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

NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

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

  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Oh I am?



    http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/24/foo...-managers.html

    That was last season. They have the second lowest payroll this season, so I bet that #5 ranking is even lower today than what it was when this article was written. (8-25-10)

    Notice how I'm providing sources when making my claims?

    Yeah, Polian said he wouldn't hesitate to take a good young QB, just like he said he didn't know who he was going to take between PM and Ryan Leaf. Or who between Edge and Ricky Williams.

    You can't take what he say's at face value.
    What is USA today? Not a source or would you rather me give a source that writes about Kim Kardashan and their affects on NBA players like you just did...

    You didn't show me any numbers and my source is the FO of the COlts as quoted above. They have spent a crap load of money this year. I am done with this pathetic conversation.

    Also don't forget about that 4 million experiment called Kerry Collins. Did you factor that into your calculations? I didn't think so.

    Again I'll quote it again...and again..and if you want again.

    "Obviously I'm concerned that we came out and lost 13 games. We'll probably be $8 million cash over cap; we're up around $130 [million] in spending. It's not like we planned on a rebuilding year.
    Last edited by Gamble1; 12-29-2011, 11:40 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

      For someone who accuses me of ignoring what you wrote, I would think you'd know the difference between USA today, and a link to Forbes. Especially when the qoute I posted is from Bill Polian himself....
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

        And now it's really rich. You're going to use an article to try and show that money is going to be an issue moving forward when it say's this?

        But what if the Colts are presented with the dual option of Manning and Luck? The Colts are on the hook for a $28 million option payment to Manning at the beginning of the 2012 league year as part of the five-year, $90 million contract extension he signed in July. Even with the new rookie wage scale, the Colts could be in a position where an abnormally high percentage of their 2012 salary cap would be taken up by the quarterback position … and last time we checked, there probably wasn't a provision in the playbook for Manning and Luck to see the field at the same time.

        "I don't see that being the issue; I paid him $26 million this year — he didn't play," Irsay said of Manning. "I knew it was an iffy situation going in. In terms of if he's healthy and if he's ready to play, I see him back with us. The draft will be what the draft is; there are a lot of situations that can unfold from here. If there is a great young quarterback there, we wouldn't hesitate to take him."
        I would think that you wouldn't use a source that directly conflicts with what you're saying.

        Money isn't an issue. End of story.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          For someone who accuses me of ignoring what you wrote, I would think you'd know the difference between USA today, and a link to Forbes. Especially when the qoute I posted is from Bill Polian himself....
          I might be blind but I see this...

          "You get people who are smart, tough, with strong work ethics," he says. "And you want those who feel that football is important to them." The Colts, Super Bowl champions in 2006-2007, are 39-9 over the past three years despite a payroll that was the fifth-lowest in the NFL over that span.
          Thats an end quote no? So did Polain SAY despite a payroll that was the fifth-lowest in the NFL over that span. I don't see quotes at the end of this sentence...

          Money IS an issue with a Hard cap in the NFL PERIOD. For Irsay its not an issue to pay Manning to sit but for the TEAM and Polain it is...


          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I would think that you wouldn't use a source that directly conflicts with what you're saying.
          .
          This might be hard for you but its called context.. As in you take quotes in context..Not distort them as you are doing.

          Yes or no is there a salary cap?

          Yes or no do you believe this..
          "Obviously I'm concerned that we came out and lost 13 games. We'll probably be $8 million cash over cap; we're up around $130 [million] in spending. It's not like we planned on a rebuilding year.
          over this

          They have the second lowest payroll in the entire NFL.
          Last edited by Gamble1; 12-29-2011, 11:57 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

            So you use their words when they say they won't hestitate to draft a QB but yet you won't use their words when talking about the financial ramifications of doing so.

            Interesting.

            And I didn't say the fifth lowest payroll part was the quote from Polian. I'm meaning that USA Today often times relies on unnamed "sources" whereas this article is pulling direct quotes from Bill Polian himself.

