Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Andrew Luck!!!!

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

  • #16
    Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

    Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
    I drafted mid July..... got Luck in 6th and Hilton in 8th.
    I also got Hilton. Is it T Y or TY?

    I got Rodgers early, but we have two QB slots (one QB and one foe general offense) so I couldnt pass luck up. Ironially enough the guy after me was all pissed (all of us were at a house for a draft party, made for a kick *** time).

    Sorry for the thread derail

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
      Well you titled it "Andrew Luck" I figured it was going to be an open discussion about him.. sure he could've been MVP but you could also say the same for a lot of other players last year. Sure Luck appears ready now but a lot of rookies appeared ready in their first season.. like Cam Newton then he had a sophomore slump.

      You never know what the future holds besides we have to hope Luck is healthy I don't trust the O-Line as is to protect him at this point.
      Suggesting Andrew Luck could have a sophomore slump is an utter waste of words. Zero percent chance of any kind of regression. Odds of Luck slumping are the same as Roy Hibbert regressing to the level of a Lou Amondson. Not gonna happen.
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        I also got Hilton. Is it T Y or TY?

        I got Rodgers early, but we have two QB slots (one QB and one foe general offense) so I couldnt pass luck up. Ironially enough the guy after me was all pissed (all of us were at a house for a draft party, made for a kick *** time).

        Sorry for the thread derail
        T Y. I would also expect huge numbers from him. 90 catches. 1100 yds. 10 TDs
        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

          Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
          I am sorry he is not on the elite level with guys like Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning. I think he will be in a year or two, but he is not on their level yet.

          Luck is truly a blessing though and I think many Colts fans are taking for granted that we got to go from Manning to Luck. Most franchises just fall flat on their face after moving on from a HOF QB like we did. I still do not believe that we did not tank for Luck.
          Manning is only on that level during the regular season though. I would argue he is very average overall in the post season. As good as he is I had very little confidence in Manning in playoff games and still don't. When he threw that back breaking pick last year against the Ravens I called it before it happened. He has gotten a little better at pressure games but Luck look more poised in his first playoff game than Manning did years into his career. I would rather take my chances with Luck when it comes to crunch time.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
            T Y. I would also expect huge numbers from him. 90 catches. 1100 yds. 10 TDs

            Is he changing his number to 88 too?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
              Suggesting Andrew Luck could have a sophomore slump is an utter waste of words. Zero percent chance of any kind of regression. Odds of Luck slumping are the same as Roy Hibbert regressing to the level of a Lou Amondson. Not gonna happen.
              We'll find out won't we haven't seen Pagano a full season as a coach who knows how that will turn out. People seem to forget a lot of our wins were close calls more than anything. I could see the Colts go 9-7 this season maybe 8-8. This team still has a lot of work before I consider them contenders. But health plays a role I mean there are QB who had potential and got riddled by injuries(Chad Pennington for one) there are no guarantees in life let alone sports.

              Comment


              • #22
                Truly bad teams usually end up on the wrong side of close games. You haven't watched Luck at all if Pennington and Newton are what come to mind.

                Sent from my KFJWI 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


                • #23
                  Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Truly bad teams usually end up on the wrong side of close games. You haven't watched Luck at all if Pennington and Newton are what come to mind.

                  Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
                  The research shows that's simply not true. There is a lot of variance involved, but for the most part it's pretty random. For example, here's a part of Barnwell's recent column on the Colts:

                  It's hard to classify teams into a group when it comes to measuring close-game performance, but let's work with those teams since 1989 that played at least seven close games and won at least 70 percent of those games. There are 84 instances of that happening. The following year, those 84 teams went a combined 308-292-2 in one-touchdown games, winning 51.1 percent of the contests. That's textbook regression to the mean. Indy won't be as good in close games again in 2013
                  And the flip side, here's a comment about the Lions, who went 3-8 in those close games last year:

                  In any case, again, let's try to compare the Lions to teams that were similarly bad (or unlucky) in one-touchdown games. In all, 51 teams have lost seven or more games by one score or less since 1989; their average record in one-touchdown games during this awful season was 2.5-7.5, meaning they won 25 percent of those close games. The following year, those same teams went a combined 188-210 in those games, nearly doubling their win rate at 47.2 percent. Overall, they won an average of 3.1 more games the following season. That all bodes well for the Lions, who could have a much better record with a merely average amount of luck next season.

                  http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9543714/bill-barnwell-breaks-colts-chances-repeating-their-playoff-worthy-record


                  http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...s-numbers-test

                  It's not all variance. Some elite QBs have been shown to be able to win an above average number of close games. But otherwise, it's much more random than people think. A sixteen game schedule is simply not large enough of a sample size to make a great determination on close games. The Lions are a great example of that. 5-3 in 2011, then 3-8 in 2012.

                  In 2011, the Raiders were the best team in close games at 7-1, which helped propel them to an 8-8 record. Last year, they were 2-3 in those games, and were 4-12 overall.
                  In 2011, the Vikings were the worst team in close games at 2-9, which was a big reason they went 3-13. Last year, they were 5-1 in those games, and were 10-6 overall.

