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

    That "i" word after "new" and before "guys" shouldn't be overlooked. Is Jean-Francois really an impact player? Is Matt Hasslebeck really an impact player? Is Thomas an impact player? Is Walden really an impact player?

    I'll give you Bradshaw, and I'll give you Toler, but the rest are ho-hum.
    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
      That "i" word after "new" and before "guys" shouldn't be overlooked. Is Jean-Francois really an impact player? Is Matt Hasslebeck really an impact player? Is Thomas an impact player? Is Walden really an impact player?

      I'll give you Bradshaw, and I'll give you Toler, but the rest are ho-hum.
      Well by definition, we don't want Hasselbeck to be an impact player because that would mean Luck was out. But he is a solid backup who would likely be able to at least keep the team respectable if Luck ever went down. It's a drastic shift from the end of the Polian years, when clearly zero emphasis was put on having an adequate backup quarterback. We saw the disastrous consequences of that in the 2011 season.

      Thomas can't be an impact player this year because he is out for the season. But that's just football. He hopefully will return as an impact player next season.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Well by definition, we don't want Hasselbeck to be an impact player because that would mean Luck was out.
        I get that, but I put "impact" in there for a reason. Sometimes money spent is just money spent, and it doesn't do anything that really adds anything to your team. I'm not going to say, "See they needed to get rid of Peyton so Ricky Jean-Francois could get 8 tackles in the first four games!"

        If given the choice between PM or the list of players Kid just gave, who would take the list of players? I sure as hell wouldn't.
        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

          If given the choice between PM or the list of players Kid just gave, who would take the list of players? I sure as hell wouldn't.
          I agree. And that's why I don't think that we would have released Manning if everything would have happened exactly one year later. I can't see Irsay releasing Manning in a year where there is no hyped QB prospect.

          I don't think it was about money. I don't think it was about free agents. I think it was 99.9999% about the number 1 pick. Irsay couldn't bring himself to part with it, and there was obviously no way Manning was going to be happy here if we had Andrew Luck sitting on the bench. I believe that these are the "circumstances" that Manning was referring to in that farewell press conference.

          Blaming it on "salary cap issues" was easier for both parties. It's not quite as awkward as saying "well, I want to use this pick on Andrew Luck, and Peyton would obviously prefer that we trade the pick for a bundle of assets that will help him win in the later years of his career."
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-30-2013, 12:57 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Irsay gave PM that contract while PM was getting neck surgeries. Not only that, Irsay was willing to pay PM more money than what PM settled for, while PM was getting neck surgeries. Peyton had the first two, before he even signed his Colts extension.


            http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7...two-offseasons

            Followed by

            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...lion-contract/

            He had his third surgery just a month after he signed the extension.
            http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/69...e-surgery-neck

            The Colts knew what they were getting into, when they inked that contract.

            Then Irsay was dumb to give him a contract like that if they knew he was going to miss an entire season which is what happened. Regardless it doesn't really matter at this point we have a QB for the future but I don't get why people think $$$ wasn't a factor here. I mean surely they could've gotten something for Manning via trade but it would've cost them $$$ to do that cutting him was their most cost effective option.

            So it was $$$ and Andrew Luck(who while great at the time there are no guarantees he was going to turn out this well I mean NFL draft picks are a gamble)

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I get that, but I put "impact" in there for a reason. Sometimes money spent is just money spent, and it doesn't do anything that really adds anything to your team. I'm not going to say, "See they needed to get rid of Peyton so Ricky Jean-Francois could get 8 tackles in the first four games!"

              If given the choice between PM or the list of players Kid just gave, who would take the list of players? I sure as hell wouldn't.
              Why not? I don't think the players we took on are as bad as you seem to think. Our defense is a top 5 defense now. When could we ever say that during the Manning years? Our offense isn't half bad either. Bradshaw and DHB and Toler and Cherilus are all starters, the others are in the rotation and contributing and doing a decent job.

              Manning has way more in Denver around him than he ever would've here in Indy. We were so strapped we couldn't make any serious moves, and the team was shot full of holes. I cannot honestly say I could see Manning having the same success here had he stayed. You have to put everything into context. All the moves we've made in the past year+ likely wouldn't have happened with Manning here and we'd have Manning plus a bunch of scrubs instead of Luck with a bunch of young talented guys.

