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

Luck and Wilson

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

  • #31
    Re: Luck and Wilson

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Nothing makes me see red more than when Skip says Luck has thrown too many interceptions in the playoffs. Of course, if you would have told Skip two and a half years ago that Luck would lead the Colts to back to back 11-5 playoff seasons, he would have laughed in your face.

    Let us recap what Luck has done in the playoffs:

    First season, the Colts lose to eventual champ Baltimore 24-9. Luck had a rough day, but he was a rookie in the first playoff game of his career when most people wouldn't have picked that team to get anywhere near the playoffs. Also, it must be noted that Bruce Arians got rushed to the hospital before the game and therefore was unavailable. Furthermore, I seem to remember our receivers missing catchable balls all game. This loss didn't look too bad when you consider that Baltimore marched all the way to the Super Bowl, beating Brady and Manning in the playoffs. Brady looked like garbage at home against Baltimore.

    In the KC game, the entire team melted down in the first half. The defense made Alex Smith look like an Aaron Rodgers/Michael Vick beast hybrid. Luck threw a couple of ugly picks, but we also had that costly T-Rich fumble. The entire team got it together at the end with Luck making spectacular throws in one of the most thrilling playoff games in NFL history....all of this was on the heels of a BRUTAL season of offensive injuries. Skip is so pathetic that he has to use games that Luck won to criticize him. Barely gives him any credit for the win, but will remind you every day that he threw 3 interceptions in that game.

    To criticize Luck for losing that playoff game in Foxboro is just ridiculous. Yeah, he didn't play well, but welcome to the club of getting your clock cleaned in Foxboro, which includes about everyone....most notably the guy who Luck replaced. Yeah, the four interceptions were bad, but that one off of Havili should have been reeled in. And wasn't the fourth one at the very end of the game when it was completely out of reach? Only two of those interceptions were "bad". The only teams who have won in Foxboro during the playoffs are the Ravens (twice) and Jets. Both of those teams had elite defenses which completely massacred the Pats.

    Overall, Luck's early career playoff performances have been VERY promising. A loss against the eventual champ Ravens, a loss in brutal Foxboro, and one of the most thrilling playoff victories in NFL history. Not too shabby. He has already won a playoff game in year 2 of his career, whereas Peyton didn't win a playoff game until year 6.

    Skip is a clown whose biases completely drive his opinions. He will never like Luck for two reasons: 1) He said that the Colts made a mistake when they cut Peyton, and 2) He said that RG3 should have been the number 1 pick over Luck. He's already been proven to be a complete fool with the second of those opinions, and while Peyton has played phenomenal, you can't really say that going with Luck was a "mistake". Skip will never be able to judge Luck on the merits. He's always going to be driven by his silly biases and his obsession with being "right".
    Though I agree with a lot of this post, I feel you certainly should hold Luck accluntable for playing poorly and turning the ball over so wrecklessly in the playoffs. if we are going to praise him and look at him as a top 5 QB, he should be scrutinized just as any of those guys would be as well--age be damned. Luck was a big reason we got behind KC and a reason why the game in Foxboro got out of hand.

    With that said, he's led a less than stellar team to two playoff pushes and has been gaining valuable playoff experience at the same time. If he can cut down on sailing his passes, I think he would be in good shape.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Luck and Wilson

      A young guy struggled in the playoffs. Of course he's accountable.... It's also not all that unexpected. Luck will be fine.
      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


      • #33
        Re: Luck and Wilson

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Though I agree with a lot of this post, I feel you certainly should hold Luck accluntable for playing poorly and turning the ball over so wrecklessly in the playoffs. if we are going to praise him and look at him as a top 5 QB, he should be scrutinized just as any of those guys would be as well--age be damned. Luck was a big reason we got behind KC and a reason why the game in Foxboro got out of hand.

        With that said, he's led a less than stellar team to two playoff pushes and has been gaining valuable playoff experience at the same time. If he can cut down on sailing his passes, I think he would be in good shape.
        I see this all the time and it drives me insane. It was 31-10 before his first turnover.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Luck and Wilson

          Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
          I see this all the time and it drives me insane. It was 31-10 before his first turnover.
          Its not always just about turnovers. Im curious of what his stat line looked like during that time as well. I could be wrong but I remember him not playing too well until midway through the 3rd qtr

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Luck and Wilson

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            A young guy struggled in the playoffs. Of course he's accountable.... It's also not all that unexpected. Luck will be fine.
            Not saying we should be worried. He's obviously one of the better qbs in the league. Just saying his struggles in the post season cant be looked over just because he's young. Other young QBs have performed better in the post season. Just because you scrutinize him a bit for his shortcomings doesn't mean you dont recognize and appreciate the awesomeness he's brought to this team

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Luck and Wilson

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              A lesser QB drafted in a later round wins a SB on a team with a great OL and D, causing people to say he is better than Peyton.
              revisionist history, this "Yeah, but he was lucky to step right on to a Super Bowl caliber team"

