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

Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

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

  • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Had we not filled our roster with bad cap decisions, losing Manning wouldn't have resulted in a 2-win season. That is why Irsay cleaned house. Losing a legend should not result in a 12-win swing. Ask NE, who also lost their legend for a whole year, and they went 11-5. Say what you want about NE, but they manage their cap masterfully, and have proven they can absorb the loss of their centerpiece.
    It's not managing the cap so much as it is nailing the draft picks and finding guys who fit your system. I'm not saying cap management plays no part in things, because it obviously does, I'm just saying it doesn't have nearly the impact it does on NBA teams.

    Comment


    • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

      Dumb *** browns can't even tank right. End up winning their game without Trent while unwittingly gifting us a vicious power running game.


      Comment


      • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

        Painter was the biggest problem, followed closely by the OL. Once the other QB took over the team was actually kind of decent, which says a lot about Painter considering the other QB is most famous for running out of bounds in the end zone to avoid a sack on the 0-16 Lions.

        Comment


        • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Had we not filled our roster with bad cap decisions, losing Manning wouldn't have resulted in a 2-win season. That is why Irsay cleaned house. Losing a legend should not result in a 12-win swing. Ask NE, who also lost their legend for a whole year, and they went 11-5. Say what you want about NE, but they manage their cap masterfully, and have proven they can absorb the loss of their centerpiece.
          New England also kept a winning mentality around their franchise in 2008 because Hoodie wouldn't allow anything else. The Colts, OTOH, allowed themselves to have a bunch of self-pitty and seemed to almost want the 2-14 season once Peyton went out.

          We wanted to lose games in 2011. No, I do not think that our players and coaches actually tried to throw away games. But those who ran the franchise put a roster on the field that yielded the best chance of losing. There is no other rational explanation for leaving Painter out there for as long as we did when clearly Dan O. was a better option. Also, weren't we at the top of the waiver wire for virtually the entire season? Couldn't we have tried signing a couple of players during the course of the season to help? We did nothing to attempt to win games.

          Hey, I support it 100% after seeing how it worked out. Seems like a brilliant strategic move at this point.

          Comment


          • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

            Oh I do not buy that at all. I think you guys are seriously not looking at the foundation factors and actual things going on around that time. On the surface, most Lay people are going to be like "Oh, well ya, they lost Peyton, so ya, it's understandable that they lost 14 games." One player does not a franchise ruin, even Peyton Manning. I'm not going to speculate that we threw the season... or that our players bought into some self-pity. I know the players on that team, and they were injured and old, and no longer effective, but they weren't whiners and quitters. Reggie Wayne and Robert Mathis wouldn't buy into that philosophy at all nor would they allow it.

            I wish people would just lay to rest all these crazy conspiracy theories. It's a well known fact that by the end of Polian's tenure, he had strapped the team with some bloated contracts. The result that year was a ton of money wrapped up in players who weren't playing, including Manning. That's why Grigson entered the scene and immediately starting cutting people, knowing full well we'd be paying for their services the next year ---- dead money. $30million of it. The ONLY bad contract we kept was Freeney, and he was gone the next year. (Grigson did an unreal job of cutting the fat and making hard business decisions. He's also done extremely well with the types of contracts he's brought in, ones that don't strap us long term). The talent around Manning, imo, wasn't great, but Manning masked it. The underlying problem was the overall talent of the team and how resources had been allocated. You lose that guy who is THAT much a part of the overall system (and you cannot argue that the way the team was structured, Manning represented an exorbitant amount of the make-up of that team), and all of a sudden the system takes a ****. And when the system takes a ****, we didn't have Belichick to address it -- we had Jim Caldwell. Look back on that team --- it was built ENTIRELY around Manning. Even the defense. The defense was built fast, small, light to get after the quarterback because they could count on Manning getting out to fast starts. Very, very few QBs could be built around like that. The receivers around Manning weren't great overall receivers (except Wayne). They were receivers that fit Manning's style. The running backs Manning used --- after Edge, was a buncha no-names, because the running game was an after thought. Manning needed a running back mostly as a decoy. James Mungro is all he needed. But Peyton goes down and you have to insert a "normal" QB into his spot --- they're not used to getting out fast. The receivers aren't built for Painter. The defense isn't built to play from behind. Having a running game becomes important, but you aren't going to get that with a pass-protect O-Line and a James Mungro or Donald Brown or whoever other no name RB Manning used. So you have a problem of poor personel getting over-paid, coupled with a management infrastructure incapable of handling that type of adversity and voila --- worst team in the NFL. The team was not well-rounded --- it was 100% taylored to Peyton Manning. It was a very lop-sided team in overall make-up. Brady is every bit the centerpiece of his team, and the Patriots, who have ALWAYS made smart shrewd business decisions, were still able to roll out their backup QB and win 11 games. It wasn't *just* Painter. It was total system failure, starting with bad contract decisions. Our drafting during that time wasn't stellar either, although not as bad as people want to believe (they generally drafted system guys who fit into Manning's grand scheme, to which they mostly succeeded).
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-23-2013, 10:55 AM.
            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: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              Oh I do not buy that at all. I think you guys are seriously not looking at the foundation factors and actual things going on around that time.
              No, we are. No one is disagreeing with your general premise--I think we all agree the 2-14 season was a mixture of Manning going down, a series of poor drafts and mangement decisions, a terrible coach, and a terrible backup quarterback. I think the the biggest reason--by far--was Manning going down. If Manning is healthy that year we win 10 games, minimum, and are right back in the playoffs and the purge is delayed a little more because he is simply that good.

