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

Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

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

  • #91
    Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

    Originally posted by Bball View Post

    I'm certain Luck and Wayne are having some long conversations about what Luck can expect and what to look for. Let's hope even though Wayne can't take the field he still has some contributions to make towards a winning effort.

    These playoffs are fun. Let's hope we can still say that following the game.

    Bring on the Pats!
    I hate it for Wayne that he can't be a part of this game. He deserved one more opportunity to play against the Pats in the playoffs. Despite the fact that the Colts and Pats are both always in the playoffs, we obviously haven't played them in the postseason since 2006. It's not every day that you get to play a playoff game in Foxboro, and I hate it for him that he can't be a part of it. Who knows, we might not ever again meet them in the playoffs while Wayne is here.

    He does seem like he's done an excellent job in embracing his temporary role as "Coach Wayne". It has to kill him to not be out there, but he is the epitome of a professional and will always do whatever he can to help out the team.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...owdah/4362919/

      Kravitz: Boston columnist has had too much chowdah


      First of all, I'd like to thank Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe for saving me the long trip to New England. Apparently, there's no reason for me to make the trek, if I'm reading Tuesday's Globe column correctly. The Colts are, in his words, another in a long line of "tomato cans" who will bow before the great Patriot behemoth.

      Why bother, right?

      Now, I'm not going to put on a cheerleader's skirt and wave pompoms in an effort to ingratiate myself to our local readership. (And that ship sailed a long time ago, I'm quite sure.) I'm not going to tell you that the Colts are going to win Saturday night; I believe they have better than a puncher's chance, but gun to head, I'm taking the Pats 24-20.

      But my man Shaughnessy is ODing on chowdah if he thinks the Colts are going to roll into Foxboro and crawl into the fetal position.

      It's not so much about the Colts. It's about the Patriots: They're good but they're not great, not the great world-beaters they were back in 2003, '04 and '07. And they haven't been for a couple of years.

      Shaughnessy says it himself: "Give me the Myth. Give me Team Luck."

      COLTS LINKS: Shaughnessy and more

      VENTURI: Belichick will exploit weaknesses

      That's it: They are a modern-day myth. And they've needed their fair share of luck, and miracle comebacks, to forge that 12-4 record. (Which should sound familiar to Colts fans.) This isn't like the 2007 team that rolled over everybody by three touchdowns and set all kinds of records (since broken) in the process.

      They're good, very good, an overachieving team that's done remarkable things despite suffering a spate of injuries. Twelve wins without Aaron Hernandez, Rob Gronkowski and Vince Wilfork, among others, is an amazing accomplishment, and further reinforces the notion that Bill Belichick is an extraordinary coach.

      But …

      In their last seven playoff games, the Patriots are 3-4. After starting 10-0 in the postseason, Brady and his team are 7-7.


      Since reaching the Super Bowl in 2007 (that was the 18-0 team who lost to the Giants), the Patriots have lost three home playoff games, twice to Baltimore and once to the New York Jets.

      They have a regular- and postseason record every other franchise envies, but without Brandon Spikes, Tommy Kelly, Jerod Mayo, Hernandez and Wilfork, the Patriots are not the dominant team they once were. Good, very good, but not dominant.

      As former Colts kicker Mike Vanderjagt might say – and he said it several years ago – the Patriots are "vulnerable," and have been for a couple of years.

      Even Shaughnessy agrees with that, making my point while attempting to make his point.

      "You know this Patriots team is nothing like those mastodons who dominated the NFL in 2003, 2004 and 2007," he wrote. "This team has a great coach and a great quarterback and not much else. This team has overcome innumerable hits and overachieved and earned its playoff bye…"

      But not without some head-scratching victories – although, in truth, the Colts seem to own a monopoly on head-scratching, come-from-nowhere victories. The Pats needed a last-second touchdown pass to beat the Saints at home. They needed a miraculous comeback to beat the Broncos at home. They somehow knocked off the Browns with two touchdowns in the last two minutes.


      Give them credit for all of that, just as you give the Colts credit for all their come-from-behind heroics. The point, though, is these aren't the Patriots who used to tangle on an almost-annual basis with Peyton Manning's Colts. These Patriots don't scare anybody. Not anymore.

