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

Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

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

  • #61
    Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

    RWB I happen to know in Basketball they definitely do insure the players for this, I would be shaken in my beliefs if the NFL teams had no such thing.
    It would be impossible to replace players otherwise on long stretches like Manning, or like what happened to Sanders, cost would be prohibitive.

    Also in bb, if players represent their country the major stumblingblocks for the countries are the insurance premiums they have to pay for those periods of time.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

      For those who think the team was so much better two years ago (with Manning) than last year (without Manning) I want to do a little recap. Please don't take this as a knock on Manning. I just want to show that the 2010 team was not a world beater, nor was the 2011 team total despair.

      The 2010 team finished the regular season 10-6. Five of those wins were by less than a touchdown. Those were wins by 3-6-2-5-3 points. There were also two other wins by 10 points each. Hardly a season long dominating team.

      The 2011 team finished the regular season 2-14. Five of those loses were by a touchdown or less. Those loses were by 3-7-4-7-6 points. Two more loses were by 8 points each, and one additional loss was by 10 points.

      Yes, the 2011 team suffered a couple blow-outs, but in all honesty, if that team had even a decent quarterback, they could have finished the season 9-7, or even 10-6.

      Yes 10-6. The very same record the 2010 team had.

      So, while the absence of Manning certainly contributed to the poor record of last year (and we all would have preferred to see him play), I would argue that the 2011 team was not that far off from having a pretty good record. Give them a better replacement quarterback and the whole season would have looked different.

      I'll sum this up with one thought. While we are all sad to have Manning miss the season, let alone be leaving, we should be angry as heck that we had to watch Painter play. What a difference a decent back-up for Manning would have made.
      Last edited by Tom White; 03-07-2012, 10:41 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Manning is a practical guy and I just have a hard time believing that he wasn't willing to restructure the contract.
        Very true but Peyton does have an ego too. I think his (Peyton's) decision was made when Irsay told him Luck was going to be the pick.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

          Since Peyton negotiated his contract with the specter of surgery looming, even if there is contact insurance in the NFL, would they have been able to get insurance on a contract when it's known going in that the player will have surgery for a neck/nerve issue?
          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


          • #65
            Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

            I still don't understand how you don't want to pay him 28mil? I'm pretty sure he makes the Colts way more than that in ticket sales advertisement and anything he does, why would you let New York or any other team capitalize from having Peyton Manning on their team? this is stupid.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I understand the differences in the money. But we don't yet know what went down. Could the two sides just not reach an agreement, or did Irsay just flat out say we are going in a different direction regardless of what the numbers are? That's what I want to know. We probably won't find out today as it will be all about sentiment and remembering the past. But sooner or later I think some details will get leaked

              Manning is a practical guy and I just have a hard time believing that he wasn't willing to restructure the contract.

              I was a bit optimistic over these last few weeks, especially when the video was released of him throwing. I just had a hard time believing Irsay would allow a healthy Manning to go somewhere else.
              Assuming Manning was unwilling to renegotiate then I can see two scenarios... Either Manning wanted Irsay to trade the pick and restock the team and fully commit to him before renegotiating or else Manning felt that there really wasn't a way to make it work in Indy with both him and Luck with the salary cap, Luck's desire to play, the Colts' future, his own SB desires, etc and so he made Irsay's decision easy (but painful).

              Of course I guess there's always the 3rd scenario which would be Manning to Irsay: "This is why we did the contract the way we did in the first place and you agreed to it. I plan on coming back next season so pick up the option or not. Your choice"

              I personally believe Irsay would've negotiated, how much I don't know... but I believe he would've offered more than any other owner if faced with this situation. I just don't see Irsay turning his back on Manning without giving it a serious try.
              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


              • #67
                Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                I still don't understand how you don't want to pay him 28mil? I'm pretty sure he makes the Colts way more than that in ticket sales advertisement and anything he does, why would you let New York or any other team capitalize from having Peyton Manning on their team? this is stupid.
                Because the team is so freaking bad that it's going to take money and time to rebuild them and Manning's at the end of his career. ...and the NFL has a salary cap. If the cap wasn't an issue I could easily see Irsay doing what you said. In fact, he probably wishes that was an option. But he not only has to think about the next 3-4 years he has to think about the long term future. And of course there's still no guarantee a 35 year old Manning actually can be counted upon to play out his contract in full health and at a high level. So besides the cap hit there's a huge gamble taken that could be franchise crippling over the long haul.

