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

Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

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

  • #76
    Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

    I never said RG3 wasn't a good QB, just that he gets over-hyped and Luck really gets under-hyped at this point in their careers. I think it did have an effect on ROY voting. Like I said, if they took everything into consideration(not just QB rating which doesn't tell the whole story) Luck would have won it because the other two had such a HUGE advantage with the personnel around them.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

      Originally posted by idioteque View Post
      I am far from a fashonista but that Bronco orange is probably the most hideous uniform color in the NFL. It is literally construction worker orange, who thought that was a good idea? Seems a few shades lighter (ugh) than the old-school Bronco orange.

      I am with you, I'm "on leave" from being a Manning fan until he retires. I'll feel good for him the day he walks away from the game but I wish the Broncos nothing at all in the meantime. Not that I want him to get hurt, I just don't think any better of him than anyone else not wearing Colts blue.
      I agree. A couple friends of mine were bummed when the Broncos lost that playoff game to the Ravens, but I personally didn't care one bit. I only care about the Indianapolis Colts. I would have preferred that Denver won that game, but I certainly didn't lose any sleep at night. I never liked the Broncos during the Manning era and am not going to start liking them now.

      I'm just worried that if the Colts lose to the Broncos, there is going to be a chunk of Colts fans who say that they are happy for Manning. I could never be happy about an opponent beating the Colts on our turf in prime time, but that's just me.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
        I never said RG3 wasn't a good QB, just that he gets over-hyped and Luck really gets under-hyped at this point in their careers. I think it did have an effect on ROY voting. Like I said, if they took everything into consideration(not just QB rating which doesn't tell the whole story) Luck would have won it because the other two had such a HUGE advantage with the personnel around them.
        I completely agree, and likewise, I never said RG3 was "bad". He's good. He's just not near as good as the media makes him out to be. His stock is way higher than it should be. Luck is, imo, the best overall player of that entire group (by a large margin), but he's also the least "shiny". On a personality level, he's way more low-key, everyday-man looking, not attention-grabbing. Kaepernick and RG3 are living the high life right now, living it up, basking in the limelight, getting their promos and endorsements, and both are probably a little over-rated on the field. Luck and Wilson, imo, are both handling the attention way better, and frankly, are both way better players, to me. I really, really like Wilson. I would have been more accepting of Wilson getting the ROY last year over Luck, except I think even Wilson has WAY more team around him than Luck did and does currently. But I think Wilson would have had a great season even on this Colts roster. He's a really good football player. I don't think he would've done as well as Luck did... Luck was thrown a turd sandwich and turned it into a playoff berth. I don't think any of the other hot young QBs could've done what Luck did with this same Colts team. That ultimately is my ultimate litmus test: I imagine substituting those quarterbacks with the other young QBs and imagine how their teams would've done, and in no case where I put Luck on one of the other teams did I feel like that team would've gotten worse, and in no situation did I imagine switching Luck for Wilson/RG3/Kap would've resulted in a better outcome for the Colts. Luck is absolutely the best of all of them. Wilson/Kap/RG3 all did really well.... but imagine Luck on last year's 'Skins team! Imagine Luck on last year's 49er or Seahawks team! You're talking about something seriously special... But Wilson is damn good. Luck though..... extremely special physical and mental talent, a once in a generation player across all sports. The last time an athlete of similar gifts came onto the scene was LeBron James. Luck just doesn't have the same off-the-field hub-bub.... but he has every bit of the on-field make-up. I think Luck is absolutely perfect for the Indy community, in terms of low-key personality with a focus on excellence. That was the legacy that Peyton built here... an focus on excellence, blue-collar attitude, without all the extra-curricular fluff. Luck comes in to that mold perfectly. Awesome convergence of "fit" with ability with this city.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-20-2013, 03:20 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


        • #79
          I check on Peyton out of curiosity, but the magic of watching him get it done with us is gone.

          Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            At the State Fair, I saw someone wearing a Manning Bronco jersey with a Colt hat. That combination clashed both aesthetically and metaphorically. People like that better pick their allegiance by October 20. Any Colts season ticket holder who shows up in ugly Bronco orange should have their tickets revoked immediately so that a true Colts fan can get them. I'm going to throw up if I hear any "Colts fans" on messages boards saying that they are happy for Peyton if the Broncos win that game. I want to win that game more than anything in front of a national audience, and I'm going to be upset if we don't.
            If there is still a big waiting list I would be in favor of banning season ticket holders who wear Broncos stuff. Broncos are competition. Screw them no matter who is under center.