              Comment


              • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                ProFootballMock ***** all over the browns in NFL QBs talkin' on Facebook today http://profootballmock.com/facebookc...posite-day-13/


                Comment


                • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  No, we are. No one is disagreeing with your general premise--I think we all agree the 2-14 season was a mixture of Manning going down, a series of poor drafts and mangement decisions, a terrible coach, and a terrible backup quarterback. I think the the biggest reason--by far--was Manning going down. If Manning is healthy that year we win 10 games, minimum, and are right back in the playoffs and the purge is delayed a little more because he is simply that good.
                  Well, whatever floats your boat. It was the superficial reason, the on the surface reason, the event that caused the house of cards to fall. You build a brick house, and get hit by a gust of wind, you should only lose a shingle. You build a house of cards and get hit by a gust of wind, your whole house is going down. There's a massive difference between losing a few shingles and looking at a pile of rubble, and the story from there is completely changed. In terms of the Colts, you could say "well, the gust of wind is what caused our 2-14 season". Reality is, gusts of wind happen, frequently, especially in the NFL. I'm saying "had you built your house of bricks, the gust of wind wouldn't have caused house to fall down." Him going down *should not* have caused a 2-14 season. If you want to just look at the superficial reason and not look at the underlying reasons, that's fine. I'll always believe, however, that it was the multitude of decisions made prior to his injury that ultimately led to the destruction of that era of Colts football. If it wasn't, then Jim Irsay wouldn't have cleaned house the way he did. The Patriots got hit by a gust of wind, and they lost a big shingle, but the house still stood.

                  Now, that said, I'm glad they went 2-14 the year Luck came out... but that's an entirely different argument. Sometimes a purge is required.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-23-2013, 12:43 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: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    No, we are. No one is disagreeing with your general premise--I think we all agree the 2-14 season was a mixture of Manning going down, a series of poor drafts and mangement decisions, a terrible coach, and a terrible backup quarterback. I think the the biggest reason--by far--was Manning going down. If Manning is healthy that year we win 10 games, minimum, and are right back in the playoffs and the purge is delayed a little more because he is simply that good.

                    In the regular season, yes. No way would I bet the house on him in the post season. Even this year. I'll call it now. Broncos will not win the SB this year.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Well, whatever floats your boat. It was the superficial reason, the on the surface reason, the event that caused the house of cards to fall. You build a brick house, and get hit by a gust of wind, you should only lose a shingle. You build a house of cards and get hit by a gust of wind, your whole house is going down. There's a massive difference between losing a few shingles and looking at a pile of rubble, and the story from there is completely changed. In terms of the Colts, you could say "well, the gust of wind is what caused our 2-14 season". Reality is, gusts of wind happen, frequently, especially in the NFL. I'm saying "had you built your house of bricks, the gust of wind wouldn't have caused house to fall down." Him going down *should not* have caused a 2-14 season. If you want to just look at the superficial reason and not look at the underlying reasons, that's fine. I'll always believe, however, that it was the multitude of decisions made prior to his injury that ultimately led to the destruction of that era of Colts football. If it wasn't, then Jim Irsay wouldn't have cleaned house the way he did. The Patriots got hit by a gust of wind, and they lost a big shingle, but the house still stood.