            But please, continue comparing Forbes with gossip rags that talk about Kim Kardashian.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              So you use their words when they say they won't hestitate to draft a QB but yet you won't use their words when talking about the financial ramifications of doing so.

              Interesting.

              And I didn't say the fifth lowest payroll part was the quote from Polian. I'm meaning that USA Today often times relies on unnamed "sources" whereas this article is pulling direct quotes from Bill Polian himself.

              But please, continue comparing Forbes with gossip rags that talk about Kim Kardashian.
              Irsay isn't talking about the finacial ramifications against the cap.. He's talking about the finacial ramifications of his pocket book.

              Notice Irsay didn't use the 16 million Manning cost against the salary cap he used the full 26 million paid to him this year to sit and heal.

              I fully expect Irsay to spend the money for Manning but there is a ceiling to what he is allowed to spend. He can't ignore the hard cap and he will have to make a decision sooner or later on Luck and Manning.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              But please, continue comparing Forbes with gossip rags that talk about Kim Kardashian.
              Whats this sound like to you......

              Then recently, Humphries’ marriage to Kardashian was over – 72 days after it started. Then came the speculation: Was the marriage fake all along? Was Kim really caught in a nude Yoga session with a male instructor in their home? It’s all created enough tabloid fatigue for the public, when asked which player in the NBA they most dislike, now choose Humphries’ name before any other. TOM VAN Riper
              Last edited by Gamble1; 12-29-2011, 12:38 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                So the owner of team doesn't understand the salary cap structure, and what their options are regarding PM and their potential QB draft pick? Uh yeah, sure.

                Irsay isn't going to open his mouth, MULTIPLE times, about whether or not they could afford both PM and Andrew Luck without knowing some details.

                Who do you trust to know the Colts, and their financial abilities better. You or Jim Irsay?

                Bill Polian has came out and said it pretty freaking direct.
                Polian says Manning will be back in 2012
                http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-back-in-2012/

                You're really going to try and tell us, that both Bill Polian and Jim Irsay don't know whether or not they can afford both and that you know they can't?

                Maybe you should send in your resume, because if Chris can't see the problems that both Bill and Jim are overlooking, I doubt he's there very long.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  So the owner of team doesn't understand the salary cap structure, and what their options are regarding PM and their potential QB draft pick? Uh yeah, sure.

                  Irsay isn't going to open his mouth, MULTIPLE times, about whether or not they could afford both PM and Andrew Luck without knowing some details.

                  Who do you trust to know the Colts, and their financial abilities better. You or Jim Irsay?

                  Bill Polian has came out and said it pretty freaking direct.

                  http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-back-in-2012/

                  You're really going to try and tell us, that both Bill Polian and Jim Irsay don't know whether or not they can afford both and that you know they can't?

                  Maybe you should send in your resume, because if Chris can't see the problems that both Bill and Jim are overlooking, I doubt he's there very long.
                  Man you forget so quickly...

                  Remember what I thought the ideal plan would be. Keep Luck and Manning for 2 years then trade Manning and keep Luck.

                  You being the pessimestic or as you call it realistic type say that Luck would never sit behind Manning for 2 years. This obviously comes from personally knowing Luck right?

                  I know they can afford both of them but it will cost other players plan and simple. At some point they will decide on who they want under center but when that is I have no clue.

                  Follow me here on the quotes.
                  You
                  Swapping out PM for Andrew Luck does nothing to address the real problems of the team
                  Me
                  As far as swapping Luck for PM does not do a thing for the team....WHAT? OF course it does! It saves you a ton of money over 4 years. Money that can be spent in FA or on your own guys like Pat Anger.
                  You
                  No, actually it doesn't. The Colts are always at the bottom of the league in payroll. They would have plenty of cap space regardless if PM is on the team or he's traded.
                  Me quoting the Colts FO
                  Obviously I'm concerned that we came out and lost 13 games. We'll probably be $8 million cash over cap; we're up around $130 [million] in spending. It's not like we planned on a rebuilding year.
                  So do we have PLENTY OF MONEY TO SIGN OUR OWN FA's....

