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

Tommie Harris cut by Colts

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

  • #91
    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    He has had TWO OUT OF NINE SEASONS substantially affected by injury. Clearly, by any objective measure, he is not injury prone. You are using a freak 2007 injury and a poorly timed 2009 injury to paint him as being injury prone. The fact is, he isn't. He has generally been healthy for his entire career here.
    Did you not read the Dallas quote? You know, the one where he say's that DFree plays through injuries when the doctors recommend that he probably shouldn't.......

    Whether your injured by an accident or because your body gave way doesn't matter. You're still injured.


    He's had more than two major injuries. His ankle, his quad, and his shoulder. All of those have been major injuries during his tenure.

    So right there is 3 major injuries in 9 seasons, or 33% of the time. How often do you need to have major injuries in order to fit the description?

    40%? 50%? 60%?

    I would like to know how many injuries need to occur, before one can be given the label. Is there a standard?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Did you not read the Dallas quote? You know, the one where he say's that DFree plays through injuries when the doctors recommend that he probably shouldn't.......

      Whether your injured by an accident or because your body gave way doesn't matter. You're still injured.


      He's had more than two major injuries. His ankle, his quad, and his shoulder. All of those have been major injuries during his tenure.

      So right there is 3 major injuries in 9 seasons, or 33% of the time. How often do you need to have major injuries in order to fit the description?

      40%? 50%? 60%?

      I would like to know how many injuries need to occur, before one can be given the label. Is there a standard?

      So 3 injuries in 9 years means that he's injured 33% of the time? That's faulty logic if I've ever seen it. Manning had a neck surgery before last season and played on a bum knee for the beginning of 08 (it affected him in 07 too) So does that mean Manning has been injured for like 21% of the time he's played here? Hardly.

      No one ever said that being injured in an accident isn't an injury. Clearly it is. The point is that you stated he was injury prone and then used links talking about the 07 injury to apparently (at least I took it that way) back your point up. The 2007 injury cannot be used to make the inference that he is injury prone. Clearly it was a bad injury, but it's not an injury caused by being injury prone. Freeney has been doing that spin move for 9 years and only once has someone stepped on his foot and jacked his foot up. Clearly it was a freak accident.

      Again, he has basically been completely healthy in 7 of his 9 seasons here. That is a good record. If that's an "injury prone" DE then I'll take it. What's a non injury-prone DE then? A guy who plays as aggressive as Freeney yet somehow goes a decade without ever getting hurt? Can you show me that player, because I don't think he exists.

      Show me where Freeney was substantially hurt in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010.

      You can call it whatever you want. Call it injury-prone if that's what floats your boat. Regardless of what you call it, the fact is he has been healthy in 7 of 9 seasons here.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

        I picked the wrong wording. I didn't mean he was injured 33% of the time. I'm struggling with the wording but basically he fights serious injuries once out of every 3 seasons, while still dealing with the normal wear and tear of the NFL.


        And he's not been completely healthy in 7 seasons. He was injured throughout 2006 and 2007, which is why his sack totals were so low. 9 sacks combined for those two years are lower than any other ONE season of sack totals.

        He's always fighting injuries. I mean I've already mentioned three major ones, in his ankle, shoulder, and quad.

        Those are ones that were serious, and not just the ticky-tacky everyone has pain injuries.

        And that was the point behind Dallas' quote. If Freeney would be like a "normal" player and miss time when a "normal" player would, he would have missed more time than he did. But he's not "normal" in that he plays through those injuries. Just because he actually played, doesn't suddenly make him healthy. It means he played injured. Which means he was injured.


        And once again, it doesn't matter if it was a freak accident. Shaun Livingston's knee injury was also a freak accident. The results are the same.

        I'm not calling him weak, or attacking the way he takes care of his body. Like I've already said, I have the utmost amount of respect for him being able to play through the injuries he does.

        But at the same time, we also discussed if an injured Freeney is better than a healthy backup for the SB game.

        If you don't personally want to call him injury prone, then fine. But the overall point still remains.

        A defense with it's two best players being healthy is a lot better than a defense with its two best players injured, whether they play through those injuries or not.

        True or false?
        Last edited by Since86; 09-08-2011, 12:08 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

          Here's an article from 2005 talking about how he'll miss time from offseason surgery. Surgery he needed to fix his shoulder problem that he played through during the 2004 season.