              September 2001: Tom Brady takes over as starting QB. New England had gone 5-11 the previous year and were 0-2. NE's preseason odds for winning the SB were 125-1. Worse than the odds for the Dolphins, Giants, Redskins, Jets, and Bills for this year, as of today (http://www.oddsshark.com/nfl/super-bowl-futures)

              America's greatest NFL writer at the time, Dr. Z. of Sports Illustrated, calls the Patriots the worst team in the NFL after the Bledsoe injury. He wrote, on the same day Brady was named the starter:

              "This is sad. Drew Bledsoe took a big hit and is out indefinitely. Honestly, I don't know what weapons they have with which to win a game"

              Dr. Z. was the first writer to make an NFL power ranking. NE had been #25 in preseason, then #29, then last (#31) when Bledsoe went down.(Dr. Z had a series of strokes and since 2008 he has been speechless and unable to walk or write. He was a great writer.)


              2000 Patriots: 17th in defense (points), 12th in defense (yards); 25th on offense (points), 22nd on offense (yards)
              OL gave up 48 sacks, 24th in the league
              OL paved the way for 3.3 yards/carry, 28th in the league
              average D, terrible O-line by any measure

              after Brady took over:
              2001 Patriots: 24th in defense (yards), 6th in defense (points); 19th on offense (yards), 6th in offense (points)
              OL gave up 46 sacks, 22nd in the league
              OL paved the way for 3.8 yards/carry, 24th in the league
              better than average D at least in points allowed, significantly worse than average O-line by any measure


              I am not saying that they did not build a very good D and a pretty good Oline over time, but it certainly was not the case when Brady took over at QB, not by a long shot.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-23-2014, 11:33 PM.
              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


              • #37
                Re: Luck and Wilson

                That was deceiving, though, NE had quietly assembled a good group of players and brought in belichick just prior to his arrival. They were on the verge of breaking out. It all just came together. That D was very good and finished even stronger.
                Initially, Brady himself was a game-manager much the way Wilson is now; he didn't become "Tom Brady", the prolific passer, until some years later. Brady definitely came into a favorable situation.
                Their offenses didn't necessarily lean on passing; they ran west-coast, short pass, lotta fast dumps in the flat and screens, high YAC, move the chains football, which, ironically was how Peyton ran his offense in 2006, the only year he did that. Also ironically, once Brady/Belichick moved away from that style of offense (more closely mimicked Manning's down-field, pass-heavy style) they never won a SB again. Which flies in the face of what Heisenberg was saying about leaning on elite QBs, and OL and RBs are irrelevant. If you want to win a SB, you need balance, you need to move the chains reliably, and you need to execute long drives. NE mastered this in their 3 SB runs; Indy executed that style the only year they won it all; Seattle just mimicked the 2001 Patriots. The one thing those teams had in common offensively was their balance, their ability to convert killer drive-sustaining first downs and keep opposing offenses off the field with loooooong clock-eating drives. They'd just gas opposing defenses into oblivion. And they all could run the ball.

                It's boring to watch but it brings home rings.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-24-2014, 12:09 AM.
                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


                • #38
                  Re: Luck and Wilson

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Its not always just about turnovers. Im curious of what his stat line looked like during that time as well. I could be wrong but I remember him not playing too well until midway through the 3rd qtr
                  KC was up 10-7 when Luck threw his first incomplete pass, part of a three and out. The Chiefs scored on their next series to go up 17-7. One play later, Richardson fumbled, then it was 24-7.


                  Luck had nothing to do with the Colts getting that far behind.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Luck and Wilson

                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                    I don't remember anything about the Colts wanting to take Wilson. He went in the 3rd, we obviously took Luck #1 in that draft. Taking a franchise QB in the first then a flier in the 7th the way Washington did with RG3 and Cousins makes sense. Spending 2 of your first 3 picks on the same position when you've got holes everywhere is monumentally stupid. I'm not a Grigson fan but he's nowhere near THAT bad.

                    I do remember Polian saying, after the fact so who really knows, that he wanted to take Andy Dalton but Cincy snatched him up right before us.

                    Also, THE JAGS TOOK A PUNTER OVER RUSSELL WILSON.
                    It was a move up scenario. If he was there they move up and take him. Talent is talent. If you have him pegged as the best available you take him and worry about what to do with him later.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Luck and Wilson

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      Though I agree with a lot of this post, I feel you certainly should hold Luck accluntable for playing poorly and turning the ball over so wrecklessly in the playoffs. if we are going to praise him and look at him as a top 5 QB, he should be scrutinized just as any of those guys would be as well--age be damned. Luck was a big reason we got behind KC and a reason why the game in Foxboro got out of hand.