                      Now, that said, I'm glad they went 2-14 the year Luck came out... but that's an entirely different argument. Sometimes a purge is required.
                      A gust of wind is losing Marvin Harrison for the season. Losing the best QB to ever play the game for the season is like removing the keystone in an arch, not matter how solid it is it will collapse on itself. That team had other problems, but that team was built around having he best QB in the world. Add that key piece and you have a player who makes up for the deficiencies on the OL combined with two defensive players who almost always came up big in big moments, and you got a team who can win games even if there are huge flaws.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        A gust of wind is losing Marvin Harrison for the season. Losing the best QB to ever play the game for the season is like removing the keystone in an arch, not matter how solid it is it will collapse on itself. That team had other problems, but that team was built around having he best QB in the world. Add that key piece and you have a player who makes up for the deficiencies on the OL combined with two defensive players who almost always came up big in big moments, and you got a team who can win games even if there are huge flaws.
                        I discussed that. I also explained the problems with that. Your philosophy doesn't hold up when you consider the Patriots situation, the EXACT same situation... who also lost their arch "keystone" and didn't suffer near the drop-off. You have to be able to look at context and not just elevate Manning to God status and completely disregard or acknowledge or correlate the fact that he was a stud, while the team built for him was extremely flawed. You can't just put it all on Manning's injury... you have to consider the team around him, built FOR him... was built to die without him. It all works when Manning is there... doesn't work at all when he's not. That that was the problem. You can't surround Manning, aging himself, with a bunch of specialized, high-paid, aging players, and then wonder why -- when they all got injured --- we sucked. It was a systemic problem. Yes, had Manning not been injured, we would've been fine. But he was. That was a whole lot of eggs in one basket, and the basket's bottom fell out. That's why we went 2-14. The system in place, minus Manning, was terrible. It didn't have to be that way. What I'm saying is; the team could have, and should have, been constructed around Manning in a more fail-safe way, and we would not have lost 14 games. It's why Irsay fired the entire team. There's absolutely no reason why a team minus Manning but a few years before WITH him was a SB contender would lose 14 games, when next year, with a rookie quarterback, completely new FO, $30mill in dead money and a bunch cast-offs and practice squad players won 11 games. There's absolutely zero reason for that. You cannot justify that to me at all. Losing Manning should not have resulted in 14 losses. It was a top-down systemic failure, a beautiful design when the linchpin was there, and a terrible one when it wasn't. NE built for that; Indy did not.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-23-2013, 03:46 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: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          What I'm saying is; the team could have, and should have, been constructed around Manning in a more fail-safe way, and we would not have lost 14 games. It's why Irsay fired the entire team.
                          What does that have to do with the cap though, which kicked off this discussion?

                          Those choices, and the results of those choices, weren't made because the Colts were pinching pennies. Those decisions were conscious ones, trying to design the team a certain way. They weren't forced into making those decisions because they didn't cap flexibility. The salary cap really didn't have anything to do with why the Colts were so awful without Manning.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            What does that have to do with the cap though, which kicked off this discussion?

                            Those choices, and the results of those choices, weren't made because the Colts were pinching pennies. Those decisions were conscious ones, trying to design the team a certain way. They weren't forced into making those decisions because they didn't cap flexibility. The salary cap really didn't have anything to do with why the Colts were so awful without Manning.
                            This is the root cause of the 2-14 season. It had nothing to do with the cap. It has everything to do with how Polian constructed the team around Manning. The offensive line was neglected because Manning could get them into the right play a majority of the time and Mudd would coach them up to an acceptable place.

                            The defense was built to play with the lead and our offense typically could do that. Once Manning went down we had real protection issues and our defense actually had to be stout and could not rely on Manning.

                            Now we would have had cap issues had we kept Manning because of how much he was getting paid, but the 2-14 season was all because this team was built for Peyton.

                            Grigs learned from Polian's mistake and is trying to establish a running game and defense so we have a better shot of not completely falling on our face if Luck got hurt. Even with that said if Luck went down we would still be screwed because you need a QB to win in this league long term.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              No, we are. No one is disagreeing with your general premise--I think we all agree the 2-14 season was a mixture of Manning going down, a series of poor drafts and mangement decisions, a terrible coach, and a terrible backup quarterback. I think the the biggest reason--by far--was Manning going down. If Manning is healthy that year we win 10 games, minimum, and are right back in the playoffs and the purge is delayed a little more because he is simply that good.
                              Your point is actually proving KM's point.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                                it's been a minute so I may be a bit hazy on the specifics, but even a few weeks into the season there was no guarantee Peyton wasn't going to play in 2011. the thinking was maybe he misses preason but that he could play week one, that was the thinking all of training camp and into the preseason. we didn't go that whole offseason knowing he was going to miss the whole year, that wasn't announced until well into September. it wasn't the cap that prevented us from getting a different QB, especially since we did when we signed Kerry Collins for 4 million, it was uncertainty with Peyton.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X