          So we can tack on 2004, to go along with 2006, 2007, and the postseason of 2009.

          Indianapolis Colts All-Pro defensive end Dwight Freeney was unable to pass the team's physical while attempting to recover from off-season surgery to repair a torn labrum in his left shoulder. The NFL's sack leader in 2004, Freeney was one of six Colts placed on the team's physically unable to perform list. It was especially impressive that he was able to lead the league in sacks, considering the fact that his shoulder was injured for much of last season.
          http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/colts/861

          And I'm not even digging all that hard.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I picked the wrong wording. I didn't mean he was injured 33% of the time. I'm struggling with the wording but basically he fights serious injuries once out of every 3 seasons, while still dealing with the normal wear and tear of the NFL.


            And he's not been completely healthy in 7 seasons. He was injured throughout 2006 and 2007, which is why his sack totals were so low. 9 sacks combined for those two years are lower than any other ONE season of sack totals.

            He's always fighting injuries. I mean I've already mentioned three major ones, in his ankle, shoulder, and quad.

            Those are ones that were serious, and not just the ticky-tacky everyone has pain injuries.



            And once again, it doesn't matter if it was a freak accident. Shaun Livingston's knee injury was also a freak accident. The results are the same.

            I'm not calling him weak, or attacking the way he takes care of his body. Like I've already said, I have the utmost amount of respect for him being able to play through the injuries he does.

            But at the same time, we also discussed if an injured Freeney is better than a healthy backup for the SB game.

            If you don't personally want to call him injury prone, then fine. But the overall point still remains.

            A defense with it's two best players being healthy is a lot better than a defense with its two best players injured, whether they play through those injuries or not.

            True or false?



            Oh I would never argue that the injuries didn't have a substantial effect. The only thing that sent me in my rant was when you said to find a high impact player that is more injury prone than Freeney. I probably focused too much on your wording and we are probaly just splitting hairs at this point.

            Believe me, I constantly think about how Freeney was injured in the SB and how things could have worked out differently had he been healthy. Would have loved to see a healthy Freeney chasing after Brees. It's a shame. But at the same time, we still could have won the game.

            I've said it before and it's especially true in light of recent news: That Saints loss just stings more and more as time goes on. Honestly, I think it's the worst loss of the Manning era. The Steelers one was brutal but we at least came back and won it all the next year.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Is the Colts defense better, worse, or equal when Bob Sanders is on the field compared to when he's not on the field?
              That depends on Bob. Early in his career I would say yes later in his career I would say no. Being named DPOY means nothing if you don't show up in the playoffs and there are times when he showed up big time and others when he wasn't even noticed see Chargers in 07. Bethea out played in that game him and now I think our 2 safeties are better than what we had in 05. Bob was a better run stopper but like I said if you need to rely on safety to stop the run consistently then your screwed.

              Injuries take a toll on any roster but that doesn't mean thats an excuse for falling flat in the playoffs on more than one occasion and more importantly that doesn't change the fact that Polain has had enough time to make this team better in the run and run defense despite those injuries.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post

              I did read the link, and I also read his bio from the hawkeyes athletic website. He wasn't injured his freshman year. He left ONE game early with a concussion his soph. year, and didn't miss any other time. He missed three games due to surgery his jr. year. That's it.
              Here is the link to the IOWA EDU site. http://www.uiowa.edu/homepage/sports/index.html

              The first link is the Iowa official sports which is where the link I posted comes from...
              ITs his official Bio..... Not saying but I think its obvious to me now.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 09-08-2011, 01:30 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                Do you know which way is even up? You've got to be dizzy as hell after all that spinning.

                If you can't even admit that the Colts are better off with a healthy Bob, than an injured Bob, then this discussion is pointless.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Do you know which way is even up? You've got to be dizzy as hell after all that spinning.

                  If you can't even admit that the Colts are better off with a healthy Bob, than an injured Bob, then this discussion is pointless.
                  When was Bob trully healthy? Your just mad because I caught you in a lie. Unless you can magically come up with a EDU site showing that he missed 3 games his junior year then I'll retract my statement.

