possible. I really don't see your floating issue, and I don't see any other expert saying he has a problem floating the ball. I think we all agree Luck didn't throw the ball great the first game, but you have to keep in mind that was his first game. You can't make judgments on his game (or his long ball since you're so interested in that) based on 1-2 games early in his career. Your argument of the Vikings defender is poor. Just because you think there is some perceived floating issue doesn't mean others think that. The defender stumbled because the receiver made a good move/the defender sucks. I just watched that video. That ball was just fine and did not "float". It went right to the receiver and was well placed.

                RG3 has played well, no one is disagreeing with you there. But just because your boy is playing well doesn't mean a thing. Cam Newton was great last year and has been terrible this year. Playing 4 games is not a prognostic indicator of future career. You may not like it, but RG3 is getting hammered because he runs the ball so much. As I've told you multiple times, he is way more likely to get hurt than Luck is. Just because he is used to being a runner doesn't mean he can get away with it in the NFL. He might have been fine in college, but in the NFL the teams and defenders will be looking to punish him, and RG3 doesn't exactly have a strong frame body. He is definitely more likely to get hurt. Luck, on the other hand, has not been hit nearly as much and avoids getting hit really well. If you watch the highlights of the games, he avoids pressure really well.

                And you use 100+ Qb rating for RG3, but Luck's QBR is number one in the league. Just saying.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • Re: Luck so far

                  Luck is outstanding at avoiding sacks, and a damn good runner as well. Ask Jared Allen, whom Luck made look foolish. And Andrew Luck is already arguably better than Cam Newton. Just admit it, you haven't even seen Luck play
                  Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck so far

                    The plays Wash has ran for RG3 seem more simple, most of those throws are fairly low-risk and often to wide-open receivers, he's not having to make a ton of reads. He has a running game, so opposing defenses can't key on just him like they do Luck. He's had better protection (if not much) than Luck so he's had more time to make his reads and step into his throws.

                    I'll admit he's protected the ball well... but it's a really simple offense. He hasn't really been forced to make any crazy throws. He's not carrying his offense like Luck has to. He did get them down the field in the last game, but Luck has done that already, too.

                    He's not looked bad by any means, but I do think he's gettin a lot more credit that he probly has actually earned. The two areas he was sposed to exceed Luck was mobility and deep throws --- he's actually behind LUck on deep completions and also has taken more sacks. He does have more rushing yards, but that's because Wash runs designed plays for him, lol... He's played in 1 more game and has 1 less touchdown.

                    He's played 4 of the worst defenses in the league and has yet to face a top-15 defense. The worst D Indy has faced (Jax) is almost as good as the *best* defense the 'Skins have faced. The only quality defense the 'Skins have played (and I say this tongue in cheek) is the Rams (who are middle of the pack at best) and the 'Skins lost that game. The rest of those teams are just awful, horrible defenses. Meanwhile, Indy has played only 3 games, and has played two 3-1 teams, and beat one of them, and should've won another against the Jags. Chicago and the Vikes are all top-10 defenses and both are 3-1 teams. The Vikes' only loss this year is to Indy.

                    I think in due time RG3 will be exposed a lil bit, but he'll always have that excitement about him and he is a decent player so he'll have success. I do see why Luck has such a high QBR though, I've seen mostly high quality play from him and a large dependency on him by his team, as compared to say RG3, who can really hand it off and not be expected to carry his offense as much.