            I hate it when people have a true "2nd team". Choose a side.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

              I'd rather the Broncos win the Super Bowl than the Patriots, Texans, Steelers, Ravens, or Chargers, but that doesn't mean I'm rooting for them.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                I want Peyton to win, not the Broncos. But frankly as long as Peyton is the QB, I don't see them winning (it really pains me to say that).

                Of course I don't see any way the NFC loses this year...
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                  Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                  I want Peyton to win, not the Broncos. But frankly as long as Peyton is the QB, I don't see them winning (it really pains me to say that).

                  Of course I don't see any way the NFC loses this year...
                  What makes you say that? You think he'll continue on with his Playoff blunders?

                  Anyway back to the Colts/Peyton debate. I'm a Colts fan first. That's just how it is. Players move on, get traded, leave via free agency and what not, but the team always goes on. I can understand people rooting for Peyton and wanting the Broncos to win as long as they aren't playing the Colts, but if you're seriously not going to be upset if the Colts lose to the Broncos this year or if they ever meet in the Playoffs while Peyton is playing, then that's a problem. It won't be as tough as a loss to take, because hey at least it's just Peyton, but you bet your *** I want to win that game, just like I want to win every game. Then again it's easy to say that it won't be that bad cause it is Peyton right now

                  If I'm able to score tickets to that game it'll be odd to see how the crowd reacts. Sadly I think it might be quieter when Peyton's on offense. I mean the Indy fan base is soft, and a lot of people were just Peyton fans and were probably ready to jump ship with him after he left, but since we got lucky with Luck (no pun intended) and had that emotional run last year it kept fans on board.

                  Unfortunately I expect to hear cheers when the Broncos score in our building, and not all of the cheering ones will be actual Bronco fans. If I see people wearing Colt Manning jerseys that are cheering a TD pass from Peyton, I'll be a little upset to say the least.

                  It's just a tough situation I guess. My friend who I thought was as big of a fan as me, when I asked what if the Colts met the Broncos in the AFCCG, he said he'd be rooting for Peyton to get another ring and wouldn't be mad if the Colts lost. His reasoning is because Luck is young and Peyton is older, or something like that, but even then getting to a Super Bowl is a tough thing to accomplish, it took Ray Ray 12 years to get to another one with the Ratbirds. That's not how how I'm going to approach that scenario, but that's just me. If we ended up losing that game the only thing that wouldn't make me as upset would be "Hey at least Peyton is in the Super Bowl" but I will still no doubt be as upset as any fan should be if their team fell a game short of a Super Bowl berth.

                  Go Colts and Go Peyton (As long as it isn't hurting boys with the blue horseshoes on their helmets)
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                    While I'll always appeciate what Peyton did for the Colts franchise he is the enemy now. Pretty simple to me.... boo him as loud as you can while on the field and show class off the field. That goes for any of these guys in any sport.
                    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


                    • #85
                      Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                      Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post

                      It's just a tough situation I guess. My friend who I thought was as big of a fan as me, when I asked what if the Colts met the Broncos in the AFCCG, he said he'd be rooting for Peyton to get another ring and wouldn't be mad if the Colts lost. His reasoning is because Luck is young and Peyton is older, or something like that, but even then getting to a Super Bowl is a tough thing to accomplish, it took Ray Ray 12 years to get to another one with the Ratbirds. That's not how how I'm going to approach that scenario, but that's just me. If we ended up losing that game the only thing that wouldn't make me as upset would be "Hey at least Peyton is in the Super Bowl" but I will still no doubt be as upset as any fan should be if their team fell a game short of a Super Bowl berth.

                      Go Colts and Go Peyton (As long as it isn't hurting boys with the blue horseshoes on their helmets)
                      Yeah, this is the sort of ill-advised logic that worries me most and makes me want to pull my hair out. Who cares how old either of them are? One of them plays for the Indianapolis Colts and the other doesn't. That's all that should matter. Give him a good ovation before the game and whenever they give him a tribute, but otherwise boo his team. It will be embarrassing for the franchise if a lot of people are cheering for the Broncos on national TV.

                      To each their own, but I don't sit and worry about Peyton getting another ring here. We won a Super Bowl with him here, played in another, and had multiple opportunities where we just couldn't get the job done. I rooted like hell for us to have more success than we did, but it's over now.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                        Why would I want the other 52 guys in Broncos jerseys to get a ring?

