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

2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March to the Draft

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

  • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post

    As far as Boom, there's 35pages worth of discussion about it. I'm tired of pointing out that Boom's ypc came from one run here and there. I think it's quite interesting that Boom was so good, yet he's not gotten any burn this season. Say's something about the fools gold production of last season.

    But as I remember pointing out last year, if you're consistent and also take away the same amount of "one run here and there" outlying runs for Trent, then Boom was still better.

    From last January:

    Let's compare like things. If the highest 3.3% are unimportant outliers for Boom, then the highest 3.3% should be unimportant outliers for Trent too. Since you're so concerned about what Boom is 96.7% of the time, let's see what Trent is 96.7% of the time.

    Trent had 159 carries for 519 yards this year. The top 3.3% of his carries would represent about 5 carries. By my count, Trent's top 5 runs were 27 yards, 15 yards, 15 yards, 14 yards, 12 yards. Those 5 carries represented 83 yards. Without those 5 carries, which is the equivalent of ripping those 3 carries from Boom, Trent had 154 carries for 436 yards, which is a 2.83 YPC.

    Boom 96.7% of the time: 3.43 YPC
    Trent 96.7% of the time : 2.83 YPC



    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1950890

    I don't think too many of us thought Boom was some stud running back for the future. The point always was that Boom was simply better than T-Rich, which is 100% irrefutable, regardless of whether you use 100% of the carries for both backs or the top 96.7% carries for both backs. You can't throw out the outliers which helped Boom while not throwing out an equal percentage of outliers for Trent. With the outliers (which you defined for Boom) fairly thrown out for both backs, Boom was 0.6 yards better than Trent.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-14-2015, 07:53 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Geriatric jokes over the line for you or something? If age is the reason why Gore is so bad, I would think you'd be talking about him being so bad, as opposed to being so silent.

      As for the eye test, I guess bad production is okay as long as it looks good or something. 3.6ypc is bad whether it passes the "eye test" or not. Any excuse for why Gore's production is so bad, completely misses the point and it's an intentional whiff at that.

      We have 35 pages dedicated to Trent's 3.3ypc, and you guys can't bring yourself one bad post about Gore's 3.6.
      I can't believe you're actually bringing this up again. Trent Richardson sucked. Maybe he sucked worse because of the O-line, but he sucked so bad that he went from a top draft pick to out of the NFL with no known injury issue in a few short years. He was outplayed in Coltland by such RB stars as Donald "Who?" Brown and Boom Herron.
      Pointing out those guys were better than Richardson isn't to say they are great... It's to make the point that TRich couldn't even outplay career scrubs.

      You can watch Gore and see him hit the hole, follow his blockers, make people miss, get low, and most importantly- