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

  • #46
    Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

    Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
    The record talk angers me. Dungy is regarded as one of the greatest coaches ever and his record is 9-10 in postseason
    Record by itself is only part of the perception IMO. For example, in the 15 games between Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, I believe it is true that the favored team, by point spread, won all 15 times. Thus I think it has been a series of pretty much holding serve. If you have the better overall team, you win.

    The thing that does stick in the back of people's minds, though it is never really spelled out, in the other playoff disappointments is that in the eight Manning one-and-ones, seven were as favorites (only in the 41-0 Jets loss were they underdogs). So the losses came regularly and when they were not expected. PM also has had 50-some come-from-behind game winning drives in the regular season, and only one in the postseason.

    Here is a so-so column that goes over the one-and-dones and discusses the degree to which any poor plays by Peyton were involved in any of those losses. The data shows that almost always the losses had very little to do with him making mistakes. The author seems to draw a curious conclusion, though, which is why I said it's a so-so article. He twisted it to his agenda IMO and argued that in the postseason PM doesn't make mistakes but he is also too worried about making mistakes that he is hesitant to take chances to make the spectacular plays that seem to come so easily in the regular season. I don't buy his conclusions at all, in other words, but it is a nice summary of those 8 games and establishing whether it was 0% on PM of 100% on PM. It seems a lot closer to 0% to me.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013...ne-dones-fault
    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


    • #47
      Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

      Yeah, the Vandershank was hideous, but history has put waaaaaaaay too much emphasis on that miss. For starters, the Steelers' defense completely owned the Colts throughout that game. Then the Colts were gift-wrapped an overturned Polamalalalaoulalou interception that the NFL later admitted was a mistake. At the end of the game, you had the surreal Bettis fumble on the endzone which gave the Colts a miraculous opportunity, but IIRC, Manning tried a few too many hero balls which set up Vandy for a 46 yarder, which certainly wasn't a chip shot. We should have went to Edge way more throughout that game, which sadly was his last as a Colt. The shank was an inexcusable miss for a quality NFL kicker, but it never should have come out to that. That game was lost because their defense got the best of our offense.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

        Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
        So many games could have been won if it wasn't for bad luck. Games like 2003 AFC title where the Colts were rigged by a non holding call on the NE defense, 2005 Divisional where our liquored up kicker missed a FG, 2007 where Marvin fumbled, 2008 wild card where the defense couldn't stop Sproles, SB XLIV where Baskett doesn't know how to catch, and unfortunate end in 2010 to the Jets
        true, bad luck /bad calls play a huge roll. Like in the 2006 AFC title game where the league officials later admitted that a game-changing pass interference call on on Ellis Hobbs was completely bogus.

        http://blogs.providencejournal.com/s...l-our-bad.html

        Then there was other cases: a helmet catch, a Welker drop, a Gronk high ankle sprain, etc. A yes, good luck many occasions too. I have always thought that the Patriots #1, #3, and #5-best teams in terms of talent (2004, 2003, 2001) won Super Bowls, and #2, #4 , #6, #7, and #8 did not (2007, 2011, 2006, 2012, 2013).

        Does anyone think that the 2006 Colts was their best team of that decade?

        NFL's "our bad" for the Hobbs call:

        The NFL has admitted that it was wrong when Patriots’ cornerback Ellis Hobbs was flagged for defensive pass interference on Reggie Wayne in New England’s AFC Championship loss to Indianapolis last Sunday. The bad call ultimately led to the tying score for the Colts, who advanced to the Super Bowl with a 38-34 victory.

        On the play -- second-and-7 from the Pats’ 19-yard line -- Hobbs was face-guarding Wayne in the back left corner of the end zone. The pass from Peyton Manning hit Hobbs on the back of his left arm, and after the game the second-year corner, who combined with Asante Samuel to give a great effort on Pro Bowlers Wayne and Marvin Harrison, said he never touched his man.


        But the flag was thrown, and pass interference is not one of the calls that coaches can challenge. Indy got first-and-goal from the one, and on the next play, Manning found wide-open former Patriot Dan Klecko for a touchdown. The Colts also converted a two-point play to tie the game, 21-21.