                  Polain drafted an injury prone safety then he made that injury prone safety the highest paid safety in the league. Ya.. I am done here.
                  Last edited by Gamble1; 09-08-2011, 01:41 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                    Everyone gets that the Colts were better with Sanders. But Sanders was never going to be healthy for the long term. There is no sense on dwelling on something that was never going to happen. We're in our 4th year since Sanders was last healthy. We got to a Super Bowl without him. He was important, but he wasn't make or break. Like I said, we went one and done in 2 out of the 3 playoff years Sanders was healthy. I'm not saying that as an indictment against Sanders or anything. I'm just stating a fact. Sanders helped, but let's not like we were unbeatable when he played. The Steelers and Chargers debacles at home took place with a healthy Sanders out there.

                    Sanders was a tiny injury-prone dude who played like a one man wrecking crew. He simply was never going to have a long productive career. On one hand, we are fortunate that we got as much out of him as we did. It's not like he was destined to have some healthy 10 year career. It just wasn't going to happen. And it's not like he was healthy and then suffered some tragic injury that ruined his career, leaving us to say "what-if" for eternity. No, he was an injury prone player who laid his body on the line all the time and simply was never going to have a long and healthy career. It's who he was.

                    I'll argue that we've had an easier time replacing Sanders than we have replacing Tarik Glenn.

                    If he wanted to be healthy then he couldn't play like Bob Sanders. Damned if you, damned if you don't.
                    Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-08-2011, 07:24 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      When was Bob trully healthy? Your just mad because I caught you in a lie. Unless you can magically come up with a EDU site showing that he missed 3 games his junior year then I'll retract my statement.

                      Polain drafted an injury prone safety then he made that injury prone safety the highest paid safety in the league. Ya.. I am done here.
                      Caught me in a lie? Are we having the same conversation?

                      I asked you for your opinion to start off with.

                      Secondly, I'm not the one who's tried saying Freeney has only had one major injury. You've been saying that. Even after you admitted he had a major injury in 2006/2007 when his sack totals were down. And then I've provided mutliple sources talking about how Freeney has played through injuries in 2004, which required surgery and made him miss the beginning of the 2005 season.

                      And then there is his SB injury. And his shoulder injury.

                      So who is "lying" about Freeney's injury history?

                      You've also tried claiming that Bob was hurt multiple times throughout his career at Iowa. He missed the end of one game his soph. season from a concussion, and he missed 3 games his jr. year due to injury. That's it.

                      So you've also lied about Bob's injury history.



                      So if you want to start keeping score, we can start keeping score.

                      EDIT: I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It won't be the first time, and it won't be the last. But to claim that I'm lying is absurd.
                      Last edited by Since86; 09-08-2011, 01:56 PM.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Everyone gets that the Colts were better with Sanders.

                        Everyone but Gamble....

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        But Sanders was never going to be healthy for the long term. There is no sense on dwelling on something that was going to happen. We're in our 4th year since Sanders was last healthy. We got to a Super Bowl without him. He was important, but he wasn't make or break. Like I said, we went one and done in 2 out of the 3 playoff years Sanders was healthy. I'm not saying that as an indictment against Sanders or anything. I'm just stating a fact. Sanders helped, but let's not like we were unbeatable when he played. The Steelers and Chargers debacles at home took place with a healthy Sanders out there.
                        I don't dispute any of that. I never will.

                        But like I've said. If the Colts can manage to get to a SB without their best defensive player (arguably) then wouldn't common sense tell us that they would have faired better with him, rather than without him?

                        That's my ENTIRE point during this whole argument.

                        You can't place the blame on Bill Polian for drafting a guy who fought injuries his entire career. It's one of those things you simply can't control.

                        It's not Bill's fault. It's not Bob's fault. It's no one's fault.

                        My problem with it, is trying to place blame on someone who was doing their job, when they have absolutely zero control over the situation.

                        And that's exactly what was going on here. It's Bill's fault Bob was injured.

                        What a crazy position to have. It's nonsense.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Caught me in a lie?
                          You've also tried claiming that Bob was hurt multiple times throughout his career at Iowa. He missed the end of one game his soph. season from a concussion, and he missed 3 games his jr. year due to injury. That's it..
                          LINK..... Come on now. I'll retract it.if you post a link.

