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

Here's my plea

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

  • #91
    Re: Here's my plea

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    No one in their right mind is going to risk 90 million dollars on a rather old QB with multiple neck surgeries when the team wasn't going to contend and one of the best prospects in years was going to be available.
    It's like I never just pointed out the fact that Irsay signed Peyton AFTER he was injured and AFTER he had two neck surgeries. To think Irsay wasn't willing to risk paying an injured Peyton, when he signed an injured Peyton, doesn't make much sense.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Here's my plea

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      It's like I never just pointed out the fact that Irsay signed Peyton AFTER he was injured and AFTER he had two neck surgeries. To think Irsay wasn't willing to risk paying an injured Peyton, when he signed an injured Peyton, doesn't make much sense.
      There's a difference being injured (something Peyton had been before) and missing an entire season (Peyton never even missed a game prior to last season). When Irsay signed Peyton in 2011, all of the indications were that Peyton was rehabbing and was hopeful that he would be ready for the start of the 2011 season. I'm sure Irsay was as shocked as everyone else when Peyton needed a major surgery that left him unable to play a single down last year. The first two neck surgeries weren't near as big as the one he had in September 2011.

      When Irsay signed Peyton in 2011, he was essentially signing him to a one year deal with a four year option. From Irsay's perspective at the time, it was a no-brainer because Peyton had never missed a game due to injury and Manning getting healthy seemed to be a good gamble. And if he didn't get healthy, as was the case, then all you did was pay him a year of salary. But it was a much different scenario in March. If Irsay had picked up Manning's option, then he would have essentially been picking up a four year contract with no outs (aside from cutting him at some point and taking a big hit). Manning's contract wasn't setup where Irsay had the opportunity every season to get out of it. Thus, the circumstances in July 2011 and March 2012 were much much much different.

      And that's not even mentioning the number pick, which was the biggest factor in all of this, IMHO.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Here's my plea

        They knew the extent of the injury. Peyton elected to have quick fix surgeries, and hoped that would clear the situation up. As it became clear that the path they were trying to go down wasn't going to happen, they then went for the more serious solution.

        This is information that Irsay would have been on top of. They knew what the problem was, they just had different options on fixing it. If the Colts FO didn't realize that a major surgery was on the table, and that there would be extensive rehab with that surgery, and they were just hanging on to the hope that the quick fix would work, then the Colts are screwed. Like forever screwed, because that level of incompetence is pretty hard to overcome when its coming from the decision makers. If it's true, I hope Irsay decides to step aside and become less active in the process, or sell the team. I can't believe a business man like him would get caught with his pants down on this type of injury when they had clear indications that Peyton's injury was going to need a rather serious surgery.

        You can't be that shortsided and ignorant on such a serious situation, and when the worse case scenario happens rely on the excuse that you weren't sure what was going to happen.

        Question marks like that would have had to be heavily weighed out when talking about how to proceed. It just had too.



        I hate having my leg blantantly pulled. It's a pet peeve of mine. When Irsay is just 10months removed from going around telling anyone and everyone who's willing to listen that he'll pay Peyton whatever he wants, and that he deserves to be the highest paid player ever, blah blah blah, it's pretty hard to believe that money became an issue. The revisionist history that it was too big of a risk, or it was too pricey of a contract, just doesn't fly when the entire picture is being looked at. And a big portion of the picture is what happened in the prior offseason.
        Last edited by Since86; 10-18-2012, 10:32 AM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Here's my plea

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          They knew the extent of the injury. Peyton elected to have quick fix surgeries, and hoped that would clear the situation up. As it became clear that the path they were trying to go down wasn't going to happen, they then went for the more serious solution.

          This is information that Irsay would have been on top of. They knew what the problem was, they just had different options on fixing it. If the Colts FO didn't realize that a major surgery was on the table, and that there would be extensive rehab with that surgery, and they were just hanging on to the hope that the quick fix would work, then the Colts are screwed. Like forever screwe, because that level of incompetence is pretty hard to overcome when its coming from the decision makers.

