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

Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

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

  • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    Given that there has only been one zero-win team in the past 30 years, I don't think 0-16 is reasonable. Even the '86 Colts, which was far worse than the '91 Colts, won three games.

    But the idea that they still won't be a very good team 4-5 years down the road is pretty reasonable. There are plenty of NFL teams that draft a franchise QB and still end up with really high draft picks for a while. I'm not saying Luck will be as bad as the following, but there's a long list of recent top-10 QB's that were failures or just haven't really done anything yet, such as Bradford, Ryan, Russell, Young, Leinhart, Carr, Couch, Leaf, Leftwich, and Akili Smith have all been drafted to be franchise QB's since Manning. There have been some successes, like Eli Manning, and I guess Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Rivers, Vick even Stafford.

    There are many more failures than successes, often because QB is not the biggest need of a really terrible team with a high draft pick. With nobody to hand off to, nobody to protect the left side of the line, or a defense that can't get stops, that's a lot of pressure to put on just one player.
    Luck is already better than every single QB you listed in the "failure" category. I also think you should omit Carson Palmer from the "success" catergory
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


    • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

      It's not like it didn't take some time with Manning. 3-13 rookie season. Years 2 and 3 were excellent, but we lost our first playoff game. His 4th season was the dreadful 6-10 year in which he played pretty poorly by his standards. That was the infamous Jim Mora "playoffs year". Things improved in Dungy's first year (Manning's 5th), but we were slaughtered 41-0 by the Jets. We finally won a playoff game in Manning's 6th season.

      With our new team, it all comes down to how smart our front office is. The Colts will have an obscene amount of cap space next season. If we are smart, then we will use a decent chunk of that money on the O-Line to protect Luck. I could really care less what happened with Jeff George 20 years ago, or even with Manning 14 years ago. None of that will have any bearing on how successful the team is with Luck. The only similarities is that they all had the beautiful horseshoe on their helmets. That's it.

      Comment


      • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

        If we did get first pick again I wouldn't exactly complain. I mean, I would while the season's happening, but it'd be preferable to the probable 5-11/6-10 year. Imagine the bounty we could sell Matt Barkley for. Talk about jumpstarting a rebuild.

        Comment


        • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

          Over six years, these were the Colts five picks: Harrison, Glenn, Manning, James, and then Wayne.

          And the James pick was a bit controversial as Faulk was just entering his prime. I guess the trade worked out for everyone.

          Does Luck really have the #1 receiving target, the guy protecting his blind side, and the guy to hand off too? Already in place? Are they just a great #2 receiver away?

          And even then, it took everything that Pollian touched (and Tobin wasn't shabby either) turning to gold.

          Let's just say lightning doesn't strike twice? Then what? You give up on Akili Smith and start over yet again with Carson Palmer?

          You give up on Tim Couch and start over yet again with who? Nobody yet. You give on Joey Harrington and start over again with who? (Not Stafford, not immediately at least.)

          These were all really high draft picks dropped into unstable, bad teams.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            Let's just say lightning doesn't strike twice? Then what? You give up on Akili Smith and start over yet again with Carson Palmer?

            You give up on Tim Couch and start over yet again with who? Nobody yet. You give on Joey Harrington and start over again with who? (Not Stafford, not immediately at least.)

            These were all really high draft picks dropped into unstable, bad teams.
            Generalization of this sort is what OlBlu does --- if you've been watching any college football at all you'd know that Luck is head and shoulders above all these other high QB picks you've named... it's not even a fair comparison. Luck had the same aura/hype around him that LeBron had pre-NBA... they both are once-in-a-generation special players with out-of-this-world talent. These other guys, arguably weren't even special players in their own draft. They were just considered good talents, that could help a team, and far from a surefire thing. For instance, Stafford was the underwhelming #1 pick in an underwhelming 2009 draft --- Luck was the clearcut #1 pick in the strongest quarterback draft in 30 years (since the '83 draft).

            Can't even begin to compare Luck to these guys. He's on a Elway/LeBron... Ken Griffey Jr... Shaq level of talent. Where a guy comes in so obviously good that everyone can see it. Luck could've come out 2 years ago and been #1 in the draft --- ahead of Sam Bradford... ahead of Cam Newton. And he was clearly ahead of RG3 in the same draft, who arguably would be considered better than those two had he come out at the same time.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-27-2012, 04:51 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: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              Generalization of this sort is what OlBlu does --- if you've been watching any college football at all you'd know that Luck is head and shoulders above all these other high QB picks you've named... it's not even a fair comparison. Luck had the same aura/hype around him that LeBron had pre-NBA... they both are once-in-a-generation special players with out-of-this-world talent. These other guys, arguably weren't even special players in their own draft. They were just considered good talents, that could help a team, and far from a surefire thing. For instance, Stafford was the underwhelming #1 pick in an underwhelming 2009 draft --- Luck was the clearcut #1 pick in the strongest quarterback draft in 30 years (since the '83 draft).