              The move was really a win-win for both parties --- Denver was a pretty stacked team that needed a good QB and Indy was a pretty bad team that had a really good (albeit injured) QB. Both teams pulled the trigger, and I feel that both teams made the right move for *their* team. Both are atop the AFC at the moment. Had either team not made those moves, we're probably not saying the same thing.

              Regardless, the salary cuts we made allowed us to go out and sign people. Whether you want to valuate their contributions is another argument, but the point was, because of the moves Grigson made, we freed up a **** ton of salary, and we went out and signed a ton of guys. We also drafted some guys. You could make the argument that outside of Luck, Allen, Hilton, Fleener, we've been about as "successful" in that area. Free agency and drafts are really both pretty risky moves. The entire NFL is about risky moves. Denver made a very risky move, and it just happened to pay off for them.

              Manning is kicking his usual *** out in Denver, no question. But you have to be able to look at exactly *what* he's doing out there. That offense is a replica of our 2004 offense --- ridiculous talent, tons of points. The problem is everything is timing and execution. You absolutely don't get that in the playoffs. Their offense is clicking on all cylinders right now, while half the league is asleep defensively. This is how it goes every year. Defenses never come out guns a blazing early in the season. Too many teams suffer injuries etc during the year. The playoff-caliber defenses generally reveal themselves down the stretch and then kick it into over-drive in the post-season, and therein lies the problem with Manning's game. All the things he relies on.... timing... routes... receiver tree-route decision-making.... it all gets disrupted massively against playoff defenses, and this is why the greatest regular season QB in history struggles in the playoffs.

              It's a script we've all seen and should know by now. He's been declared the greatest in history during the regular season before, this is not the first year he's played like this. I think the big surprise is that he *did* return to this form after that injury and at his age... which is impressive... but it's still the same story that we as Colts fans should know by now. And hurray for Denver --- they're gonna sell a lot of tickets and jerseys. I just don't see them winning a Lombardi this year.

              Our defense is top 5 and our offense is top 10, and our special teams are decent. When could we ever put all that together in one sentence during the Manning years? It usually was top 5 defense, crappy special teams, and a bottom 10 defense when he was here, and we absolutely relied completely on Manning, which more often than not resulted in a playoff exit, because you *need* more team around you in the playoffs.

              I would warn heavily against getting sucked too deeply into what Denver is doing right now, as easy as it is to slip into the woulda-coulda-shoulda realm. I actually *love* what Indy is building, in terms of a playoff team. The type/style of team that is growing here is more conducive to playoff success, imo. Defense, fundamentally-sound, move-the-chains football, with the ability to hit the big play when needed is exactly what wins SBs. Hell, the Ravens just did that. The air-it-out aerial shows of 2007 Patriots and the Manning/Indy years is tough to pull off in the playoffs. The only SB Manning won was the year Manning completely changed his style to dink-and-dunk, move-the-chains boring football, and our defense showed up.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-30-2013, 01:14 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Why not? I don't think the players we took on are as bad as you seem to think.
                As bad as I think? All I said is that they aren't impact players.

                Manning has way more in Denver around him than he ever would've here in Indy.
                Popular saying right now, but it's not true. Marvin and Reggie are sure fire HOFer's. Is Decker and D.Thomas? Hardly. Dallas Clark is/was a multiple time Pro Bowler. Is J.Thomas? Maybe, but not yet. Moreno better than Edge? No way. Does Welker make the difference between the Colts have 3 better players? I don't think so. Stokley did a great job when he was here.

                None of that really matters though. It's just a really hard argument to make that money was the problem, when PM took less money than what Irsay was offering at the exact same time Manning was rehabbing from his second surgery and was getting ready for his third. If the neck injury was such an important question, and money was such an issue, then Irsay must be a real dumbass to sign such a massive extension right in the middle of it.
                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
                  As bad as I think? All I said is that they aren't impact players.



                  Popular saying right now, but it's not true. Marvin and Reggie are sure fire HOFer's. Is Decker and D.Thomas? Hardly. Dallas Clark is/was a multiple time Pro Bowler. Is J.Thomas? Maybe, but not yet. Moreno better than Edge? No way. Does Welker make the difference between the Colts have 3 better players? I don't think so. Stokley did a great job when he was here.

