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

Andrew Luck!!!!

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

  • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    Peyton lost to some lousy "playoff" teams. A Miami team with Jay Fiedler as their QB, an 8-8 Charger team. I'm not saying we should've won more SB's, but we had too many one and done playoff runs
    In the NFL playoffs you only get one chance the best team doesn't always win but I don't get how anyone can blame Manning for that Miami game had Vanderjagt made that FG we would've won it. So would that been a good playoff win?

    Had Adam V missed all those SB FGs Brady would be ringless... I mean with this logic.

    Comment


    • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Let me ask, what metric can be used to argue that Manning is better?
      For just postseason? Comp%, total yards, ypg. Peyton throws less INTs per game. And I know at one point, PM had a better QBrating.

      I know all the arguments against using them.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        The fact that their playoff statistics are similar looks better for Brady. Think about it, Brady has played in three more Super Bowls and four more AFC Championship games. Those are presumably the most difficult of all playoff games.

        Brady has played in 24 playoff games. Of those 24 games, 7 have been the AFC championship game and 5 have been the Super Bowl. So half of Brady's playoff games have been either the AFCCC or Super Bowl. Manning has played in 20 playoff games. Of those 20, 3 of them have been AFC championship games and 2 of them have been Super Bowls. So 25% of his playoff games have either been the AFCCG or Super Bowl.

        Manning's numerous one and dones mean that the AFCCG and Super Bowl account for a relatively low percentage of his playoff games. OTOH, half of Brady's playoff games are either the AFCCG or Super Bowl. In essence, a far greater percentage of Brady's playoff games have been played against the super elite competition. Thus, the fact that their overall stats are similar is really a feather in Brady's cap as far as this debate is concerned. Brady has played in far more difficult games than Manning, yet has similar stats.
        That's an interesting point. I'm curious to see if the defensive rankings of the teams facing them support that. I'm using football outsiders weighted defensive rankings on this for two reasons: One, they go back to 1999 to let us get the full sample. Second is that it gradually puts more importance on how a defense is playing as a season goes along, so it will do a little better of a job accurately showing what a team's defense is like at playoff time than a general defensive ranking would.

        Manning Rank Brady Rank
        99 Titans 19 01 Raiders 17
        00 Dolphins 5 01 Steelers 12
        02 Jets 22 01 Rams 4
        03 Broncos 14 03 Titans 7
        03 Chiefs 31 03 Colts 15
        03 Patriots 2 03 Panthers 11
        04 Broncos 5 04 Colts 17
        04 Patriots 7 04 Steelers 2
        05 Steelers 5 04 Eagles 13
        06 Chiefs 25 05 Jaguars 16
        06 Ravens 1 05 Broncos 7
        06 Patriots 4 06 Jets 28
        06 Bears 2 06 Chargers 17
        07 Chargers 1 06 Colts 24
        08 Chargers 20 07 Jaguars 13
        09 Ravens 5 07 Chargers 1
        09 Jets 1 07 Giants 11
        09 Saints 23 09 Ravens 5
        10 Jets 4 10 Jets 4
        12 Ravens 22 11 Broncos 16
        11 Ravens 6
        11 Giants 22
        12 Texans 5
        12 Ravens 22
        Average 10.9 12.3
        Average Wild/Division 12.4 12.7
        Average AFC Title/Super 6.4 11.9
        So you appear to be correct on the general point that if you take two QB's and one of them has had a higher percentage of title games/Super Bowls on their resume, they would likely be facing harder defenses. But in this case, Manning has still had statistically the harder defenses to face. And the reason for that is actually quite simple: 3 times they faced each other, and Manning has had substantially the harder task in those games than Brady has. Throw those three games out and Brady has faced harder defenses overall (something like 11.3 to 12.1). But Manning would also likely have the clear edge statistically if you throw those particular three out.

        After looking at the numbers, I don't think the premise that Brady's offenses have faced harder defenses than Manning's in the playoffs has very much weight to it.

        Comment


        • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          For just postseason? Comp%, total yards, ypg. Peyton throws less INTs per game. And I know at one point, PM had a better QBrating.

          I know all the arguments against using them.
          But isn't it important to note that 50% of Brady's 24 playoff games have either been in the AFCCG (7) or Super Bowl (5), whereas only 25% of Peyton's 20 playoff games have been in those two games (3 AFCCG and 2 SB)? Brady has unquestionably faced tougher competition in his playoff career because his teams have routinely advanced further.

          Manning has a slightly better postseason completion percentage: PM 63.2, TB 62.3

          Brady has more total yards: PM 5679, TB 5949 (Brady has played more games).

          Manning has better YPG: PM: 283.95, TB 247.88

          Brady has slightly more touchdowns per game: PM 1.6, TB 1.75

          Manning has thrown more picks per game: PM 1.05, TB .92

          I don't know what the exact passer ratings are, but Fox has Manning at an 88 and Brady an 87.

          http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/...peyton-manning

          http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/...on&q=tom-brady

          There aren't many glaring differences in the overall stats. Brady is slightly better at some things while Manning is slightly better at others. But like I said, it's super important to note that a much higher percentage of Brady's playoff games have been played in either the AFCCG or Super Bowl. So while his overall stats are similar to Mannings, they are also "better" because of that fact, IMHO.

