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

Super Bowl Thread

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

  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

    The fact that the Colts actually beat this Seattle team has me so hyped about how future. T.Y. Hilton abused Sherman.

    We are very very very close. If we can just stay more healthy next year then I think we will have a very legitimate chance at getting to the Super Bowl.

    Anyway you slice it, the future is bright. Peyton and Brady will be long retired when Luck is in the prime of his career and I just don't see many big up and coming teams in the AFC. Thank God we wouldn't have to face the likes of Seattle and San Francisco until the Super Bowl.

    Comment


    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Irsay has got to be feeling pretty vindicated right now.
      Pinball numbers led to nothing but a crushing big game defeat to a team that plays defense and more balanced.
      Passing on Luck to keep Manning would have only been worth it if we actually won another Super Bowl with Manning. Getting to the Super Bowl wouldn't have even been enough to justify it. It's obviously impossible to have a crystal ball, but Irsay made the gamble that we wouldn't win another one with Manning. So far it obviously looks like the correct gamble. Even with the draft picks that we could have gotten for Luck, it's hard to believe that we could have built a better team than the loaded Broncos. So yeah, it's pretty safe to say that we wouldn't have won the Super Bowl in either of the last two years if we had kept Manning.

      There's no doubt that many Colts fans would have wondered "what if" if the Broncos won this game last night, but him just getting to the Super Bowl isn't enough for me to regret getting rid of him. I wasn't going to regret it unless he won it, which I thought would happen going into yesterday. I'm shocked at how pathetic the Broncos were.

      Comment


      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

        Originally posted by pogi View Post
        Are you kidding me?!? I, and I guarantee many others, consider the Scott Norwood field goal miss one of the biggest choke jobs in Super bowl history!



        That's cause Marino didn't go into the playoffs always having the #1 offense. Peyton did, numerous times...and then would get out-played. Sometimes by scrub QBs. Also, what's the one thing that Peyton is known for in big games....he easily gets rattled and will throw an interception, usually, at the most critical times.
        Jim Kelly was never blamed for the loss(or any of the others) though Manning would've been. Hell he was when Vanderjagt missed the FG against the Dolphins years ago.

        Marino wasn't trashed as much and he only made the SB once

        Manning made it 3 times and won 1 that's more than Marino and Kelly have yet they don't get the "choking" label. I mean when you win a championship shouldn't that title not be attached to you?

        At least with LeBron he had it till he left Cleveland and went to Miami and won a couple of titles nobody is saying he's a "choker" now but Manning still is?

        Not to say he hasn't played badly because he has but people act as if some of the teams he's been up against weren't legitimately talented and were the better team(Pats, Seahawks)

        If you haven't noticed offenses don't won't championships regular season games sure but that's about it.

        Defense matters it always has that's what the Colts need more than anything.
        Last edited by Basketball Fan; 02-03-2014, 10:36 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          Jim Kelly was never blamed for the loss(or any of the others) though Manning would've been. Hell he was when Vanderjagt missed the FG against the Dolphins years ago.

          Marino wasn't trashed as much and he only made the SB once

          Manning made it 3 times and won 1 that's more than Marino and Kelly have yet they don't get the "choking" label. I mean when you win a championship shouldn't that title not be attached to you?

          At least with LeBron he had it till he left Cleveland and went to Miami and won a couple of titles nobody is saying he's a "choker" now but Manning still is?

          Not to say he hasn't played badly because he has but people act as if some of the teams he's been up against weren't legitimately talented and were the better team(Pats, Seahawks)

          But I'd say that most people have Manning above Marino at this point, and he's obviously way above Jim Kelly. People are analyzing Peyton through the prism of being the very very very best because of his historic talent and incredible career longevity. He just hasn't quite lived up to being considered the very best in the game's history. He's had plenty of opportunities by now.

          Was Seattle a better team than Denver? Sure, but they should not have been better on a 43-8 margin.

          Comment


          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

            If Seattle wasn't in the NFC West they would have had the best record in NFL and be considered one of the greatest teams of all time. With the Cardinals and 49ers it is hard to be dominant.

            Ugliest Super Bowl game ever. Worse than the Cowboys and Bills.

            Comment


            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              But I'd say that most people have Manning above Marino at this point, and he's obviously way above Jim Kelly. People are analyzing Peyton through the prism of being the very very very best because of his historic talent and incredible career longevity. He just hasn't quite lived up to being considered the very best in the game's history. He's had plenty of opportunities by now.

              Was Seattle a better team than Denver? Sure, but they should not have been better on a 43-8 margin.
              I guess my point is if people don't think Manning is the GOAT that's fine but stop putting him in that conversation to begin with but people/media don't. They claimed that was going to happen in the last SB loss except it didn't. They have to keep this narrative going because you know they actually have to talk sports on a logical level and we can't have that.

