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

Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

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

  • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

    Creek,
    The problem is that scenario requires Peyton to renegotiate a new contract, and one that would be palatable to the Colts given the circumstances. The question then gets murky because there are so many variable to be considered- Does Peyton even want to come back to the Colts without his full, existing contract (is it a diss if they let it lapse)? Is the currect Colts situation a place he wants to be? Is there a mutually agreeable number/contract for the two parties?

    Meanwhile, the Colts would have to prefer RGIII over Luck. I'm not sure they do. It doesn't appear that way.

    So all of these scenarios to keep Peyton here have to remember he has a compromise to make himself if he wants to return. The team is clearly rebuilding and so it's not practical to think they will start the rebuild with any kind of anchor of a contract to Manning.

    And lastly, it doesn't matter what they could do... Because if they want Luck there are no real options except to use that first pick on him.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

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

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

      Here you go speakout. For something you seem to know can't happen.

      Weinke has shared his experience with Manning and thinks four-time NFL MVP will return to play again at a high level as he continues his rehabilitation from four surgeries, including one that was not publicly acknowledged between last May 23 and that September anterior fusion surgery, according to SI.com.

      "I've spoken to Peyton early on in the process,'' Weinke told USA TODAY Thursday. "My gut feeling: It's not a question of if he can get back healthy because it's already been proven it can happen because I went through it.

      "It comes down to Peyton and what he wants. My gut tells me he wants to come back and play. My gut also tells me he's going to come back and be just as good if not better than he was prior to the surgery.''

      What is encouraging for Manning as he awaits regeneration of nerves in his right triceps muscle is that Weinke overcame full regeneration of nerves in his throwing arm.

      Weinke's throwing arm went dead after he was blasted by then-Virginia defensive end Patrick Kearney during a November, 1998 game.

      "I lost everything, full atrophy in my throwing arm, the nerves that control my right arm were damaged,'' the former Seminoles quarterback said. "My head was awkward and I got involved in a head-on collision.

      "I had total nerve regeneration. So I had to in essence re-teach myself to throw.''
      http://content.usatoday.com/communit...od-or-better/1

      Oh, and in the very next year he only won the Heisman and NCAA championship.
      Last edited by Since86; 03-01-2012, 10:38 AM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

        Originally posted by CreekShow View Post
        You must not like to read huh? I havent seen 1 person who thinks its logical to pay the bonus.



        I posted this exact scenario in this thread, or one of the many Manning threads, and pretty much got pushed aside. Keeping PM is the extremley unpopular opinion here, but this would be my ideal scenario. Keep Peyton, who I honestly believe will play @ high level again, and you have your future waiting on the bench. Not to mention another pick or 2.

        Its kind of funny though seeing peoples opinion change (even if just a little bit) after every bit of news that says PM is indeed making progress. Bc a month ago there was hardly a single person who would even entertain the idea of having Manning back, and much less concerning not having Luck at all

        Perhaps a better way to look at it is that if the Colts do not sign Peyton, he damn sure better never be back to 100% and playing at a high level in the playoffs for some other team. If the Colts make that mistake, they will lose a whole lot of fans and their will be empty seats in the house that Peyton built. Peyton is not going to move the March 8 date back because if the Colts do not decide to keep him by then, he needs to be looking for his next team. I'll keep up with the Colts and I'll tune in to see how they are doing but I'm going to be watching Peyton wherever he is. This does not mean that I am a Peyton fan and not a Colt fan. As for the $28 million, you are paying for what Peyton has already done here.......

        Comment


        • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          Creek,
          The problem is that scenario requires Peyton to renegotiate a new contract, and one that would be palatable to the Colts given the circumstances. The question then gets murky because there are so many variable to be considered- Does Peyton even want to come back to the Colts without his full, existing contract (is it a diss if they let it lapse)? Is the currect Colts situation a place he wants to be? Is there a mutually agreeable number/contract for the two parties?

          Meanwhile, the Colts would have to prefer RGIII over Luck. I'm not sure they do. It doesn't appear that way.

          So all of these scenarios to keep Peyton here have to remember he has a compromise to make himself if he wants to return. The team is clearly rebuilding and so it's not practical to think they will start the rebuild with any kind of anchor of a contract to Manning.