      "The Patriots are ready to dance to the Waltz of the Tomato Cans straight into the AFC championship game," Shaughnessy wrote.

      Tomato cans? A speed bump on the way to the title game against – we think – the Denver Broncos?

      "With all due respect, this is something of a joke," he wrote.

      Well, it's with all due respect, so there's that.

      "In short, Saturday is shaping up as a party night for the guys in the lifeguard chairs," he wrote.

      At least Shaughnessy gave Pagano credit for signing former Patriot Deion Branch, who might be useful in the intelligence department.

      "Very Belichickian," Shaughnessy wrote.

      But …

      "But it all changes on Saturday. Pagano will lose his football mind at the sight of Belichick and Tom Brady at Gillette Stadium. He will forget everything he ever knew about the gridiron … Foxborough will prove too much for the man. He will be swallowed up like Gary Kubiak, John Fox, Sean Payton, Jack Del Rio, Marty Schottenheimer and Belichick's personal stooge, Greg Schiano."

      Just as long as he doesn't go for it on fourth and two deep in his own territory, Pagano should be just fine.

      The Colts are going to play the Patriots off their feet Saturday. They are going to be in this game until the end. I'll take New England to pull it out at the finish, but it won't be a laugher.

      With all due respect.

      Bet you a chowdah on it.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

        A picture of Dan Shaughnessy in his office.

        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

          If Luck walks into Foxboro and beats BRady in his first try inside of Peyton's bug a boo (a place he has still never won in the playoffs) and then has a chance to knock off 18 himself the next week.....well let's just say I might start dropping some irrationally crazy statements about 12.


          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I love when reporters try to get meaningful quotes from Luck. "We just want to win football games".
            "I am football robot designed to read plays and pulverize opponent"

            Honestly the way he reacted to that fumble and decided so quickly to dive for the end zone is probably one of the most amazing plays I've ever seen. There was never any hesitation, just like that had been the plan all along.


            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              If Luck walks into Foxboro and beats BRady in his first try inside of Peyton's bug a boo (a place he has still never won in the playoffs) and then has a chance to knock off 18 himself the next week.....well let's just say I might start dropping some irrationally crazy statements about 12.

              As if this wasn't one? He's only played there twice in the postseason ( most of those losses to the Pats were in the regular season) I know its not nearly as interesting to say but that's the truth like Luck losing there during the regular season.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Yeah, I've always wondered why Deion Branch lives here. I mean it's a nice city and all, but it's a bit bizarre that a multi-millionaire athlete with no ties to the city would choose to live here. It's like how the HOF baseball player Tony Gwynn lived (still lives?) in Fishers.
                Deion lives in my parents' neighborhood right down the street. He has a kid with some sort of illness that Riley has a specialist for, plus he grew up in Louisville so it's not that crazy really.

                His wife is very nice, Xmas eve or night I believe she came by my parents with a group of neighborhood kids and a couple other moms around the neighborhood and was Xmas caroling.


                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Nah, I saw it live, it wasn't apparent that Landry was hurt at first, and Sheppard was just doin' the usual head-slap celebration thing. You could see him change his stance after Landy remained down on the ground.
                  So did I. I thought it was very apparent that Landry was hurt. Especially after the first and second slap. That being said I have no idea whether it actually made the injury any worse.


                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    As if this wasn't one? He's only played there twice in the postseason ( most of those losses to the Pats were in the regular season) I know its not nearly as interesting to say but that's the truth like Luck losing there during the regular season.
                    0-2 is 0-2. That's all I'm saying. If Luck wins there on Saturday it will be a big deal not just because the Colts are advancing but because of who Luck just beat.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      0-2 is 0-2. That's all I'm saying. If Luck wins there on Saturday it will be a big deal not just because the Colts are advancing but because of who Luck just beat.
                      I don't doubt the hyperbole will be in overdrive that's for sure. I just don't agree that a comparison should be made considering that the Pats teams back then were far superior to the one we'll be seeing on Saturday. It wasn't like we were ever favored to win those either.