              Yes the score was the only surprise I expected it to be closer but that's about it. However when the #1 offense goes against the #1 defense it usually ends badly the only real close one was the Giants/Bills which ended with a missed FG.

              The Raiders had the #1 offense, MVP Rich Gannon played the worst game of the season against the Bucs and it was a disaster the Raiders never really recovered after that.

              Then again neither did Tampa Bay. This game was a lot like that.

              Comment


              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                I have never liked the word choke in a team game. I think its a terrible way to treat an individual in a team game, unless it is so obvious, which is rare in pro sports.

                Manning had a good game, it just didn't translate to points. The O-line didn't protect. The Denver defense couldn't stop anything. The special teams done the worst thing that could have happened starting the second half. The center done the worst thing that could have happened on the first snap of the game. To think that Manning done it again is crap. Was he truthfully suppose to bail out his whole team. The team blew up for whatever reason and if Manning would have scored 4 TD's it wouldn't had been enough to overcome the Denver mistakes.

                I personally think the Seahawks was just to fast for the Broncos. They are young and was blitzin to the ball wherever it was going.
                Last edited by Pacer Fan; 02-03-2014, 05:47 PM.
                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                Comment


                • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                  Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                  If Seattle wasn't in the NFC West they would have had the best record in NFL and be considered one of the greatest teams of all time. With the Cardinals and 49ers it is hard to be dominant.

                  Ugliest Super Bowl game ever. Worse than the Cowboys and Bills.

                  I feel kind of sorry for Bruce Arians and the Cardinals. He did a phenomenal job of coaching there this season and got great results, but it's just going to be so damn hard to get into the playoffs when you have to play four games against Seattle and San Francisco. They went 1-3 against them this year.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                    I guess my point is if people don't think Manning is the GOAT that's fine but stop putting him in that conversation to begin with but people/media don't. They claimed that was going to happen in the last SB loss except it didn't. They have to keep this narrative going because you know they actually have to talk sports on a logical level and we can't have that.

                    Yes the score was the only surprise I expected it to be closer but that's about it. However when the #1 offense goes against the #1 defense it usually ends badly the only real close one was the Giants/Bills which ended with a missed FG.

                    The Raiders had the #1 offense, MVP Rich Gannon played the worst game of the season against the Bucs and it was a disaster the Raiders never really recovered after that.

                    Then again neither did Tampa Bay. This game was a lot like that.

                    Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                    If Seattle wasn't in the NFC West they would have had the best record in NFL and be considered one of the greatest teams of all time. With the Cardinals and 49ers it is hard to be dominant.

                    Ugliest Super Bowl game ever. Worse than the Cowboys and Bills.
                    No that would be Super Bowl between the Niners/Broncos that was 55-10 and the worst I've ever seen. Not sure I consider Seattle one of the more historic teams in NFL history they might very well be when all is said and done. Its weird that the best team in the league all season actually won the whole thing that hasn't happened since the 2003 Patriots. Of course that SB was way better even if it got upstaged by Janet's boob.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                      Mike and Mike sort of summarized the relevance of the criticism of Manning.

                      Imagine the football hall of fame, packed with great players. Imagine a much smaller room there, just for the greatest of the great players. Manning is in that room. Criticism of his postseason issues really amount to where to arrange his plaque in that room of only the best of the best. Who has the higher pedestal, of the few QBs on a pedestal in that room.

                      You say that Jim Kelly maybe escapes blame in the analysis? Maybe it is because he is nowhere near that room.

                      I keep hearing a few people say that since he is being heavily scrutinized that he must suck. That he's Dilfer. Brad Johnson. But... those guys are not in the room, not in the building, not on the grounds, and not even in the same zip code.
                      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: Super Bowl Thread

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        Mike and Mike sort of summarized the relevance of the criticism of Manning.

                        Imagine the football hall of fame, packed with great players. Imagine a much smaller room there, just for the greatest of the great players. Manning is in that room. Criticism of his postseason issues really amount to where to arrange his plaque in that room of only the best of the best. Who has the higher pedestal, of the few QBs on a pedestal in that room.

                        You say that Jim Kelly maybe escapes blame in the analysis? Maybe it is because he is nowhere near that room.

                        I keep hearing a few people say that since he is being heavily scrutinized that he must suck. That he's Dilfer. Brad Johnson. But... those guys are not in the room, not in the building, not on the grounds, and not even in the same zip code.
                        Except it reeks of hypocrisy rings matter but they only matter if you are an elite QB but if you are Dilfer and Johnson they don't? So how important are rings? I mean Namath having a ring IMO is why he's even in the HOF even though he's beyond overrated. Bradshaw has 4 rings but he's not considered the GOAT but Montana is?

