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

Andrew Luck!!!!

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

  • #31
    Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    That's been part of the baffle for me. Luck did what he did last year, which is remarkable for a veteran to pull off. He was a *rookie*. Rookies aren't supposed to do that. So everyone puts it down as "beginners luck". Here's the thing --- he was considered the most pro-ready prospect to come out in decades, and arguably the best quarterback prospect to come out in 30 years. And then he goes out and basically backs it up --- and not only does everyone doubt him... they hoist RG3 up as the flavor of the year. People really don't know exactly what Luck pulled off last year. Why? Ignorance? They just don't know? Don't want to believe it? I don't know. I'm looking right at it. Been saying it since he was in college, before we drafted, after spending weeks watching tape on him, and the more I watched, the more convinced I became --- he's the best player I've ever seen come out of college. I don't mean that as he was an all-time great college player, a la Tyler Hansbrough, who's fantastic college career looked to translate to a middle-of-the-road pro career. I mean it as, Luck has a LeBron James-type collection of traits, a truly special physical and mental make-up. The stuff he did last year was not a surprise to me --- he did it in college. Everything he did in college projected to the pros, but unlike Hansbrough, he doesn't lack in physical or mental gifts. It wasn't a matter of over-achieving in Luck's case. He wasn't doing what he was doing by sheer heart and hustle. He has that hustle and heart, but he also has the other stuff. And then he has that on-field "it" factor; the ability to rise to a level of play that those around him cannot reach at critical moments. A lot of these guys who had "sophomore slumps" missed something critical in their make-up. A lot of times it's simply mental. Cam Newton, for all his physical talents, isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I stated before last season when everyone was pushing him up into the greatest of all time that I expected NFL defenses to catch on to him. It won't be like his rookie year forever, when most people just didn't have a book on him yet. The book is out now. A lot of those guys have some flaw or flaws that you can just see coming. They don't have the off-field commitment... they don't have the body.... they don't have the mental make-up... they don't have the mental toughness to keep it up..... they don't have the ability to make in-game or game-to-game adjustments.... they are immature... they make bad off-field decisions.... they have bad habits... imperfect mechanics --- any number of things. Luck doesn't lack in any of those departments. That's what made me make those claims last off-season. He is humble. He doesn't party. He's not an idiot. He's a physical freak, both in strength, flexibility, fluid-motion, fast-twitch. His mechanics are flawless. He's tough as ****. He expects perfection. He's not a dickhead to his teammates. He has the mental make-up of Peyton Manning, in his ability to store and recall. His ability to make adjustments on the fly... his ability to deliver from the pocket and on the run... he can run effectively without being stupid like RG3.... he's a leader.... he can make every throw known to man-kind.. he elevates his game in crunch-time... he can already read defenses and is already running a no-huddle, which is not only very rare for a rookie to do, but he was doing this in college, which is even more rare. He has it "upstairs". None of this is exaggeration, it is just straight observation. There are very few athletes who can check all of those things off. RG3 can't.... Wilson can't.... Kaepernick can't. They are all very good, but they all have their weaknesses in some form or fashion. And all three of them get held up above Luck by a large portion of the fanbase.


    For people like Skip Bayless and Olbutthole, there are two main reasons that they are biased against Luck:

    1) They think the Colts made a mistake by releasing Manning and drafting Luck. The Colts 11-5 record in Luck's rookie season obviously puts a big dent in that argument.

    2) They love RG3 and don't want Luck to look better than him. In fairness, this line of thinking goes both ways as Colt fans are definitely critical of RG3.