                Even if Luck is a bust the team can go about shoring up the plethora of weaknesses that Polian left them with and not have an inordinate amount of $$$ tied up in the cap on the QB position. Of course they can't miss on draft after draft either.
                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


                • #68
                  Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Even if Luck is a bust the team can go about shoring up the plethora of weaknesses that Polian left them with and not have an inordinate amount of $$$ tied up in the cap on the QB position. Of course they can't miss on draft after draft either.
                  Agreed my friend and not only that Polian willingly messed with this team when he starting cutting the throats of Tom Moore and Howard Mudd. The dotying daddy really didn't give a rats @ss about the Colts and was more concerned in setting up his son.
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Because the team is so freaking bad that it's going to take money and time to rebuild them and Manning's at the end of his career. ...and the NFL has a salary cap. If the cap wasn't an issue I could easily see Irsay doing what you said. In fact, he probably wishes that was an option. But he not only has to think about the next 3-4 years he has to think about the long term future. And of course there's still no guarantee a 35 year old Manning actually can be counted upon to play out his contract in full health and at a high level. So besides the cap hit there's a huge gamble taken that could be franchise crippling over the long haul.

                    Even if Luck is a bust the team can go about shoring up the plethora of weaknesses that Polian left them with and not have an inordinate amount of $$$ tied up in the cap on the QB position. Of course they can't miss on draft after draft either.

                    I still don't think the team is nearly as bad as some make it out to be. We had a pathetic mix of QBs last year and that was the number 1 reason we were 2-14. There were so many games that would have been won had we had a QB of even average ability.

                    The AFC isn't that tough anymore. The NFC is the tough conference. Had Manning come back here healthy in 2012 then I think we would have still been Super Bowl contenders, though certainly not the favorites. A healthy Manning throwing to Garcon/Wayne/Collie/Clark would have still been a recipe for a bunch of wins.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      I still don't think the team is nearly as bad as some make it out to be. We had a pathetic mix of QBs last year and that was the number 1 reason we were 2-14. There were so many games that would have been won had we had a QB of even average ability.

                      The AFC isn't that tough anymore. The NFC is the tough conference. Had Manning come back here healthy in 2012 then I think we would have still been Super Bowl contenders, though certainly not the favorites. A healthy Manning throwing to Garcon/Wayne/Collie/Clark would have still been a recipe for a bunch of wins.
                      In 2010 we were a 10 win team with Garcon and Wayne. This year we will could be without one or both players so I can't really believe we will be contenders with the current roster.

                      We could make the playoffs but thats about it and before anyone says it "anything can happen" let me just say its not probable. Just like getting into the playoffs with Luck his first year is not probable.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                        The one thing that makes this easier for me as a fan.... Peyton got us to two Super Bowls and actually brought home a trophy for one. Can't take that away from our memories no matter what (plus all the video I recorded ).

                        Also the thought is someone other than Peyton Manning at QB won Super Bowls during that time so while he will be the greatest to ever where a Colts uniform that doesn't mean the Colts will never return to the big game without him.
                        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          In 2010 we were a 10 win team with Garcon and Wayne. This year we will could be without one or both players so I can't really believe we will be contenders with the current roster.

                          We could make the playoffs but thats about it and before anyone says it "anything can happen" let me just say its not probable. Just like getting into the playoffs with Luck his first year is not probable.

                          We had awful injuries to Clark and Collie in 2010. Both of those guys were huge contributors to our 09 team. And whereas in 2009 we caught practically every break in close situations, in 2010 the tables were flipped and we lost 4 very close games that we likely would have won the year before. The truth was probably somewhere in the middle.

                          Houston and SD beat us pretty good. Our other losses that year were: A 3 pt loss in Jax, a 2 point loss in Philly, a 3 point loss in New England, a 3 pt OT loss here to Dallas. Most years we would have won at least 2 of those games and finished with a 12-4 record. No way we should have lost to Dallas and we probably should have beat Jax. But in 2010 our luck ran out a bit. We were still a competitive team though and should have won that playoff game against New York.