                        Jim Kelly was a great QB not as great as Marino but he wasn't a scrub either I mean the Bills still haven't recovered. Its one thing to criticize its the inconsistency of it all that bothers me.

                        If people don't think Manning is a great QB fine just say so and don't talk about him amongst the greats and then complain when he doesn't play well I mean if he's not great why is it an issue now? He's not the "GOAT" he wasn't even going to be even if the Broncos won last night. You can make the argument he's not even the best QB in either of those franchises.

                        All it would've meant is that he'd be the first QB to win rings on two different teams as the starter nothing more nothing less.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          Except it reeks of hypocrisy rings matter but they only matter if you are an elite QB but if you are Dilfer and Johnson they don't? So how important are rings? I mean Namath having a ring IMO is why he's even in the HOF even though he's beyond overrated. Bradshaw has 4 rings but he's not considered the GOAT but Montana is?

                          Jim Kelly was a great QB not as great as Marino but he wasn't a scrub either I mean the Bills still haven't recovered. Its one thing to criticize its the inconsistency of it all that bothers me.

                          If people don't think Manning is a great QB fine just say so and don't talk about him amongst the greats and then complain when he doesn't play well I mean if he's not great why is it an issue now? He's not the "GOAT" he wasn't even going to be even if the Broncos won last night. You can make the argument he's not even the best QB in either of those franchises.

                          All it would've meant is that he'd be the first QB to win rings on two different teams as the starter nothing more nothing less.
                          As far as Bradshaw vs. Montana is concerned: Montana with 4 Super Bowls and great career stats > Bradshaw with 4 Super Bowls and ugly career stats. That's why there is no debate there.

                          The reason that people talk about Peyton's place among the greats is because 1) He is one of the all time greats, and 2) He has had multiple opportunities to substantially elevate his achievements and historical place amongst the all-time greats.

                          It was impossible for talking heads to ignore what winning this Super Bowl would have met for Manning's legacy. Had he won last night, even the biggest Manning hater on the planet would have had to re-evaluate where they placed him amongst the greats. He would have won two Super Bowls 7 years apart, would have been the second oldest SB wining QB in NFL history, would have won a ring with two different franchises, and would have a victory against a super elite defense. Most importantly, he would have completed the greatest QB season of all time with the 55 TD's, single season yards record, 5th MVP, AFC title over the Pats, and Super Bowl Championship.

                          He had a golden opportunity to really pad his resume and deliver some major ammo in any best of the best debate. Even those who don't like Manning would have had to give him some major props if he won last night. There was just too much at stake here for talking heads to ignore it. The best are judged by how they play in the biggest moments. Since winning his first ring, Peyton has had two big opportunities to get that second ring and really elevate his place amongst the all time greats. He just hasn't delivered. This isn't just goofy talking heads babbling. This is real concrete stuff that you really can't ignore at this point.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-03-2014, 11:52 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            As far as Bradshaw vs. Montana is concerned: Montana with 4 Super Bowls and great career stats > Bradshaw with 4 Super Bowls and ugly career stats. That's why there is no debate there.

                            The reason that people talk about Peyton's place among the greats is because 1) He is one of the all time greats, and 2) He has had multiple opportunities to substantially elevate his achievements and historical place amongst the all-time greats.

                            It was impossible for talking heads to ignore what winning this Super Bowl would have met for Manning's legacy. Had he won last night, even the biggest Manning hater on the planet would have had to re-evaluate where they placed him amongst the greats. He would have won two Super Bowls in his career 7 years apart, would have been the second oldest SB wining QB in NFL history, would have won a ring with two different franchises, would have a victory against a super elite defense. Most importantly, he would have completed the greatest QB season of all time with the 55 TD's, single season yards record, 5th MVP, AFC title over the Pats, and Super Bowl Championship.

                            He had a golden opportunity to really pad his resume and deliver some major ammo in any best of the best debate. Even those who don't like Manning would have had to give him some major props if he won last night. There was just too much at stake here for talking heads to ignore it. The best are judged by how they play in the biggest moments. Since winning his first ring, Peyton has had two big opportunities to get that second ring and really elevate his place amongst the all time greats. He just hasn't delivered. This isn't just goofy talking heads babbling. This is real concrete stuff that you really can't ignore at this point.

                            Except they wouldn't because they don't like Manning and that's fine but my point is there's no objectivity to these GOAT discussions because everyone has different opinions as to who is the GOAT vs who isn't.

