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

2013 Peyton Manning thread

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

  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

    I always thought if Irsay wanted to be a complete jerk he would have kept Peyton and drafted Luck then flip Peyton to the highest bidder. I am not sure if Peyton had a no trade clause but both got a pretty good deal out of the divorce IMO.

    I am so glad its over though because those 2-3 months were probably go down as one of the worst months as a fan. The media barrage almost unbearable.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      I always thought if Irsay wanted to be a complete jerk he would have kept Peyton and drafted Luck then flip Peyton to the highest bidder. I am not sure if Peyton had a no trade clause but both got a pretty good deal out of the divorce IMO.

      I am so glad its over though because those 2-3 months were probably go down as one of the worst months as a fan. The media barrage almost unbearable.
      NFL players don't have no trade clauses (as far as I know) so even if Manning was traded it would've had major cap ramifications.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Then why did he sign a massive contract with us just eight months before being released? In that July 2011 press conference, he reiterated just how happy he was to sign a contract that (it was thought at the time) would ensure that he finish his career in Indy.

        I firmly believe that he wanted nothing more than to finish his career in Indy. He's a creature of habit, and I think the last thing he ever wanted was to get used to completely new surroundings 15 years in. I think he was crushed that the Colts didn't keep him.

        You don't think Peyton would have been happy if Irsay said, "I'm going to keep you and trade this Number 1 pick for an obscene amount of assets that will help you win in the later years of your career"? That would have been an awesome situation for Peyton and there's no way that he wouldn't have been more than happy to get on board with it.

        Peyton only wanted out when he knew that Irsay wasn't parting with the draft pick.
        No, I think Peyton wanted a sure thing. Which is why he chose Denver. A team with good talent defensively (at the time), a strong blocking/receiving back, and a group of receivers with a lot of potential.

        How much different are Peyton's surroundings really? I mean yeah he's living in Denver, but he's running pretty much the exact same offense he's always run. You really think John Fox is the guy calling the shots on the field? For Peyton it's just a different color jersey, otherwise it's his system. The same system he's been running for 15 years.

        I think Peyton could have absolutely made Irsay cave if he really wanted to be a Colt. He chose not to. I don't hold that against him, but I do think it's the truth. This is the guy raised and nurtured by the same family that held San Diego hostage for a rookie Eli. Pretty sure they've got some weight to swing around, and Peyton is the heavy weight of the group if there ever was one.
        Last edited by Trader Joe; 10-16-2013, 04:43 PM.


        Comment


        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          Well you are dead wrong on that. Peyton may have been prepared to not be coming back, but you are fooling yourself if you honestly think he didn't want to come back. It is pretty clear from Irsay's actions and words that he was ready to move on to a new era for the Colts that included a 3-4 defense. Sure if the money was right I have no doubt that he would have kept Peyton, but the money wasn't right so they decided to move on.
          Peyton understands football better than anyone here I'd say, if there was one thing clear about those Colts teams, it was clear the band would not be getting back together so to speak. At the time there were a lot of unknowns not just Peyton, and I think Peyton wanted nothing to do with that.

          Sure we could have flipped the Luck pick for the entire Cleveland draft and then what? Maybe we hit on three of the picks? You think Peyton wanted to put his chances at a super bowl in the hands of a bunch of rookies? I Just don't see it. I think Peyton thought we were going to be a below average football team and he was more than OK with getting the heck out of dodge.

          Again, I think his emotions were real. I think he did love being our QB, but I also think Lebron probably loved playing Cleveland too.


          Comment


          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

            There were plenty of signs in 2010 (Peyton's last season playing here) that the team had some serious roster issues, yet Peyton still re-signed here after that season. The team circumstances would have been even better a year later for him had we traded the pick for a haul of assets. Peyton's not dumb. He knew that the main reason the 2011 team went 2-14 was because it had some of the worst quarterback play ever with Collins/Painter. He knew that he could still quarterback a team of corpses to a division title. Add a haul of draft picks to that, and you would have had a team with a decent foundation for the rest of his career here. You could still have Reggie/TY/Fleener + whatever else you draft. Peyton would still easily be winning games here.

            Now I'm completely fine with what we did, but I just don't buy that Peyton wouldn't have been cool with staying here if he wad kept him and traded the pick for a boatload of assets.

            I doubt him and Irsay would have been trading barbs if they had been 100% on the same page.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-17-2013, 08:19 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              No, I think Peyton wanted a sure thing. Which is why he chose Denver. A team with good talent defensively (at the time), a strong blocking/receiving back, and a group of receivers with a lot of potential.

              How much different are Peyton's surroundings really? I mean yeah he's living in Denver, but he's running pretty much the exact same offense he's always run. You really think John Fox is the guy calling the shots on the field? For Peyton it's just a different color jersey, otherwise it's his system. The same system he's been running for 15 years.

