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

Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

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

  • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

    ^^ he wasn't exactly stellar in that Super Bowl run.

    Comment


    • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post

      People already made up their minds about him to begin with nothing was going to change even if the Broncos won. They would've said "Peyton Manning needs to win another ring to prove he can win the big game" even though he's already won the big game.

      You know the same exact thing they said up until the Saints SB and this one.

      The same exact thing they're going to say about him next season(even though he's "out of the conversation")
      We'll just have to agree to disagree there I guess. Winning this Super Bowl would have been HUGE for how people talk about him. What would the story have been for the last two days? It would have been how a 37 year old Peyton just had the greatest season in the history of the quarterback position, just two years after a lot of people (including himself) were doubting his future in the NFL because of a massive injury. Even guys like Cris Carter and Deoin Sanders who have criticized him in the past were giving him a lot of credit after he beat the Pats a couple weeks ago, so yes I think that virtually everyone on the planet would have been lavishing universal praise on Manning if the Broncos won this game.

      Winning a Super Bowl with two different franchises seven years apart would have been a massive feather in his cap which could not have been ignored. Sure, some might have still put Montana and Brady above him because of ring count, but even the biggest Manning hater on the planet would have had to re-evaluate him. Manning's 2 wouldn't have beat Brady's 3, but you could certainly have argued that Manning winning this late career Super Bowl would have been more impressive than anything Brady had done.

      Why do you think talking heads have talked so much about his legacy before these last two Super Bowls? It's because they have been huge games with a ton at stake . The Colts had the opportunity to win two Super Bowls in a four year span when they lost to the Saints. That was a huge deal. This year, 37 year old Peyton had the opportunity to win a super impressive second Super Bowl with a different team. Again, a huge deal. Talking heads aren't crafting the legacy here. Peyton has crafted his own legacy. The only reason the talking heads continue to roll with the same narrative is because Manning has lost these big games more often than he has won them. If the situation was reversed, then the opinions would be reversed. Peyton has had the opportunity to change it.

      Comment


      • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

        Exactly which is why people saying had he played well and lost it would've been fine is a bunch of garbage

        He didn't play that great and won the SB and people still think he needed to win another to validate his career.

        Which is my point people already made up their minds there is always going to be something "wrong" where Manning is concerned even if he had won the SB on Sunday it would be well he has to win another...

        Yes players technically define the legacy but the media is the one who creates the narratives.

        They don't say this about Drew Brees who has only won 2 playoff games since his SB win

        Or Aaron Rodgers who many thought would end up with more rings than Favre(and he could but he has only won 2 playoff games since then)

        Brady hasn't even won an SB in almost a decade and yet no do or die narratives with him.

        Why not talk about them if Manning is such an epic fail to them?

        Not as interesting to talk about them after all they have sob stories Manning came from money was the #1 pick in the draft the epitome of white privilege who had every advantage in life and was able to maximize it yet the one thing they can use against him is that he only has 1 ring despite all his talent.

        I mean how can he be so great and only win so little? They get so much mileage out of that narrative alone that its going to be hard for them to scramble for another player when he does retire. I mean there's Romo but he barely makes the playoffs.
        Last edited by Basketball Fan; 02-04-2014, 11:50 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          Which is my point people already made up their minds there is always going to be something "wrong" where Manning is concerned even if he had won the SB on Sunday it would be well he has to win another...
          I doubt it. Winning this game would have felt like winning two Super Bowls given the Seattle defense and everything he has been through with his health. The coverage would have been 100% praise on Manning.

          Comment


          • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

            You really think they wouldn't have said he had to win another?

            I guess you must've missed the 1st SB when they asked can he lead them to another SB?

            1 SB seems to be enough for Drew and Aaron but apparently Manning not so much is my point. They would've come up with something else this Legacy narrative has taken a life of its own I mean boards create a whole thread about this alone.

            You don't see this with other players.

            Comment


            • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

              Manning has (had?), thru his body of work, the chance to insert his name into the argument for greatest QB to ever play the game and negate many arguments to the contrary. He missed the chance. Instead the only thing that was solidified was the argument he's not the greatest QB to ever play the game because he shrinks in the post season.

              Rodgers and Brees don't have the body of work to put their names into that argument as the greatest QB in the first place.
              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: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Manning has (had?), thru his body of work, the chance to insert his name into the argument for greatest QB to ever play the game and negate many arguments to the contrary. He missed the chance. Instead the only thing that was solidified was the argument he's not the greatest QB to ever play the game because he shrinks in the post season.

                Rodgers and Brees don't have the body of work to put their names into that argument as the greatest QB in the first place.
                So then they should never mention Manning again from here on out like they claimed they would after the last SB loss.