              Can't even begin to compare Luck to these guys. He's on a Elway/LeBron... Ken Griffey Jr... Shaq level of talent. Where a guy comes in so obviously good that everyone can see it. Luck could've come out 2 years ago and been #1 in the draft --- ahead of Sam Bradford... ahead of Cam Newton. And he was clearly ahead of RG3 in the same draft, who arguably would be considered better than those two had he come out at the same time.
              So you're telling me that football has become a one-man sport, and that man plays QB?

              Who's he going to tackle? Drop back into pass coverage or attack the gaps to stop the run? How many blockers will he occupy? Sideline to sideline or vertical?

              He doesn't even play both sides of the ball? He's only playing one side of the ball and he doesn't have anybody to block for him, or anybody to hand it to. Who cares who the receivers are when he's laying on his back or throwing it into the stands because he doesn't have any time.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                Lol, when in the nine hells did I ever say that.
                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: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                  As for the rest of your argument... we don't know who the players are on this team yet. And when Manning came in, we didn't *know* that Harrison would become a Hall of Fame receiver... we didn't know Faulk would be gone the next year and have a HoF career after the Colts... T Glenn wasn't a "surefire" great tackle.... We had a bunch of unproven guys, and a string of consecutive awful seasons to "look at", and ya know what? We became pretty good after that. But we didn't "know" that at the time in 1998. At that time, we still sucked, we had a mass of Colt-hate going on right here in our own state, everyone hated the Colts, and everyone thought we would suck, that we still sucked, and that Manning was the incorrect choice (over Leaf).
                  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: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Given that there has only been one zero-win team in the past 30 years, I don't think 0-16 is reasonable. Even the '86 Colts, which was far worse than the '91 Colts, won three games.

                    But the idea that they still won't be a very good team 4-5 years down the road is pretty reasonable. There are plenty of NFL teams that draft a franchise QB and still end up with really high draft picks for a while. I'm not saying Luck will be as bad as the following, but there's a long list of recent top-10 QB's that were failures or just haven't really done anything yet, such as Bradford, Ryan, Russell, Young, Leinhart, Carr, Couch, Leaf, Leftwich, and Akili Smith have all been drafted to be franchise QB's since Manning. There have been some successes, like Eli Manning, and I guess Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Rivers, Vick even Stafford.

                    There are many more failures than successes, often because QB is not the biggest need of a really terrible team with a high draft pick. With nobody to hand off to, nobody to protect the left side of the line, or a defense that can't get stops, that's a lot of pressure to put on just one player.
                    Define very good. It would probably be a long shot to be contending in the next 4-5 years but I think there is a high chance of earning a playoff berth in the next 5 years.

                    What's not reasonable is acting like 10 wins over the next 5 years is the best case scenario for the Colts. Do you think the Colts will average less than or equal to 2 wins a year for the next 5 years?

                    I think it's hardly reasonable to pretend any outcome is certain over the next 5 years, especially given all of the unknowns. New staff, young players (who we have no idea how they will progress), a lot of cap space next year, etc. While it's possible everything will go wrong with building the team and cause the Colts to stink for 5 years straight, it's hardly the most likely outcome and it's not reasonable at all to be pretending like it's a certainty to happen.

                    I can understanding not liking Irsay or agreeing with his moves but it's no reason to continually **** in everyone else's cheerios with the doom and gloom predictions that have little chance of actually happening.
                    Last edited by Swingman; 08-27-2012, 05:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                      [QUOTE=ChicagoJ;1496564]


                      Let's just say lightning doesn't strike twice? Then what? [Quote}

                      When you're talking about random lightning you're correct that it doesn't strike twice but when you're talking about someone who has exceptional talent then maybe it does. Luck doesn't have to be Manning to revive this team. He just has to be very good and he may just be very very good.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                        Very good?

                        If Luck develops, stays on his feet and healthy, and if the new GM is as good with the draft as the previous guy, they should be in the playoffs by then. But that's a lot of big "ifs". There are a lot of highly-touted QBs in the past decade that have played in very, very few NFL playoff games. The more consistent recipe for success is to build the rest of the team and put in a highly-competent but not superstar QB with them, maybe one drafted later in the first round.

                        Eli Manning is sorta the exception, but the Giants really are a complete team.

                        Otherwise,

                        Rogers/ Packers over Ben/ Steelers - 24th pick vs. 11th pick
                        Brees/ Saints over Peyton/ Colts - 32nd pick (2nd round, still a 31-team league then) vs 1st pick
                        Ben/ Steelers over Warner/ Cardinals - 11th pick vs. Undrafted
                        Manning/ Giants over Brady/ Patriots - 1st pick vs. 199th pick
                        Peyton/ Colts over Grossman/ Bears - 1st pick vs. 22nd pick
                        Ben/ Steelers over Hasselback/ Seahawks - 11th pick vs. 187th pick
                        Brady/ Patriots over McNabb/ Eagles - 199th pick vs. 2nd pick
                        Brady/ Patriots over Delhomme/ Panthers - 199th pick vs. Undrafted
                        Johnson/ Bucanneers over Gannon/ Raiders - 227th pick vs. 98th pick

                        So over the past 10 years, and 20 starting Super Bowl QB's, four of those starts went to former #1 picks (2 each to Eli and Peyton), 1 other spot to a top-ten pick (McNabb), 5 appearances to first round, but not top-ten picks... so that accounts for half of the Super Bowl QBs. Of the other ten, two were picked between the second round and pick #99, five were picked between 100-199, 1 was picked after the 200th pick and two weren't drafted at all. Half of them weren't first-rounders, let alone #1 overall's. As many undrafted SB QB's (Delhomme, Warner) as #1 picks (Manning, Manning).

