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

Fire Ryan Grigson

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

  • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    But it's really not that much of a success.

    It goes back to the "convo" that Kid+I was having with Bball, about how Trent and Boom produced the same up until the last series of the Houston game (I think it was that one). The difference between Trent and Boom ALL SEASON is about two carries. Seriously. I lumped all Boom's best 5 carries together, when out of that 5/96, 67yds came on two carries. Remove those two runs, and Boom's ypc falls to 3.7. Trent was at 3.6 two games ago, finishing with 3.3ypc. That's how close the production really is.

    Boom has managed to get two runs, out of 78, to give him his extra yds. Which means, 97% of the time, they both suck. The Colts running game is awful, regardless who is back there. It's only talked about, when Trent is back there.
    I understand where you're going with that, and I agree in this sense. Herron has only had 78 carries. Long runs can skew numbers with that small of a sample size. His yards per carry number wouldn't have even come close to stabilizing yet, and so we can't point and even come close to definitively saying that he is a true 4.5 yard carry type of back.

    However, ripping the best 2 carries out of 78 and then comparing him to the NFL average or other RB's is not a good strategy. Most runningbacks live off of their best runs. To simply take the best 2.6% of carries away doesn't help unless you're willing to do it for everybody. Richardson, for example. He's had just over double the carries of Herron. Taking away his 4 best carries leaves him with a 2.9 yard average to Herron's adjusted 3.7. That's still a significant difference between the two.

    Or let's take Le'Veon Bell for example who averaged 4.7 yards this season. You would need to take away between 7 and 8 of his best carries to take 2.6% away. Taking away his best 7 runs? 3.86 yards per carry. His best 8 would take him down to 3.8. I don't think people would think he was terrible 97% of the time.

    The question is, are these long runs by Herron complete flukes that are unlikely to happen again if he got 78 more carries, or are they likely to pop up every so often? That's where we can look back to Brown and Bradshaw to say that these runs do appear possible in the Colts offense. Bradshaw had 3 20+ yard runs in 90 carries this season. Brown had 4 in 102 carries last season. There's no reason to take Herron's carries out because there's no reason to suspect they won't happen every so often if he continues to get carries.

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      The reason it's talked about with T-Rich is because the cost to get him was so high. Boom isn't Emmitt Smith, but at least the cost to get him was virtually nothing. If the guy you spent an arm and a leg on can't outproduce some mid-season FA, then you made a horrible blunder. If you're trading a first rounder for a RB, then at some point over the last couple of years you would have expected him to make something out of nothing here and there with some nice bursts, but it's really never happened.

      If T-Rich was just some mid-season FA, then no one would rag on him. But we wasted a first rounder. Not the end of the world, but it's a major asset. You can say "it's only one pick".....but Marvin Harrison was only one pick.....Tarik Glenn was only one pick.....Freeney was only one pick.....I can go on and on. One pick usually doesn't change the world, but there's at least a good chance that a well-scouted O-Lineman drafted in the first round can go on to have a really solid NFL career.
      I understand all of that. Outside of this thread title, the criticism isn't being placed in the correct spot, which I've said since day 1.

      Trent has zero control over where he's drafted, and for what he's traded for. Using that to bash the player, as opposed to the people making the evaluations, has never made any sense.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

        Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
        I understand where you're going with that, and I agree in this sense. Herron has only had 78 carries. Long runs can skew numbers with that small of a sample size. His yards per carry number wouldn't have even come close to stabilizing yet, and so we can't point and even come close to definitively saying that he is a true 4.5 yard carry type of back.

        However, ripping the best 2 carries out of 78 and then comparing him to the NFL average or other RB's is not a good strategy. Most runningbacks live off of their best runs. To simply take the best 2.6% of carries away doesn't help unless you're willing to do it for everybody. Richardson, for example. He's had just over double the carries of Herron. Taking away his 4 best carries leaves him with a 2.9 yard average to Herron's adjusted 3.7. That's still a significant difference between the two.

        Or let's take Le'Veon Bell for example who averaged 4.7 yards this season. You would need to take away between 7 and 8 of his best carries to take 2.6% away. Taking away his best 7 runs? 3.86 yards per carry. His best 8 would take him down to 3.8. I don't think people would think he was terrible 97% of the time.
        I agree. Bball used that standard back a while ago, with Trent, so I was just showing how easily it is to use it the other direction.

        Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
        The question is, are these long runs by Herron complete flukes that are unlikely to happen again if he got 78 more carries, or are they likely to pop up every so often? That's where we can look back to Brown and Bradshaw to say that these runs do appear possible in the Colts offense. Bradshaw had 3 20+ yard runs in 90 carries this season. Brown had 4 in 102 carries last season. There's no reason to take Herron's carries out because there's no reason to suspect they won't happen every so often if he continues to get carries.
        Agreed, along with the context of how those runs were achieved. I posted after Boom's 49yd TD run about the hole he got through, the day after the game, and last week posted both a gif of the run and a still picture of the line right before Boom got there to show just how bad the blocking was on that one play.

