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

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    I don't mind talking about Manning at all. I've been doing so. Just saying that I'm getting a feeling that there are people with creeping feelings of buyers/sellers remorse.
    I don't think its remorse as much as it is "In an ideal world Manning would've spent his entire career here then after he retired we get Andrew Luck" the best of both worlds so to speak.

    But that's not how it works either.

    Beyond that I don't think anyone here regrets it.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

      Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
      You know Buffalo and Miami are looking at us and wondering why our fanbase is so divided over taking 15 years of Luck vs 3 or 4 years of Peyton after seeing those two teams struggle with finding a franchise QB after their legendary ones have retired....
      You do realize that no one is even arguing that it was the wrong decision, right?
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        I thought this was funny

        http://the700level.com/eagles/better...ks-papa-johns/


        Better ingredients. Better pizza. Better quarterbacks. Papa John’s.

        Apparently some players on the Philadelphia Eagles may have been yelling “Papa John’s!” at the line of scrimmage when Peyton Manning went into his “Omaha! Omaha!” audible calls / mock-pointing-out-defensive-short-comings during yesterday’s game.

        I didn’t hear it, but plenty of people did apparently.

        One blog post even went so far as to title itself:

        NFL Peyton Manning Papa John’s Denver Broncos Peyton Manning And The Broncos Gave Papa John’s Free Advertising During A Play Against The Eagles

        So what was the real deal?

        Eagles LB Connor Barwin talked to 94 WIP today and confirmed someone on the defense may have said it but likely they were just yelling whatever to try and confuse the Bronocs. If you saw any of the game, clearly the pizza ploy didn’t work.

        CBS has the Barwin quotes:

        “Well I know—I think I might have heard Papa John’s once, but I don’t know who said it, I mean that’s kind of funny,” Eagles linebacker Connor Barwin told 94WIP’s Michael Barkann and Ike Reese on Monday. “When any quarterback goes and talks at the line or any center, they start yelling ‘Mike’s 59′ or ’98′s the 4th down’ where they try to figure out the protection, we, on defense, we start, like I’ll say—if they start yelling ’98′s down, meaning I’m the fourth rusher, I’ll start yelling ’59′s down’ because it just confuses them. We can say, we tell the referee that we’re changing who our fourth is upon what they say. So that kind of stuff happens all the time when quarterbacks are making calls and defenses are trying to make calls back.”

        I’m starting to think that free advertising thing may have worked better than the Eagles ploy for confusion. Because now I’m hungry.

        So not only did the Eagles defense make it fairly easy for Peyton to earn the win on Sunday, they also probably helped him earn a couple extra dollars (pennies?) on his Papa John’s franchises.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Look guys, I'm standing by this team. I think Luck is good; I don't regret Manning's time here or his moving on; I like the direction this team is going in. I'm just going to leave it at that. It's getting hard to argue with 7 different people, all making random different points.

          I'm just going to warn against buyers/sellers remorse. Because that's what I smell in this thread. People are watching Manning right now and wishing things. You will probably see that in a few years, it's okay to stand by Luck.

          Hey, I'm all in on Luck. He really couldn't have played any better than he has so far. Our franchise is going to be in great shape for a long long long time with him. Also, I love the overall direction hat this franchise has taken over the last two years. They are making a great effort to put emphasis on areas that were a weakness in the Manning years (run game, defense). I feel enormously fortunate to root for a franchise that could potentially string together three straight decades of winning football. And I'm very very glad that the Indianapolis Colts are proving that they can remain relevant and popular without Peyton Manning, after for years hearing from others that the franchise would crumble into dust once he left.

          If we win against Seattle on Sunday, then we are basically the hottest team in the NFL outside of Denver and New England. It's a great time to be a Colts fan.

          That being said, the greatest player in our Indy franchise history, and one of the greatest in the history of the game for that matter, is playing some of the best football of his entire career with Bronco orange that will never look right. It's impossible for fans not to let their minds wander a little bit and wish that he was still doing it with a horseshoe on his helmet. But that doesn't mean that one is anti-Luck or feels that Irsay made the wrong move. It's simply acknowledging that it's unfortunate that his Indy career had to end the way that it did. I'm a huge fan of the Colts and love the direction that this team has taken, but I still enjoy Manning too. It helps that he is on my fantasy team.