          You can't be that shortsided and ignorant on such a serious situation, and when the worse case scenario happens rely on the excuse that you weren't sure what was going to happen.

          Question marks like that would have had to be heavily weighed out when talking about how to proceed. It just had too.



          I hate having my leg blantantly pulled. It's a pet peeve of mine. When Irsay is just 10months removed from going around telling anyone and everyone who's willing to listen that he'll pay Peyton whatever he wants, and that he deserves to be the highest paid player ever, blah blah blah, it's pretty hard to believe that money became an issue. The revisionist history that it was too big of a risk, or it was too pricey of a contract, just doesn't fly when the entire picture is being looked at. And a big portion of the picture is what happened in the prior offseason.

          How could the Colts be incompetent? He essentially signed a one year contract with a four year option. Seems to me like the Colts exercised textbook competence. They guaranteed him a year in which they could evaluate his health, which guaranteed them the option to review the contract before the 2012 season and decide if they wanted to renew. It doesn't make sense to me to imply that the Colts were incompetent when they pretty much did a perfect job at covering their bases.

          Like I said, the circumstances were much much much different in July 2011 than they were in March 2012. In July 2011, all they did was commit to a year. In March 2012, they would have had to commit to four years. I would have been fine with bringing Manning back, but I understand that the circumstances changed quite a bit between those 8 months.

          Of course the Colts probably knew that surgery was a "possibility". But there's a big difference between there being a "chance" it happens versus it actually happening and costing him an entire season. Had the Colts really thought that surgery was on the table when the contract was signed in July, then I don't think that Bill Polian would have waited until late August to bring a new QB in here. But that being said, they *did* do an effective job in preparing for the worst in the sense that they gave themselves the right to get out of the contract after one season.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Here's my plea

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post

            I hate having my leg blantantly pulled. It's a pet peeve of mine. When Irsay is just 10months removed from going around telling anyone and everyone who's willing to listen that he'll pay Peyton whatever he wants, and that he deserves to be the highest paid player ever, blah blah blah, it's pretty hard to believe that money became an issue. The revisionist history that it was too big of a risk, or it was too pricey of a contract, just doesn't fly when the entire picture is being looked at. And a big portion of the picture is what happened in the prior offseason.
            I'll just say this money becomes an issue when performance becomes an issue. He ate his words on one year and forked over a ton of cash for nothing. I don't fault him for letting go of Manning since a long term option arrived and Mannings performance was in question and the timing of it was more of a hindrance.

            Either way this team was going to move on from Manning in 3-4 years anyway and nothing was going to change that fact.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Here's my plea

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              How could the Colts be incompetent? He essentially signed a one year contract with a four year option. Seems to me like the Colts exercised textbook competence. They guaranteed him a year in which they could evaluate his health, which guaranteed them the option to review the contract before the 2012 season and decide if they wanted to renew. It doesn't make sense to me to imply that the Colts were incompetent when they pretty much did a perfect job at covering their bases.
              And who's idea to sign that type of contract was it? Peytons. Why? Because of his injury. The whole entire reason for the one year, with a three year extension is because they didn't know what was going to happen with his neck. They knew that this first year would tell the tale about the proceeding 3 years.


              So how can they use the excuse that they signed him to a contract that they couldn't afford, when the entire deal was structured abound the question marks? They knew the risks associated with the injury BEFORE Irsay went around telling everyone that Peyton would be a Colt until he retires. Before he went around telling everyone that Peyton deserved to be the highest paid player ever. Before he told everyone that he was willing to pay whatever Peyton wanted.

              It's pretty hard to go around for an entire summer telling the world that Peyton is worth whatever cost, you know there's serious question marks with the injury so that's why you built the contract the way you did, and then a year later try to make the argument that Peyton's deal was too expensive, and that they weren't sure what was going to happen with the injury.

              It just doesn't make any logical sense. It doesn't pass the smell test.




              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Like I said, the circumstances were much much much different in July 2011 than they were in March 2012. In July 2011, all they did was commit to a year. In March 2012, they would have had to commit to four years. I would have been fine with bringing Manning back, but I understand that the circumstances changed quite a bit between those 8 months.