          And lastly, it doesn't matter what they could do... Because if they want Luck there are no real options except to use that first pick on him.
          I can def agree with all of that. Which is why the ball is in Peytons court now. If he really means what hes said all along (that he wants to retire a Colt) then he will have to do so on a restructured contract. If not, then we know the money is whats most important. That would change my entire stance on the situation.

          I understand you cant pay his contract out (which Colts are lucky bc they could have just as easily been stuck paying the whole contract w/o the option PM insisted on adding.) Its just time for Peyton to really decide whats more important, the money or the fans and franchise he helped build.

          Deep down I believe regardless of what happens w the draft, that Irsay isnt dumb enough to let a possibly healthy Manning just walk out to another team.
          Last edited by CreekShow; 03-01-2012, 11:24 AM.
          I Bleed Blue

          Comment


          • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            And that common denominator is always the southbound side of a northbound horse.......
            That must be some kind of slinky horse, like the slinky dog, capable of having its ends move in two directions 180 degrees apart.



            I think you mean the south side of a northbound horse....
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              That must be some kind of slinky horse, like the slinky dog, capable of having its ends move in two directions 180 degrees apart.



              I think you mean the south side of a northbound horse....
              It is all me... I just can't seem to get along with horses in any way....

              Comment


              • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                I think if there's any owner in the NFL that would go the extra mile trying to keep his star QB while also not ignoring the long term future of the franchise with a young possible franchise QB available for the picking, it's Irsay.

                I think Irsay will offer and do more than any other owner would in this situation to keep Manning. But at the end of the day I'm not sure it will be enough when the big picture is taken into account. The big picture includes the hindsight of the team Polian built that could only muster 2 wins last season, Manning's uncertain injury status and timeline, and several teams likely willing to throw caution to the wind in order to take a chance on Manning and without the worry about having a #1 pick in the draft or an existing QB they consider the future of their franchise enough to worry about for long term.

                And lastly, Irsay might offer a lot, even more than he should when the cap is considered and with the rebuilding necessary... But Manning still might like other options better or expect more from the Colts. There's a point Irsay has to be smart when he steps back and takes the emotion out of the decision and has to think long term.
                Last edited by Bball; 03-01-2012, 01:17 PM.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

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

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I think if there's any owner in the NFL that would go the extra mile trying to keep his star QB while also not ignoring the long term future of the franchise with a young possible franchise QB available for the picking, it's Irsay.

                  I think Irsay will offer and do more than any other owner would in this situation to keep Manning. But at the end of the day I'm not sure it will be enough when the big picture is taken into account. The big picture includes the hindsight of the team Polian built that could only muster 2 wins last season, Manning's uncertain injury status and timeline, and several teams likely willing to throw caution to the wind in order to take a chance on Manning and without the worry about having a #1 pick in the draft or an existing QB they consider the future of their franchise enough to worry about for long term.
                  I believe you are close to the truth. If they team had won a couple of more games and not gotten the rights to Luck or RGIII, Irsay would probably have just paid the $28 million hoping Peyton would be back to normal......

                  Comment


                  • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I can read just fine. You're also the person who told me that my opinion wasn't based in medical facts.

                    How'd that one turn out for you?

                    Dont be mad just because you can't keep your **** together between one post to the next. If you don't know how his nerve's will regenerate, then you shouldn't be saying that they won't come back to 100%.

                    Read a couple articles from Cooper Manning talking about what his experiences were like with this surgery. Go read about Chris Weinke's experiences. Hell, look up some of the article from doctors that I've already posted.
                    Sample of n=2-- very impressive statistic. For every two you name there are any many others who are not so fortunate and the regeneration a) takes time and b) depends on the severity of the insult to the nerve. If the nerves were pinched over a long period of time or severely pinched then the recovery is prolonged if it occurs at all. That is all I'm saying, Manning could be ready to go now, in September 2012, next year, or never. We will see what happens next week.
                    Last edited by speakout4; 03-01-2012, 05:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                      Yeah, becaue there's only two In our last discussion about this, I linked Dr. Hsu's study, which involved 99 players, and you told me that my opinion wasn't medically based.

                      I don't know if you simply don't read the sources provided, can't read them, or just forget them as soon as you do, but something isn't connecting.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                        To quote the good Dr. Hsu, for about the 10th time since you don't ever care to read/remember it.

