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

Playoff Thread

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

  • Re: Playoff Thread

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    Manning got a national media free pass for every one and done, all of the way until 8 of them had piled up after last season. Then a few (a very few) speak-your-mind types like Deion Sanders and Chris Carter started at least mentioning it.

    Did any national media person every say a peep of criticism about the pick-6 Super Bowl INT? No. The ratio of criticism for Brady's intentional grounding safety on the opening play in 2011 to Manning's game-ending pick six would be infinite, because division by zero is not allowed. If there was one criticism of the INT that I missed, then the ratio would not be in the single digits.

    No national media criticism of Peyton Manning as a Colt was ever pushed down your throat, because it simply didn't exist. Did Patriots fans recognize the emperor's clothes? Yes. A number of Colts fans now seem to have joined them. Most media haven't gone anywhere near there though, even now. Or will they, most likely, even with a San Diego win this weekend.
    Hahaha.... All thru that period Colts fans were complaining it was all about Manning choking but Brady could do no wrong for the media...

    Apparently that worked the other way too...
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: Playoff Thread

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Hahaha.... All thru that period Colts fans were complaining it was all about Manning choking but Brady could do no wrong for the media...

      Apparently that worked the other way too...
      The difference is that one viewpoint is based on reality nd the other is pure delusional B.S. We know which is which.

      Comment


      • Re: Playoff Thread

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        Rest assured nobody in the media wants Manning to actually win the SB(even though they will publically claim they do)
        How do you go about determining what "the media" wants other than by listening to what they say and what they write? Unless you know a certain writer has a consistent history of saying one thing and believing another, based on some amount of personal knowledge, I cannot fathom how you can determine that.

        When 19 out of 20 writers say that it would be great if Peyton gets another ring before he retires, wouldn't it most likely mean that they think it would be great if Peyton gets another ring before he retires?
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: Playoff Thread

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          Manning got a national media free pass for every one and done, all of the way until 8 of them had piled up after last season. Then a few (a very few) speak-your-mind types like Deion Sanders and Chris Carter started at least mentioning it.
          Seriously? My brother is/was a huge Tenn. Vols fan and loved Peyton so I got to watch a good share of his college career and the narrarative him before he even came to the NFL is that he choked away big games because he couldn't get Florida. The narrative just kept on going.

          EDIT: Here's an article from 2004
          But Manning was the show, dispelling the perception that he somehow choked in "big games."
          "I hope people think this was a big game," Dungy said. "We kept hearing about Peyton's failure to win big games. I guess this was a big one."
          http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=240104011
          Last edited by Since86; 01-09-2014, 10:11 AM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Playoff Thread

            I know Gators fans who feel that way too, and always have. Peyton critics walk the Earth, that is true. Nearly none of them are member of the national media. They seem to top out as fan message board pundits, guest columnists for the Independent Florida Alligator, or (maybe) rah-rah beat reporters for the Gainsville Sun.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: Playoff Thread

              I watched this a few months ago. It's a great compilation of all of the PTI coverage on Manning's career. Very fair discussion for the most part. Definitely some pre-Super Bowl criticism, and they called the loss to the Saints disappointing (IRRC).

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm7DiV4RhAo

              The thing is though, once you win the Super Bowl, you've won the Super Bowl. And Peyton got to the Super Bowl in epic fashion with a memorable comeback against a Patriots team that was still pretty fresh off of its dynasty years. Despite the one and dones, he did come up big time in what was by far the biggest game of his career up to that point. That Colts team would have never recovered if they lost that Pats game. No matter what happens, Peyton is a champion and always will be.

              In fairness, the one ring will always leave people to say "yeah, but" when they are comparing him to quarterbacks like Brady, Montana, and Elway who all have multiple rings. That's understandable. Peyton and the Colts certainly missed a golden opportunity in that Saints game. Instead of people saying that Peyton "only" has one, they would be saying that he won two out of four, which would have put the Colts in rare company.

              Comment


              • Re: Playoff Thread

                How do you rank the quarterbacks among the 8 starters on teams who are still alive?