                  From watching Luck closely, he seems to have some of those characteristics that may allow the Colts record to be a little better than expected in close games. But there's almost no way the close games record doesn't regress at least somewhat this year. Hopefully the Colts can make it up by having better talent than last year and beating more teams by larger margins.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    Oh yes, Luck is just as good as those guys TODAY. He is an elite QB, plain and simple. You can wait for the end of the season to rank him with the Bradys and the Mannings, but I WILL NOT WAIT THAT LONG. From what I have seen with my own eyes, Luck is there RIGHT NOW!!!
                    I get your enthusiasm for the guy but he needs to improve on his decision making, his consistency and his accuracy to be on the level of those guys. Luck will making an amazing pass like he did to TJ, but then he will have a couple boneheaded passes like the pass he made on Reggie's insane catch for a TD. Everyone celebrates the catch, but Luck basically threw it to the defender instead of Reggie and we just got luck that the DB could not catch.

                    Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                    Manning is only on that level during the regular season though. I would argue he is very average overall in the post season. As good as he is I had very little confidence in Manning in playoff games and still don't. When he threw that back breaking pick last year against the Ravens I called it before it happened. He has gotten a little better at pressure games but Luck look more poised in his first playoff game than Manning did years into his career. I would rather take my chances with Luck when it comes to crunch time.
                    It helps Luck to have a real team around him too that does not force him to carry it every inch to have success. Everyone bags on Peyton's playoff success, but when you have to drag a corpse to the playoffs year in and year out and then go up against the best of the best where there is no room to error then sometimes things are not going look pretty. When your entire defense's success is predicated on your offense playing flawlessly you are just doomed.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                      The research shows that's simply not true. There is a lot of variance involved, but for the most part it's pretty random. For example, here's a part of Barnwell's recent column on the Colts:



                      And the flip side, here's a comment about the Lions, who went 3-8 in those close games last year:



                      http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9543714/bill-barnwell-breaks-colts-chances-repeating-their-playoff-worthy-record


                      http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...s-numbers-test

                      It's not all variance. Some elite QBs have been shown to be able to win an above average number of close games. But otherwise, it's much more random than people think. A sixteen game schedule is simply not large enough of a sample size to make a great determination on close games. The Lions are a great example of that. 5-3 in 2011, then 3-8 in 2012.

                      In 2011, the Raiders were the best team in close games at 7-1, which helped propel them to an 8-8 record. Last year, they were 2-3 in those games, and were 4-12 overall.
                      In 2011, the Vikings were the worst team in close games at 2-9, which was a big reason they went 3-13. Last year, they were 5-1 in those games, and were 10-6 overall.

                      From watching Luck closely, he seems to have some of those characteristics that may allow the Colts record to be a little better than expected in close games. But there's almost no way the close games record doesn't regress at least somewhat this year. Hopefully the Colts can make it up by having better talent than last year and beating more teams by larger margins.
                      Eh, I'm not buying most of that. First, basing anything off the *following* season after a perceived "lucky" season is a really bad basis for comparison. There are way too many factors involved, those teams were not carbon-copies of each other from year to year. Two, having been on the bad side of football, I absolutely know that being a not good football team can more often than not have you end up on the losing end of close games. Hell, in 2011, Indy lost 14 games. 6 of them were 1 score games. We lost 5 of them. Why? Because we weren't very good. Blame "chance" and "luck" all ya want, but Mr. Andrew Luck says it best: "You make your luck."
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                        Luck has to be the only QB I've ever seen doubted because he wins close games. It's seriously bizarro world. If an "experienced" QB had lead that many close wins from their team we would be hearing about how clutch he is and how the rest of his team needs to step it up. But because Luck is a young player, it is called a lucky win or something that isn't repeatable. I don't understand that line of thinking at all. Peyton Manning went 3-13 his rookie season with a roster that honestly didn't look a whole lot different than the one Luck had last year in terms of talent. And a big reason for Peyton's poop fest of a record was the fact that for his first season Peyton blew chunks in close games and often was the one making mistakes that blew games open. Luck really only had one game like that last year IMO and that was week 1 against the Bears


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          T Y. I would also expect huge numbers from him. 90 catches. 1100 yds. 10 TDs
                          I like T.Y. but I don't see this. Reggie is going to still get his huge numbers and I'm actually pretty impressed by DHB and the way Pep plans to use him. I think DHB is going to get 5-6 catches a game and Pep is going to find a way to make it happen even if it is just quick hitting screens. DHB is the perfect WR body for that sort of use. Plus D. Allen is going to get his catches too.