        On jaguars.com, the website of the Jacksonville Jaguars, league official Dean Blandino confirmed to reporter Vic Ketchman that it was a bad call. Blandino was in the replay booth at the RCA Dome and said Hobbs should not have been called for pass interference, citing that he did nothing to impede Wayne from catching the ball, and did not make contact with the receiver.


        Blandino said that face-guarding, which game referee Bill Carollo did not cite as the reason for the penalty, has not been illegal for several years.


        One Patriots player reached yesterday commented, "What can you do?," when told about the league’s admission.
        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


        • #49
          Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          If you have the better overall team, you win.
          I really don't understand why you keep directing your comments towards those of us who are defending PM, especially when you say the exact things we are saying just differently. I get that you think our assessment of what PacerDude said is wrong, but considering he hasn't clarified what he meant nor said we are wrong in our assessment of what he meant, I think the assessment is spot on.

          The above comment is exactly why only looking at the playoff record is worthless, when trying to judge one players particular performances.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            That game was lost because their defense got the best of our offense.
            That game was lost becuase Nick Harper's wife/girlfriend/whomever stabbed him in the leg a few days before the game. If he gets by Rothlesbergerbasdfnhkjasfbger - he's gone for 6.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

              If you have the better overall team, you win, in the Manning-Brady games.

              If you have the better overall team and you are Peyton Manning, and if you are playing anyone at all in the first round of the NFL playoffs, history shows that your team will most often lose.

              Why this is the case is mystifying and is the source of the debate. Sample size? Hard to get much bigger sample sizes than playing 22+ playoff games.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-30-2014, 12:11 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


              • #52
                Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                It's mystifying because the standard keeps moving around.

                How do you make the judgement that the Colts teams were better than their opponents? I'm assuming because they had the better record, but I also think you'd admit that teams with better records aren't necessarily the better team. Colts fans had been complaining for years that the Colts regular season records were a mirage, that their style of play wasn't conducive to winning playoff style football.

                A defense that can't stop the run, who gives up major yardage, and an offense that is one dimensional always struggles in the playoffs, regardless if the have PM behind center or not. It's a reason why I argued that maybe a better option with Luck was to take the lesser QB with the extra draft picks to build a more complete team.
                Last edited by Since86; 01-30-2014, 12:32 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                  Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                  That game was lost becuase Nick Harper's wife/girlfriend/whomever stabbed him in the leg a few days before the game. If he gets by Rothlesbergerbasdfnhkjasfbger - he's gone for 6.
                  If the game started on that one play, then I'd agree with you. But before that play, there was four quarters worth of the Steelers defense owning the Colts offense. It took a BOGUS overturned interception and an uncharacteristic flukey Bettis fumble for the Colts to even have a chance. It should have never gotten to a point where we blamed Harper's gimpy stick and Vandy's hideous shank. It took a couple of unbelievable breaks for the Colts to even have a chance, so the Harper and Vandershank happenings simply evened things out a bit.

                  If we would have somehow pulled that game out and went on to win the Super Bowl, it would have easily been one of the most tarnished championships in NFL history. That Polamalloualoualou overturned interception was one of the most bogus things ever and everyone would have been saying that the league was trying to fix the game so that Peyton would get a ring.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-30-2014, 01:01 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                    I think Peyton has choked, come up short, went for the hero ball, etc. too much in playoff games and that has impacted the playoff record and one and dones. BUT part of the reason that has happened was the tremendous amount of pressure that was put on Manning and the offense by IMHO an absolutely hideous team philosophy of utilizing an undersized, under-talented defense that was allegedly built for playing with the lead. But a symptom of that was it was NOT built to stop the run nor could it keep the other team from playing possession football and keep Manning on the bench. The philosophy was so bad and so tipped towards the idea they could play the pass and t off on the opposing QB that it became simple for opposing teams to simply take advantage of that defense. Even trailing on the scoreboard they didn't have to play the game the Colts wanted (and apparently expected). Opponents could simply stick with a possession type of game and smash the ball down the throat of the Colts and force the offense to be flawless due to their lack of possession time. And they could easily attack the flaws in that defensive system.