                Sporting News analysis: The best are Manning, Luck, and Wilson, a big gap to a cluster of Brees, Newton, Rivers, and Kaepernick, and then a gap to the cellar-dweller, Tom Brady, who lacks intangibles, lacks pocket presence, has terrible accuracy, and has a poor delivery.

                http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...pernick-newton



                maybe I'm wrong about "national media" since now there are so many of them that you can always find village idiots lurking out there somewhere.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-09-2014, 10:33 AM.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • Re: Playoff Thread

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  I know Gators fans who feel that way too, and always have. Peyton critics walk the Earth, that is true. Nearly none of them are member of the national media. They seem to top out as fan message board pundits, guest columnists for the Independent Florida Alligator, or (maybe) rah-rah beat reporters for the Gainsville Sun.
                  None of which I've ever read, or even heard of. My brother never talked sports, just watched. (Wasn't ever around until he needed a TV) If national people weren't talking about it, and my brother didn't, then how did I hear about this stuff as a 10yr old living 500 miles away from Knoxville?

                  Here's another article from 2004 addressing it.

                  Manning couldn't win the national title, the Heisman or, until last season, an
                  NFL playoff game. He has won some pretty big ones but knows he'll hear it until
                  he wins a really big one; hey, that's the American way. Manning doesn't need to
                  ask the man he just passed, Dan Marino, whose mind-blowing numbers can't qualify
                  him as history's greatest quarterback, not when he's counting them with 10 bare
                  fingers
                  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...-manning_x.htm

                  And then
                  There's no doubt in my mind if the Colts don't go to the Super Bowl, all the
                  naysayers will come out," Phil Simms said Monday. "They're the ones mad at the
                  success he's had. I won't name names, but they bash him whenever they get the
                  chance. It bothers them that he came into the league with all that perfect
                  Peyton stuff."
                  I guess Phil is talking about no names writing letters to the editors?

                  EDIT: Not to mention Vanderjagt's comments about how Peyton doesn't have the emtional leadership to win and that was in 2002.
                  Last edited by Since86; 01-09-2014, 10:39 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Playoff Thread

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    The absolute worst quarterback among the 8 starters on teams who are still alive?

                    Sporting News analysis: the worst, by a very substantial amount, is Tom Brady. The best are Manning, Luck, and Wilson.

                    http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...pernick-newton


                    Ha, yeah that's pretty stupid.

                    But on a side note, these 8 teams so do feature an awesome batch of quarterbacks.

                    You have the three old guys who are each Super Bowl MVP's: Peyton, Brady, Brees.

                    You have a guy in Rivers who has always been a very good quarterback, though who certainly has never been at the level of the above three.

                    Then of course you have the four young studs in Luck, Wilson, Kaepernick, and Newton.

                    That's just an awesome batch of old and new. Four old guys and four young guys. It will be interesting to see what we're left with after this weekend.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Playoff Thread

                      My QB rankings:

                      Luck
                      Brees
                      Brady
                      Manning
                      Rivers
                      Wilson
                      Newton
                      Kaepernick
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoff Thread

                        There are 8 talented quarterbacks left. I am amazed that there is not a single quarterbacking skill in which Brady is better than #5. Athleticism he is indeed #8, probably. The rest of their analysis is also goofy. Rivers has the weakest arm? Really? I'd go to Peyton to win a game, but if I wanted a guy to knock over the lead bottles at the state fair with the laser thrown football, he would not be my guy.
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-09-2014, 10:43 AM.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoff Thread

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          There are 8 talented quarterbacks left. I am amazed that there is not a single quarterbacking skill in which Brady is better than #5. Athleticism he is indeed #8, probably. The rest of their analysis is also goofy. Rivers has the weakest arm? Really? I'd go to Peyton to win a game, but if I wanted a guy to knock over the lead bottles at the state fair with the laser thrown football, he would not be my guy.
                          The writer is probably just trying to stir the pot. It's clear that he just doesn't like Brady. Ranking Brady so low in accuracy and "intangibles" makes that clear. I think he invented the "intangibles" category just so he could give Manning some more points. I mean I'm as big of a Luck fan as there is, but you cannot yet say that he is more accurate than Brees and Brady.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Playoff Thread

                            1A. Manning = He has so many more weapons than Brady, and the ability to pass it to them provided that gametime conditions are not too adverse. Wind and cold are a problem because he does not throw a tight spiral. Can lead any comeback and create a shootout vs. even good defenses. Tends to force passes more often than Brady and his defense seems prone to collapse, making him carry the weight to win shootout games played in the 40s.

                            1B. Brady = Poised, but can be pressured and is immobile except within the pocket . Not usually prone to poor decisions or responding poorly to game pressure. Led his team to 12-4 with a good O-line but with a cast of nobodies as weapons (Julian Edelman a 100 catch, 1000 yard #1 receiver?). He had a remarkable turnaround in productivity from the first half of the season to the 2nd (rise in completion %, 57% to 67%, yards went from <250 per game to well over 300 per game) as he adjusted to a new corp of receivers and tight ends. Seems to be weatherproof in his passing performances, at least moreso than most. The burden of carrying the team may wear on him if facing a stellar defense, particular an interior pass rush.