                          I think Hilton will catch around 50 balls and get 800-900 yards. Still a fantastic season by any measure, but he's not number 1 receiver material right now.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                            We'll find out won't we haven't seen Pagano a full season as a coach who knows how that will turn out. People seem to forget a lot of our wins were close calls more than anything. I could see the Colts go 9-7 this season maybe 8-8. This team still has a lot of work before I consider them contenders. But health plays a role I mean there are QB who had potential and got riddled by injuries(Chad Pennington for one) there are no guarantees in life let alone sports.
                            Andrew Luck's body type makes Pennington look like a ballerina. Honestly, we are just lucky in this city in sports right now. For the next decade we're probably going to get to watch two of the biggest physical freaks in the NBA and NFL play on a weekly basis. Luck is a lineback, hell really a speed rushing defensive end in today's NFL who can play quarterback. And Paul George is a 6'10" shooting guard who can guard 4 positions on the floor. What an awesome time to live in Indy and be watching these guys grow up. I would love to one day have a commercial where PG and Luck were both in it. I was hoping FIFA might do this when Luck signed on with EA because PG loves FIFA too. Make it happen yo!
                            Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-22-2013, 11:28 AM.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Luck has to be the only QB I've ever seen doubted because he wins close games. It's seriously bizarro world. If an "experienced" QB had lead that many close wins from their team we would be hearing about how clutch he is and how the rest of his team needs to step it up. But because Luck is a young player, it is called a lucky win or something that isn't repeatable. I don't understand that line of thinking at all. Peyton Manning went 3-13 his rookie season with a roster that honestly didn't look a whole lot different than the one Luck had last year in terms of talent. And a big reason for Peyton's poop fest of a record was the fact that for his first season Peyton blew chunks in close games and often was the one making mistakes that blew games open. Luck really only had one game like that last year IMO and that was week 1 against the Bears
                              Yeah, we won a ton of close games in 2008 and 2009. Manning won back to back MVP's those seasons and was pimped as the GOAT. But when Luck wins close games last year, it's because the team is shaky and on the verge of having a crappy followup season.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                                That's been part of the baffle for me. Luck did what he did last year, which is remarkable for a veteran to pull off. He was a *rookie*. Rookies aren't supposed to do that. So everyone puts it down as "beginners luck". Here's the thing --- he was considered the most pro-ready prospect to come out in decades, and arguably the best quarterback prospect to come out in 30 years. And then he goes out and basically backs it up --- and not only does everyone doubt him... they hoist RG3 up as the flavor of the year. People really don't know exactly what Luck pulled off last year. Why? Ignorance? They just don't know? Don't want to believe it? I don't know. I'm looking right at it. Been saying it since he was in college, before we drafted, after spending weeks watching tape on him, and the more I watched, the more convinced I became --- he's the best player I've ever seen come out of college. I don't mean that as he was an all-time great college player, a la Tyler Hansbrough, who's fantastic college career looked to translate to a middle-of-the-road pro career. I mean it as, Luck has a LeBron James-type collection of traits, a truly special physical and mental make-up. The stuff he did last year was not a surprise to me --- he did it in college. Everything he did in college projected to the pros, but unlike Hansbrough, he doesn't lack in physical or mental gifts. It wasn't a matter of over-achieving in Luck's case. He wasn't doing what he was doing by sheer heart and hustle. He has that hustle and heart, but he also has the other stuff. And then he has that on-field "it" factor; the ability to rise to a level of play that those around him cannot reach at critical moments. A lot of these guys who had "sophomore slumps" missed something critical in their make-up. A lot of times it's simply mental. Cam Newton, for all his physical talents, isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I stated before last season when everyone was pushing him up into the greatest of all time that I expected NFL defenses to catch on to him. It won't be like his rookie year forever, when most people just didn't have a book on him yet. The book is out now. A lot of those guys have some flaw or flaws that you can just see coming. They don't have the off-field commitment... they don't have the body.... they don't have the mental make-up... they don't have the mental toughness to keep it up..... they don't have the ability to make in-game or game-to-game adjustments.... they are immature... they make bad off-field decisions.... they have bad habits... imperfect mechanics --- any number of things. Luck doesn't lack in any of those departments. That's what made me make those claims last off-season. He is humble. He doesn't party. He's not an idiot. He's a physical freak, both in strength, flexibility, fluid-motion, fast-twitch. His mechanics are flawless. He's tough as ****. He expects perfection. He's not a dickhead to his teammates. He has the mental make-up of Peyton Manning, in his ability to store and recall. His ability to make adjustments on the fly... his ability to deliver from the pocket and on the run... he can run effectively without being stupid like RG3.... he's a leader.... he can make every throw known to man-kind.. he elevates his game in crunch-time... he can already read defenses and is already running a no-huddle, which is not only very rare for a rookie to do, but he was doing this in college, which is even more rare. He has it "upstairs". None of this is exaggeration, it is just straight observation. There are very few players who can check all of those things off. RG3 can't.... Wilson can't.... Kaepernick can't. They are all very good, but they all have their weaknesses in some form or fashion. And all three of them get held up above Luck by a large portion of the fanbase.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-22-2013, 12:48 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

                                Working...
                                X