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

  • Re: Here's my plea

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    SoIf 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.

    Peyton was trying to play at the end of last season, in red zone situations. One thing is clear, Peyton Manning loves playing football and is willing to do just about anything to do it.

    And I'm not trying to say that the Colts knew for sure that he needed neck fusion, but that they atleast had to have an idea that the procedure was going to be needed and that it was a very likely outcome.
    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
      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.
      Let's not act like I'm going OlBlu on everyone. I don't think anyone is a "bad guy," I'm just saying don't play me for a fool. Don't tell me that you had to cut him, because of the contract situation when you had just gone around telling everyone how great of a contract it was just 6months prior.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Here's my plea

        Manning could be feeling symptoms of the issue reoccurring right now, or after the next game, or during the playoffs, or next preseason... etc etc etc.... There are simply no guarantees with this type of injury/health concern. And at age 36 the next time it occurs with any seriousness is likely the last time he plays football. Add in reality he's 36 years old and even if it doesn't return we're talking a 3-4 year window for him to continue to be a special player... if Father Time doesn't have other ideas.

        Now factor in exactly how badly built the team was last season and what a poor job management had done to surround Manning with good talent AND a balanced team pr even a somewhat balanced team. Let alone the questions about the system the Colts steadfastly adhered to that left them vulnerable to the run and gave them little chance to get a conservative team off the field. Which meant teams could play ball control against the Colts and keep Manning on the bench.

        Now factor in the questions surrounding the head coach and whether he really was the best coach available for the job.

        Now consider the Colts surprisingly found themselves holding the #1 pick late in Manning's career with uncertainty about Manning's future, a bad team under contract, and a Manning contract that regardless of what Irsay had ever said, thought, or believed was going to make improving the team quickly all but impossible.

        There was the option of trading the pick but as already has been explained, it wasn't exactly the guaranteed haul it might've seemed like thanks to St Louis' situation and the availability of RG3 in the same draft.

        Irsay could've said "I don't care about anything other than keeping Manning. Let's do the best we can with everything else". That means either trading Luck and shoring up the team around Manning as best as possible and hoping Manning can return. Or getting Luck and hoping Manning can somehow keep things in check for his last years while Luck sits.

        I just don't see how those were viable options when you sit down and think about the risks involved and that at best you're likely only getting Manning 3-4 more years. And those years could still be injury riddled years. A few games after surgery proves nothing yet. The concern will dog him the rest of his career. And it will dog any team owner. In 3-4 years the Colts will still have games to play. And a fanbase to satisfy.

        Lastly, even if you argue about being loyal to Manning because he's a special situation... I'm not sure allowing Manning to go somewhere else where a better team already existed for his last few years wasn't the more loyal thing to do. The EASY thing to do was just re-up Manning's contract and keep him a Colt. But I'm not sure how anyone can argue that was the ONLY right thing to do. Let's not forget this team needed a lot of help and a management re-think.

        To Since:
        Irsay might've believed what he said when he said it but I imagine he trusted Polian to have fielded a decent team around Manning in the first place. He was probably as surprised as anyone when Polian's bluster and arrogance was shattered by the performance of the team without Manning. So not only did Polian let him down but the blowback from that was a #1 pick when a top QB prospect was available. Those are two things I don't think it's hard to believe were never factors in Irsay's thinking when Manning's contract was signed.
        Last edited by Bball; 10-18-2012, 02:41 PM.
        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: Here's my plea

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Peyton was trying to play at the end of last season, in red zone situations. One thing is clear, Peyton Manning loves playing football and is willing to do just about anything to do it.

          He was wanting to come back and do the red zone stuff in December. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the August 2011 video I linked to where it's clear that he was doing everything he could to play in the September 11 opener at Houston.