                  None of that really matters though. It's just a really hard argument to make that money was the problem, when PM took less money than what Irsay was offering at the exact same time Manning was rehabbing from his second surgery and was getting ready for his third. If the neck injury was such an important question, and money was such an issue, then Irsay must be a real dumbass to sign such a massive extension right in the middle of it.
                  I'm not talking about 10 years ago. Marvin is not here. Edge is not here. I'm talking about what Manning would've had around him here in Indy had he stayed. If Manning had stayed, he would not have had around him THIS year on THIS team what he has around him in Denver. It was absolutely a much better situation for him to go to Denver.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    It's a script we've all seen and should know by now. He's been declared the greatest in history during the regular season before, this is not the first year he's played like this. I think the big surprise is that he *did* return to this form after that injury and at his age... which is impressive... but it's still the same story that we as Colts fans should know by now. And hurray for Denver --- they're gonna sell a lot of tickets and jerseys. I just don't see them winning a Lombardi this year.
                    Also, it wasn't that big of a surprise. Many QBs have had the same surgeries PM did. Did you know Joe Montana had it, before he went on to win the SB? Instead of listening to journalists give their craptastic opinion, I actually went out and read what doctors were saying which is why I was the only one actually arguing that he not only would come back, but would be very productive.
                    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
                      I'm not talking about 10 years ago. Marvin is not here. Edge is not here. I'm talking about what Manning would've had around him here in Indy had he stayed. If Manning had stayed, he would not have had around him THIS year on THIS team what he has around him in Denver. It was absolutely a much better situation for him to go to Denver.
                      Sorry, I read right over that "would've."
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        Joe Montana was also five years younger when he underwent it. Big difference.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Sorry, I read right over that "would've."
                          The overall arching point is that not only would Indy likely have been in a worse situation with Manning here... but Manning himself wouldn't be doing what he's doing in Denver. It's a context thing. If you think about the personnel he likely would've been working with here, in our strapped situation, it's hard to imagine Manning average 350 yrds, 4 TDs and a 80% completion percentage. So it's a double-edged sword --- we don't have him, and he's in Denver doing this... we forget that he probably wouldn't be putting up those numbers had he stayed. Maybe close... but we'd still probably be complaining about a crappy D and special teams.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Let me put it another way:

                            Cap hits this year:
                            -Andrew Luck: ~$5mill
                            -Peyton Manning: ~$18mill

                            So right now... this year.... having Luck saves us $13mill, which can be put towards other areas of the team. And is Manning really almost 4X as good as Luck? I know some emotional folks will say yes, but Luck isn't bad. He's 3rd in total QBR, which says Indy is getting a ridiculous amount of bang-for-the-buck for Luck's services.... from my quick research, we're getting the 3rd most productive QB in the league for the 21st highest QB salary. And Luck is 13 years younger.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              I don't think he'll end up averaging that with Denver, so me agreeing that he wouldn't average that in Indy isn't all that big of a deal. I think he'd make this Colts team a top offensive team in the league though. Outside of Welker, I don't think Denver's receiving corps is anything to really be impressed over, and I say that liking both Thomas's. No one was really talking about how great his supporting cast was last year, and they definitely weren't when Tebow was there. I get they've gotten older, and J.Thomas has gotten healthy.

                              Peyton could put together a pretty good offensive team with Reggie, TY, DHB, and Fleener. That's plenty of talent to work with. I think it's more talent than what he had in 2010. I'd take this years receiving corps over Reggie, Garcon, Tamme, and what we got out of Collie and Clark that year.
                              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
                                Let me put it another way:

                                Cap hits this year:
                                -Andrew Luck: ~$5mill
                                -Peyton Manning: ~$18mill

                                So right now... this year.... having Luck saves us $13mill, which can be put towards other areas of the team. And is Manning really almost 4X as good as Luck? I know some emotional folks will say yes, but Luck isn't bad. He's 3rd in total QBR, which says Indy is getting a ridiculous amount of bang-for-the-buck for Luck's services.... from my quick research, we're getting the 3rd most productive QB in the league for the 21st highest QB salary. And Luck is 13 years younger.
                                And there's your reason for why PM was let go. That $13M isn't the make or break difference. If PM was 28, instead of 38, he would still have a horseshoe on his helmet. This was about getting another 10-15 years worth of production at a very high level than getting 3-4 more seasons of PM at a high level.

                                I don't think Irsay expected the Colts to be THAT bad, and when he figured out that Luck was going to be available, the perfect storm was created. I just have a hard time thinking Irsay got queasy about spending money, considering how much he spent throughout the 2000's on players like Sanders, Freeney, Harrison, and Peyton. All of those guys were considered the highest paid at their positions, and most of them if not all 4 had those contracts at the same time. Irsay has proven himself as a spender.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X