                          I just don't see much difference between 09 and 10 aside from injuries, luck, and Manning not being able to pull every game out of his ***. Like I said, the truth is somewhere in the middle and both years we should have been about a 12 win team. 09 is a case of everything going right, 10 is a case of everything going wrong.

                          Also, Manning's "slump" in 2010 was drastically overblown. He finished with 33 TDs and 17 picks that year. He threw for 33 and 16 in 09 when he won MVP and was being crowned the GOAT. Yet 2010 was somehow a bad season.

                          8 of Manning's 17 picks in 2010 came in two games: SD and Dallas. 11 came in a three game stretch: NE, SD, and Dallas.

                          In the 14 games excluding SD and Dallas, Manning threw 29 TDs to 9 picks. He had a damn good season in 2010.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                            I don't buy the fact that we wouldn't be able to win many games with Peyton in 2012.

                            Sollozzo hit it right on the head. The 2010 team was not much different than the 2011 squad. Except we had horrid QB play. We actually had Collie most of the year and Clark.

                            The biggest difference is the defense got hit a tad harder on the injury side.

                            Peyton had a great season in 2010 and about won us a playoff game with Blair White and Tamme.

                            Remember when Collie returned and we had Garcon, Wayne, Tamme with him? Even though it was at home against the Jags, the offense was running smoothly and back to normal even without Clark.

                            Then Collie gets hurt and it slows down a tad, which sucked. If Collie hadn't gotten hurt again I believe we probably score more than 16 points in the infamous "Caldwell Timeout" game. But, it's in the past. The Peyton era is over. This day sucks.

                            If Luck is decent his first year, we could sniff a Wildcard, I believe.
                            Super Bowl XLI Champions
                            2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              We had awful injuries to Clark and Collie in 2010. Both of those guys were huge contributors to our 09 team. And whereas in 2009 we caught practically every break in close situations, in 2010 the tables were flipped and we lost 4 very close games that we likely would have won the year before. The truth was probably somewhere in the middle.

                              Houston and SD beat us pretty good. Our other losses that year were: A 3 pt loss in Jax, a 2 point loss in Philly, a 3 point loss in New England, a 3 pt OT loss here to Dallas. Most years we would have won at least 2 of those games and finished with a 12-4 record. No way we should have lost to Dallas and we probably should have beat Jax. But in 2010 our luck ran out a bit. We were still a competitive team though and should have won that playoff game against New York.

                              I just don't see much difference between 09 and 10 aside from injuries, luck, and Manning not being able to pull every game out of his ***. Like I said, the truth is somewhere in the middle and both years we should have been about a 12 win team. 09 is a case of everything going right, 10 is a case of everything going wrong.

                              Also, Manning's "slump" in 2010 was drastically overblown. He finished with 33 TDs and 17 picks that year. He threw for 33 and 16 in 09 when he won MVP and was being crowned the GOAT. Yet 2010 was somehow a bad season.

                              8 of Manning's 17 picks in 2010 came in two games: SD and Dallas. 11 came in a three game stretch: NE, SD, and Dallas.

                              In the 14 games excluding SD and Dallas, Manning threw 29 TDs to 9 picks. He had a damn good season in 2010.
                              Are you ignoring the fact that we won't probably have either Wayne or Garcon if we kept Manning and the age of this team is getting pretty bad which is why the injuries are happening more often to the same players.

                              One thing is for sure I wouldn't bet on all 22 starters to be injuried free in 2012 which is sort of hinges on the argument that people are making here and of course the fact that the roster is different than 2010.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Mort says we are parting ways with Peyton

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                Are you ignoring the fact that we won't probably have either Wayne or Garcon if we kept Manning and the age of this team is getting pretty bad which is why the injuries are happening more often to the same players.

                                One thing is for sure I wouldn't bet on all 22 starters to be injuried free in 2012 which is sort of hinges on the argument that people are making here and of course the fact that the roster is different than 2010.

                                If Manning were coming back then I think we would have at least had a decent chance of keeping Wayne and Garcon, particularly Wayne.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X