                          I consider a major injury is one that you have to stop playing and have surgery done on. No thats not a catch all but thats how I view it. Having a quad or shoulder injury and playing through it doesn't make the list to me and doesn't mean that a guy is injury prone. You really want to know how many D-linemen have shoulder problems/surgeries in the NFL. Does that make them injury prone?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          You can't place the blame on Bill Polian for drafting a guy who fought injuries his entire career. It's one of those things you simply can't control.
                          How about giving him a contract extension?
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 09-08-2011, 02:03 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            Unless you can magically come up with a EDU site showing that he missed 3 games his junior year then I'll retract my statement.

                            Sorry, I didn't have all the details and missed a whole season. (I did the formatting for this look. It's all together as one big paragraph on the hawkeye website)

                            So he missed 3 games in 2003. Missed one game in 2002. Missed one game in 2001. Missed the fourth quarter of a game in 2000.

                            2003 Honors - - First team pre-season all-America by The Sporting News . . . named to pre-season watch list for the Bronko Nagurski Trophy, given annually to the nation’s top defensive player . . . named to pre-season watch lists for Jim Thorpe Defensive Back of the Year . . . pre-season third team all-American by Athlon Sports . . . Second team all-America by the Associated Press . . . first team all-Big Ten . . . Permanent Team Captain, defense . . . Most Valuable Player, defense . . . Hayden Fry “Extra Heartbeat” Award, defense . . . Coaches Appreciation Award, special teams . . . co-Big Ten Conference Defensive Player of the Week for his play in 40-22 win over Minnesota . . . selected to participate in Senior Bowl, but did not play in game after suffering foot injury in practice for the contest . . .

                            2003 - - listed as first team strong safety following spring practice . . . saw action in opening win over Miami, but was not in starting line-up due to missed practice time during pre-season . . . recorded five solo tackles and two assists . . . missed three games due to foot surgery . . . returned to action at Michigan State, recording five sol tackles, two assists and one pass break-up . . . started for the first time this season in win over Michigan, recording six solo tackles, one assist and a pass break-up . . . recorded five solo tackles and five assists at Ohio State, including two tackles for loss and one pass break-up . . . recorded four solo tackles and two assists in win over Penn State . . . also had a tackle for loss and a pass break-up . . .caused two fumbles vs. PSU, with the first being returned 47 yards to set up Iowa’s first touchdown of the game . . . recorded first career touchdown in win over Illinois, returning fumble recovery three yards for a score . . . also had two solo tackles, one assist, a forced fumble and a pass break-up in win over the Illini . . . recorded six solo tackles and one assist at Purdue . . . collected a season-high 16 tackles (10 solo, six assists) in win over Minnesota, earning Big Ten Conference defensive Player of the Week honors . . . had three forced fumbles (one on special teams) to take over the Big Ten lead in that category . . . recorded two tackles for loss, one QB sack, one QB pressure and one fumble recovery, with that recovery and forced fumble coming at the Iowa one-yardline to stop a Minnesota scoring threat . . . recorded two solo tackles and five assists in win over Minnesota, along with one tackle for loss, one pass break-up, one fumble recovery and a pass interception . . . two turnovers in the second half both came near midfield to assist Iowa’s field position and fumble recovery came on punt coverage . . . recorded three solo tackles in 37-17 Outback Bowl win over Florida . . .

                            2002 Honors - - fourth team all-America by The Sporting News . . . first team all-Big Ten . . . Hustle Team Award, defense . . .

                            2002 - - key member of Iowa defense that ranked fifth in the nation in rushing defense (81.9) . . . started 12 of 13 games at strong safety, missing Utah State due to injury . . . six solo tackles and one assist in win over Akron, plus two forced fumbles, one QB sack, one QB pressure and one pass break-up . . . seven solo tackles, two assists and one pass break-up in win at Miami . . . six solo tackles, two assists and one pass break-up vs. Iowa State . . . also recovered an Iowa fumble after an interception and had a 32-yard fumble return that helped end an ISU scoring threat . . . did not play in win over Utah State due to injury . . . four solo tackles and five assists in win at Penn State . . . one solo tackle and two assists in win over Purdue . . . blocked field goal attempt in win over Purdue was returned 85 yards for an Iowa touchdown . . . also had a 15-yard interception return before leaving the game in the second quarter with an injury . . . eight solo tackles and two assists in win over Michigan State, with a pass interception and two pass break-ups . . . 12 solo tackles and four assists in win at Indiana . . . five solo tackles, one pass break-up and one forced fumble in win at Michigan . . . forced fumble came on punt coverage and led to touchdown that gave Iowa a 17-9 advantage in the third quarter . . . recorded four solo tackles, two assists and one pass break-up in win over Wisconsin as Iowa held Badgers to 78 rushing yards and 215 yards total offense . . . four solo tackles, three assists and two pass break-ups in win over Northwestern . . . two solo tackles and seven assists in win at Minnesota as defense held top rushing team in Big Ten Conference to 80 net rushing yards . . . also recorded one forced fumble and had two pass break-ups . . . led team with 13 tackles vs. Southern Cal in Orange Bowl, including nine solo tackles and four assists . . . also recorded two pass break-ups . . .