          Comment


          • Re: Here's my plea

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            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.
            Irsay new all along what he was going to do. He knew where Peyton was in rehab and he dropped him. It took no time for other people to come out of the woods and start making him offers. In a very short time, he signed with Denver for an increase in pay. Now, you either have to think John Elway was an idiot for doing that (Miami, Tennessee, the 49ers and Arizona also were making offers) for a QB who might have been a health risk. They knew at that point that he was not a health risk, the arm strength was returning quickly and it was not a big gamble to bring in Peyton Manning for big money. Irsay could have done the same thing. He didn't. He lied about it. I will dispise him for ever for that decision and the Colts will be losers for a long time because of it and other decisions.....

            Comment


            • Re: Here's my plea

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Let's not act like I'm going OlBlu on everyone. I don't think anyone is a "bad guy," I'm just saying don't play me for a fool. Don't tell me that you had to cut him, because of the contract situation when you had just gone around telling everyone how great of a contract it was just 6months prior.
              Did Irsay ever concretely say that the contract was the reason they cut him? Maybe he did, but there was so much talk over those months that I forget who said what. I seem to remember both Irsay and Manning saying at the press conference that money didn't have anything to do with it and that it was done because of "circumstances".

              At the end of the day, I really don't thin that Manning's health or the contract had much to do with it. It was the number 1 pick that loomed over everything. Irsay didn't want to part with it and Manning didn't want to play for a team that wasn't willing to trade the pick for assets that could help him win at the end of his career, IMHO.

              Peyton wouldn't have wanted Andrew Luck on the team. In Peyton's world, a backup QB is an afterthought scrub who holds the clipboard, wears a headset, and chats a bit on the sideline. It's not someone that he has to go out of his way to mentor, much less give snaps to in practice. Plus having Luck on the roster would have been a big distraction if Manning got into a slump this year or next. You would inevitably have heard the whispers about needing to let Luck play. All of that is something that a control freak like Peyton would not have wanted to deal with, IMHO.

              Comment


              • Re: Here's my plea

                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                Irsay new all along what he was going to do. He knew where Peyton was in rehab and he dropped him. It took no time for other people to come out of the woods and start making him offers. In a very short time, he signed with Denver for an increase in pay. Now, you either have to think John Elway was an idiot for doing that (Miami, Tennessee, the 49ers and Arizona also were making offers) for a QB who might have been a health risk. They knew at that point that he was not a health risk, the arm strength was returning quickly and it was not a big gamble to bring in Peyton Manning for big money. Irsay could have done the same thing. He didn't. He lied about it. I will dispise him for ever for that decision and the Colts will be losers for a long time because of it and other decisions.....
                Elway has a one year out like the Colts did last year. Manning has to pass a physical in March 2013. The Colts OTOH would have been renewing Peyton's contract for four seasons. Big difference.

                http://www.sbnation.com/2012-nfl-fre...denver-broncos

                Comment


                • Re: Here's my plea

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Did Irsay ever concretely say that the contract was the reason they cut him? Maybe he did, but there was so much talk over those months that I forget who said what. I seem to remember both Irsay and Manning saying at the press conference that money didn't have anything to do with it and that it was done because of "circumstances".
                  I'm not sure what the official line was. I agree it comes down to the #1 pick, but I honestly think Peyton thought he was going to remain a Colt.

                  Just the way everything played out, like how they had business meetings and didn't Peyton take a phsyical or atleast pass for the Colts before the decision was made?



                  It almost felt like, to me, the FO didn't realize just how crappy the team was without Peyton, and when they tanked as bad as they did the blinders were taken off. The FO then realized that the entire team needed overhauled, and thought the best way to do it was to start 100% clean.

                  They then had to sell it to the fanbase, and had to come up with other reasons than just saying "we screwed up building this team."
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Here's my plea

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I'm not sure what the official line was. I agree it comes down to the #1 pick, but I honestly think Peyton thought he was going to remain a Colt.

                    Just the way everything played out, like how they had business meetings and didn't Peyton take a phsyical or atleast pass for the Colts before the decision was made?



                    It almost felt like, to me, the FO didn't realize just how crappy the team was without Peyton, and when they tanked as bad as they did the blinders were taken off. The FO then realized that the entire team needed overhauled, and thought the best way to do it was to start 100% clean.