                    Of course the playoffs by their very nature mean you're playing the better teams in the game. Teams that can execute gameplans built to take advantage of your weaknesses. And when one weakness is a defense that by its design funnels the opposing offense into the perfect gameplan to beat your offense then things are pretty questionable with coaching and management. Meanwhile, their defense can focus on what it thinks it needs to do to force Manning into mistakes or take away his options. Just play as well as possible and hope for the pressure of the situation (forcing the Colts to work with limited time of possession) to cause mistakes in an offense that otherwise needs to be near perfect due to the situation.

                    So Manning came up short in the playoffs too much. But he had a lot of help with that and an arrogant FO that refused to address the real issues that led to that.
                    Last edited by Bball; 01-30-2014, 01:38 PM.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                      I just do not think you can blame most of these losses on Manning. They were just bad breaks as I have explained earlier.
                      Smothered Chicken!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                        Good writeup Bball.

                        The only thing I'd add is the underlying question. Do you blame Peyton for not being able to carry that much weight or do you blame the FO for putting that much weight on his shoulders? I blame the FO mostly. There are specific instances where we can point to and say that's all Peyton, but when the same thing happens over and over again, and the FO doesn't change anything structurally with the team, it starts being an issue about a bullheaded FO rather than an underperforming QB.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          If you have the better overall team, you win, in the Manning-Brady games.

                          If you have the better overall team and you are Peyton Manning, and if you are playing anyone at all in the first round of the NFL playoffs, history shows that your team will most often lose.

                          Why this is the case is mystifying and is the source of the debate. Sample size? Hard to get much bigger sample sizes than playing 22+ playoff games.
                          Well if that were the case then don't you think Brady could've beaten Lil Manning in one of those Super Bowls especially the first one... I mean the Patriots were the better team just not when it counted apparently. So Eli Manning must be better than Tom Brady eh?

                          Besides the last team that had the best record to win it all were the 2003 Patriots

                          2004 Steelers- Lost AFC Championship game
                          2005 Colts- Lost Divisional round
                          2006 Chargers- Lost Divisional Round
                          2007 Patriots- Lost SB
                          2008 Titans - Lost divisional round
                          2009- Colts- Lost SB
                          2010 Patriots- Lost divisional round
                          2011- Packers Lost Divisional Round
                          2012 Broncos- Lost Divisional Round

                          Now in 2013 Seattle and Denver are both with the same record. Its the rare case where the two best teams survived for the ultimate prize however it rarely happens in the NFL these days due to turnover and well a one and done format its not always the best team but who's good on that day.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                            People really seem to underscore the importance of Coaching in playoff success. How many one and dones were the result of the idiotic resting of starters. Or idiot coaching calling timeout for the other team.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Good writeup Bball.

                              The only thing I'd add is the underlying question. Do you blame Peyton for not being able to carry that much weight or do you blame the FO for putting that much weight on his shoulders? I blame the FO mostly. There are specific instances where we can point to and say that's all Peyton, but when the same thing happens over and over again, and the FO doesn't change anything structurally with the team, it starts being an issue about a bullheaded FO rather than an underperforming QB.

                              That's what I felt when I saw Andrew in the Pats game it felt like I was transported back in time yes we had injuries but these Patriots weren't exactly dominant either(although at home they seem to be)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                2004 Steelers- Lost AFC Championship game
                                2005 Colts- Lost Divisional round
                                2006 Chargers- Lost Divisional Round
                                2007 Patriots- Lost SB
                                2008 Titans - Lost divisional round
                                2009- Colts- Lost SB
                                2010 Patriots- Lost divisional round
                                2011- Packers Lost Divisional Round
                                2012 Broncos- Lost Divisional Round
                                Eight of those teams were consistently good. One of them was a bizarre one hit wonder. Yes, I'm talking about that 2008 Titans team that went 13-3 with Kerry Collins as their starting quarterback. They started out at 10-0 that year. That has to be the flukiest 13 win team in NFL history.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X