                            Are you basing it on pure passing ability? Marino or Unitas would be the GOAT

                            Rings? Montana or Bradshaw

                            Rings and Stats? Montana or Brady


                            Winning another ring wouldn't have changed anything they would've come up with some other narrative of how he needs a third ring to be in the Montana conversation. I mean we thought him getting a ring at all would've stopped this talk but instead it gets worse.

                            People can think what they want but I just find it rather inconsistent to put him in the conversation as the GOAT even though they see him as nothing but a "great regular season QB" (which is a worthless label).

                            Here's a thought: Don't even talk about him as a possible GOAT if that's what you think and then get upset when he doesn't win the SB. After all he's just a great regular season QB so why say he's so great when you don't think he really is?!

                            Surely there are other QB's one can talk about in his place right?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Jim Kelly was never blamed for the loss(or any of the others) though Manning would've been. Hell he was when Vanderjagt missed the FG against the Dolphins years ago.

                              Marino wasn't trashed as much and he only made the SB once

                              Manning made it 3 times and won 1 that's more than Marino and Kelly have yet they don't get the "choking" label. I mean when you win a championship shouldn't that title not be attached to you?

                              At least with LeBron he had it till he left Cleveland and went to Miami and won a couple of titles nobody is saying he's a "choker" now but Manning still is?

                              Not to say he hasn't played badly because he has but people act as if some of the teams he's been up against weren't legitimately talented and were the better team(Pats, Seahawks)

                              If you haven't noticed offenses don't won't championships regular season games sure but that's about it.

                              Defense matters it always has that's what the Colts need more than anything.
                              I understand what you're saying; but, like Sollozo, many people have Peyton above alot of these QBs. And like LeBron was put on a pedestal the minute he set foot in the league. He wasn't hyped from day 1 to just be good, he was hyped from day 1 to be one of the greatest ever.

                              Try looking at it through the eyes of an average fan, a Peyton-hater, or just some shlub that knows a little about NFL. Now, unlike most of us that live in Indy, there are alot of people that only see Peyton play when he plays their team, or during playoffs and superbowl, which are broadcasted nationally. Now think about how much hype he's gotten with the commercials, the sports networks, being one of the highest paid player ever, ets..ets.. They maybe didn't see one regular season game, or possibly only one, then it's the playoffs and here is this, supposedly, football god that alot of people are hyping up so much, finally get to watch him and in one year he's getting blown out 41-0, another year some backup QB is putting up better stats then him and winning on top of it. He's gotten beat by inferior teams and was one and done on numerous occasions. All three super bowls he's looked average or subpar, yet, because of the running game and the opponents having a QB that looked even worse than he did....he at least won one. I can honestly see why alot of people have him a choker.

                              Also, if you noticed that after Labron won that second title, more of the talk was about him leaving for Cleveland than he being a choker. I mean, you're still going to have people talk smack...that happens with just about any player.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                                Originally posted by pogi View Post
                                I understand what you're saying; but, like Sollozo, many people have Peyton above alot of these QBs. And like LeBron was put on a pedestal the minute he set foot in the league. He wasn't hyped from day 1 to just be good, he was hyped from day 1 to be one of the greatest ever.

                                Try looking at it through the eyes of an average fan, a Peyton-hater, or just some shlub that knows a little about NFL. Now, unlike most of us that live in Indy, there are alot of people that only see Peyton play when he plays their team, or during playoffs and superbowl, which are broadcasted nationally. Now think about how much hype he's gotten with the commercials, the sports networks, being one of the highest paid player ever, ets..ets.. They maybe didn't see one regular season game, or possibly only one, then it's the playoffs and here is this, supposedly, football god that alot of people are hyping up so much, finally get to watch him and in one year he's getting blown out 41-0, another year some backup QB is putting up better stats then him and winning on top of it. He's gotten beat by inferior teams and was one and done on numerous occasions. All three super bowls he's looked average or subpar, yet, because of the running game and the opponents having a QB that looked even worse than he did....he at least won one. I can honestly see why alot of people have him a choker.

                                Also, if you noticed that after Labron won that second title, more of the talk was about him leaving for Cleveland than he being a choker. I mean, you're still going to have people talk smack...that happens with just about any player.

                                They hyped up Dan Marino as well along with various other athletes but again if Manning isn't as great as they think he is because he comes up short why mention he's great to begin with? I mean he's not that great after all now is he? Mention those who are.

                                But then there's no story because its all about the drama. People flock to tragedy rather than a storybook ending. Its like the Red Sox and their 86 years of futility that they were able to milk for decades until they won a title (and two more after that) now they're just like every other team.

                                The Cubs are still a never ending tragedy.

                                And yes people think LeBron was a choker yeah they thought he was a douche for how he left Cleveland and he was criticized for joining a stacked team. He had to do it on his own(even though teams actually win championships)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X