    I agree with you. The 11-5 thing is shaken off as "beginner's Luck", but you would have been laughed out of a room if you predicted an 11-5 record 12 months ago.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

      Yea, I never predicted 11-5 last year, I think I predicted 6-7. But even so, that was mostly because of my lack of faith in the team around Luck, and I figured Luck would have a Peyton-like rookie curve. He didn't. He ended up exceeding my expectations in that department. But as the season progressed and I look back on last year's season, it became apparent to me that Luck was a HUGE reason why they were exceeding everyone's expectations, even as he himself was downplaying it every week, with self-deprecating comments like he was "just a dumb rookie" and "had a lot to learn" and never taking credit for some incredible throw he made, but rather putting emphasis on the catch that was made, or when he escaped a collapsing pocket and made a crazy throw, he would still credit his o-line for giving him time. He never took credit for those late-game heroics, but who else was at the heart of all those performances? I think he surprised his teammates... and when they started to gain that confidence in this young kid, it caught fire. And that absolutely cannot be understated. A player's ability to encourage and elevate the play of those around him is just massive. I won't deny that there were *some* lucky things last year, but for the most part, I never got the impression that Indy was out there catching all kinds of breaks and calls their way. They had their ups.... they had their downs... but their downs never outweighed their ups. Luck made what some called "ill-advised" throws. They are ill-advised because 99.5% of QBs can't make that throw with any sort of consistency. Luck can and did. Sometimes his throw placement might look "off", but he put it where the receiver needed to have it, and sometimes that might not be where we expect it. I'm telling ya, last year he had more than his fair share of tipped balls and receivers running the wrong routes or making the wrong tree reads, and he never blamed them, said it was on him. If you were to tell me that where a play broke down, it was because someone missed their read.... I would place money on the fact that it was rarely Luck making the incorrect read. There were even quotes last year stating that Luck had already committed and mastered the playbook, and they couldn't run most of the plays because the rest of the offense hadn't got it down yet. Big "tell" right there. His teammates were trying hard, but screwin' it up at times. He never got mad about it.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-22-2013, 01:00 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


      • #33
        Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        I also got Hilton. Is it T Y or TY?

        I got Rodgers early, but we have two QB slots (one QB and one foe general offense) so I couldnt pass luck up. Ironially enough the guy after me was all pissed (all of us were at a house for a draft party, made for a kick *** time).

        Sorry for the thread derail
        Technically it should probably be T Y. His dad's name's Tyrone so people called him Little Tee Why growing up and the T Y stuck. I don't know where the occasional periods come from, the T and Y aren't abbreviations.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Yeah, we won a ton of close games in 2008 and 2009. Manning won back to back MVP's those seasons and was pimped as the GOAT. But when Luck wins close games last year, it's because the team is shaky and on the verge of having a crappy followup season.
          There are two main reasons for this.

          1) Manning is the best player in NFL history at producing more wins than the points scored/points allowed would indicate (basically, that he's a master at close games). At his current pace, Luck would catch him for his career in just two more seasons. Even if we know for sure that Luck is a Manning/Brady close game type rather than a Rodgers/Unitas (both of whom are negative for their career), that's simply an unsustainable rate. We don't know how good Luck is in close games yet, but it's almost impossible that he's this good.

          2) There is much more mainstream sports coverage based on analytics than there was five years ago. There might have been people questioning Manning's history in close games over those years, but people didn't hear them as much because they weren't as visible. Now, the use of this has become much more widespread. And the 2012 Colts were a pretty eye popping team statistically. Nobody has ever really seen anything much like them.

          Now what I do believe the analysts are missing is that the Colts true talent level should improve so much. So while I don't believe the Colts are likely to have anywhere near the same record in close games, I think their point differential will be quite a bit better. They are likely to be an exception to the rule as far as regression not because they have clutch figured out, but because they had 40 million in cap space and a bunch of rookies going to get better in their 2nd year, including a QB who was good last year and is oozing with potential to make the leap.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

            Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
            There are two main reasons for this.

            1) Manning is the best player in NFL history at producing more wins than the points scored/points allowed would indicate (basically, that he's a master at close games). At his current pace, Luck would catch him for his career in just two more seasons. Even if we know for sure that Luck is a Manning/Brady close game type rather than a Rodgers/Unitas (both of whom are negative for their career), that's simply an unsustainable rate. We don't know how good Luck is in close games yet, but it's almost impossible that he's this good.

            2) There is much more mainstream sports coverage based on analytics than there was five years ago. There might have been people questioning Manning's history in close games over those years, but people didn't hear them as much because they weren't as visible. Now, the use of this has become much more widespread. And the 2012 Colts were a pretty eye popping team statistically. Nobody has ever really seen anything much like them.