          As I said above, I feel that the salary situation had little to do with Irsay's decision to release Manning. If this had all happened one year later with everything else being the exact same, then I am very confident that Irsay would have kept Manning. There is no way that Irsay would have released Manning in a year where EJ Manuel was the top quarterback taken in the draft. With Luck, Irsay felt that he had the opportunity to draft a hyped talent that could quickly help the team win and maintain fan support. That's exactly what has happened. But there's no way that Irsay lets Peyton go just so we can replace him with some average QB prospect. The fan base would have quickly lost interest in the team.

          It was always about the Number 1 pick. Irsay wasn't going to part with it, and Manning would have obviously wanted us to trade it for a package that could help him win. Plus Peyton isn't in the business of tutoring young quarterbacks, not should he be. He takes all of the snaps in practice, as he should. A perfectionist like him would have hated all of the extra attention that Luck on the bench would have generated. Also, Peyton has a lot of respect for other quarterbacks and would have recognized that it would have been a giant disservice to Luck if the kid was forced to sit on the bench for three years. Peyton feels that capable rookies should start immediately like he did. Peyton playing immediately and learning from his on field mistakes was far more valuable than if he would have sat and taken notes behind Marino for two seasons. With Irsay wanting to keep the draft pick, there was simply no way for it to work.

          Irsay blaming it on the "salary cap situation" was the easiest explanation for both parties. It's not like Irsay was going to open that press conference up by saying, "well, I want to draft Andrew Luck, and Peyton doesn't want to play here unless we trade the pick for other assets, so....". That would have opened the press conference up to awkward questions about whether Manning would have been willing to tutor Luck, etc, etc. Blaming it on the salary cap was in the best interest of both parties, even though it's pretty obvious that the Number 1 pick was by far the most important factor, IMHO.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-30-2013, 04:31 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Irsay blaming it on the "salary cap situation" was the easiest explanation for both parties. It's not like Irsay was going to open that press conference up by saying, "well, I want to draft Andrew Luck, and Peyton doesn't want to play here unless we trade the pick for other assets, so....". That would have opened the press conference up to awkward questions about whether Manning would have been willing to tutor Luck, etc, etc. Blaming it on the salary cap was in the best interest of both parties, even though it's pretty obvious that the Number 1 pick was by far the most important factor, IMHO.
            Which is why Irsay called PM a "politician" as soon as the convo started about maybe keeping PM, and drafting Luck. Obviously I was holding out the hope, but once Irsay went that route, it was tough to see them living out the rest of PM's career together.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Hey, I'm all in on Luck. He really couldn't have played any better than he has so far. Our franchise is going to be in great shape for a long long long time with him. Also, I love the overall direction hat this franchise has taken over the last two years. They are making a great effort to put emphasis on areas that were a weakness in the Manning years (run game, defense). I feel enormously fortunate to root for a franchise that could potentially string together three straight decades of winning football. And I'm very very glad that the Indianapolis Colts are proving that they can remain relevant and popular without Peyton Manning, after for years hearing from others that the franchise would crumble into dust once he left.

              If we win against Seattle on Sunday, then we are basically the hottest team in the NFL outside of Denver and New England. It's a great time to be a Colts fan.

              That being said, the greatest player in our Indy franchise history, and one of the greatest in the history of the game for that matter, is playing some of the best football of his entire career with Bronco orange that will never look right. It's impossible for fans not to let their minds wander a little bit and wish that he was still doing it with a horseshoe on his helmet. But that doesn't mean that one is anti-Luck or feels that Irsay made the wrong move. It's simply acknowledging that it's unfortunate that his Indy career had to end the way that it did. I'm a huge fan of the Colts and love the direction that this team has taken, but I still enjoy Manning too. It helps that he is on my fantasy team.

              As I said above, I feel that the salary situation had little to do with Irsay's decision to release Manning. If this had all happened one year later with everything else being the exact same, then I am very confident that Irsay would have kept Manning. There is no way that Irsay would have released Manning in a year where EJ Manuel was the top quarterback taken in the draft. With Luck, Irsay felt that he had the opportunity to draft a hyped talent that could quickly help the team win and maintain fan support. That's exactly what has happened. But there's no way that Irsay lets Peyton go just so we can replace him with some average QB prospect. The fan base would have quickly lost interest in the team.

              It was always about the Number 1 pick. Irsay wasn't going to part with it, and Manning would have obviously wanted us to trade it for a package that could help him win. Plus Peyton isn't in the business of tutoring young quarterbacks, not should he be. He takes all of the snaps in practice, as he should. A perfectionist like him would have hated all of the extra attention that Luck on the bench would have generated. Also, Peyton has a lot of respect for other quarterbacks and would have recognized that it would have been a giant disservice to Luck if the kid was forced to sit on the bench for three years. Peyton feels that capable rookies should start immediately like he did. Peyton playing immediately and learning from his on field mistakes was far more valuable than if he would have sat and taken notes behind Marino for two seasons. With Irsay wanting to keep the draft pick, there was simply no way for it to work.