        Is it repeatedable is a great question. One we don't know. If the run was the result of good blocking, and there was a hole a Mack truck could drive though, I think we'd all agree it's repeatable. If it's simply because a defender missed an arm tackle, or if the RB made a great move, they'd need to show that ability multiple times.


        But I'm trying to keep in the context as the Colts overall. I don't want to seem like I'm bashing Boom, I'm not intending to, at all. I like Boom. (I like him hell of a lot better than DBrown, that's for sure). But I still think showing that Boom's increased production is the result of one, maybe two runs, is a valid point, not about Boom's potential, but more about how consistently awful the running game is.


        Does one run, out of 78, change the perception? I don't think it should, but it obviously has.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

          I used that standard with TRich AND Boom and I only tossed out each one's worst run and best run, to compare them to each other, and once again TRich fell to the bottom easily. No matter how you shake it, TRich is not an NFL starting RB. This debate has long been settled. If the Colts fixed their O-line to be one of the best, TRich would still not be the best RB on the team. It comes down this: If TRich is the best RB on your team, you're running game is in trouble.
          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: Fire Ryan Grigson

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I understand all of that. Outside of this thread title, the criticism isn't being placed in the correct spot, which I've said since day 1.

            Trent has zero control over where he's drafted, and for what he's traded for. Using that to bash the player, as opposed to the people making the evaluations, has never made any sense.
            Plenty of people have singled out Grigs for the trade.

            I haven't seen much on here that was over the top. Most criticism has been limited to the football field. Ultimately, Trent's production was going to determine whether or not it was a good trade, so it's pretty much impossible to not make Trent a big part of the discussion.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I used that standard with TRich AND Boom and I only tossed out each one's worst run and best run, to compare them to each other, and once again TRich fell to the bottom easily. No matter how you shake it, TRich is not an NFL starting RB. This debate has long been settled. If the Colts fixed their O-line to be one of the best, TRich would still not be the best RB on the team. It comes down this: If TRich is the best RB on your team, you're running game is in trouble.
              The running game is in trouble when Boom Herron is your best back, but magically, you've been quiet about that.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Plenty of people have singled out Grigs for the trade.

                I haven't seen much on here that was over the top. Most criticism has been limited to the football field. Ultimately, Trent's production was going to determine whether or not it was a good trade, so it's pretty much impossible to not make Trent a big part of the discussion.
                Yep it has. But it's awfully interesting not to read the same criticisms, when they apply to more than just Trent.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Yep it has. But it's awfully interesting not to read the same criticisms, when they apply to more than just Trent.
                  What hasn't been said that needs to be said? Everyone agrees that the line is bad......that's why many of us say that the pick should have been used on a lineman instead of the failed attempt at putting the cart before the horse. Almost everyone has singled out Grigs for making one of the worst NFL trades of at least the last 15 years. But the trade was always going to be judged as a success/failure based on how Trent played, so it's kind of hard to throw him on the backburner.

                  The fact that we have to make sure that we're giving the same amount of criticism to a guy that was a midseason FA tells you what a hideous blunder the trade was.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    What hasn't been said that needs to be said? Everyone agrees that the line is bad......that's why many of us say that the pick should have been used on a lineman instead of the failed attempt at putting the cart before the horse. Almost everyone has singled out Grigs for making one of the worst NFL trades of at least the last 15 years. But the trade was always going to be judged as a success/failure based on how Trent played, so it's kind of hard to throw him on the backburner.

                    The fact that we have to make sure that we're giving the same amount of criticism to a guy that was a midseason FA tells you what a hideous blunder the trade was.
                    Who, besides me and maybe Kid, has criticized Boom's lack of production? No one.

                    There doesn't need to be the same level, but I'll take just a little bit.

                    The point used to be "See, Boom can produce! It's Trent." Now that Boom isn't producing, it's more like "".
                    Last edited by Since86; 12-29-2014, 01:10 PM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Who, besides me and maybe Kid, has criticized Boom's lack of production? No one.

                      There doesn't need to be the same level, but I'll take just a little bit.

                      The point used to be "See, Boom can produce! It's Trent. Now that Boom isn't producing, it's more like "".

                      If we had acquired Boom for a first rounder, then you would have a valid point. Not the same thing. We paid an arm and a leg for someone who can't outproduce some guy who was basically plucked off the street. Overall, it paints the picture that we put the cart before the horse. We could have used the Trent pick on a lineman, plucked another Boom-type off of the street (or given that Tipton guy a lot of clock), and done appropriate scouting to land a good running back around round 3......and been infinitely better off.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Yep it has. But it's awfully interesting not to read the same criticisms, when they apply to more than just Trent.
                        Because people still believe in Trent. That's where the debate comes in. The coaching staff doubled down on him in the offseason, and have continued to defend him as a starter during the season. Even now, who do you think is more likely to get carries next season for the Colts? Herron or Richardson? I'm guessing because of his guaranteed contract it will be Richardson. There's always going to be some level of where the starter gets more criticism than the backup for the same level of production because the expectations were different.

