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

Week 14: @ Bengals

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

  • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

    Couldn't agree more on banishing DHB to the bench. And also, yes, why is the D suddenly so hideous? I still say if not for Fitzpatrick's turnover-itis, we lose at home vs. TN. What's happened to our DBs? I thought that unit overall looked like it would be solid. Instead it's crumbling week by week. The Landry payday and Davis trade are gradually looking like clunkers.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

      DBs looking like ****? No help from the non-existent pass rush. Maybe we should have spent some of our money on a pass rusher. Pressure from anyone outside Mathis has been nil.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

        Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
        There's no way to explain that botched replay TD gift, spin or no spin. If the call on the field was down by contact, the contact was obviously by Chapman.
        I think he is trying to say they (or he, Tripplette) initially felt the runner tripped/fell on his own and was touched on the ground (or thought that was what he was told by whoever said he was down by contact). So that was why he was 'down by contact' and not a trip. So then when the replay was looked at he was just trying to see if anyone touched him on the ground. Which they didn't. But he also seems to be saying he never even looked at the start of the trip.

        So the next question becomes, did whoever ruled him down by contact actually think he was touched after he fell, or did they think he was tripped in the first place? So did Tripplette go 'under the hood' with the wrong information?

        Then, does that matter?

        If a player is ruled down by contact, do they define the contact they think they saw before the lead official goes under the hood and is that is all he looks for (a specific contact)? Or does he just look for any contact that would've brought the player down? That's an important distinction. If Tripplette is looking for a specific contact and it's not there, then if he sees a different potential contact but it's not 100%, can he reverse the call on the field? Or does the 'down by contact' initial call now have to apply to any contact, even if that is not the contact another ref told him he thought he had seen?

        In this case that seems to be the case because it doesn't appear he even looked to see if there was contact that caused the fall and instead only focused on after the fall. As if there was a specific incident of contact he was looking for. I have little doubt that it would've been a mistake to not look for what caused the trip (which he does seem to be saying he did not look). I'm less sure what that means if the ref that called the contact was focused on a different contact that didn't actually occur, and then this becomes a different contact issue... And it is at least arguable that you can't tell 100% that contact was made but that would mean the play should've stood UNLESS if a ref said he saw one thing and didn't, and all missed the trip entirely, the 'irrefutable evidence' part of this goes out the window. Because then Tripplette would've been looking to prove or disprove a different contact.

        I'm not sure I'm explaining this well. But I'm not sure I can explain my questions any better either.
        Last edited by Bball; 12-08-2013, 11:35 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: Week 14: @ Bengals

          Ok... A hypothetical.

          Let's say there is an onside kick recovered by the kicking team. But then we see a flag on the field. One of the zebras tells the lead official that 88 touched the ball before it traveled 10 yards (which would be illegal touching).

          The penalized team challenges the call.

          The head official goes under the hood and it's clear 88 did not touch the ball at all. It was close but it's clear he didn't touch it. BUT it appears another player from the kicking team MIGHT have touched it prior to 10 yards.

          So is the head official looking to see specifically if only #88 touched the ball? And once he sees 88 didn't touch the ball, then does that change the 'irrefutable evidence' part of the equation? 88 is cleared from contacting the ball prior to 10 yards.... and that was specifically what the ref was told the other zebra had seen. But it's clear by the replay that MAYBE 85 DID touch the ball. But no replay angle is 100% convincing either way. And the ref that threw the flag said it was 88 that touched the ball. So what is the head ref supposed to do in that case? How is that supposed to be handled?

          That's about as close to the analogy as I can get to trying to figure out what Tripplette's argument would even be.... He was told a very specific thing and when he went under the hood that specific thing didn't happen. I still think he should've looked at the trip itself but if nobody had said they saw the trip, and the video isn't conclusive, does that now free him to reverse the call on the field? Reason being hypothetically no ref on the field had claimed to see a trip as the 'down by contact' anyway. It was something else they had claimed to see.
          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: Week 14: @ Bengals

            I'm hoping Mr. Triplett gets to work the Super Bowl and work his magic.
            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


            • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              That's about as close to the analogy as I can get to trying to figure out what Tripplette's argument would even be.... He was told a very specific thing and when he went under the hood that specific thing didn't happen. I still think he should've looked at the trip itself but if nobody had said they saw the trip, and the video isn't conclusive, does that now free him to reverse the call on the field? Reason being hypothetically no ref on the field had claimed to see a trip as the 'down by contact' anyway. It was something else they had claimed to see.
              It defies logic and common sense. If a player is ruled down by contact, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at what made him trip? They just looked at what happened AFTER he tripped, instead of looking for the cause. It's beyond idoitic. And the refs did claim to see him down by contact, because that's what the ruling on the field was.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                Originally posted by RWB View Post
                I'm hoping Mr. Triplett gets to work the Super Bowl and work his magic.
                Would you say that if the Colts managed to get there?

