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

Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

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

  • #16
    Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

    Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
    The first interception was just a bad read of the coverage. The second was him trying to get a quick score down by 10 late. The safety I agree was a mental mishap, but you cannot say this article is justified off of really one really big mental mishap. Either way, it would have been a safety because he tripped on the offensive lineman's foot. Luck is still young and yes makes mistakes, but all QBs make mistakes. He still makes great decisions the majority of the time and the physical tools of a great NFL QB. This loss was due to the injuries and the atrocious covering job of the Colts secondary.
    What would the great Peyton Manning have done in the situation where Luck fell backwards? THe guy wouldn't have even sat back up to try and throw the ball out of there, he would have just curled up and accepted his fate. It's why it is such a ridiculous complaint for anyone to have.


    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

      Peyton didn't have a single digit interception season in his career until 2006, year 9. He threw 9 picks. Luck did it last year (also threw 9 picks). In 2006 when Manning had his first single digit INT year, he threw the ball 557 times. Luck threw the ball 570 times last year.

      You can make the argument that Luck was a better, more efficient quarterback in his year 2 than Manning was in his year 8. Peyton has never had a single digit INT year again, though he appears to be on pace to do it again this year. Great QBs throw lots of INTs. It is the nature of the beast. Luck is on pace to throw the ball 694 times this year. Peyton's career high pass attempts for a season is 679 which came in 2010, he threw 17 interceptions that year and 33 TDs. So basically Luck is right on that INT pace and his TDs are set to out pace Peyton from that year by about 7-8.

      The simple fact of the matter is that Luck about 7-8 years ahead of where Manning was in year 3 in terms of statistics. It's pretty insane and people are just having a hard time digesting it, but yes the guy is just this good. He is a machine a guy who has a 3 year career resume that only Marino and Manning can even sniff.


      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
        He's great for a 25 year old. Like, absolutely incredible.

        Luck 2014: 64.8%, 6.3 TD%, 2.6 INT%, 99.2 QB rating, 341.4 YPG, 7.51 ANY/A
        Manning 2001: 62.7%, 4.8 TD%, 4.2 INT%, 84.1 QB rating, 258.2 YPG, 5.88 ANY/A
        Brady 2002: 62.1%, 4.7 TD%, 2.3 INT%, 85.7 QB rating, 235.3 YPG, 5.54 ANY/A
        Rodgers 2008: 63.6%, 5.2 TD%, 2.4 INT%, 93.8 QB rating, 252.4 YPG, 6.64 ANY/A
        Favre 1994: 62.4%, 5.7 TD%, 2.4 INT%, 90.7 QB rating, 242.6 YPG, 6.08 ANY/A
        Rivers 2006: 61.7%, 4.8 TD%, 2.0 INT%, 92.0 QB rating, 211.8 YPG, 6.73 ANY/A
        It's not 100% fair to compare Luck at 25 to most of these guys. With the rule changes and addition of spread, downfield type of offenses - guys put up ridiculous numbers.

        With that said, he crushes a lot of competition in these statistics as well. I just want to make sure we try to stay at least somewhat objective is all.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
          Same as I've said before. He's damn good, but still suffers from the occasional brain-fart. Of course, I've been told that's not a valid criticism. At least I can take some comfort in reading this and seeing that a person that makes their living writing about football has a similar opinion. But I digress .............

          I see nothing wrong with the article. And as soon as Luck realizes a few of his flaws, he'll correct them and be a better QB for it. It's just part of the process.
          I do tend to think the board is a tad too overly critical anytime someone is critical of Luck in any way.

          Edit: I wonder if olBlu's trolling of Luck had anything to do with it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Peyton didn't have a single digit interception season in his career until 2006, year 9. He threw 9 picks. Luck did it last year (also threw 9 picks). In 2006 when Manning had his first single digit INT year, he threw the ball 557 times. Luck threw the ball 570 times last year.