              Irsay blaming it on the "salary cap situation" was the easiest explanation for both parties. It's not like Irsay was going to open that press conference up by saying, "well, I want to draft Andrew Luck, and Peyton doesn't want to play here unless we trade the pick for other assets, so....". That would have opened the press conference up to awkward questions about whether Manning would have been willing to tutor Luck, etc, etc. Blaming it on the salary cap was in the best interest of both parties, even though it's pretty obvious that the Number 1 pick was by far the most important factor, IMHO.
              Yes,to pretty much all of this.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Which is why Irsay called PM a "politician" as soon as the convo started about maybe keeping PM, and drafting Luck. Obviously I was holding out the hope, but once Irsay went that route, it was tough to see them living out the rest of PM's career together.
                While I agree PM is a politician, Irsay isn't all that different either so ...... that's the one thing about Manning's departure I wasn't too fond of.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                  You know Buffalo and Miami are looking at us and wondering why our fanbase is so divided over taking 15 years of Luck vs 3 or 4 years of Peyton after seeing those two teams struggle with finding a franchise QB after their legendary ones have retired....
                  No kidding. You can count many other teams fans among them. I always tell Colts fans how spoiled they are. 15 years of Peyton Manning, one year of sucking, and 15 years of Andrew Luck.

                  As a Bears fan, I wish their QB situation was half as good.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Are people really still Peyton Manning. The Colts are a legit SB contender RIGHT NOW, and Denver WILL predictably flame out early in the playoffs. We have seen this every single year with Manning. Great regular season, bust in the playoffs
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      I love Peyton. I love Andrew. And I will wholeheartedly root for both unless they play each other 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


                      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        Are people really still Peyton Manning. The Colts are a legit SB contender RIGHT NOW, and Denver WILL predictably flame out early in the playoffs. We have seen this every single year with Manning. Great regular season, bust in the playoffs
                        And what has Luck done to prove he is any better in the playoffs? Shouldn't he win a playoff game before you tout him as a better post season qb?

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          Are people really still Peyton Manning. The Colts are a legit SB contender RIGHT NOW, and Denver WILL predictably flame out early in the playoffs. We have seen this every single year with Manning. Great regular season, bust in the playoffs
                          I'm not sold on us being a Super Bowl contender right now. Stranger things have happened, though.

                          Peyton has had plenty of playoff hiccups but saying he flamed out every single year is just not true. 2006? 2009? Hell he played pretty damn well statistically during our run in 2009, obviously we came up short, but I think his playoff failures are blown out of proportion.

                          Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl since 2004 and has lost two Super Bowls since then and from what I remember, he didn't play too well against the Ravens in last year's AFCCG.

                          Again, being in 5 Super Bowls is crazy and I'm not discounting anything Brady has done, but I think that the early reputations of both Manning and Brady have stayed with them. Tom being the clutch playoff guy and Manning always choking even though at this point, it's just not as true as it used to be.

                          Again, I'm not trying to discredit anything the Brady/Belichick era has done together. Their playoff and Super Bowl record is insane. Everyone who has a brain would love for their team to have that kind of success.

                          I'm just trying to say that the early stats have stayed with both of them, Manning being a choker and Brady being Superman. Part of it is, I guess just a testament to how good they are. They raise the bar higher and higher every year it seems. So when we see Tom's 3-2 Super Bowl record and compare it to Peyton's 1-1 record our opinions may get a little bit skewed.

                          Just getting to the Super Bowl takes a lot more than just skill. You have to have a lot of luck and the cards have to fall your way a bit. Dan Marino never made it to a Super Bowl, did he? Do I think less of him or that he's a choker? Nah, not really. Anyway I'm going off on a subject that's been beat to death and somewhat off topic, so I'll leave it at this. (BTW I'm not entirely sure if Marino never made it to a Super Bowl, but I'm pretty sure he never won one, right?)
                          Super Bowl XLI Champions
                          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Marino went to one Super Bowl, XIX vs Joe Montana and the 49ers, but lost.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                              Marino went to one Super Bowl, XIX vs Joe Montana and the 49ers, but lost.
                              I see, just didn't feel like looking it up.
                              Super Bowl XLI Champions
                              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                He averages this season 9.4 yds per attempt. Almost a single new set of downs in every throw.
                                Never forget

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X