              The only thing that changed was their willingness to pay it. Which is fine, just be honest about the situation instead of pretending like your a vicitim of circumstance.

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Of course the Colts probably knew that surgery was a "possibility". But there's a big difference between there being a "chance" it happens versus it actually happening and costing him an entire season. Had the Colts really thought that surgery was on the table when the contract was signed in July, then I don't think that Bill Polian would have waited until late August to bring a new QB in here. But that being said, they *did* do an effective job in preparing for the worst in the sense that they gave themselves the right to get out of the contract after one season.
              He had already had two neck surgeries. They knew it was a quick fix solution. Peyton was given medical advice that he would need to have his neck fused, and went for other opinions. If you want to believe that they thought the fusion was an extreme case scenario, that's your perogative, but I don't think it adds up at all when the whole entire picture is being looked at.

              Here, just don't take my word on it.
              So last summer, before the Colts could finally get a look at him — before even they fully realized his condition — Manning worked in secret with Rockies trainers, in hopes of avoiding the September operation that ultimately cost him the 2011 season. In June, he, a trainer and Helton went to the indoor batting cages at Coors Field. Millions of people have marveled over Manning’s passes. This one to Helton, though, Manning wanted hidden from view.

              “It was not good; he actually thought I was joking when I threw it to him,” Manning said. “The ball nose-dived. He was like ‘That’s funny.’ I was like ‘You don’t understand. I’m telling you.’ ”

              Manning was leaning against a fence, still wiping away the sweat from his latest practice. He can laugh about that pass to Helton now, just as he did a few months later when, after a throwing session in which he tried to convince the Colts and himself that he was healthy enough to play in the season opener last September, he was told he looked like Chad Pennington, the former Jets and Dolphins quarterback whose lack of arm strength was often dissected.

              A few days later, a magnetic resonance imaging test revealed that Manning would need spinal fusion surgery. The doctors told him then that at his age, they could not guarantee he would be able to return to playing football. That is the moment that set in motion the collapse of the Colts’ season, Manning’s wrenching departure from Indianapolis, the whirlwind free agency, the still-startling sight of him in a different jersey.
              So in June he knew that he needed spinal fusion. He signed the contract late July. So either one of two things are true A) The Colts knew he needed neck surgery as Irsay told everyone that Peyton was going to be a Colt until he retired and he was worth any amount of money Peyton wanted or b) Peyton lied to the Colts and didn't tell them the severity of the situation.

              I honestly don't think Peyton lied, so I'm left with the conclusion that Irsay knew the score, told everyone one thing, and then ended up doing another while trying to sell the narrative that they just didn't know.

              EDIT: And I'm like 99.9% positive that Peyton was given advice prior to that story that he would need neck fusion, and that they were actively trying to find the alternative because they knew the rehab process with the surgery. Colts knew what the score was, when they signed the deal.
              Last edited by Since86; 10-18-2012, 11:29 AM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Here's my plea

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                So in June he knew that he needed spinal fusion. He signed the contract late July. So either one of two things are true A) The Colts knew he needed neck surgery as Irsay told everyone that Peyton was going to be a Colt until he retired and he was worth any amount of money Peyton wanted or b) Peyton lied to the Colts and didn't tell them the severity of the situation.

                I honestly don't think Peyton lied, so I'm left with the conclusion that Irsay knew the score, told everyone one thing, and then ended up doing another while trying to sell the narrative that they just didn't know.

                You're misreading it. In June he worked out with Helton with his balls nose diving. Then, a few months later, as the article states, he had a throwing session with the Colts in which he tried to convince them he could play in the season opener. Then, a few days after that (presumably late August/early Sept), a test revealed that Manning would need spinal fusion surgery. If your article is to be taken at its word, then Manning/the Colts didn't know he was going to need the fusion until just before the start of the season.

                Then there's this video from the August 2011 Peyback bowl:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...zi6oiiI#t=154s

                Peyton at about the 2:40 mark: "I still have some work to do, I'm going to need every bit of these next two weeks of the preseason."