                Of course that SB won't be about the refs as much as the weather.

                Comment


                • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  Would you say that if the Colts managed to get there?

                  Of course that SB won't be about the refs as much as the weather.
                  I salute you glass half full fan.
                  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


                  • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    It defies logic and common sense. If a player is ruled down by contact, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at what made him trip? They just looked at what happened AFTER he tripped, instead of looking for the cause. It's beyond idoitic. And the refs did claim to see him down by contact, because that's what the ruling on the field was.
                    That is missing the point of what I'm asking.... Tripplette seems to be saying he was looking for contact after he hit the ground. As if the ref that called down by contact told Tripplette he was touched after he went to the ground. IF that is the contact a ref thought he saw to call 'down by contact' then does that let Tripplette off the hook if the only potential contact he sees is NOT specifically that called contact... and the other potential contact he does see (on video) is inconclusive?

                    And in this case, Tripplette doesn't even seem to have went back to even look at the entire play. Which I think the NFL is going to have a problem with regardless of anything else. I cannot think of a reason why he wouldn't go back unless the ref who made the call (or didn't make the TD call) gave Tripplette a specific contact he thought he saw and that is what Tripplette was looking for. Now, it could've been a miscommunication between refs at that point too. But regardless, does 'down by contact' open the entire play up to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn it, or does it focus it on a specific point of a play a ref tells the head ref he (thought he) saw contact?
                    Last edited by Bball; 12-09-2013, 01:41 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: Week 14: @ Bengals

                      Originally posted by RWB View Post
                      I salute you glass half full fan.
                      Actually I don't think it will really happen( unless its in Miami where all Colts SB appearances have been) but we're in it so we have a chance.

                      I don't want the SB marred by bad officiating its bad enough its going to be in NJ to begin with.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                        Thoughts from the game:

                        1. It was incredibly cold. Mind-numbingly cold. I am forever thankful that we play in a dome, because I just couldn't handle doing that in December. The stadium itself looks nice, and it's got a great view of the river, though I will say that LOS is a much better stadium (it is of course newer)

                        2. There were TONS of Colts fans at the game, and many of them were around me so that made life more fun. Especially as the stadium would play Jungle Boogie and their annoying Bengals fight song after every touchdown. I feel sad for those fans, they seemed way too happy about it

                        3. I was pleased by the play of the offensive line yesterday and couldn't quite tell if there were personnel changes. I found out today that Joe Reitz played LG this game, and I didn't realize he was still with the team. Which begs the question, why didn't we ever play him before now? He's way better than most of the other players, sorry all, in the interior line. If only someone could replace Satele, who continued to be ****.

                        4. After watching our offense in the 2nd half, I continue to fail to understand why we don't play uptempo and 3 wide all the time. Your QB is the best player on the offense, get him in position to do what he does best! It's so infuriating. And lo and behold, Trent plays well and everybody is getting into the game and we score points. What's going to happen next week in the first half? Power run formations...

                        5. Our defense sucked in the 2nd half.

                        6. We didn't have a good look at the botched call, but I was beyond pissed. We would have still lost the game, but the momentum completely went in their favor. It would have been a much closer game.

                        My feet were frozen solid after the game (I literally couldn't feel anything). Hooray for domes.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          That is missing the point of what I'm asking.... Tripplette seems to be saying he was looking for contact after he hit the ground. As if the ref that called down by contact told Tripplette he was touched after he went to the ground. IF that is the contact a ref thought he saw to call 'down by contact' then does that let Tripplette off the hook if the only potential contact he sees is NOT specifically that called contact... and the other potential contact he does see (on video) is inconclusive?