              I think Peyton could have absolutely made Irsay cave if he really wanted to be a Colt. He chose not to. I don't hold that against him, but I do think it's the truth. This is the guy raised and nurtured by the same family that held San Diego hostage for a rookie Eli. Pretty sure they've got some weight to swing around, and Peyton is the heavy weight of the group if there ever was one.

              Kravitz wrote an interesting column yesterday. When it comes to inside info on Peyton, Kravitz is by far the best local resource. Peyton always respected Kravitz a lot, and was always willing to give him interviews. In January 2012 before he was cut, Peyton gave Kravitz the interview at the Colts complex in which he said that the atmosphere was not a good place for healing. That led to Irsay calling him a "politician".

              Anyway, here's an interesting blurb from the Kravitz column:

              After his mass press conference, we ducked into a doorway at the Broncos facility, and I asked him point-blank, “Do you bear any ill will or resentment toward the Colts?”

              The question wasn’t just based on the fact Irsay told USA TODAY’s Jarrett Bell that he was disappointed by winning one Super Bowl during Manning’s career, a story that reached a crescendo after Broncos coach John Fox blasted Irsay on Tuesday, saying the comments were “inappropriate” and a “cheap shot.” It was also based on the fact that, well, the Colts let Manning go, felt they would be best served to move on without him. Nobody likes being fired, regardless of the circumstances.

              Manning paused, looked down at the floor, then shook his head.

              “To answer a question like that doesn’t serve me well,” he told The Star in a private moment. “I feel like the question is based on the (Irsay) comments, so it’s just easier not to answer anything along those lines.”

              What he could have said? Something along the lines of: “I bear them no ill will. They did what they had to do. Now I’m in a spot where I can win a Super Bowl or even multiple championships. It was a win-win for everybody involved.”

              He didn’t say that.



              http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...ings-Jim-Irsay


              I think it's pretty clear that he is bent about being released from the franchise that he put on the map, just like any competitor would be. Yes, you're right in that the Manning's generally get what they want. But one thing that the Manning's aren't used to is getting fired. For the first time in Peyton's life, someone was saying that they didn't want his services. He had no control anymore. Way different than Eli's situation in which he was holding a team hostage who wanted his services so that he could play for another team who also wanted his services.

              We have Kravitz, the local reporter who was most connected to Manning, implying that Peyton has ill-will towards Irsay. Chris Mortensen was on Mike and Mike earlier and said that Peyton wanted to end his career in Indy. Keep in mind that Mort is very close to Bill Polian, so it's logical to assume that Bill told him that after talking to Manning about the subject throughout the 2011 season.

              All of the evidence points to Peyton wanting to finish his career in Indy. I don't see anything that implies otherwise. He re-signed here after the 2010 season in which it was obvious that our roster was a bit flawed. I don't think that playing on the best possible team was ever the most important thing to him. All that mattered to him was retiring as a Colt. I just don't believe for a second that he wouldn't have been extremely happy if Irsay said, "I'm keeping you and we're trading that number 1 pick for a king's ransom of goods that will help you win." That would have put Peyton in an even better situation than he was in when he re-signed after 2010. I don't buy that his attitude towards the franchise changed because of the 2-14 season when it was clear as day to anyone that the number 1, 2, 3, and 4 reason for that pitiful season was that we had pathetic quarterback play.

              It's absolutely heartbreaking that it's come to this. Never did I envision a day in which their would be awkwardness between Peyton Manning and the Colts. Sad.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                With a brother that behaves completely different than myself, trying to say Peyton is one way because Eli (and Archie) is that way really really makes me cringe.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  With a brother that behaves completely different than myself, trying to say Peyton is one way because Eli (and Archie) is that way really really makes me cringe.

                  I agree. I think that Archie supports whatever the sons want to do. When Peyton was fine with being drafted by a bottom feeder Colts franchise, Archie was cool with it. When Eli whined like a spoiled brat and demanded a trade, Archie got involved.

                  Peyton and Eli have vastly different quarterbacking skills, but they also conducted their business very different in the early stages of their careers. Peyton respected the integrity of the draft process and relished the opportunity of transforming a weak Colts franchise into one of the elite. Eli OTOH threw a middle finger to the draft process and whined until he got a trade to a more desirable location.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    He re-signed here after the 2010 season............
                    Since we're all speculating here, I'll throw out that maybe he signed because he knew he had physical issues. Don't know about the process - was there a physical, would there have been a physical if he decided to sign elsewhere ....... I just don't know.

                    But, it's possible that he knew he had problems.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Since we're all speculating here, I'll throw out that maybe he signed because he knew he had physical issues. Don't know about the process - was there a physical, would there have been a physical if he decided to sign elsewhere ....... I just don't know.