                    I did read a stat today that Luck has a poor completion rate 10-yards or less... but then I think back to all those dropped dump passes, namely by D. Brown... it doesn't seem like Luck has missed all that many when watching the games, so was surprised to see that stat. I wonder if they include throwaways?
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-04-2012, 11:03 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: Luck so far

                      I have noticed the longer passes hanging up on Luck... Not sure if I'm just hyper sensitive to it because Ol Blu has mentioned it so much, or if it happens a little too much to ignore....
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

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

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck so far

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        Luck is outstanding at avoiding sacks, and a damn good runner as well. Ask Jared Allen, whom Luck made look foolish. And Andrew Luck is already arguably better than Cam Newton. Just admit it, you haven't even seen Luck play
                        Cam Newton is off to a shaky start on a bad team but Luck isn't even in Cam Newton's league as a football player. There is no argument about that. Luck is a lower third of the NFL QB right now and it will get worse this week. I have seen Luck play, RGIII play and Cam Newton play. I don't care that you have a crush on Luck, he isn't close to being the QB those two are right now. Luck has played one good team, Chicago and they made him look very inept. Green Bay will do the same thing but they will rush him even more..... I don't think it is me who doesn't watch the games..... ...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck so far

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          Cam Newton is off to a shaky start on a bad team but Luck isn't even in Cam Newton's league as a football player. There is no argument about that. Luck is a lower third of the NFL QB right now and it will get worse this week. I have seen Luck play, RGIII play and Cam Newton play. I don't care that you have a crush on Luck, he isn't close to being the QB those two are right now. Luck has played one good team, Chicago and they made him look very inept. Green Bay will do the same thing but they will rush him even more..... I don't think it is me who doesn't watch the games..... ...
                          Minnesota is a good team. They are 3-1 and we beat them.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck so far

                            :QUOTE=Sollozzo;1506545]Minnesota is a good team. They are 3-1 and we beat them.[/QUOTE]

                            The Vikings are not a good team and they won't finish as one. They may be about .500 when it is done. The Colts didn't beat the Vikings, the Vikings decided to give them that game. If they had watched film of the Chicago game, they would have had the defender playing close behind the receiver on the long pass that Luck hung up and it would have been intercepted. Just about any team in the NFL, including Jacksonville, look like good teams playing the Colts. Remember, I still think the Colts will only win two or three games this season. I did not expect them to beat the Vikings but did expect them to beat Jacksonville in Indy. Now, they probably lose two to Jacksonville, Houston and perhaps even Tennessee. If you want some wins you better get them in the next five games, you won't get many in the last eight..... ...

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck so far

                              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                              :QUOTE=Sollozzo;1506545]The Colts didn't beat the Vikings, the Vikings decided to give them that game.
                              We were up 20-6 heading into the fourth quarter. We were the ones trying to give them the game, not the other way around. We were super-conservative with our offensive play calling throughout the second half and it almost cost us the game. Had we kept calling the plays that gave us a big lead, we would have won that game easily. We had like four straight offensive possessions that were wasted with poor play calling.

                              Just give them credit for winning the game. The Colts outplayed the Vikings. I was there.

                              Minny may or may not be a good team at the end of the season. But they are solid right now. 3-1 is 3-1, and that includes a win against the 49ers who many have in the Super Bowl. They have a solid quarterback who doesn't turn the ball over, a stud young receiver, one of the best RBs in the league, and a very solid defense. They will contend for a playoff spot. The NFC is deep, so I'm not penciling them in for a spot. But they will compete all season.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck so far

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                We were up 20-6 heading into the fourth quarter. We were the ones trying to give them the game, not the other way around. We were super-conservative with our offensive play calling throughout the second half and it almost cost us the game. Had we kept calling the plays that gave us a big lead, we would have won that game easily. We had like four straight offensive possessions that were wasted with poor play calling.

                                Just give them credit for winning the game. The Colts outplayed the Vikings. I was there.

                                Minny may or may not be a good team at the end of the season. But they are solid right now. 3-1 is 3-1, and that includes a win against the 49ers who many have in the Super Bowl. They have a solid quarterback who doesn't turn the ball over, a stud young receiver, one of the best RBs in the league, and a very solid defense. They will contend for a playoff spot. The NFC is deep, so I'm not penciling them in for a spot. But they will compete all season.
                                I agree with you about their QB. I mentioned that he outplayed Luck that day and was a better QB but so are 25 other NFL QBs..... I'll give you that a win is a win but the Vikings were beyond hopeless that day and the Colts almost let them back into the game.... ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X