                          And in this case, Tripplette doesn't even seem to have went back to even look at the entire play. Which I think the NFL is going to have a problem with regardless of anything else. I cannot think of a reason why he wouldn't go back unless the ref who made the call (or didn't make the TD call) gave Tripplette a specific contact he thought he saw and that is what Tripplette was looking for. Now, it could've been a miscommunication between refs at that point too. But regardless, does 'down by contact' open the entire play up to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn it, or does it focus it on a specific point of a play a ref tells the head ref he (thought he) saw contact?
                          This is my guess as to what happened. The ref who made the call must have told Tripplette a specific player touched the RB which caused him to call down by contact. So for the review Triplette would have just looked for that defensive player touching the RB and when he did not see it then in his mind the RB was not down by contact therefor it was a touchdown.

                          It is the only logical thing I can come up. I just cannot fathom that they called the RB down by contact due to Chapman's trip and then reversing it as it is clear Chapman gets his hand on the RBs foot. The ref that called it must have told Triplette he saw someone else touch him.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                            Thankfully we didn't cut Brazill like some people wanted to when he was suspended.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                              What in the world happened to the defense though? McAfee had as many official tackles yesterday than guys like Redding, Angerer, and Mathis.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

                                Really sick of Pep and his horrible play calling.

                                Trent finally getting pass after pass thrown to him in the last 45 seconds of the game. Trent caught like 5 passes in a row from Luck. Granted, the Bengals weren't playing anymore, but why wait until the last minute of the game, Pep?

                                I'm done with the loser that is Pep Hamilton. I understand he was brought in to manage a power running offense, and it was working alright, looked like the offense finally was getting all the kinks out during the dominating performance against the 49ers, but we've since lost most of the players that can make us that kind of team.

                                Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and realize that we aren't going to be able to play that style if we want to continue to win this year.

                                First drive of the game, 3rd and 2, and what does Pep call? Well, since we don't really have any WR's that can get any separation, he decides we need to throw a long bomb to the left side of the field, that was broken up and never had a chance. Punt.

                                Why not a dump pass? A slant? Screen? Maybe even a draw play? No, no let's bomb it all the way down the field, I mean the worst that can happen is it is picked off.

                                IDK, maybe I'm being too hard on him. I just have never been more frustrated with a game in my life, or at least a while, than yesterday's pathetic excuse for football.

                                The Tripplett overturn was complete BS, and hell, we probably won't even be told it was a mistake by the NFL. Not that I care. It not like that does anything anyway.

                                BTW, what's up with our idiot players celebrating when they are getting their asses kicked? Sheppard needs to be benched the rest of the year for that dumb *** taunting play. I understand it isn't a big deal, but it's an easy call for a ref to make. You're flagged for that 10/10 times now and we almost had a stop that drive.

                                But I guess moron Sheppard don't care, he's still getting paid. Ricky Jean-Francois likes to celebrate the one sack he gets when he's losing by 30+, too. Tired of these idiots embarrassing me. Walden with the helmet-less headbutt, that's just classless.

                                Blame has to be put on Grigson for signing these bums.

                                Back to the overturned call, once Tripplett gifted the Bengals a TD, I thought that really killed us. Being down 14-0 with the offense in the state that it is in right now is like being down 28-0.

                                To our credit we fought, and made it interesting enough for me to not take a nap during the second half. I was happy with Rogers and Brazill, as I think everyone was, which were some of the few positives we can take from the game.

                                Also, I loved Chuck not going for it with like 6 mins left in the 4th. It was going to be a 4th and 6 or something, and we're down 3 TD's, I think, and yeah we were on our own 30 yard line or so, but screw it, take the chance. Has the defense done anything today? No. Take the chance, stop being scared, we're probably going to lose anyway so go for it.

                                Instead we punt, and our ****** special teams lets the Bengals return it to our own 35 or so. So basically, instead of at least giving ourselves a chance, we punt it, wave the white flag, and the Bengals almost return it for a TD.

                                This team is just a mess. But, we're guaranteed a home playoff game during Wild Card Weekend, right? Since Peyton won our division for us by whooping the Titans.

                                I'm just pissed off is all. I mean the Browns and Bills and tons of teams would love to back into a division championship and be able to host a playoff game. The injuries sadly just really took their toll on us.

                                Finish the year strong, and we do play the Texans and Jaguars again, right? That could be just what the Doctor ordered for us, get our confidence up again, and maybe with the help of a strong home crowd, maybe just maybe get a home playoff win. Not counting on it, but you never know with the NFL and especially the 2013 Indianapolis "Football" Colts.

                                PS

                                What was up with Pat's onside kicks? Seriously. We were better off just handing the Bengals the ball. We got two tries, and the same exact thing happened. Geez.
                                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X