                            3. Luck = Scary talented, with mobility well ahead of both 1A and 1B, and also better arm strength. Seems unflappable so far. Largely untested in playoff settings, though (not his fault) . Can be erratic and even error-prone at times, mostly due to a subpar O-line that forces him to make decisions much more quickly than is desirable, without the time to wait on receivers to find soft spots. The O-line play makes him more prone to sacks and blitzes than most other playoff QBs, even though he moves amazingly well.


                            4. Brees = On his home field he would clearly be 1C or at worst 3, rather than 4. He can put up good stats on the road but the W/L column does not follow and the turnovers can also mount. Surrounded by capable weapons, a good line, and has an amazing coach and smart play-calling. Can get incredibly hot and pick apart a defense with amazing accuracy, but can also get flustered into making errors and throwing it up for grabs when he should instead take a sack. When hot, he can throw virtually in-defensible passes into the tightest of tight spots better than anyone. Small and can get passes knocked down more than most.

                            5A. Rivers = He’s as talented as any QB but is more erratic, more Favre-like than Manning-like. Takes more chances than most and seems to want to be “the guy” and carry the team even if he doesn’t have to, because he has a good running game and solid D. Can be lethal if he gets up on you in a game because as a frontrunner his rah-rah personality is an asset. When things are going bad, though, that same personality shows itself as pouty and immature. He is much less likely to lead a significant late comeback than QBs 1-4.

                            5B. Wilson = A younger Brees plus athleticism, though not as accurate and even smaller in stature, probably 5’10”. He can have on and off days, maybe due to an inconsistent release point. He has the luxury to play conservatively because he rarely has to carry a team. His defense does that regularly, and so does his beastly running back. Good scrambler and improviser. Too young to know how playoff pressure will affect him, but his personality type suggests poise under pressure.


                            (I would put the biggest gap here)

                            7. Newton = He can throw like Brady on some days and throw like Jamarcus Russell on other days (though not as often). On the Brady-like days he can seem unbeatable because he runs well too and is as hard to sack as Big Ben (very strong). He can be error-prone, indecisive, and get flustered, though. He's very unlikely to be poised enough to overcome a large deficit. He is supported by a very good defense and O-line that theoretically can allow him to not take many risks, but he seems to not understand that just yet.

                            8. Kaepernick = He’s the hardest to get a good read on. Sometimes he looks like a superb pocket QB and would be at worst #5C on this list if he learned to do that even most of the time. He has the arm strength but can misread defenses. Sometimes he seems lost in the pocket despite having arguably the best offensive line there is in the game today in front of him. He too often depends on making spectacular runs on his own, though it can be a great bailout because he can rip off even a 50 yard run. He’s also too young to know exactly how playoff pressure will affect him. Last year he seemed undaunted. Like Wilson, he has the luxury of not having to really carry the load. He has clearly done less with more this year, with the team earning a 5th seed despite having an amazing O-line, a stifling defense, an above average array of offensive weapons that includes a punishing running game, and very good coaching. They did win 12 games, but the team is even more talented than that and his inconsistency showed in the 4 losses. Brady or Manning would have made a run at 16-0 with their talent.
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-09-2014, 02:06 PM.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Playoff Thread

                              Slick, those were great rankings.

                              Regarding Kaepernick, I would just say this: Losing Michael Crabtree was a serious blow to his passing development. He really leaned on Crabtree last year when he was playing lights out and leading them to the Super Bowl. Being without that elite option for most of the year was a lot for Kaep to deal with since he didn't have much experience under his belt. I don't think it's any coincidence that the Niners have won all of their games with Crabtree back. He was a beast against Green Bay. Even though he's not 100% yet, he's still good enough that defenses have to give him big time respect. That makes life a lot easier for Kaepernick.

                              Also, the Niners are the 5 seed. New Orleans is the 6.

                              But of the young quarterbacks, there's no doubt that Wilson and Kaep are in the best situations. Their teams are so ridiculously stacked.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Playoff Thread

                                yeah, I fixed the seeding. brain lock.

                                These rankings obviously factor in things like possible bad weather and the likelihood that somewhere along the line you will have to lead a major comeback.

                                Frankly, Kaep and Wilson might not ever get into any significant hole until they play each other, and even then I expect a 17-14 rock-em-sock em game that doesn't need their heroics.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X