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

2013 Peyton Manning thread

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

  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    There's a big difference between paying a guy who had never missed a game one year's worth of salary in hopes that he comes back, versus paying him four years worth of salary AFTER he had missed an entire season.

    Now it's possible that Manning would have restructured and given Irsay another out after 2012 (like Denver got), but only two people know if that was discussed. All we know is that renewing the contract he was on would have boxed Irsay in for 4 years.
    Which goes back to my original question.......

    Why didn't Irsay and the Colts structure the deal initially with the thought he might not play any during 2011? They could have given him a base salary, and then filled it with performance incentives.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      This was an unpredictable situation and all three main parties (Mannng/Irsay/Polian) held out hope that he could rehab his way through it and avoid the worst case scenario. There was no playbook in Irsay's drawer that told him how to deal with your franchise building QB going through a serious unpredictable injury that threatens the entire well-being of your franchise. I still don't understand how he got caught with his pants down? He gave Peyton a contract that gave his organization an out after one year. Seems like that's due diligence.
      They didn't prepare for the worst. Even your points about how they waited to sign Kerry Collins shows that. They had no clue if he'd be able to play during 2011, and acted like they did know he was going too, until it became painfully obvious Peyton wasn't coming back.

      That's how they got caught with their pants down. They didn't plan for ANYTHING. Not the cap hit for 2011, not the future cap hit, not even a suitable backup just in case he couldn't.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Which goes back to my original question.......

        Why didn't Irsay and the Colts structure the deal initially with the thought he might not play any during 2011? They could have given him a base salary, and then filled it with performance incentives.
        Because the guy who built the franchise and signed the contract probably felt that giving Irsay an out after one season was more than enough concession. A GOAT who had never missed a game in his career isn't playing for a tiny base salary with performance incentives. His contract in Denver still give him $20 million in guaranteed salary every season.

        Like the Aug 20, 2011 interview shows, Peyton still reasonably felt that he had a chance of rehabbing and playing at the start of the season. I'm sure that Irsay was hearing the same things. Wouldn't you have trust in the health of a guy who had never missed a game to injury? From Irsay's perspective, it was an extremely safe deal. Pay him one year's worth of salary (not much in the grand scheme of things) in hopes that he comes back and plays, and then have the opportunity to get out of the rest of the contract after the season if worse comes to worst. You're saying that Irsay got caught with his pants down when he really didn't. He crossed his ts and dotted his i's.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          You're saying that Irsay got caught with his pants down when he really didn't. He crossed his ts and dotted his i's.
          Yep, crossed his T's and dotted his I's so much so that they had to scramble to find a replacement QB. Someone who plans things, doesn't wait until the last moment to find replacements, but rather goes out and gets the replacement before they're needed. Like I said earlier, it's the difference between being proactive and reactive.

          The fact that they rolled with Curtis Freaking Painter for 8 weeks shows me that they didn't have a clue. They were doing things on the fly.
          Last edited by Since86; 10-17-2013, 03:35 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Yep, crossed his T's and dotted his I's so much so that they had to scramble to find a replacement QB. Someone who plans things, doesn't wait until the last moment to find replacements, but rather goes out and gets the replacement before they're needed. Like I said earlier, it's the difference between being proactive and reactive.
            Well that's on the GM, not Irsay. And that's not a problem that was limited to 2011. We had crappy backups for most of Peyton's career. But even as a Polian basher, I'm not going to beat him up too much for banking on the reliable Peyton being ready to play once the season started.

            What you're neglecting here is the role that Peyton himself would have played in all of this. Don't you think that Irsay and Polian would have been checking in on him daily once the lockout ended? Don't you think that Peyton would have tried to sound as honestly optimistic as possible about his chances of rehabbing the injury and playing, like he did in the August 20, 2011 video I posed? Don't you think that Irsay and Polian would buy into the optimism that he could rehab his way through it? We're talking about a guy who didn't miss a game in 13 seasons. It's not like Irsay and Polian had to make these decisions (contract, backup QB) without honest input from Peyton. I would think that Peyton's role in this would have played a HUGE factor.

            When the cornerstone of your franchise for 13 years goes out for an entire season, then yeah there's likely going to be some bad ripple effects (unless Hoodie is running your franchise).

            From a business perspective, Irsay didn't get caught with his pants down at all. Pay a GOAT who had never missed a game one year's worth of salary (not much in the overall grand scheme of things) in hopes that he can rehab his way back to the field (not a dumb bet at the time), and then have the opportunity to get out of the contract a year later if you so desired.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Well that's on the GM, not Irsay. And that's not a problem that was limited to 2011. We had crappy backups for most of Peyton's career. But even as a Polian basher, I'm not going to beat him up too much for banking on the reliable Peyton being ready to play once the season started.