                        Personally, I think Richardson is a system RB who is in the wrong system. I think Richardson, Herron, and Brown are all replacement level talents that could be average in the right situation. Bradshaw is the only quality RB the Colts have had the last couple years. I agree that the offensive line is the biggest problem (although better at run blocking than is sometimes portrayed). At the same time, while I would not bet on bball's guess that Richardson will be out of the league in two years, I can certainly see it as a legitimate possibility. Richardson is not the type of talent that teams are going to bend over backward for, and a guy who has mismatching skills (a power back body without great top end speed, but really functions best in open space) won't fit well in a specialist role.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                          Because people still believe in Trent. That's where the debate comes in. The coaching staff doubled down on him in the offseason, and have continued to defend him as a starter during the season. Even now, who do you think is more likely to get carries next season for the Colts? Herron or Richardson? I'm guessing because of his guaranteed contract it will be Richardson. There's always going to be some level of where the starter gets more criticism than the backup for the same level of production because the expectations were different.

                          Personally, I think Richardson is a system RB who is in the wrong system. I think Richardson, Herron, and Brown are all replacement level talents that could be average in the right situation. Bradshaw is the only quality RB the Colts have had the last couple years. I agree that the offensive line is the biggest problem (although better at run blocking than is sometimes portrayed). At the same time, while I would not bet on bball's guess that Richardson will be out of the league in two years, I can certainly see it as a legitimate possibility. Richardson is not the type of talent that teams are going to bend over backward for, and a guy who has mismatching skills (a power back body without great top end speed, but really functions best in open space) won't fit well in a specialist role.

                          Agree with everything you say, though I would add that Ballard could have been a nice back if he didn't have such wickedly awful injury luck.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            If we had acquired Boom for a first rounder, then you would have a valid point. Not the same thing. We paid an arm and a leg for someone who can't outproduce some guy who was basically plucked off the street. Overall, it paints the picture that we put the cart before the horse. We could have used the Trent pick on a lineman, plucked another Boom-type off of the street (or given that Tipton guy a lot of clock), and done appropriate scouting to land a good running back around round 3......and been infinitely better off.
                            The point goes beyond how the Colts got Trent.

                            The argument used to be "Anyone but Trent." Now that "anyone" has been named "Boom" no one cares that the production is bad. When you take that stance "anyone but Trent" and "anyone" fails, I'd think that maybe a re-evaluation of the first stance would be in order. Maybe?
                            Last edited by Since86; 12-29-2014, 01:21 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              The point goes beyond how the Colts got Trent.

                              The argument used to be "Anyone but Trent." Now that "anyone" has been named "Boom" no one cares that the production is bad.
                              If Andrew Luck would have come in and played like absolute crap while not winning many games, leading to him getting shredded by the Colts fanbase, would you have been saying "Why weren't you all saw so tough on Kerry Collins and Curtis Painter when they sucked while playing the same position?" I doubt it. The cost of getting Luck was super high (releasing Manning, passing on every other player in the draft), whereas Collins and Painter were just replacement bums who were expected to suck miserably.

                              Same sort of case here. T-Rich and Boom aren't going to be analyzed on the same level and that's just the harsh reality of the situation. We traded a precious number one pick for a player who can't even outproduce a guy who we basically picked off the street. The fact that we're forced to compare these two players is just another reminder of what a hideously awful trade it was. Boom's not Leveon Bell, but he's still not any worse than the guy we gave up a ton for.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                If Andrew Luck would have come in and played like absolute crap while not winning many games, leading to him getting shredded by the Colts fanbase, would you have been saying "Why weren't you all saw so tough on Kerry Collins and Curtis Painter when they sucked while playing the same position?" I doubt it. The cost of getting Luck was super high (releasing Manning, passing on every other player in the draft), whereas Collins and Painter were just replacement bums who were expected to suck miserably.
                                Not a very good example on your part, because we bashed Curtis Painter unmercifully. If we can bash Painter, knowing the differences between how the Colts got PM and Painter, I don't think saying we should be criticizing Boom, knowing the difference between how we got him and Trent, is out of bounds. Actually, I'd say you just backed up my point.

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Same sort of case here. T-Rich and Boom aren't going to be analyzed on the same level and that's just the harsh reality of the situation. We traded a precious number one pick for a player who can't even outproduce a guy who we basically picked off the street. The fact that we're forced to compare these two players is just another reminder of what a hideously awful trade it was. Boom's not very good, but he's still not any worse than the guy we gave up a ton for.
                                Once again, I'm not saying SAME level. I'm saying ANY kind of level. There is nothing being said about Boom, and the running game. Nothing.
                                Last edited by Since86; 12-29-2014, 01:29 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X