                He's out of the conversation the media should make sure it stays that way but people keep ignoring my point here

                They won't

                Rodgers and Brees don't have interesting narratives because Rodgers wasn't drafted #1(although he probably should've been) he fell a ton of spots down to the Packers. Then won the SB a couple years after Favre left not much else to say about him. Brees had a bad injury that many were suspect he would play again and then went to New Orleans and won it all there so his story has been told not really much to say about him beyond that.

                There's no legacy posts about these guys there's no more "tragic" angle with them. There is with Manning because all his records, coming from $$$ and being the #1 pick and only one ring which apparently isn't good enough.

                Comment


                • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  So then they should never mention Manning again from here on out like they claimed they would after the last SB loss.

                  He's out of the conversation the media should make sure it stays that way but people keep ignoring my point here

                  They won't
                  The media narrative doesn't drive Manning's legacy. Manning's legacy drives the media narrative.

                  Why would they not mention this stuff when Peyton is playing in a late career Super Bowl which would cap the greatest QB season ever and give him major ammo in any GOAT debate?. The reason that they have mentioned all of this legacy stuff before the last two Super Bowls is because Peyton has had two major opportunities to cash in on a second Super Bowl. The reason that it goes back to the same old discussion is because he lost both Super Bowls. Had he won one or both of the Super Bowls, then it would have been a different discussion.

                  Manning got A LOT of praise after beating the Pats in that AFCCG. Most in the media world, even those who had traditionally been anti-Manning, wanted to see him cash in on this Super Bowl because it would have been a hell of a story.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    The media narrative doesn't drive Manning's legacy. Manning's legacy drives the media narrative.

                    Why would they not mention this stuff when Peyton is playing in a late career Super Bowl which would cap the greatest QB season ever and give him major ammo in any GOAT debate?. The reason that they have mentioned all of this legacy stuff before the last two Super Bowls is because Peyton has had two major opportunities to cash in on a second Super Bowl. The reason that it goes back to the same old discussion is because he lost both Super Bowls. Had he won one or both of the Super Bowls, then it would have been a different discussion.

                    Manning got A LOT of praise after beating the Pats in that AFCCG. Most in the media world, even those who had traditionally been anti-Manning, wanted to see him cash in on this Super Bowl because it would have been a hell of a story.
                    Except I remember 4 years ago when the Colts lost the SB to the Saints how he should never be entered into the conversation as the GOAT fine cool whatever and yet 4 years later they're saying the same exact thing even though in between they keep bringing him up despite talking about how he's the greatest regular season QB of all time which is rather worthless but can't get it done in the postseason. Well if they thought this way then why the disappointment that he didn't win another SB? I mean he's not a big game guy so talk about those who are? Too boring. Its all about drama. Like the Red Sox having 86 years of futility and then they won and it was great and the other two titles they won since then well they're just another team now.

                    Once upon a time 7 years ago on this very day many of us thought yes Manning can win the big game since he actually got a ring and that none of these questions would have to be answered ever again with him.

                    Its gotten worse over time.

                    The media choses who and what they want to cover is my point. I mean if they wanted to ignore Manning they could easily do so I mean they ignore other great players in this league. Calvin Johnson is an amazing WR and nobody really talks about him much he's well behaved no diva antics and yet doesn't get the coverage a Dez Bryant would because you know he's going to say something stupid.

                    I mean look how quickly the media is ignoring Richard Sherman and yet a couple weeks ago you couldn't escape the guy because of an outburst. Now he says the PC things and well its just boring to them. Even if he had won the last 2 SBs it would be well can he win another? That's the next storyline.

                    Nobody asks Brady if he can win another to secure his legacy? He's a 6th round draft pick that has 3 rings he pretty much gets a pass for life no matter what happens.

                    The media revels in failure and high drama not much else Manning's career is high drama and failure to them nobody else registers.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                      Nobody asks Brady if he can win another to secure his legacy? He's a 6th round draft pick that has 3 rings he pretty much gets a pass for life no matter what happens.
                      PULL-EEASE.

                      They ask him why he hasn't won't $^#% since spygate and if all three of his rings should be ignored by everyone.

                      Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk ask hijm to admit that they were robbed (like the Rams offense and special teams were shut down by tapes of defensive signals... really?)

                      They call him a system quarterback and ask him why the Giants "dominated" him in two super bowls, as if domination somehow involved securing a win in the final seconds.

                      They ask him why he is 6-6 in playoff games since 2007, as if the 12-2 record before that should never be brought up.

                      Then he just smiles, credits his teammates, talks about how hard it is be match up with such gifted opponents, and says he loves playing football and feels thankful for the opportunity.

