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

Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

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

  • Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

    Jim Irsay's big gambles


    For now, Indianapolis Colts fans are safely wrapped in the feel-good glow of a new coach who is beating cancer and a new quarterback who has beaten the rookie odds and 11 opponents. Their team has risen from 2-14 to a playoff-bound 11-5. Happy New Era!
    A wonderful holiday story, no doubt -- but one that won't have such a happy football ending. The cold, hard truth: Owner Jim Irsay made a monumental four-year mistake when he ceremoniously cut Peyton Manning last March. And Irsay and his new general manager, Ryan Grigson, compounded that calculated blunder last April by drafting Andrew Luck over Robert Griffin III.

    This, of course, is merely one man's opinion -- mine. But this isn't some hypocritical late hit. I strongly stated these opinions on "First Take" before Irsay cut Peyton and before the Colts took Luck with the No.-1 overall pick. Peyton has proven me extremely right; RG III is proving me so.

    Now a three-pronged specter looms over Luckville. What if the Colts' ChuckStrong roll -- inspired by the recovery of coach Chuck Pagano, who let us all feel his pain -- is stopped by the even stronger mojo of (potentially) Ray Lewis' Last Home Game? What if Peyton's 11-game winning streak hits 13? What if RG III sheds the brace on his miraculously healing knee and his team's seven-game winning streak somehow rises to 10?

    Indy's worst nightmare: Peyton versus RG III in the Super Bowl.

    I, for one, would not be shocked.


    Please, let this sink in: Peyton Manning just went from being cut to being NFL MVP -- an NFL first. He should win that award as well as Comeback Player of the Year over Adrian Peterson because Peyton just went from four neck surgeries -- from being advised to retire by some doctors and being written off by many analysts -- to carrying a new team to the AFC's No. 1 seed. Peyton Manning, who had "lost too much arm strength" early in the season, finished with the NFL's No. 1 QBR at 84.1. No other QB broke 80.
    Yet this man still isn't getting enough credit because now people shrug and say, "Well, what'd you expect from Peyton Manning?" Please, I got laughed at when I predicted in August he'd make the Pro Bowl. Nobody expected anything remotely close to what, under the circumstances, was the greatest season of the greatest regular-season quarterback ever.

    (For the record, I'm no big Peyton fan. I've often criticized him for a 9-10 playoff record -- four home losses -- that hasn't measured up to the high seeds earned by his astonishing 11 double-digit-win seasons in Indy. His one Super Bowl win came against the Bears' Rex Grossman. But now that oddsmakers have made Peyton's new team the Super Bowl favorite, it will be harder than ever to bet against him.)

    Remember, Irsay received little criticism for tearfully parting ways with Dear Old No. 18 -- in part because, classy to the end, Peyton took the high road, turned on his TV-ad charm and publicly returned Irsay's love even though he had to be seething inside.

    My view: Irsay got away with convincing fans and media that Peyton's health was so risky and the salary he'd soon be owed ($28 million) and resulting cap hit ($17 million) were so high that the Colts simply couldn't afford to keep him. Yes, it seemed so dollars and sensible to say thanks but no thanks to Peyton, take the reduced $10.6 million cap hit and use the savings to rebuild around Luck.

    But remember the dueling medical reports that broke during Super Bowl week in Indianapolis? Peyton's camp leaked info from personal doctors who said Peyton would soon be better than ever, prompting Irsay to tweet that Colts doctors still hadn't cleared Peyton. I bought into Peyton's vow that he would play again and his insistence he was right on track to be ready for camp, already doing light throwing. I'm guessing Irsay also feared Peyton was right.

    But, my view: At age 53, Irsay, whose father acquired the Colts when Jim was 14, wanted to remake the Colts in his image. For 14 years they had been Peyton's Team, built and run by legendary GM Bill Polian. But Jim Irsay -- who walked on at SMU during its early-'80s football glory days and who idolizes '60s rock stars -- finally seized the opportunity to become a star in his own right ... the Jerry Jones of the AFC South! He fired Polian, cut Peyton, handpicked Pagano and Grigson and became a philosopher-comedian on Twitter. The Colts are now Jimmy Irsay's team. So far, so great.

    But please don't try to tell me cutting Peyton was about saving just $6.4 million in cap room. Denver GM John Elway jumped at the chance to give Peyton pretty much the same contract he had in Indy. Elway even took on a slightly higher cap hit this year (about $18 mil) than Irsay faced in Indy ($17 mil). Yet Elway still managed to add two receivers Peyton wanted, Jacob Tamme (52 catches for 555 yards) and Brandon Stokley (45 for 544).

    Please, this season Peyton Manning would have been a BARGAIN for the Colts at $28 million. He has been worth twice that in Denver.

    Be honest, Colts fans: Heading into the playoffs, would you rather have Peyton or Luck? Peyton, obviously. Now the tougher question: After what you've seen from Peyton this season, Peyton or Luck for the next three seasons? Sorry, it's Peyton.

    Obviously, he has proven he can take hits and bounce right back up. He will play the next three seasons at 37, 38 and 39. Brett Favre had his greatest season at 40, when he threw 33 touchdown passes to just seven interceptions and carried the Vikings to within an overtime in New Orleans of the Super Bowl.

    Please don't try to convince me Luck sets you up for a much brighter future. In this league, the future must always be now. Four years is an NFL eternity, and Peyton Manning would've given the Colts a better chance to win the Super Bowl this season and each of the next three.