            You can make the argument that Luck was a better, more efficient quarterback in his year 2 than Manning was in his year 8. Peyton has never had a single digit INT year again, though he appears to be on pace to do it again this year. Great QBs throw lots of INTs. It is the nature of the beast. Luck is on pace to throw the ball 694 times this year. Peyton's career high pass attempts for a season is 679 which came in 2010, he threw 17 interceptions that year and 33 TDs. So basically Luck is right on that INT pace and his TDs are set to out pace Peyton from that year by about 7-8.

            The simple fact of the matter is that Luck about 7-8 years ahead of where Manning was in year 3 in terms of statistics. It's pretty insane and people are just having a hard time digesting it, but yes the guy is just this good. He is a machine a guy who has a 3 year career resume that only Marino and Manning can even sniff.
            Simply playing devil's advocate - Idk about Luck being 7-8 years ahead of Manning in terms of statistics. Manning threw for over 4,000 yds (which wasn't the norm in 2000 like it is nowadays) with a higher completion percentage and TD's than Luck did in yr 2. Manning also had a monster year statistically in yr 3. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant though.

            Also, as I mentioned previously- with the rule changes and spread offensive philosophy, all QB's are putting up video game numbers right now. Luck is certainly one of the leaders of the pack (especially when considering his age) but the stats that Manning was putting up during the infancy of his career was far from the norm at that time.

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            It's pretty insane and people are just having a hard time digesting it, but yes the guy is just this good.
            I don't quite get this one either. This is certainly the first "anti-Luck" story I've read. It seems that pretty much everyone within the media is on board with the idea of Andrew being a Great QB. **Skip Bayless need not apply here**. I think it's good to read someone who has a varying opinion every once in a while. But that's just my own personal taste.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

              I don't see any comparison within Andrew's and Peyton's actual games. I see Andrew in the Elway/Favre/Big Ben category. Idk whom I'd compare Manning to really. I guess Marino would be the closest thing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Andrew Luck throws interceptions so he's not great.....even though he got hit on what seemed like 80% of his drop backs. Let's ignore that. Or the fact that while his pick 6 was pretty awful the fact that Nicks didn't even try to come back for the ball was almost as bad.
                I'll take this even further. Luck seems to have one receiver every year who just kills him. Last year it was Heyward-Bey. He notoriously would be in the wrong spot, have a wrong read, and then give up on the play and leave Luck's throw out to dry for an easy INT. And to the casual observer, it looks like Luck is severely off on the throw, when in reality, the bonehead receiver broke left instead of breaking right. And then the stone hands.

                Hakeem Nicks seems to be doing this exact same ****. The hands may not be as bad as DHB, but he's missed a few.

                And to Luck's credit, just like he did with DHB... he makes efforts to try to get Nicks going in the passing game by going to him a few times. And Nicks just isn't there, or Nicks doesn't make an effort to knock the ball down after he's made his mistake. Of course Luck *always* takes the fall.

                Most of the "bad balls" Luck threw last year just so happened to involve DHB. And this year, it's Nicks. It really makes you wonder just how bad the throw actually was, and more about receivers who aren't processing things correctly. Nicks has been a disappointment.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-28-2014, 11:34 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


                • #23
                  Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I don't see any comparison within Andrew's and Peyton's actual games. I see Andrew in the Elway/Favre/Big Ben category. Idk whom I'd compare Manning to really. I guess Marino would be the closest thing.
                  I don't know how can people say stuff like this, while missing one major point. Peyton and Luck share one *massive* trait --- their minds. Their ability to run the offense from the line of scrimmage, to process a defensive alignment and put their offense into different sets. This is arguably the single largest advantage in Peyton Manning's game, and Luck definitely shares some of this ability. He may not be just as good as Peyton in that category *right* now, but I would argue Luck is actually better at this than Peyton himself was at age 25.... he and Peyton share this trait moreso than anyone else in the league.