                  The answer is NNNNOOOOOOO....

                  EDIT: IT should be noted that we didn't have ENOUGH MONEY to sign our own FA's this year and were at the top of the salary cap.
                  Last edited by Gamble1; 12-29-2011, 12:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                    I don't forget, I just think it's absurd to try and argue that Irsay doesn't understand the cap ramificications and is only thinking about his pocketbook.

                    Combine that with you trying to tell me that I'm wrong about their historical cap situations when I use a source that is getting it's information straight from Bill Polian himself, and then trying to compare Forbes to some tabloid piece of crap.

                    I find it funny that I am the pessimist when I don't think the Colts, or Bill Polian for that matter, has been as awful as most you. I'm also one of the only people to say I think Reggie Wayne would be back next year in the doom and gloom thread about Reggie's upcoming FA.

                    I mean seriously, I'm the optimist but yet I'm the pessimist? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.


                    No crap it's going to cost other players. Whenever you give money to one player, it takes money away from others. But there are 53 men on the roster. The Colts have never been shy about paying money to those they deemed worthy enough of getting paid. Which is why DFree was one of the higest paid defensive players in the NFL and then why Bob Sanders got a huge payday, all while they were paying Peyton, Marvin, and Reggie.

                    If they could work out the cap structure when they had those 5 guys getting massive paydays, I'm more than positive they can do it again.

                    But I'm the pessimist in this discussion....

                    EDIT: And Mathis. They didn't short change him either.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I don't forget, I just think it's absurd to try and argue that Irsay doesn't understand the cap ramificications and is only thinking about his pocketbook.

                      Combine that with you trying to tell me that I'm wrong about their historical cap situations when I use a source that is getting it's information straight from Bill Polian himself, and then trying to compare Forbes to some tabloid piece of crap.

                      I find it funny that I am the pessimist when I don't think the Colts, or Bill Polian for that matter, has been as awful as most you. I'm also one of the only people to say I think Reggie Wayne would be back next year in the doom and gloom thread about Reggie's upcoming FA.

                      I mean seriously, I'm the optimist but yet I'm the pessimist? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.


                      No crap it's going to cost other players. Whenever you give money to one player, it takes money away from others. But there are 53 men on the roster. The Colts have never been shy about paying money to those they deemed worthy enough of getting paid. Which is why DFree was one of the higest paid defensive players in the NFL and then why Bob Sanders got a huge payday, all while they were paying Peyton, Marvin, and Reggie.

                      If they could work out the cap structure when they had those 5 guys getting massive paydays, I'm more than positive they can do it again.

                      But I'm the pessimist in this discussion....

                      EDIT: And Mathis. They didn't short change him either.
                      Heres how wrong you are. That forbes article quote covers 3 years... That certainly doesn't imply the historical low salary cap claim you are making and it doesn't mean that they have always been on the bottom of the salary cap floor.

                      I am glad you favor Forbes over USA Today but one has a quote that covers over 3 years and the other has actual numbers for each team.

                      Either way it doesn't matter because if they do decide to keep both then you'll be proven wrong on that plenty of money comment. And even if they just decide to keep Manning you'll be wrong.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 12-29-2011, 01:33 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                        It's pointless to argue with someone who thinks they know the financial implications of the NFL better than the owner and GM, who have been doing this exact things for the past 30 years.

                        I hope you send out your resume, because if you know how to construct a team better than Bill Polian, who Forbes ranks as the best GM in football, then you are certainly a guaranteed HOF GM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          It's pointless to argue with someone who thinks they know the financial implications of the NFL better than the owner and GM, who have been doing this exact things for the past 30 years.