              What you're neglecting here is the role that Peyton himself would have played in all of this. Don't you think that Irsay and Polian would have been checking in on him daily once the lockout ended? Don't you think that Peyton would have tried to sound as honestly optimistic as possible about his chances of rehabbing the injury and playing, like he did in the August 20, 2011 video I posed? Don't you think that Irsay and Polian would buy into the optimism that he could rehab his way through it? We're talking about a guy who didn't miss a game in 13 seasons. It's not like Irsay and Polian had to make these decisions (contract, backup QB) without honest input from Peyton. I would think that Peyton's role in this would have played a HUGE factor.

              When the cornerstone of your franchise for 13 years goes out for an entire season, then yeah there's likely going to be some bad ripple effects (unless Hoodie is running your franchise).

              From a business perspective, Irsay didn't get caught with his pants down at all. Pay a GOAT who had never missed a game one year's worth of salary (not much in the overall grand scheme of things) in hopes that he can rehab his way back to the field (not a dumb bet at the time), and then have the opportunity to get out of the contract a year later if you so desired.
              I know they bought into it, that's the problem. They can be optimistic and still plan for the worst, instead of being optimistic and planning for nothing. That's the difference. They didn't actually try to better the situation. They put all their hopes and dreams into Peyton coming back and it crashed and burned.

              EDIT: I guess I should just post the saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst"
              Last edited by Since86; 10-17-2013, 03:54 PM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I know they bought into it, that's the problem. They can be optimistic and still plan for the worst, instead of being optimistic and planning for nothing. That's the difference. They didn't actually try to better the situation. They put all their hopes and dreams into Peyton coming back and it crashed and burned.

                Yes, it crashed and burned.......for one season. What were they supposed to do? Not sign him? Peyton Manning isn't signing for a $5 million base with the other $15 million earned through performance incentives. A GOAT like that is getting $20 mil guaranteed. Giving him a full year's salary with the organization having the opportunity to get out after that first year was both parties meeting in the middle. More than enough concession from Peyton's standpoint. Paying him that year's salary and taking the gamble that he could rehab his way through the injury was more than worth it when you're talking about a GOAT who had never missed a game.

                Now, there were plenty of roster flaws (such as not having an adequate backup QB), but that's on the GM. But as far as the contract is concerned, Irsay did not get caught with his pants down. He made a gamble for one season that Peyton would return, but also gave himself the option to get out of the contract after one season if he didn't feel it was best for the franchise.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  If you are caught with your pants down, you are exposed in an embarrassing situation. It can also mean that you were caught unprepared for a situation or an event.
                  http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...ants+down.html

                  An exact description of what happened. Whether it was for one season, or ten, whether it was because they were dealing with the GOAT nor not, they didn't prepare for anything other than Peyton coming back. They just didn't. I'm perfectly fine saying that screw up resulted in luck (Luck) but doesn't change the fact that they didn't make any other plan other than pining all their hopes on PM coming back.

                  They didn't plan for it financially, nor with roster moves. They did nothing but sit on their hands and hope.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...ants+down.html

                    An exact description of what happened. Whether it was for one season, or ten, whether it was because they were dealing with the GOAT nor not, they didn't prepare for anything other than Peyton coming back. They just didn't. I'm perfectly fine saying that screw up resulted in luck (Luck) but doesn't change the fact that they didn't make any other plan other than pining all their hopes on PM coming back.

                    They didn't plan for it financially, nor with roster moves. They did nothing but sit on their hands and hope.
                    I agree that those who designed the roster (Bill and his son Fredo) let weaknesses build up over the years and the result was a roster that was ill-equipped to survive without Manning. Irsay paid them the big bucks to make the right moves, and they failed at the end of their tenure here. And that's why they got the axe.

                    But I don't think that Irsay was unprepared as far as protecting his franchise was concerned. He gambled on a GOAT coming back and paid him a full season's worth of salary, but allowed himself an out after that season.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      I'm sure (as sure as I can be) that the option to opt out at the end of the year was based on the idea of seeing how the season went after the rehab. I'm doubting there was much thought to a more delicate surgery being necessary on anyone's part, let alone a lost season. It was only after the failed return to practice that everyone changed gears... and the ink was long dry on the contract at that point.

                      And didn't Manning want to play in the last couple of games? I'm sure that was the case so that means even as the season wore on Manning hadn't given up on the idea of coming back.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

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

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        So you honestly think that they went from thinking he would be ready to play in the season opener (on Aug 29) to probably missing the entire season on Sept 6th? That is literally 8 days.
                        That is more or less what happened to the Pacers with Granger last year. He went from going to play in the season opener to not being able to play until the end of March, or in other words the length of an NFL season.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          That is more or less what happened to the Pacers with Granger last year. He went from going to play in the season opener to not being able to play until the end of March, or in other words the length of an NFL season.
                          Basketball and football is a little different, because of the importance of specific roles. Danny's role can be consumed by multiple players, whereas a QBs role cannot. Also, I think they did have a plan even if it turned out to be a bad one. Gerald Green.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            So NFL Radio is still talking about nothing but Irsay's comments.