            Now what I do believe the analysts are missing is that the Colts true talent level should improve so much. So while I don't believe the Colts are likely to have anywhere near the same record in close games, I think their point differential will be quite a bit better. They are likely to be an exception to the rule as far as regression not because they have clutch figured out, but because they had 40 million in cap space and a bunch of rookies going to get better in their 2nd year, including a QB who was good last year and is oozing with potential to make the leap.

            I don't put much stock in the point differential because it is skewed heavily by three losses: @ Chicago, @ NYJ, and @ NE. We didn't blow any teams out by margins large enough to balance out those three games.

            Week 1 @ Chicago, L 41-21. Not surprising that we were blown out here. A rookie quarterback starting his career in a hostile road environment against a very solid defense. Rookie head coach and tons of new players too. This loss was pretty much the most predictable thing ever.

            Week 6 @ NYJ, L 35-9. This game came just a week after the emotional Green Bay win in which we had just found out that our coach had cancer. Nothing excuses the poor play, but it's not surprising that we crashed on the road after the roller coaster of emotions that we had experienced the prior week. Plus, playing the Jets in the Meadowlands is an extremely hostile environment. At 2-3, the Jets were desperately trying to save their season at that point.

            Week 11 @ NE, L 59-24. What can you say? There's a reason that Brady and the Hoodie have been at the top for so long. They crap on a lot of teams, particularly in Foxboro. There's a reason that it took Manning so long to finally win there. It's just a brutal place to play.

            In these three games, we were outscored by a margin of 135-54. For the other 13 games of the season, we actually outscored our opponents by a 303-252 margin. I'm going to put far more weight on 13 games than I am 3 blowout losses which can be easily explained - one of them was the first game of the season, and another was on the road against a quarterback/head coaching tandem that has made five Super Bowls. Out of the three blowouts, the Jets one was the only one that could be called "disappointing", but it was hardly surprising considering the intense GB game in the prior week that centered around Pagano's illness.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-22-2013, 02:06 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

              Exactly, Sollozo.
              Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
              We don't know how good Luck is in close games yet, but it's almost impossible that he's this good.
              By saying "we don't know", I take it to mean that the sample size isn't big enough? Because in the ten 1-score games last year (only 1 of which we lost!), Luck demonstrated with incredible consistency how good he was in close games. It's not a large sample size, but that sample size has a high occurrence rate.... 10 games out of 16 is quite a ratio. There were very few times last year, in our many close games, in clutch situations, where I thought to myself "Wow, Luck is really dropping the ball here." He was fantastic, almost exclusively, with the game on the line.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-22-2013, 02:18 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


              • #37
                Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                This seems like one of those times a where tired cliche is actually incredibly appropriate....but a lot of times you make your own luck. (Pun intended/not intended)


                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                  Even if you can just take the blowouts out, that doesn't really help all that much. The Colts went 11-2 in the other 13 games. Putting that 303-252 scoring margin in results in a Pythagorean record of 7.9 wins with 4.1 losses for those 13 games. So dismissing the blowouts would say that the Colts were 3.1 wins off of their expected win total over 13 games rather than 3.8 over 16 games. An improvement, but still way off statistically. That would still be the biggest difference in football last year, with the Lions (at 2.5 wins to the downside) the only other team even above two wins different.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                    Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                    Even if you can just take the blowouts out, that doesn't really help all that much. The Colts went 11-2 in the other 13 games. Putting that 303-252 scoring margin in results in a Pythagorean record of 7.9 wins with 4.1 losses for those 13 games. So dismissing the blowouts would say that the Colts were 3.1 wins off of their expected win total over 13 games rather than 3.8 over 16 games. An improvement, but still way off statistically. That would still be the biggest difference in football last year, with the Lions (at 2.5 wins to the downside) the only other team even above two wins different.
                    7.9 + 4.1 = 12. Not 13. Might wanna re-run the numbers. But again, stats are stats, they really don't tell us ****. Just because we scored so many points and allowed so many points can't be a straight translation into wins and losses because it completely disregards context.... like who we played, where we played, who was injured, lunar gravitational pull, the circumference of the earth, which team had Andrew Luck, etc...
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-22-2013, 02:54 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


                    • #40
                      Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Truly bad teams usually end up on the wrong side of close games. You haven't watched Luck at all if Pennington and Newton are what come to mind.