                          I hope you send out your resume, because if you know how to construct a team better than Bill Polian, who Forbes ranks as the best GM in football, then you are certainly a guaranteed HOF GM.
                          This sounds like someone who has lost an argument and for the record I said they could keep both but they won't be able to have plenty of money for their FA's like Wayne, Mathis, Garcon. Some big time names won't be here next year..

                          Also Polain disagrees with trading down in this draft.. Something that you thought was a good idea.
                          The practical value of trading the top pick in the NFL draft doesn’t add up, Indianapolis Colts vice chairman Bill Polian told Adam Schein and Rich Gannon on SiriusXM NFL Radio Tuesday.
                          “I can’t imagine that there are players that we could afford under the salary cap that would come in and help our team, veteran players that would be available in such a trade. And if you traded it for picks, which you probably would be wise to do, those picks would be very high picks, the highest picks perhaps, in a lot of future years, which means that they wouldn’t be on the team in the short run.

                          “Somehow or other, that theory, people have asked me about that, but it doesn’t hold water with me. I don’t know what you get out of it. If you’re assuming that you trade one of the top three picks in the draft for a bunch of second- and third-rounders in that same draft, I don’t buy that one at all.”
                          http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/pos...ing-a-top-pick

                          Comment


                          • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                            Updated the Sig for this weekend's game.
                            I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                              Sounds like I've lost? How do I "win" with a guy who claims that Jim Irsay doesn't know what he's talking about?

                              Or how Forbes magazine is now on par with tabloids?
                              Or how I'm a pessimist for the sole reason that I don't think Luck will be willing to sit on the bench for two years?
                              Or how your argue semantics on what consitutes as "historial" or not?

                              You've accused me of purposely ignoring what you've said and purposely distorting what you've said.

                              How am I supposed to "win" any argument with someone who relies on personal rebuttals and absolute crackpot theories about knowing more than the owner of the team?

                              Reread Polians quote.
                              I don’t know what you get out of it. If you’re assuming that you trade one of the top three picks in the draft for a bunch of second- and third-rounders in that same draft, I don’t buy that one at all
                              Is that what I'm arguing, that the Colts would trade their first round pick for a bunch of second and third round picks in this same very draft?

                              For someone who accuses me of purposefully distorting and ignoring your arguments, you sure have ignored or distorted my argument......

                              I bring up a quote from Jim Irsay saying money isn't going to be a problem, and point out that Polian has said the same things. You don't believe them, and think you know more about them.

                              But then you find quotes to try and discredit what I'm saying, that don't even address what I'm saying, and suddenly they have credibility in your eyes.

                              Either they don't know what they're talking about or they do. You can't up and decide that their clueless about how the salary would work out, and then try to argue that they're helping your point all in a couple of minutes.

                              If your desire is just to "win" then congrats. You've won. If your desire is to talk about football, then we can continue.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Sounds like I've lost? How do I "win" with a guy who claims that Jim Irsay doesn't know what he's talking about?
                                .
                                Show me where I have said that Jim Irsay doesn't know what he talking about?

                                You accuse me of that but you know I never said that. You just like to twist things up because your arguments are weak and filled with fallacies.

                                I believe he will pay Peyton and draft Luck if we get the top pick.. Mind you this is something I wanted all along..

                                And I did say he is fine with paying Peyton but he will still have to work it out under the salary cap and the Colts wont' have plenty of money to sign their FA's. Some big names will have to leave in order to make this work. You how ever don't believe this for some illogical reason.

                                I believe the FO when the say they have spent 130 million this year which doesn't sound like the bottom of the salary cap which you would have us believe. In fact 130 mill is at the max if you follow the new CBA but don't get caught up on facts because they just seem to get in your way of making a point.

                                Edit: And this is the quote you should be reading.
                                And if you traded it for picks, which you probably would be wise to do, those picks would be very high picks, the highest picks perhaps, in a lot of future years, which means that they wouldn’t be on the team in the short run.
                                He's not going to trade this pick because the picks would be 2-3 years away when Peyton is near 40.
                                Last edited by Gamble1; 12-29-2011, 03:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X