    Sure, you can argue Irsay did Peyton a favor, driving him in the weight room and on the practice field to prove Irsay wrong. But when was Peyton Manning ever not driven? What player has worked harder every one of his offseasons?

    This is where Peyton's comeback is getting unfairly overshadowed by Adrian Peterson's. Peterson often has been portrayed as a weight-room warrior with the most powerful handshake in sports. He ruptured his ACL and MCL a year ago Christmas Eve and, yes, it was a testament to his dedication that he rehabbed it quickly enough to be ready eight months later for the season's start. But given today's surgical breakthroughs, eight months was amazing but not miraculous. Peterson is nine years younger than Peyton. The Vikings obviously didn't consider cutting him. Peterson's comeback wasn't complicated by having to change teams and build wavelengths with new receivers.

    No, Peyton should win Comeback Player and MVP.
    And RG III should win Offensive Rookie of the Year over (in order) Russell Wilson and Luck.

    Luck has had a terrific rookie year. But his seven game-winning drives camouflaged some troubling numbers. His 23 total turnovers (18 interceptions, five lost fumbles) are the NFL's second-worst (to Mark Sanchez) and his 54.1 completion percentage is second-worst among QBs with at least 300 attempts and worst for QBs with at least 400.

    RG III's seven total turnovers (five interceptions, two lost fumbles) are the fewest in the NFL. The fewest! And RG III runs a high-risk, ride-and-decide attack in which split-second decisions must be made to let go of the ball in the running back's hands or pull it back. Griffin went from winning the Heisman at a school without a great football tradition (Baylor) to leading a consensus pick to finish last (Washington) to its first NFC East crown since 1999. He finished sixth in QBR (to Luck's 11th) and fourth in completion percentage.

    Luck is very good. RG III is special. The only long-term advantage Luck might have is durability.

    For now, you certainly can't argue with Luck's playoff-making rookie record. For now Irsay can gloat-tweet his heart out. But ...

    As Pagano says, it was like this season was "meant to be." What if things return to ho-hum normal next season and the Colts must be fueled by perspiration instead of rare inspiration? What if the schedule gets tougher? Eight of this year's 11 wins came against Jacksonville twice, Tennessee twice, Kansas City, Miami, Cleveland and Buffalo.

    Seriously, Colts fans: Peyton or Luck? You know the answer. So does your owner.

  • #2
    Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

    Thought this was an...interesting article by the always....interesting Skip Bayless lol

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

      RG3 and Manning doing well doesn't mean that Colts going with Luck was a bad decision. There are a lot more variables than just the QBs that separate the 3 teams.

      Skip Bayless is clueless when it comes to sports. I think it was Charles Barkley that took him to task for his lack of basketball knowledge.. Skip's analysis of the sport he is talking about is only skin deep. There is no substance and this article proves he just as clueless in football as he is in basketball.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

        I won't read or entertain any idea that comes from Skip Bayless.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

          Bayless is a professional troll, he's OlBlu on TV.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

            BTW, Manning threw a lot of interceptions as a rookie as well. But if Skippy knew football, he'd know that

            And why is he only using a 4 year timetable? Colts have solidified their QB spot for over a decade.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

              Only skimmed the article but it seems like garbage. The basic premise is wrong, Bayless doesn't know his history.

              Polian was Jim Irsay's guy. Jim hired him. Polian drafted Peyton Manning. Jim Irsay gets credit for the Polian/Manning years.

              Does Bayless not know that Jim Irsay was the GM for a time when his father owned the team? Jim learned from that experience that he didn't have what it takes to make football decisions. That's why he turned to Polian. And it was the right decision.

              Jim Irsay has proven his ability to run the team as an owner. There was no ego involved in firing Polian and releasing Manning. And Irsay made the right decision to replace Polian. The results of last years draft and this seasons record make that obvious.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                If Skip thinks we made a wrong decision then we almost assuredly made the right one. When has Skip clueless ever been right? Manning would have been murdered and put right back into the situation he was in with his injuries had he stayed here or worse. I don't think Manning holds any sort of grudge against Irsay just a few diehard manning fans around the area that will be singing Luck's praise when he wins his first Super Bowl. I think it worked out well for all involved Manning has a solid line and an amazing defense to back him up to give him chances at more Super Bowls that he deserves, and we solidified our quarterback position AT LEAST for the next decade.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                  Cuban also ripped Skip apart once.

                  Skip Bayless is the stupidest man on TV, and it's not even close.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                    Skip's trolling, per usual, I think even he knows this is silly. Peyton most likely would not have had the best record in the AFC, let alone gone to the super bowl, with the Colts (anything is possible, but unlikely), even minus the firesale. And RGIII has benefited from a team and system tailored for his abilities. I'm not saying RGIII woudln't have worked here, but he also has a rookie of the year candidate at running back and a brilliant scheme with Mike Shanahan. You can argue he's been better than Luck but Luck has been asked to do more.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                      This is just an incredibly dumb article.

                      Both sides, Manning and the Colts, are simply better off for what transpired. There can be two winners sometimes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                        Let's see...the Jags beat the Colts once, but the Lions were bad so you could add that in instead, but this is supposed to be a professional journalist.
                        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                        ----------------- Reggie Miller

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                          I stopped reading when I saw "Skip Bayless."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                            Skip Bayless didn't write this. There's no mention of Tim Tebow being a god.
                            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Jim Irsay's big gambles - ESPN Article by Skip Bayless

                              It's a damn shame what happened to Skip Bayless, he used to be a pretty good writer. Rick Reilly too. Oh well, the ESPN money's worth it I guess.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X