                        This is a pretty common surgery in professional and NFL players, and they do better than what many people think. I've heard people say it's really hard to get back from a neck injury, how if you have surgery, you don't come back, but that's simply not true. I think Peyton, being the stalwart that he is, playing the position that he does, has a very, very good prognosis for coming back
                        http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-the-situation
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          To quote the good Dr. Hsu, for about the 10th time since you don't ever care to read/remember it.


                          http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-the-situation
                          He is talking about the spinal fusion which can be accompanied by nerve deficits or no nerve deficits. Much of the time there is no nerve damage so yes it is easy to predict recovery. You just can't lump spinal fusions into a single class. As for his fusion there probably is complete success but as for his muscle weakness we will just have to wait until we see how well he can throw-- what his arm velocity is, how well he can hit certain spots on the field, if he can hit a target with a soft or hard pass, etc. After all the years of honing his skills we will see exactly what is left and what isn't.

                          If the expert had talked about the nerve problem and muscle atrophy as separate issues that would have been helpful. Spinal fusions are commonly done on people who have no muscle or nerve degeneration at all.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            He is talking about the spinal fusion which can be accompanied by nerve deficits or no nerve deficits. Much of the time there is no nerve damage so yes it is easy to predict recovery. You just can't lump spinal fusions into a single class. As for his fusion there probably is complete success but as for his muscle weakness we will just have to wait until we see how well he can throw-- what his arm velocity is, how well he can hit certain spots on the field, if he can hit a target with a soft or hard pass, etc. After all the years of honing his skills we will see exactly what is left and what isn't.

                            If the expert had talked about the nerve problem and muscle atrophy as separate issues that would have been helpful. Spinal fusions are commonly done on people who have no muscle or nerve degeneration at all.
                            How about this. Polian said he was throwing 20 to 30 yard passes with zip in December. According to everyone with an inside, he is throwing longer and getting stronger every day. Other teams are going to take a chance on him but the Colts will not? The fans are going to be loud and ugly when Luck falls on his *** and the losses pile up and Peyton is out somewhere playing well and getting to the playoffs. Some of them will NEVER come back..........

                            Comment


                            • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                              Other teams aren't as depleted as the Colts and are in better position to take a gamble on Manning on the chance that he can play anywhere near his prime at his old age and injury concerns.

                              Colts may take that chance if Manning is willing to restructure his contract. However, at that point it's not necessarily the Colts decision but Manning's decision as he is an unrestricted free agent. unrestricted is the key word.

                              If Manning doesn't choose the Colts then I doubt many would stop being Colts fans. And regardless of Manning, Colts need a good QB as either a starter or the backup plan.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                                I still have faith that Peyton comes back. I think the Colts will be willing to offer a contract that is similar to anything else he can fetch on the open market. And I think Peyton will view finishing his career here as being a better option than going to a mediocre team in X city and completely starting over. If the Colts offer a similar contract to another team but Peyton still chooses to bail then that's on him and I won't be upset at the Colts at all.

                                Yes, we were 2-14 last season which is abysmal. But we had the worst quarterback play in the entire league. I don't think any team in the history of the NFL has ever rolled out a trio of QB's that are as bad as 39 y/o Collins/Painter/Orvlosky. You can't win much with such bad quarterback play, yet we still had a chance to win several games early in the season. A QB with even mediocre ability would have won those games. With Peyton they would have been slaughters. We would have absolutely stomped Pitt with a healthy Peyton. Peyton knows all of this.

                                Irsay knows that fans would be steamed if they had to watch Peyton hang 30 touchdowns with a different logo on his helmet. It's not like the Packers with Favre who knew that there was no way the guy could play that much longer when they let him go, because if Peyton is healthy he could feasibly play several more years.

                                Regardless of what happens with Peyton, I just don't see the Colts not picking Luck. It would be very gutsy for them to go beyond the overwhelming mainstream consensus that Luck should be the #1 pick. Whenever Peyton doesn't play, whether that be this year or in a couple years from now, the Colts are going to be trying to keep fans. The last thing they want, IMO, is for some gutsy move to blow up in their face. If Luck was great and the Colts didn't pick him, there would be years of upset fans. If it's the other way around though and Luck doesn't live up to potential then at least the Colts would be able to play the "well practically everyone would have picked him at 1" card.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-02-2012, 08:19 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X