Tweet
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Denver is just on another level than any other team right now.
Denver is just on another level than any other team right now.
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.
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
-
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Aren't they always during the regular season?Originally posted by Sollozzo View PostThere are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Through Thursday night’s win over the Chargers, Manning has 67,098 career passing yards. That puts him 4,740 behind Favre’s all-time NFL record of 71,838.
Manning has averaged 315 yards a game as a Bronco, so if he keeps up that pace, he’ll break Favre’s record in 16 more games. Expect more celebrations of Manning’s greatness at this time next year.
Manning is also 594 completions away from Favre’s career record, meaning Manning will likely break that record in 2016. At least one of Favre’s records is safe, however: Favre has the all-time record for career interceptions, with 336. Manning, who has 222 interceptions in his career, is the active leader. If Manning keeps throwing interceptions at his Denver pace of about 10 for every 16 games, he’d need to play about 12 more years to top Favre’s interception record. That one seems safe.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ardage-record/
So Manning should break Favre's yardage record in 2015 and completions record in 2016. There's no way in hell he retires before getting those records as long as he continues to get a clean bill of health. He's going to want to put all three major passing records out of reach.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Yeah, and they're 1 for 2 on making the Super Bowl since Manning came. The first year they lost because of that ridiculous Hail Flacco.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
One thing is virtually guaranteed at this point: You're going to have to beat Denver in Denver if you want to make the Super Bowl.
This Denver team is better than last year. The offensive weapons are better than last year because of Sanders and the defense is vastly improved. None of this guarantees anything in a one and done format, but I'd be stunned beyond belief if they don't get the 1 seed.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
I love Peyton Manning. I think he's the greatest QB in history.Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
But he has one inherent flaw in his game that makes him susceptible to post-season failure ---- he plays at a constant level all year long. And that level is "extremely high". On the flip side of that coin... he doesn't necessarily "up his game" in the playoffs... because he can't. The way he plays in preseason game 1 is the same way he plays in the AFC Championship, and that is "the best that he can".
There's a problem with that --- Most other people don't operate that way. Most folks only give just enough, most of the time. Peyton Manning is giving 110% all the time. So it creates this illusion of an absolute gulf in performance during the beef of a schedule, like... now. It feels like there's just no way Denver will be stopped. It also shows in the fact that Peyton doesn't necessarily ramp his level of play up in the playoffs, because he's already at 110% going in. And that poses another problem --- it's Peyton Manning. People know. They prepare a little differently, go in a little more focused, and it puts more pressure on Manning and his team to execute. People play Denver as if they are the team to beat to get to the SB... they put more into it.
This is why the difference between Peyton and Eli is so interesting. Eli falls in that latter category. Eli is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum in terms of "playing up to the moment". Eli goes through huge swaths of time playing very mediocre ball... and it sometimes prevents his team from making the playoffs. Peyton's teams are are basically *guaranteed* to make the playoffs. But if Eli's team makes the playoffs with the right ingredients, all of a sudden you see a huge upswing in his on-field performance. Peyton just keeps on at his usual pace. This is why Eli has more rings. It doesn't mean Eli is the better overall quarterback.... it just means that as the stakes get higher, as the pressure builds, Eli actually catches up to and, imo, for a brief slice on the space-time continuum, exceeds Peyton in on-field results. Eli is an extreme example, because his post-season performance as he gets deeper in goes way, way, way up, far more than most people can match. It's amazing to me that two guys in the *same* family could have such opposite genetic make-up. I could go a lot farther with the differences... Eli is a lot more organic and goes by "feel", as opposed to Peyton's almost machine-like processing of a situation. I think Eli plays in a much more human way... most humans have flaws and make a lot of mistakes, and most humans get very emotional and actually use those emotions to impact their performance. Peyton.... his approach never changes... one bit. It is truly robotic.
If I had to choose a QB for games 1 through 17 or 18, I'd go Peyton. If I had to choose a QB to represent my franchise from a pure financial and marketing perspective --- it's Peyton. If I had to choose a QB in the SB --- it's Eli. And that is just bizarre to think about. But it's the reality of it, for me. Only in one situation, in one game... would I prefer to have Eli... but I would.