                  I think a lot of fans forget about this because Manning is so much more demonstrative in his cadence and motioning... Luck is out there running that offense a lot of the time, just doing it in a more subtle way.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-28-2014, 12:07 PM.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                    To compare how big of an era change it has been between Peyton and Luck, let's look at their year 3's:

                    League Average in 2000: 58.2% completion percentage, 3.9 TD%, 3.3 INT%, 6.7 Y/A
                    Peyton Manning in 2000: 62.5% completion percentage, 5.8 TD%, 2.6 INT%, 7.7 Y/A

                    League Average in 2014: 63.4% completion percentage, 4.8 TD%, 2.4 INT%, 7.3 Y/A
                    Andrew Luck in 2014: 64.8% completion percentage, 6.3 TD%, 2.6 INT%, 7.9 Y/A

                    Luck's raw numbers are better than Manning's, but Manning's passing numbers in 2000 were quite a bit better relative to his era than Luck's have been in 2014.

                    To compare who was actually better in that season, we'd have to look much more deeply (Luck is on pace to run for about 100 more yards than Manning did that year, talent around them, etc.) But I'd say Manning's numbers are quite a bit better. Of course I don't expect Luck to have the dropoff Manning had in 2001 either.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                      Manning also had an absolute freak of a running back at his disposal, plus one of the greatest receivers ever who was just 28 years old at the time. That team crumbled when Edge suffered that wicked injury the next year.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-28-2014, 11:56 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Manning also had an absolute freak of a running back at his disposal, plus one of the greatest receivers ever who was just 28 years old at the time. That team crumbled when Edge suffered that wicked injury the next year.
                        I don't think that team was very good even with Edge. Maybe they would have finished 8-8 with him. Defense couldn't stop anybody. I also remember Manning and Mora going back and forth in the media too.

                        You can argue that season was a blessing because it brought us Dungy and Freeney.

                        That was a bad season all around. It was the year of September 11. My worst football memory of that season was week 3 in New England. We were 2-0 and they were starting some 6th round pick named Brady. I'll never forget Bob Lamey on the radio before the game talking about how it was the Colts last game in Foxboro Stadium and it was set to be demolished at the end of the regular season. He mentioned the unlikely scenario that the Pats could throw a wrench in the plan by hosting a home playoff game. I remember laughing to myself then thinking there's no way that would happen. They were 0-2 going into that game and just lost Drew Bledsoe. Who would have thought that game would be the first of one of the greatest rivalries in NFL history? Who would have though that Patriots team would have won the Super Bowl?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                          He's not great yet, but he is surely developing that way rapidly as he gets more experience. I just count our blessings to have experienced the manning era and now experiencing the Luck era here in Indy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                            Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                            He's not great yet, but he is surely developing that way rapidly as he gets more experience. I just count our blessings to have experienced the manning era and now experiencing the Luck era here in Indy.
                            This. We also heard quite a bit of criticism of Manning until he finally won a SB. First it was just winning a playoff game, then finally beating the Pats. Luck will go through this too.

                            The absolute worst example I remember of Manning bashing was an opinion piece in the Star around '02 or '03. I can't remember who wrote it other than it was a woman. It was a piece arguing against the city helping the Colts build a new stadium. I'll never forget, she called the Colts a mediocre team with an average quarterback. She went on to say how the city wouldn't miss much if the Colts moved to Los Angeles. Granted, I don't think she was a sports writer and was probably writing more about economics in a post 9/11 world, but her critique of Peyton and his future was easily the worst thing I have ever read in my life.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                              Peyton Manning threw an interception one time. He's not that good of a QB. He's average.

                              This is a troll article, was it written by BlueBoy?....
                              Super Bowl XLI Champions
                              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                                Yea ask Ty Law how he used to pick on Manning, dude used to eat Manning's lunch on the field. Manning wasn't always the legend he is now.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X