                            2001 Honors - - co-Most Valuable Player . . .first team all-Big Ten by league coaches . . . earned team Hustle Award for defense . . . Bronko Nagurski national and Big Ten Conference Defensive Player of the Week for his play in Iowa’s 42-28 win over Indiana . . .

                            2001 - - started all 11 games he played at strong safety . . . missed Miami, OH game due to injury . . . led team in total tackles with 122, including 78 solo stops and 44 assists . . . recorded six tackles for loss and one QB sack . . . led team with four interceptions for 24 yards, collected 12 pass break-ups, three QB pressures and one forced fumble . . . ranked fifth in the Big Ten in interceptions (four) and sixth in the Big Ten in tackles per game (11.1) . . . ranked 27th in the nation in solo tackles per game (6.9) and 30th nationally in total tackles per game, for the regular season . . .one solo tackle and two assists vs. Kent State in limited action, and he did not play the following week due to an ankle injury. . . seven solo tackles and four assists in win over Penn State, including two tackles for loss, one QB sack and one QB pressure . . . 10 solo tackles and five assists at Purdue, including three tackles for loss and three pass break-ups . . . first career interception came at Purdue and his 19-yard return set up Iowa touchdown in the second half . . . six solo tackles, four assists and a pass break-up at Michigan State . . . record-setting game in win over Indiana with 14 solo tackles and 11 assists . . . four solo tackles and two assists vs. Michigan, along with two pass break-ups and second interception of the season . . . six solo tackles and three assists at Wisconsin, including one tackle for loss and a QB pressure . . . four solo tackles and three assists at Northwestern, along with third interception, a QB pressure and one pass break-up . . . nine solo tackles and two assists in win over Minnesota, plus one pass break-up . . . eight solo tackles and six assists at Iowa State, with one pass break-up . . . nine solo tackles and two assists in Alamo Bowl win over Texas Tech . . . had two pass break-ups and had an interception in the Iowa endzone on the final play of the game to secure the victory . . .


                            2000 Honors - - honorable mention all-Big Ten . . .


                            2000 - - saw extensive action on special teams throughout the season . . . earned first career start in the secondary vs. Wisconsin and started remaining three games . . . 42 solo tackles and 10 assists, with two forced fumbles, three tackles for loss and a pass break-up . . . three tackles vs. Kansas State . . . two tackles vs. Western Michigan and Iowa State . . . one tackle at Nebraska and Indiana . . . four tackles and a forced fumble in win over Michigan State . . . three solo tackles and one assist vs. Ohio State . . . started for the first time vs. Wisconsin and recorded 11 solo tackles and one assist, including one tackle for loss . . . forced Wisconsin fumble on first punt return of the game, which was recovered by Iowa . . . five solo tackles and three assists vs. Penn State, including one tackle for loss . . . 11 solo tackles and one assists in win over Northwestern, including one tackle for loss and a QB sack . . . three solo tackles and one pass break-up at Minnesota before leaving the game in the third quarter with a concussion.
                            http://www.hawkeyesports.com/sports/...ers_bob00.html
                            Last edited by Since86; 09-08-2011, 02:14 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              LINK..... Come on now. I'll retract it.if you post a link.

                              I consider a major injury is one that you have to stop playing and have surgery done on. No thats not a catch all but thats how I view it. Having a quad or shoulder injury and playing through it doesn't make the list to me and doesn't mean that a guy is injury prone. You really want to know how many D-linemen have shoulder problems/surgeries in the NFL. Does that make them injury prone?
                              You're only seriously injured if you have to have surgery? Oh goodness.


                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              How about giving him a contract extension?
                              Now that we can agree on.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Now that we can agree on.
                                About time...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X