                      With that said, he's led a less than stellar team to two playoff pushes and has been gaining valuable playoff experience at the same time. If he can cut down on sailing his passes, I think he would be in good shape.
                      I agree that there is certainly room for improvement and that he needs to get better in the playoffs. But Skip uses his playoff performances as evidence that he somehow hasn't lived up to the hype, which is just ridiculous because Skip would have laughed in your face if you would have told him two and a half years ago that Luck would start out with back to back 11-5 seasons and win a playoff game in his second season. It's just funny because he uses all of this to say that the Colts should have kept Peyton over Luck. How exactly did Peyton fare in January Foxboro games when he was quite a bit older than Luck was last season? How long again did it take Peyton to win just one playoff game? (6 seasons). To criticize Luck because as a rookie he lost to a Baltimore team on the road that went on to beat Manning and Brady on their turf, or because he lost in brutal Foxboro in a season where his offense was decimated......it all shows someone who is motivated purely by biases.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Luck and Wilson

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        I agree that there is certainly room for improvement and that he needs to get better in the playoffs. But Skip uses his playoff performances as evidence that he somehow hasn't lived up to the hype, which is just ridiculous because Skip would have laughed in your face if you would have told him two and a half years ago that Luck would start out with back to back 11-5 seasons and win a playoff game in his second season. It's just funny because he uses all of this to say that the Colts should have kept Peyton over Luck. How exactly did Peyton fare in January Foxboro games when he was quite a bit older than Luck was last season? How long again did it take Peyton to win just one playoff game? (6 seasons). To criticize Luck because as a rookie he lost to a Baltimore team on the road that went on to beat Manning and Brady on their turf, or because he lost in brutal Foxboro in a season where his offense was decimated......it all shows someone who is motivated purely by biases.
                        Skip is a tool who gained notoriety for his consistently over the top question/hate on Lebron's greatness. Everything else since then ( the love for Tebow, RGIII, and the Spurs - the hate for LeBron, college basketball and Andrew Luck) has been a WWE-esque "work" to garner ratings and passionate responses. I take very little of what he says seriously. Luck is a great QB. Top 5 at least (and playing like a top 3-4 guy so far this season). Me saying he should improve his efficiency during the playoffs is due to the high regard I hold him in. Not because of anything Skip Bayless says.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Luck and Wilson

                          Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                          That 2012 Colts team was starting Tom Zbikowski, Mike McGlynn, Samson Satele, Donnie Avery, Winston Justice, Antonio Johnson, Cassius Vaughn (!!!), Jeff Linkenbach, Kavell Conner, and Fili Moala. That team sucked and it was a miracle they even made the playoffs.
                          Yikes. I guess I'd purposely forgotten that.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Luck and Wilson

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            If Luck had Seattle's D the Colts would go 19-0. Possibly for more than one season.
                            Yeah A+B doesn't always equal C

                            I mean Luck hasn't even started a season beyond 1-0 until that happens that's not a guarantee either.

                            All this tells me is that having an elite QB doesn't really mean much when it comes to rings. It keeps the team in the conversation but you need a great D and run game to win it all. Marino was an elite QB=no rings, Kelly was an elite QB= no rings. Aikman was a good QB=3 rings.

                            Course I don't think Luck or Wilson are elite at this point in time either.

                            Wilson is very good and makes Seattle better but he's not the only reason they win games either.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Luck and Wilson

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Seattle just mimicked the 2001 Patriots. The one thing those teams had in common offensively was their balance, their ability to convert killer drive-sustaining first downs and keep opposing offenses off the field with loooooong clock-eating drives. They'd just gas opposing defenses into oblivion. And they all could run the ball.
                              That describes the 2003 and 2004 Patriots, but the 2001 Patriots were not a good rushing team at all (24th in yards/carry), nearly broke even in time of possession, were 11-5 in the regular season with two overtime victories and a 1 point win in their 3 closest games.

                              They won due to special teams play, forcing turnovers at key moments, not turning the ball over in key moments, some good fortune, postseason magic/coaching, and a very weak AFC (11-5 #2 seed!! would have been a #6 seed in the NFC!)

                              Oddly, turnover differential was not nearly as good as it was in their other successful seasons, it was the timing of the turnovers.

                              The main point I was making was the Oline, which was not good in 2001. Matt Light was a rookie and nothing like the pro bowler he would become. if you are near the bottom of the league in giving up sacks and not running he ball well (24th) or even controlling time of possession, you are not playing well on the Oline.

                              That 2001 team was pretty odd. Zero 1st team or second team all pro bowl players on offense, one 2nd team defense all pro (Milloy) , one 2nd team special teams all pro (Troy Brown as a kick returner). http://www.pro-football-reference.co...001/allpro.htm

                              Sometimes everything falls into place. Other times you have enormously more talent and it doesn't.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-24-2014, 11:04 PM.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Re: Luck and Wilson

                                Plus there is one line you see in all articles about the Patriots offensive line woes going on now:

                                "The first three games have seen Brady taking seven sacks, on pace for 37. Last year he took 40, the most he has been sacked since 2001."
                                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

                                Working...
                                X