                        Sorry, I love Peyton, but there are still some old time legends on this Colts roster.

                        Would you rather see Peyton get another ring than Reggie or Mathis? Sorry, but I'm picking those two dudes over Peyton. Honestly, Reggie and Mathis have more of an Indy connection to me than Peyton, Peyton got a lot of the flashy stuff like the Children's Hospital named after him, but I see Reggie and Mathis at a lot more Indy events. I mean Mathis has been at so many Pacer games over the past few season that it honestly just seems like he is always there at this point.

                        Look I will always appreciate Peyton, but he made his decision. He didn't want to retire, he wanted to keep competing, and that's fine! But if he can move on, so should we as Colts fans. If you can't, then well, it seems pretty cut and dry to me that you're really just a Peyton fan.


                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                          His reasoning is because Luck is young and Peyton is older, or something like that, but even then getting to a Super Bowl is a tough thing to accomplish
                          I'm going to talk about different sports but I think the analogy still holds. Several years back a rookie had a great shot at winning the Indy 500. Unfortunately, an accident took him out (and it wasn't necessarily his own doing). Years later he said that accident hadn't bothered him too much because he was young and it had seemed so easy to get into that position to win that he figured there would be plenty more opportunities. And then he said he learned it doesn't work like that. He never won the Indy 500 and he hasn't had a ride for several years either.

                          Sure, Luck is younger.... but that doesn't mean he'll have more opportunities than Peyton per se. Bad personnel moves by his team could derail him and there's nothing he can do about that. Injuries to himself and key players could derail seasons if not careers. And even if things go perfectly for the Colts and Luck there's always the chance some other team catches lightning in a bottle and rides it all the way to their own SB and derails the Colts along the way.

                          In a tight game one small mistake could be huge. A blown coverage. A dropped pass. A fumble. An INT. A misread. And then other circumstances could lead to that having been the team's last, best chance. "Wait'll next year" sounds good... but sometimes 'next year' isn't what you imagined.

                          IOW.... If you want the Colts to win SB's you best root for them to win when the opportunity presents itself. It might not come around again. Look at the Colts themselves for an example. Who would've thought Manning's Indy career would've ended when it did let alone with only 2 SB appearances? 2 SB appearances is tremendous but there were several missed opportunities in there and then the wheels came off.

                          I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Wait'll next year" after Caldwell helped coach away a win for the Colts against the Jets in the playoffs and we saw a frustrated Manning on the sideline in one of the last appearances with him as a Colt in uniform. But at that moment we had the hope of the blessings a new season would bring, a SB in Lucas to look forward to, and Manning back to once again lead the Colts. But that's not how it turned out. Instead, that loss to the Jets was the end of the line for a Manning led Colts team to return to the SB.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                            As I have said before getting to the Super Bowl and winning it takes a lot of good things to roll your way. The best teams don't always get there and win, and we as Colts fans know that too well.

                            Whenever it's a one and done style playoff, it just makes the stakes that much higher. Nothing is guaranteed. That's why if the Colts did end up playing the Broncos in the AFCCG and lost I would be pissed. We certainly have a decent looking future in Luck, but you never know what might happen. Can't take anything for granted. One botched snap could screw us from winning a Super Bowl. Bball said it best, though.
                            Super Bowl XLI Champions
                            2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                              Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                              As I have said before getting to the Super Bowl and winning it takes a lot of good things to roll your way. The best teams don't always get there and win, and we as Colts fans know that too well.

                              Whenever it's a one and done style playoff, it just makes the stakes that much higher. Nothing is guaranteed. That's why if the Colts did end up playing the Broncos in the AFCCG and lost I would be pissed. We certainly have a decent looking future in Luck, but you never know what might happen. Can't take anything for granted. One botched snap could screw us from winning a Super Bowl. Bball said it best, though.
                              Exactly. And that's why it's insane for any "Colts fan" to be OK with Manning beating Luck in the playoffs. Yeah Luck is young now, but as we saw during the Manning era, it's extremely tough to win in the NFL playoffs - even if you have an all time talent. A blown opportunity can haunt you for a long time. A true Colts fan should never be able to take any solace in a loss. Ever. I might sound harsh, but I want to create a real NFL fanbase here that puts the franchise above everything else like they do in places like Green Bay or Pittsburgh.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X