                Peyton never lies about anything like that. If he doesn't want to give an answer then he simply doesn't comment. He wouldn't talk about needing the next two weeks of preseason to get back out there if he knew he was inevitably getting spinal fusion surgery. At this point (August 20), he apparently still thought there was a chance he could play in the opener.

                Also, he was activated off of the PUP list in August 2011 and Irsay sent out an optimistic tweet about him returning to the practice field:

                http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/8/2...o-perform-list

                https://twitter.com/JimIrsay/statuse...03556632399872

                #18 to the practice field! Soon the leaves will fall/I looked at sideline sat.night n saw $30,000,000.00 standing there,my checkbook hurts!

                That tweet was August 29.

                I don't think the Colts in any way shape or form knew that Peyton was going to need the surgery in June or July of 2011. Sure, you know that the option looms out there. But both Peyton and the team were optimistic through August that he could rehab his way back. You have Peyton's quotes in the youtube video I linked, his being taken off of the PUP list, Irsay's optimistic tweet, and the fact that Bill Polian didn't sign Kerry Collins until late August. Polian was losing his touch toward the end of his tenure here, but I have a very hard time believing he would wait until late August to sign Kerry Collins if he felt there was a substantial chance that Peyton would need a major surgery. If he knew in July that a major Manning surgery was looming, then he would have tried to sign Collins or someone else much earlier so they could have more time to prepare and practice.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-18-2012, 12:00 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Here's my plea

                  I'm not reading it wrong. The few months later part was only about how he was laughing about it, not that the rest of the timeline was happening a few months later.

                  Here's a Denver article that says the same thing, but leaves out the story about him trying to convince the Colts he could play.

                  Manning's right triceps had atrophied after one of his neck surgeries. He told the New York Times recently that when he went with Helton and a Rockies trainer to an indoor batting cage at Denver's downtown ballpark, the first pass he threw to Helton nose-dived so much that Helton actually thought he was just goofing around.
                  He was dead serious. His arm was shot, his future in American football in doubt.
                  A few days later, an MRI revealed that Manning needed spinal fusion surgery. Nobody realized it at the time, but Manning's days in Indy were numbered.
                  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-...-month-hiatus/
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Here's my plea

                    I'm not entirely sure what you guys are debating. I'm sure both parties knew exactly what they were doing. It really drives from Manning's injury, though. That's about all that can be said. Had that not happened, he'd still be here. I'm sure both Manning and the Colts had their plans in place for whatever was going to happen, and they put in the ability to cancel the agreement if need be. It was exactly what they wanted, even if it wasn't exactly what they wanted, if you catch my drift. The best solution to a bad situation.
                    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: Here's my plea

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I'm not reading it wrong. The few months later part was only about how he was laughing about it, not that the rest of the timeline was happening a few months later.

                      Here's a Denver article that says the same thing, but leaves out the story about him trying to convince the Colts he could play.


                      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-...-month-hiatus/

                      Why would he have a throwing session with the Colts in June to persuade them that he should play in the opener which was three months away? That makes no sense. The article you linked was a bit confusing grammar-wise, but I think it's clear that the throwing session with a Colts was a few months after the throwing with Helton. It says a few days after the session with the Colts, he found out that he needed the surgery. That's the major news that broke in early September. As soon as it was discovered that he needed the surgery, it was leaked to JMV. There's no way that both the Colts and Manning could have known for three months that he inevitably needed surgery without a single soul in the Colts organization leaking it.

                      Also, how do you explain the August 2011 youtube video? If Peyton really knew in June that he inevitably needed surgery, then is he straight up lying to that reporter? I certainly don't think so as I think it's clear that he was trying to rehab and avoid surgery until the bitter end. But if one believes your theory, then they must also buy that Peyton was not telling the truth in that interview. That's very hard to believe. If Peyton doesn't want to address something, then he dodges the question. He doesn't say things that are factually incorrect, particularly concerning something as big as that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Here's my plea

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I'm not entirely sure what you guys are debating. I'm sure both parties knew exactly what they were doing. It really drives from Manning's injury, though. That's about all that can be said. Had that not happened, he'd still be here. I'm sure both Manning and the Colts had their plans in place for whatever was going to happen, and they put in the ability to cancel the agreement if need be. It was exactly what they wanted, even if it wasn't exactly what they wanted, if you catch my drift. The best solution to a bad situation.