          Comment


          • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

            Team defense doesn't necessarily get better as the playoffs progress. Theoretically, I understand the arugment, but it just doesn't happen that way in reality.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

              Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
              That's an interesting point. I'm curious to see if the defensive rankings of the teams facing them support that. I'm using football outsiders weighted defensive rankings on this for two reasons: One, they go back to 1999 to let us get the full sample. Second is that it gradually puts more importance on how a defense is playing as a season goes along, so it will do a little better of a job accurately showing what a team's defense is like at playoff time than a general defensive ranking would.

              Manning Rank Brady Rank
              99 Titans 19 01 Raiders 17
              00 Dolphins 5 01 Steelers 12
              02 Jets 22 01 Rams 4
              03 Broncos 14 03 Titans 7
              03 Chiefs 31 03 Colts 15
              03 Patriots 2 03 Panthers 11
              04 Broncos 5 04 Colts 17
              04 Patriots 7 04 Steelers 2
              05 Steelers 5 04 Eagles 13
              06 Chiefs 25 05 Jaguars 16
              06 Ravens 1 05 Broncos 7
              06 Patriots 4 06 Jets 28
              06 Bears 2 06 Chargers 17
              07 Chargers 1 06 Colts 24
              08 Chargers 20 07 Jaguars 13
              09 Ravens 5 07 Chargers 1
              09 Jets 1 07 Giants 11
              09 Saints 23 09 Ravens 5
              10 Jets 4 10 Jets 4
              12 Ravens 22 11 Broncos 16
              11 Ravens 6
              11 Giants 22
              12 Texans 5
              12 Ravens 22
              Average 10.9 12.3
              Average Wild/Division 12.4 12.7
              Average AFC Title/Super 6.4 11.9
              So you appear to be correct on the general point that if you take two QB's and one of them has had a higher percentage of title games/Super Bowls on their resume, they would likely be facing harder defenses. But in this case, Manning has still had statistically the harder defenses to face. And the reason for that is actually quite simple: 3 times they faced each other, and Manning has had substantially the harder task in those games than Brady has. Throw those three games out and Brady has faced harder defenses overall (something like 11.3 to 12.1). But Manning would also likely have the clear edge statistically if you throw those particular three out.

              After looking at the numbers, I don't think the premise that Brady's offenses have faced harder defenses than Manning's in the playoffs has very much weight to it.
              Thanks for running the numbers. That's an interesting chart.

              The rankings of the defenses certainly are valuable. But I don't think you can put a numerical value on the intensity of a conference championship game or Super Bowl. Obviously every playoff game is win or go home, but as a Colts fan I can certainly say that the three conference championship games and two Super Bowls that we played in felt far more intense than say a wildcard game against the Chargers, even though everything is at stake no matter what. I'm sure the players feel that way too.

              Also, these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt like everything else. For instance, the Ravens had the 22nd best defensive ranking last year, thanks in large part to the Lewis injury and other factors. But they were obviously way better than the 22nd best by the time the playoffs rolled around. That's not that big a deal as far as this debate is concerned because both Manning and Brady ran into them, but it shows that things can change once the playoffs roll around.

              Also, that Giants defensive that Brady lost to in the 2011 Super Bowl was also ranked 22nd best. But they were clearly playing way better than that in the playoffs. They held Atlanta to 2 points, 15-1 GB to 20, SF 17, and NE 17. Things change in the playoffs once teams get healthy and have a fire lit under their a**.

              Comment


              • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Thanks for running the numbers. That's an interesting chart.

                The rankings of the defenses certainly are valuable. But I don't think you can put a numerical value on the intensity of a conference championship game or Super Bowl. Obviously every playoff game is win or go home, but as a Colts fan I can certainly say that the three conference championship games and two Super Bowls that we played in felt far more intense than say a wildcard game against the Chargers, even though everything is at stake no matter what. I'm sure the players feel that way too.

                Also, these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt like everything else. For instance, the Ravens had the 22nd best defensive ranking last year, thanks in large part to the Lewis injury and other factors. But they were obviously way better than the 22nd best by the time the playoffs rolled around. That's not that big a deal as far as this debate is concerned because both Manning and Brady ran into them, but it shows that things can change once the playoffs roll around.

                Also, that Giants defensive that Brady lost to in the 2011 Super Bowl was also ranked 22nd best. But they were clearly playing way better than that in the playoffs. They held Atlanta to 2 points, 15-1 GB to 20, SF 17, and NE 17. Things change in the playoffs once teams get healthy and have a fire lit under their a**.
                I don't think you can put a numerical value on the intensity either, but I'm not sure there should be any bonus given because of that. One because it affects both teams so there's no great way to measure where it makes putting up good numbers easier or harder for a particular player, and also because as you said you're comparing it to another high intensity situation of other playoff games. We know that because it's the playoffs there's no situation where teams aren't pulling out the stops to try to win the game, so without evidence I'm not sure that just going from round to round will suppress statistical numbers across the board. But I'd be fascinated if somebody ever did the research on that.