                      Its like the Niners/Packers... the Packers always destroyed the Niners during the Favre era and now its the opposite. Does that mean Colin Kaepernick is better than Steve Young because of it? I don't think so. The teams aren't the same.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        I don't doubt the hyperbole will be in overdrive that's for sure. I just don't agree that a comparison should be made considering that the Pats teams back then were far superior to the one we'll be seeing on Saturday. It wasn't like we were ever favored to win those either.

                        Its like the Niners/Packers... the Packers always destroyed the Niners during the Favre era and now its the opposite. Does that mean Colin Kaepernick is better than Steve Young because of it? I don't think so. The teams aren't the same.
                        If we go in there and knock them off on Saturday, then the hyperbole should be in overdrive. That would be a massive accomplishment. And whether we like it or not, Luck will always be held to the standards of the Manning era, just like Rodgers was held to the Favre standards. While it's true that the 03 and 04 Pats teams were better than what they have now, let's not forget that the 03 and 04 Colts were also more talented than what we currently have because of the injuries.

                        The Kaepnerick/Young thing is a bit of a stretch. These obviously aren't the same Niners and Packers. However, it's still Brady and Belichick in Foxboro. Regardless of how much has changed there over the last decade, the two most important characters are still in place. Thus, there will definitely be comparisons to how Manning fared there.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                          Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe has a bit of a history.

                          He has now penned almost precisely this same column three times in three years: 2011 vs the Broncos, 2012 vs the Texans, and now vs the Colts.

                          It sets him up to carry out his agenda: if the Patriots win he holds this up to "prove" that he knows football; if the team doesn't win (or even doesn't win convincingly) then he writes his year-end review for every season that does not end in a Lombardi trophy, with a little extra vinegar. He details how lazy, stupid, and underachieving the team is, what a poor coach Belichick is, listing players that Belichick has passed on in the draft (which would apply to any team) without comment on any of their good picks, listing players that Belichick has passed on in free agency (without himself having even a rudimentary CLUE about something as complicated as a salary cap).

                          Imagine if Dan Dakich were a writer rather than a talk show host,
                          and then imagine that you cut his IQ in half,
                          and then imagine that you cut his work ethic by a factor of 10,
                          and then imagine that you gave him Bozo the clown hair.


                          You would have "Shank" Shaughnessy

                          He is to be ignored, whether his opinion is good or bad.
                          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: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            A picture of Dan Shaughnessy in his office.


                            you are not far off!



                            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: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                              That's uncanny. Hahaha.
                              Never forget

                              Comment


                              • Re: Playoffs: Colts vs Patriots thread

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                If we go in there and knock them off on Saturday, then the hyperbole should be in overdrive. That would be a massive accomplishment. And whether we like it or not, Luck will always be held to the standards of the Manning era, just like Rodgers was held to the Favre standards. While it's true that the 03 and 04 Pats teams were better than what they have now, let's not forget that the 03 and 04 Colts were also more talented than what we currently have because of the injuries.

                                The Kaepnerick/Young thing is a bit of a stretch. These obviously aren't the same Niners and Packers. However, it's still Brady and Belichick in Foxboro. Regardless of how much has changed there over the last decade, the two most important characters are still in place. Thus, there will definitely be comparisons to how Manning fared there.

                                Winning his first road playoff game? Sure it would be a massive accomplishment but when Grigson started saying how Luck was reminding him of Jordan I had to roll my eyes there.

                                I mean to use Jordan around here is sacrilege to begin with but it was his first playoff win (albeit a dramatic one) nothing more.

                                Frank Reich had a playoff win just like Luck did but nobody is saying he was Jordanesque or a legend but they talked about how Houston blew that game(and they did) not how great Reich was. Luck vs Chiefs total opposite really.

                                The 2003/4 Colts teams were more talented offensively but defense was always a question mark. This team is more balanced. Not to mention Luck will be playing in far better weather than those Colts teams did where a pass happy offense is slowed down by snow and wind.

                                I just don't think that means he's a legend or elite because of it terms you can actually apply to Manning regardless of what happens in his game on Sunday at least not right now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X