                    They then had to sell it to the fanbase, and had to come up with other reasons than just saying "we screwed up building this team."

                    It's all just guessing on my part, but I think that Peyton had to have known his days were numbered when Caldwell, the Polians, and virtually everyone else affiliated with this franchise were fired in January. In the interview he gave with Kravitz in January, he sounds like someone who had accepted the inevitable.

                    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...lth/52766206/1

                    "I'm not in a very good place for healing, let's say that," he said, referring to the practice facility. "It's not a real good environment down there right now, to say the least. Everybody's walking around on eggshells. I don't recognize our building right now. There's such complete and total change."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Here's my plea

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      It's all just guessing on my part, but I think that Peyton had to have known his days were numbered when Caldwell, the Polians, and virtually everyone else affiliated with this franchise were fired in January. In the interview he gave with Kravitz in January, he sounds like someone who had accepted the inevitable.

                      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...lth/52766206/1

                      "I'm not in a very good place for healing, let's say that," he said, referring to the practice facility. "It's not a real good environment down there right now, to say the least. Everybody's walking around on eggshells. I don't recognize our building right now. There's such complete and total change."
                      But Irsay was still lying his *** off right up to the day when people had to resign for their season tickets. I knew he was gone when Caldwell was let go. If Caldwell stays, Manning stays.....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Here's my plea

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        But Irsay was still lying his *** off right up to the day when people had to resign for their season tickets. I knew he was gone when Caldwell was let go. If Caldwell stays, Manning stays.....

                        When was he lying exactly? I don't recall him saying that he was going to renew the contract.

                        It was an awkward position for an owner to be in and one in which I'm sure Irsay never dreamed of prior to a year ago.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Here's my plea

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          When was he lying exactly? I don't recall him saying that he was going to renew the contract.

                          It was an awkward position for an owner to be in and one in which I'm sure Irsay never dreamed of prior to a year ago.
                          He said right up to the last day that he would find a way to sign Luck and keep Peyton...... He said it over and over and over again.....

                          Comment


                          • Re: Here's my plea

                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            He said right up to the last day that he would find a way to sign Luck and keep Peyton...... He said it over and over and over again.....

                            We didn't even commit to Luck until right before the draft in April.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Here's my plea

                              [QUOTE=Sollozzo;1511364]We didn't even commit to Luck until right before the draft in April.[/QUO

                              Irsay was counting on the public having a very short memory. Unfortunately he was right. There are, however, a group of us who remember what was said an the timing of it all very well. Drafting Luck was a done deal as soon as the Colts got close to having the pick. There was never any doubt about that and the team will pay the price of for those decisions with many losing seasons in my opinion. But, that is what happens to poorly managed teams. If they strike real lighting (Peyton Manning or Drew Brees), they will win for a while but then they will revert to their losing ways.....

                              Comment


                              • Re: Here's my plea

                                Guys...as the months went by and Peyton kept aging and having problems rebounding...Irsay simply cut bait. Who knows exactly when that happened? I don't know, but it doesn't matter. It happened sometime in the preceding year before we got the news. I would not be surprised if it was early last season. I do believe he had to fudge the truth a little to keep cool with Peyton and the public...but that's his job.

                                It was early last season when Irsay had to decide whether he would ride Peyton the rest of the way or try to get a brand new stallion. As an owner about to fork out unbelievable amounts of money to a guy he may not even want to see take any more hits...playing on a team in decline...when he could get a fresh new start with Luck and have some assurance of a packed stadium. The decision itself was a simple decision from a business standpoint. It could not have been easier once the Colts had the #1 pick. It was like going from Montana to Marino (we hope).

                                Telling people was the hard part because most everyone loves Peyton Manning. I don't really care for Irsay that much, but I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision.

                                BTW, imagine if Peyton took that face mask that Luck did the other day. Dude might be in the hospital right now and we'd be on the phone talking to Curtis Painter again...with Andrew Luck in Miami.

                                Count your blessings people.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X