                      But, it's possible that he knew he had problems.
                      Of course he knew he had phsyical issues. Peyton already had TWO neck surgeries before he signed, and had his third within a month. Peyton knew, and so did Irsay, and Irsay was still out there saying he'd pay Peyton whatever he wanted, and Peyton actually took LESS than what the Colts were offering. Which is why it's utterly hilarious to listen to Irsay say that it was cap reasons, and then watch people eat it up.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Of course he knew he had phsyical issues. Peyton already had TWO neck surgeries before he signed, and had his third within a month. Peyton knew, and so did Irsay, and Irsay was still out there saying he'd pay Peyton whatever he wanted, and Peyton actually took LESS than what the Colts were offering. Which is why it's utterly hilarious to listen to Irsay say that it was cap reasons, and then watch people eat it up.
                        You don't think paying Peyton 20mil or whatever it was and him not being able to play at all in the season might've changed the equation? Let alone seeing the poor season the Colts' had with their weaknesses staring him on the face might've caused Irsay to rethink about the ramifications of the potential Manning cap hit?
                        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: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          No, actually I don't. I think if it was that big of an issue, you do your due diligence before you offer the contract, instead of whining about the choices that you made after the fact. I have zero sympathy for it, none-what-so-ever, because I actually listened to Irsay run his gums on the radio where he was saying he wanted to make Peyton the highest paid player in the NFL, because he deserved it for what he had done for the franchise.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            No, actually I don't. I think if it was that big of an issue, you do your due diligence before you offer the contract, instead of whining about the choices that you made after the fact. I have zero sympathy for it, none-what-so-ever, because I actually listened to Irsay run his gums on the radio where he was saying he wanted to make Peyton the highest paid player in the NFL, because he deserved it for what he had done for the franchise.

                            You can do due diligence, but you can't have a crystal ball. Peyton was rehabbing right until the bitter end and was trying everything possible to get on the field for the start of 2011. It wasn't until right before the season started that it became obvious he needed another procedure. I don't think that anyone (Manning/Polian/Irsay) really thought that he would miss the entire season until late August, which was a month after the contract was signed. At worst, they probably thought he would miss a month or so max.

                            The perfect evidence for this is that Polian didn't bring Collins in until late August. Sort of an "oh crap, Peyton might actually miss some time" move. I think that Polian did a pretty poor job in his last few years here, but I don't think he was so incompetent that he would have waited until late August to bring in a QB if he felt as early as July that Peyton would miss a huge chunk/all of the season.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              Signing Peyton was a top priority for this organization and we are thrilled that the deal is complete," Irsay said in a statement released by the team Saturday. "We feel that it is a salary cap friendly deal and it allows us more flexibility."
                              Fast forward one year later and the tune was "this contract is a cap killer"

                              Here is Peyton saying he took less than what was offered, so it would be more cap friendlier.

                              "While I appreciate Jim Irsay offering to make me the highest-paid player," Manning told The Indianapolis Star, "I told him I'd rather he save that money and keep whoever it is ... (running back) Joe Addai, (left tackle) Charlie Johnson ... whoever that may be. I'm willing to take less than they've offered if they are going to take that money to keep players we need to keep and go get other players. All I want is for them to have the cap and the cash to keep the players they want to keep and to sign other players."
                              "It's a credit 2 Peyton;he put Coltfans,teammates, Ind. n winning ahead of all else," Irsay wrote on Twitter.
                              Behind the scenes, for more than a year, Polian has been preaching Manning's next deal as a "legacy contract" that would enable them to build the team around the quarterback with more cash and salary-cap space, and give Manning an opportunity to build his legacy with another Super Bowl ring or two.

                              Manning said he never has had to be convinced that being flexible with his salary was the right thing to do for the team.
                              Condon was unavailable for comment, but sources say the renowned agent was prepared to justify a salary that exceeded the $20 million average mark because of Manning's value to the team, whose success arguably allowed the Colts to remain in Indianapolis with new Lucas Oil Stadium, a facility constructed with substantial public funding. Indianapolis also will be the host city of its first Super Bowl in February.

                              Instead, Manning wanted to provide the franchise the best opportunity to be the first team to ever play in a Super Bowl that it is hosting.
                              http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/68...0-million-deal
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                The media is running with nothing. Irsay didn't disrespect Manning. Stupid. All he said was that when Manning was here, the team was structured in a way that didn't maximize their SB success because the team wasn't balanced, and I took that to mean that Irsay was taking partial blame himself for that. All the changes he made to the team last year were in-line with this correction in philosophy.

                                I hate when **** like this happens. Irsay's only mistake was he opened his mouth... what he said was harmless, but you know how ridiculously stupid people are, they always read way more into it than they should, they just WANT drama to occur.

                                Irsay criticized the Manning era. You can say that his comments were directed at Polian or Dungy, but at the end of the day Peyton was by far the main figurehead of the era. There's a reason it's called the "Manning era", not the Polian or Dungy era. Any criticism of the team's performance during that era, whether right or wrong, is a direct shot at Manning. Irsay would have to be an idiot to not realize that the media would run all over this. Very poor timing on his part to say it right before Manning makes his return trip to Indy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X