I love watching Peyton most of the time, although not as the post-season goes on... no other quarterback has had the impact on the league, the position, on offenses, and even on defenses as much as Peyton. But if you had to ask me which quarterback I wanted if I had my choice between Eli and Peyton in a SB.... I would have to consider Eli. And I think most people deep down probably understand and maybe even agree with it. Because Eli ups his game exponentially, whereas Peyton really doesn't up his game at all, he just keeps playing his excellent football. The problem is, he's now facing teams who have elevated their level of play considerably, who are playing extremely tight coverage on receivers, and Peyton can no longer sit back there and pick apart secondaries --- he starts getting harrassed by the pressure up front, at which point his effectiveness starts to go down dramatically. Eli, otoh, starts to find ways to make plays, even when his line is failing and his receivers are covered. There's no way in hell you'll see Peyton do this --- with one minute left in a Super Bowl that he's trailing in:
The Giants offense absolutely broke down on that play --- except Eli. No semblance of a pocket. Defenders penetrated, draped all over Eli. Receivers covered --- Eli threw into triple coverage. There was almost no hope on this play. For Peyton... that's a tragic sack. Or an INT. For Eli, he was simply beating arguably the greatest team to ever take the field and yet didn't win the SB. By all means, that should've been a NE win... but Eli happened. That wasn't regular season Eli... that was Super Bowl Eli. And this situation isn't unique to this... I know people IRL who operate the same way. I have a few colleagues who drive me crazy with their lackadaisicalness and inconsistency during lulls in the schedule, but when the project pressure builds, they become corporate rock stars and actually carry the project forward.
If you were to chart Peyton and Eli on a graph of on-field performance from 1 to 100 vs importance of the game as the season goes on.... Peyton's chart is flat all season long... at 99. Eli's chart is all over the place. Most of the time he's at 60-70... but as the post-season goes on, Eli's chart starts to go upwards, and by the SB, he's at 100, and even though Peyton was above him 98% of the season... for that one game, Eli is going top be 1% better.
And that's not just that position. It goes for all positions. Most folks ramp up their level of play in the post-season... offensive side of the ball and defensive side of the ball, but also the coaching. Everyone steps up their game. And this is why all of a sudden the big gulf between Peyton-led teams and the rest of the league during the regular season closes in the playoffs. And by the time you get to the final 4 teams, you really have 3 other teams that are likely going to pose huge problems for Denver. Because the combined elevation of those teams from their 50% effort in the regular season to the 100% their giving now exceeds Denver's 90% effort in the regular season to their 100% effort in the palyoffs. There just isn't much of an increase when it comes to Denver, because at the root of it all, every team has a limit. Denver just happens to play closer to that limit all year long, and other teams fudge around and don't really push themselves to that limit until later... at least the teams who "hit the playoffs hot" which imo, is really what it's all about. and this is why I sorta hated watching the Pacers "peak" early last year because this is exactly what happened to them. They were playing at a high level from the beginning, and other teams weren't... and it created a false sense. That gulf closed as the season went on and all of a sudden you had a handful of teams who hadn't expended a ton of energy.. hit the playoffs playing better ball, and the Pacers were gassed, they weren't able to increase their level of play, and other teams had.
This is also why I absolutely love having Luck.... because Luck has Peyton's ability to process things... but Eli's ability to up his game as the stakes increase.Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-24-2014, 11:49 AM.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Every QB is forever going to suffer in comparison to Joe Montana when the issue of elevation of play in the playoffs comes up. Joe went from 92.3 regular season passer rating to 95.6 in playoff games to 127.8 in Super Bowls, which is flat-out ridiculous, to IMPROVE so much. Rule changes have elevated average passer ratings in recent decades.
Peyton has gone from 97.9 regular season passer rating to 89.2 in playoff games to 81.0 in Super Bowls. That may SOUND alarming, but the level of competition is higher and most GREAT QBs have that degree of playoff drop. Super bowl rating is more random variation, likely due to sample size.
Marino 86.4 to 77.1 to 66.9 (one game)
Unitas 78.2 to 68.9 to 34.7 (2 games)
Kelly 84.4 to 72.3 to 56.9
Elway 79.9 to 79.7 to 59.3
Staubach 83.4 to 76.0 to 95.4
Tarkenton 80.4 to 58.6 to 43.7
Brady 95.8 to 87.5 to 93.8
Bradshaw 70.9 to 83.0 to 112.8 (the only other guy to go up and up, but look at where he started!)