                      Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2

                      And you failed to see my point. There are no guarantees as to how Andrew Luck's career will turn out yes he was great his rookie year but how do you know he won't have an injury that will end up hindering the rest of his career(Chad Pennington) or not be nearly as spectacular hype wise(Cam Newton). I personally find Luck more impressive than either of them but the reason we're still talking about Peyton Manning now (the only QB left from the 90s) is because he managed to last this long. Hopefully Andrew Luck will be the same in that regard. but again there are no guarantees.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                        Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                        Even if you can just take the blowouts out, that doesn't really help all that much. The Colts went 11-2 in the other 13 games. Putting that 303-252 scoring margin in results in a Pythagorean record of 7.9 wins with 4.1 losses for those 13 games. So dismissing the blowouts would say that the Colts were 3.1 wins off of their expected win total over 13 games rather than 3.8 over 16 games. An improvement, but still way off statistically. That would still be the biggest difference in football last year, with the Lions (at 2.5 wins to the downside) the only other team even above two wins different.

                        Something tells me that a Pythagorean record wouldn't have predicted two Super Bowl wins for the Giants either.....

                        There's a reason that the games are played.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          And you failed to see my point. There are no guarantees as to how Andrew Luck's career will turn out yes he was great his rookie year but how do you know he won't have an injury that will end up hindering the rest of his career(Chad Pennington) or not be nearly as spectacular hype wise(Cam Newton). I personally find Luck more impressive than either of them but the reason we're still talking about Peyton Manning now (the only QB left from the 90s) is because he managed to last this long. Hopefully Andrew Luck will be the same in that regard. but again there are no guarantees.
                          Of course there's no guarantees, lol... but you can look at factors. It's not a complete crap-shoot, if you know what to look for. For instance, I looked at Newton during his rookie year, and I could tell that he had a few shortcomings amongst his many strengths. I questioned his ability in the mental part of the game, his ability to make reads, check-down, react to adjustments, make complicated throws, and I also question his performance in the clutch. That was watching him on the field... then I watched some of his interviews and further cemented my opinion that there's not a ton goin' on "upstairs" and that was a red flag. Voila --- that's pretty much exactly what we saw unfold in season 2. Defenses adjusted to him.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-22-2013, 03:04 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


                          • #43
                            Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            7.9 + 4.1 = 12. Not 13. Might wanna re-run the numbers. But again, stats are stats, they really don't tell us ****. Just because we scored so many points and allowed so many points can't be a straight translation into wins and losses because it completely disregards context.... like who we played, where we played, who was injured, lunar gravitational pull, the circumference of the earth, which team had Andrew Luck, etc...
                            My mistake. The 4.1 was simply a typo. It should have been 5.1. It doesn't change the win total difference stated above. The reason they came up with this statistic in the first place is that they found that you are more likely to be right about a team's future win total by using point differential than if you use the prior year's record.

                            As for the rest of the post,

                            Of course there's no guarantees, lol... but you can look at factors. It's not a complete crap-shoot, if you know what to look for.
                            You said it about something else, but this is exactly what I would say about stats. The reason many people are using this stat is because they've found it's highly predictive, just as scouting certain characteristics of a QB has been found to be predictive of finding a great one. There is no guarantee, but it's on average what happens. As Sollozzo says, the reason they play the games is that sometimes the most likely thing doesn't happen, and I would completely agree with that. In fact, I think that's where it becomes the most fun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                              All I know is I'm glad we have Andrew Luck and not the other QBs drafted that year. I think we absolutely stole this and sooner rather than later we're going to see some great stuff in the playoffs.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                                Leading us to SB XVLIII
                                Smothered Chicken!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X