                        We're debating if the Colts thought there was a substantial chance that Manning would need surgery when they signed him in July 2011. I think the evidence says they didn't.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Here's my plea

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Why would he have a throwing session with the Colts in June to persuade them that he should play in the opener which was three months away? That makes no sense. The article you linked was a bit confusing grammar-wise, but I think it's clear that the throwing session with a Colts was a few months after the throwing with Helton.
                          Peyton knowing he needed another surgery was not the few months later, but only a few days later after the throwing session with Helton. The few months later part was just describing the other time he was laughing about his performance. That timeline was limited to that one story.


                          Let's remember, when Peyton had the neck fusion done, everyone thought it was the 3rd procedure. When in reality, it turned out to be the 4th procedure.

                          The first 3 procedures were all the same one, because they were wanting the less serious procedure to work and they were delaying the neck fusion because they were hoping it wouldn't be needed.

                          The Colts had to know that Peyton needed a neck fusion, or at the very least they had to know that the stop-gap measures that they had already tried weren't working, which would lead you to the logical conclusion that neck fusion would be needed.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Here's my plea

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            I'm sure both parties knew exactly what they were doing.
                            That's what I'm saying.

                            The Colts had to know that a more serious procedure was needed if he already had two done, (maybe even three, we still don't know the definitive timeline of when the surgeries took place) before they signed their contract with him. Just by the sheer number of procedures that happened, they had to have some kind of idea that what they were currently doing wasn't working and that other options would going to have to be explored.

                            What were the other options? Neck fusion.

                            The Colts had to have known the severity of the situation, and that neck fusion was most likely going to be the best option going forward.

                            And if they couldn't make that conclusion, then I've got to question either how much information they were given or their ability to see the obvious progression of events.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Here's my plea

                              I'm sure both parties knew all they could know. I wouldn't blame management or Manning for not knowing exactly what would be required to fix Manning's neck at the time they signed the contract.... It sure seemed like the medical staff was trying various things hoping for a good outcome and was meeting more and more bad news. That's why they structured a loose agreement, which would be the smart thing to do. If Manning recovered, they keep him, if things go south, they cut ties and Manning is free to do what he wants. I'm sure in an ideal world for all parties, Manning retires here, but the injury threw a wrench in the gears. Both parties had to shake hands, appreciate what they did for each other, and move on, look out for themselves.

                              In other words, I don't think there's any bad guys here. It was just what it was --- two parties getting dealt a bad hand and playing it the best way they could for both to go forth and succeed.
                              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-18-2012, 01:53 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: Here's my plea

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Peyton knowing he needed another surgery was not the few months later, but only a few days later after the throwing session with Helton. The few months later part was just describing the other time he was laughing about his performance. That timeline was limited to that one story.
                                So he was laughing about his performance as he was about to have a major surgery which ended his season and put his future performance into question? I wouldn't think that he would have been in a laughing mood at that point. Reading the context of the article, I think it's clear that they mean he can laugh at the Helton performance now that he is healed, as well as the performance in front of the Colts that took place a few months later in which they called him Chad Pennington. A few days after the performance in front of the Colts, he was told he needed the fusion. That matches up perfectly with the timeline of when the story broke, which was early September.

                                Nothing was set in stone until early September. The August 2011 youtube video shows that Peyton was still trying to play in the 2011 season opener. The Colts took him off of the PUP list in August, Irsay tweeted about him returning to the practice field, and Polian didn't pick a QB up until late August. All of that paints a pretty clear picture that the Colts were hoping he could avoid surgery until it became inevitable in early September.

                                If Peyton knew for sure that he needed surgery in June then he would not have been telling a local Indy reporter that he was still doing all he could to get out on the field for the opener. I'm not saying that the Colts didn't know that surgery was a possibility, but there is no evidence to show that Peyton and the Colts knew for sure in June that he had to do it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X