Larger playoff passer rating drop than Manning, at 8.7:
Tarkenton 21.8, Marino 9.3, Unitas 9.3, Kelly 12.1,
Smaller: Elway 0.2, Staubach 7.4, Brady 8.3
So if Manning is a playoff choker, so are, to a GREATER extent, Tarkenton, Marino, Unitas, and Kelly.
Or maybe he just isn't, and to excel in playoff games is hard!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: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
No one who has been to the Super Bowl in 3 of his last 7 seasons is a choker. But he just hasn't played good enough in Super Bowls to be the very best ever, IMO. He's had two big chances to join the multi-ring club.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
I'm not really calling it choking. More of... his "dominance" is lessened the later into the post-season he gets, simply by his style of play. And Montana proves my point in that he and Eli both have that ability to make stuff happen in critical situations, even if everything around them is failing. Luck has this ability, also. I don't think Manning shows any change in his level of play from day 1 of training camp to the final minute of the AFC championship --- you watch him and he's playing at the exact same level. Manning doesn't play worse so-to-speak... it's just that everyone else plays better, and therefore he is no longer head-and-shoulders above everyone on the field.Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View PostLast edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-24-2014, 12:22 PM.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Yeah, I know you weren't labeling him that, KM, but many have (to be honest, including me at times). I didn't expect this much of a resurgence in his career, with a weaker arm, playing outdoors, and considering the principle that father time is undefeated.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: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Denver has beat Indy, San Diego, Arizona, San Francisco, and Kansas City. They played Seattle tight, and I feel they could have won the game had they not played so overly cautious at the start. Outside of the Jets, Denver's schedule has been absolutely wicked, yet they still look like the best team in the league.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
In your opinion does he become the best ever with another SB? I know Montana and his rings is not realistically obtainable at this point (considering how hard it is to get to, and win a SB) but given Manning's regular season numbers and dominance, does 2 SB's put him as the GOAT?Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
What about Brady? Obviously his numbers will never be what Manning's are, but he's still got great numbers. Does another SB make him the GOAT?Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
I'm too young to have seen Montana play (as are a lot of people who comment on this nowadays). I would put Montana and Brady above Manning now because they performed substantially better in the Super Bowl. If Manning wins a late career Super Bowl with Brady being idle, then yes I would rank him as the GOAT considering he should retire with every major passing record. I know that he still wouldn't have as many Super Bowls as Brady or Montana, but him winning a late career Super Bowl with a new team after career threatening injury would be one of the best sports stories ever.Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
Same with Brady.....if he won a late career Super Bow after winning those three early in his career, then yes he would probably be the GOAT considering his stats are pretty nuts too. If he wins either of those Giants Super Bowls (especially the first to cap the perfect season), he's probably the GOAT right now.
Right now, I'd go 1) Montana, 2) Brady, 3) PeytonLast edited by Sollozzo; 10-24-2014, 01:12 PM.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
I think Manning is the Greatest Ever anyway. No other QB has the sheer statistics, or has impacted how the league plays on both sides of the ball... as much as he has. That opinion is *including*, what I believe to be, a little lacking in the SB department. If he had another SB or two, I tihnk it just further makes it out of the question as to his historical significance.
I guess what I'm saying is... just because he didn't win a few more SBs, doesn't diminish the fact that he's, imo, the best QB of all time. Nobody is perfect. It's like saying Montana wasn't the best of all time because he didn't process things like Manning. You just can't win. There hasn't been a QB with the brain of Manning and the guts of Montana. I think Luck has a shot, though
There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
It's just hard for me to say that he is the best ever when he has been so mediocre on the game's biggest stage compared to a Brady or Montana. If you're going to be the very best in the history of such a storied position, I think you need to play better in the championship round.Comment
-
Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread
Ya, but I can't say they are the best ever just because they won a few more SBs, especially when they didn't necessarily do anything special to win it, they just had a good team (at least in Brady's case). And they definitely fall short in the regular-season department compared to Manning. That's why I say, week-to-week.... his consistent excellence.... his historical numbers... the way he carries himself and represents the league... and he *does* have 3 SB appearances and has won one... it all just adds up for me. There is no silver bullet winner of this debate, because *every* great QB has *something* that brings them down a bit.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
Comment