                            Come on, peeps, I listened to Irsay, I know how he is. I understood totally what he was saying, and I never got the indication that he was bashing Manning. He was admitting that he wanted to change how the team was structured. He never said it was wrong; just said that back in the 2000s, they did it a certain way, which at the time he felt was the way to go, and after some reflection, he decided that maybe he wanted to go a different direction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's a smart, rich man basically saying, "I'm willing to realize I can improve things, and will take the actions to make it happen."

                            I completely agree with the direction he's taken the team in the past few years. I always loved Manning, but the way the team was structured, it was very hard to advance deep in the playoffs. Everyone knew this. We hoped against it... but ultimately that lack of balance did us in every friggin year.

                            And Peyton Manning DID do a ton for this franchise --- so has Jim Irsay. Even more, honestly. He's the rich dude who has taken this entire team on his shoulders and moulded it the way he has; it was him that paid that entire front office and player-base. It was him that has committed to this city and built the Colt's brand here. He deserves as much credit as Manning for the success this team has had in the past 15 years. Manning was amazing on the field, but it all doesn't work if Irsay isn't putting a successful business around him. Manning isn't Irsay. Manning is the more public face. Irsay is the guy who actually drives this show. I think people forget that. Mannign wasn't driving the show, as much as most people want to fantasize about that. He was always at Irsay's command.

                            And let's not forget ---- Irsay is planning a huge home-coming for Manning. Who does that? An *******? I think people are missing the big picture, by a metric mile. Irsay's words didn't come out the way he thought; people read into it incorrectly, as people usually do.

                            I'm not taking sides. I'm defending Jim against what I think is an incorrect portrayal. Manning and Irsay are the two most important figures in Indianapolis Colts history, and people shouldn't think otherwise. Both of those men are why this state has a football team to watch right now.
                            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: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              Someone tweeted that article from SI back from the Super Bowl XLI. Interesting snippets although nothing new.

                              In pursuit of a victory that would recast his reputation, his heart racing with agitation, Peyton Manning called the boldest and most controversial audible of his career. Twelve days before he was to face the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI, Manning stood up in a meeting room at the Indianapolis Colts' training facility and delivered an unpopular decree to his teammates, who had gathered to talk logistics before their weeklong trip to South Florida. Colts president Bill Polian, one of the NFL's most autocratic executives, had announced that there would be restrictions on visitors to the team's hotel in Fort Lauderdale but that players would be free to spend time with family members and other guests in the confines of their own rooms. Unnerved, Manning essentially threw out Polian's play for one more to his liking. "I don't think we should let anyone up in the rooms," Manning told the stunned group of players and coaches. "This is a business trip, and I don't want any distractions. I don't want any crying kids next to me while I'm trying to study." � That Manning would get his way was a foregone conclusion--Indy has been Peyton's Place since his arrival as the No. 1 pick in the 1998 draft--but grumblings of dissent still filled the room. "We were heated," recalls veteran cornerback Nick Harper. "People were saying, 'We're grown-*** men. We've got wives and kids, and we'll make those decisions for ourselves.' But, you know, it turned out all right."
                              In an effort to replicate his routine in Indy, where he watches game film in his basement, Manning had the team provide a similar setup on the Marriott Harbor Beach resort's third floor, two below the off-limits level. He even listened to the same music on bus rides to and from practice that he did during car trips throughout the playoffs: a mix CD given to him by Ashley for Christmas. But instead of copying tunes like Bruce Springsteen's Glory Days to an iPod, Manning went retro. "Ashley bought me one of those Discman things for, like, eight bucks," he said. " Reggie Wayne and [linebacker] Cato June couldn't believe someone still made those anymore. They were taking pictures of it because they thought it was so funny. But hey, I kept to the routine."

                              Not every Colts player found humor in Manning's intensity. The no-visitors policy had some teammates complaining about the franchise's "Peyton Rules." And after Dungy and offensive coordinator Tom Moore asked for Manning's input in planning the Wednesday practice session, one player groused that the team should be renamed the Indianapolis Peytons.
                              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...31/1/index.htm

                              RWB, would definitely be nodding when he reads that stuff.

                              Is Peyton suffering from a mild form of OCD? [half serious/half joking]
                              Never forget

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                All the great athletes and driven individuals in anything have the same traits. They are obsessive, want things their own way to stick to routine, dislike changes to that routine, and will do whatever it takes to win. The difference is that Peyton has tremendous PR and so that makes him "likable" but in reality he's just the same. You know, laser rocket arm.
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X