                      Then they label him an arrogant smug pretty boy who can't carry Peyton's jock.
                      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: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                        Nobody is calling Brady a choker for not winning the last two SB's though and its laughable if you think Brady is judged worse than Manning.

                        Not even in the same stadium.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                          The player who is judged worse is the player who most recently (in the media's eyes) failed to deliver.

                          They would be crowning Peyton as the Sports God of all Earth if Denver won, and they bash him endlessly now that Denver lost.

                          If Brady had played Sunday, those two same scenarios would have been there to play themselves out the same way.
                          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: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            The player who is judged worse is the player who most recently (in the media's eyes) failed to deliver.

                            They would be crowning Peyton as the Sports God of all Earth if Denver won, and they bash him endlessly now that Denver lost.

                            If Brady had played Sunday, those two same scenarios would have been there to play themselves out the same way.

                            Brady was never called a choking loser for those SB losses Manning is labeled to be a loser no matter when he lost the playoffs even with a team that wasn't great. He was blamed for the Jets loss in his last game as a Colt even though he put them in a position to win.

                            That never happened with Brady. They aren't judged the same which is why I find it laughable that anyone thinks they are.

                            And even if the Broncos won they would talk about how Manning would need to win another

                            Just like when the Colts beat the Bears in the SB.

                            Nobody is saying Brady's career needs to be validated with another SB.
                            Last edited by Basketball Fan; 02-05-2014, 11:39 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Brady was never called a choking loser for those SB losses Manning is labeled to be a loser no matter when he lost the playoffs even with a team that wasn't great. He was blamed for the Jets loss in his last game as a Colt even though he put them in a position to win.

                              That never happened with Brady. They aren't judged the same which is why I find it laughable that anyone thinks they are.

                              And even if the Broncos won they would talk about how Manning would need to win another

                              Just like when the Colts beat the Bears in the SB.

                              Nobody is saying Brady's career needs to be validated with another SB.
                              Brady laid out a fairly solid career reputation early on with his performances. That buys you a lot of benefit of the doubt. And I don't recall any SB drubbings either. And the fact is, Brady's rep has been hurt a little over the years with the SB drought.
                              But mainly you're comparing apples and oranges here.

                              IMHO Manning gets rattled in big games. That's the whole key to beating him and wrecking the offense. Let the pressure of the situation be your 12th defender and go after him with a plan to rattle him and he'll do the rest. Keep him out of a rhythm. You could see it in his eyes and body language rather quickly that Seattle had him rattled. And then the entire Bronco team fell apart. Where other QB's might be able to notch it back a gear and play it safe (or have an OC to do that for them) to find themselves, Manning can just spin the game right out of control for you as he pushes it. All that 'Hurry Hurry Omaha Omaha' stuff starts biting him (and the team) in the a$$.

                              This stuff is easy to admit now that he's not a Colt any longer. He has that reputation because it's true....
                              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: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                Brady laid out a fairly solid career reputation early on with his performances. That buys you a lot of benefit of the doubt. And I don't recall any SB drubbings either. And the fact is, Brady's rep has been hurt a little over the years with the SB drought.
                                But mainly you're comparing apples and oranges here.

                                IMHO Manning gets rattled in big games. That's the whole key to beating him and wrecking the offense. Let the pressure of the situation be your 12th defender and go after him with a plan to rattle him and he'll do the rest. Keep him out of a rhythm. You could see it in his eyes and body language rather quickly that Seattle had him rattled. And then the entire Bronco team fell apart. Where other QB's might be able to notch it back a gear and play it safe (or have an OC to do that for them) to find themselves, Manning can just spin the game right out of control for you as he pushes it. All that 'Hurry Hurry Omaha Omaha' stuff starts biting him (and the team) in the a$$.

                                This stuff is easy to admit now that he's not a Colt any longer. He has that reputation because it's true....
                                They are still SB losses where they were favored to win the score doesn't really matter beyond that.

                                Except you could say Brady didn't have a lot to do with the Pats success in those SBs I mean he's a better QB now than when he actually won those championships
                                people forget that the Pats had a great defense and once those guys retired or left the team they weren't the same. As soon as it became Brady centric the team had the same playoff results that the Colts did. Offenses don't go very far when they meet a defense that hits them in the mouth(like the Giants in both SBs)

                                My point is if Brady is so much better than Manning then he should be called a failure if he can't get it done either. He's not. Manning is but if he's the inferior QB then just say so and focus on the one that they think is superior and make sure he's held to that high standard. They don't.

                                So if people are going to claim he shouldn't be in the GOAT conversation then don't talk about him needing to win (insert game) to be in that conversation to validate his career because he shouldn't be in the conversation to begin with right?

                                Since he's a loser after all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X