                As for each individual ranking, I would agree that they get an incomplete snapshot of how teams defenses actually were in the playoffs, and there are a few on each side that I could point to that I feel need to have asterisks by them. Overall though, they are probably the best picture we have without going back and doing much more research on every individual team, injuries, etc.

                Comment


                • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                  Back when NE won their SBs, their defense was vicious. They played tough, grabby football (which really pissed Polian off ended up leading to the really beneficial rules we have now for receivers) and made it difficult to score. If Peyton had gotten a defense like that he would have won multiple SBs.

                  But at least we didn't cheat for our win.
                  Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                    Like I said, when you are one of the NFL's poster boy QB's you will largely be judged on your post season record. Not saying it is right in such a team sport as football, but it is what it is. A lot of public perception is that Peyton is a one and done QB. He didn't do himself any favors by that untimely interception last season in the playoffs. Pressure is on Manning big time right now. Maybe as much as it ever has been.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                      Like I said, when you are one of the NFL's poster boy QB's you will largely be judged on your post season record. Not saying it is right in such a team sport as football, but it is what it is. A lot of public perception is that Peyton is a one and done QB. He didn't do himself any favors by that untimely interception last season in the playoffs. Pressure is on Manning big time right now. Maybe as much as it ever has been.
                      He also didn't do himself any favors by having his defense inexplicably let Jacoby Jones behind them with the Ravens needing to go 70 yards in less than a minute.

                      Or by having John Fox inexplicably decide to kneel on the ball to go to overtime immediately following said touchdown.
                      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                      -Lance Stephenson

                      Comment


                      • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        He also didn't do himself any favors by having his defense inexplicably let Jacoby Jones behind them with the Ravens needing to go 70 yards in less than a minute.

                        Or by having John Fox inexplicably decide to kneel on the ball to go to overtime immediately following said touchdown.
                        But he also had two major favors with his Special Teams giving him 14 points off of returns.

                        That's just an NFL playoff game for ya, a mixture of good and bad breaks.

                        I agree that the Fox decision wasn't as much of a "bad break" as much as it was stupidity. He should have let Manning try to win the game there.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                          Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                          Like I said, when you are one of the NFL's poster boy QB's you will largely be judged on your post season record. Not saying it is right in such a team sport as football, but it is what it is. A lot of public perception is that Peyton is a one and done QB. He didn't do himself any favors by that untimely interception last season in the playoffs. Pressure is on Manning big time right now. Maybe as much as it ever has been.
                          Yeah sure and lets say he wins another SB this year then the same exact narrative will play out again the year after that... Not saying that there aren't expectations for him I mean if there weren't that would be surprising but the media needs their narrative and I wonder who they'll turn to after he retires...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            But he also had two major favors with his Special Teams giving him 14 points off of returns.

                            That's just an NFL playoff game for ya, a mixture of good and bad breaks.

                            I agree that the Fox decision wasn't as much of a "bad break" as much as it was stupidity. He should have let Manning try to win the game there.
                            I'm not sure Manning could 'win' the game there at the end.... With no evidence what-so-ever to back it up I am always going to believe Manning didn't have the arm to come out chucking it or go long at the end. Or at least Fox didn't trust he did and I don't think he would do that without some credible evidence to lead him to believe that.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                              Well if the Colts get eliminated or miss the playoffs and Manning is still alive I'm all in. Would love to see Peyton get another ring but not at the expense of the Colts.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                                The Playoffs are just an entirely different animal. The year we lost to the Chargers in OT at San Diego was just like all of the worst luck coming at you at once. I don't think we had Bob "Mr. Glass" Sanders in that game. Then something that never happens, happened, a punter was basically MVP of a football game.

                                Their punter had a career game for them. THEIR PUNTER. Scifers or something like that. Every punt he kicked was downed in our own 5-10 yard line. I remember one drive we had and things were going good then Marvin Harrison who was basically held out the last 8 games of the regular season and finally came back for this game, was catching a pass in the redzone or something and as soon as he got hit, he fumbled.

                                So yeah, the Chargers were 8-8 and we were probably the better team on paper, but that's just not how it works all the time.

                                To be honest I think Peyton has just had a lot of bad luck in the playoffs and teams that probably weren't even supposed to be there if it weren't for him. It'd be such a different story had Hank Baskett knew how to catch a football and we recovered the New Orleans Frauds onside kick. Might have kept momentum at our side just enough to squeeze out a win, even though by the end of halftime Freeney was useless because of his ankle. That Super Bowl loss was probably the toughest thing I have had to deal with as a fan. Didn't help the Frauds were immediately crowned America's team and we never heard the end of it.
                                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X