                        A heck of a lot more QBs taken #1 never taste the playoffs than do.

                        I'm just saying, Luck is on what appears to be right now a very bad team. QB was not the Colt's biggest "need". A number of people around the league thought Manning deserved his most-recent MVP award because he was single-handedly carrying a bad football team in 2010. Which seemed to be proven out last year when he was injured. Have they improved since last year? They've made good moves for the right direction, but the real games haven't started yet so nobody can really tell how much they've improved for the current season, if any. If the Colts can draft enough talented linemen to keep Luck upright and get him through the first 2-3 seasons without a devastating injury, then he'll be going in the right direction.

                        But if I were building a team right now and a QB named Manning wasn't available for the #1 pick, I wouldn't spend that pick on a QB. I'd get several more pieces in place - DL, OL, RB before investing in the QB. Because if Luck doesn't survive, then what do you have? That's why its always risky for a really bad team to invest a #1 pick in the QB position.

                        = = = = = = = = = = =

                        I was just saying that it always amuses me how much less tolerance there is for a "non-homer" opinion on the Colts board of PacersDigest than on the Pacers board of PacersDigest. There are many, many stories throughout NFL history of #1 QBs never tasting the playoffs than of clear success. Of course we don't know how it will play out, lightning could strike a second time. But if it does, it is still the exception not the rule.

                        OlBlu doesn't have to be as difficult as he is, and when posters like to operate in a very grey area then we struggle with how to properly moderate it. Its always easier when somebody is clearly breaking the rules of civil dialogue than when somebody is trying to see how far they can push us into charcoal. But in an alternative universe, one could also acknowledge that some of his points are valid and only time will tell if Luck joins the Mannings as the rare #1 pick QB's to find the Super Bowl or if he joins the multitude of top-five pick QB's that ultimately underwhelm us. I'm just saying, there might be some over-the-top comments in this thread that ruffled my feathers too, and not all of them came from OlBlu.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                          What's funny is the majority predict a losing season but are still considered "homers" because they aren't buying into the 0 wins this year and stinking for 5 years straight.

                          There is more than 1 way to skin a cat when building a team and I don't think you can pass on a talent like Luck if he is available. Should they have skipped on Peyton because they had other holes to fill? Nope.

                          The Colts will have a lot of cap space next year to fill some holes and probably a top 10-15 pick in the draft. Shore up the trenches and team is already at least mediocre.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                            There are serious concerns even if you think some pieces are in place - the NT situation, potential O - line issue, overall concerns about the front 7 v the run, and an inexperienced WR corps (including TEs) especially with serious Collie durability questions. I'm on the record with 5 -6. I still think they could do that, but might be worse, and the long-term outlook (beyond this season) is really not assessable yet.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              OlBlu doesn't have to be as difficult as he is, and when posters like to operate in a very grey area then we struggle with how to properly moderate it. Its always easier when somebody is clearly breaking the rules of civil dialogue than when somebody is trying to see how far they can push us into charcoal. But in an alternative universe, one could also acknowledge that some of his points are valid and only time will tell if Luck joins the Mannings as the rare #1 pick QB's to find the Super Bowl or if he joins the multitude of top-five pick QB's that ultimately underwhelm us. I'm just saying, there might be some over-the-top comments in this thread that ruffled my feathers too, and not all of them came from OlBlu.
                              I'll take Positive Polly over Negative Nancy any day. His perspective is pointless --- it does absolutely zero good to be that way. Like we all aren't aware that this team could fail? We don't need him here to tell us that --- we aren't stupid, we are quite aware. So be a productive, positive contributor, negative Nancy's do nothing but drain others.

                              Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
                              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


                              • Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                                What's funny is the majority predict a losing season but are still considered "homers" because they aren't buying into the 0 wins this year and stinking for 5 years straight.

                                There is more than 1 way to skin a cat when building a team and I don't think you can pass on a talent like Luck if he is available. Should they have skipped on Peyton because they had other holes to fill? Nope.

                                The Colts will have a lot of cap space next year to fill some holes and probably a top 10-15 pick in the draft. Shore up the trenches and team is already at least mediocre.
                                Ex-friggin-actly. We're mostly predicting 6 wins, and being called homers for it.

                                Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
                                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

                                Working...
                                X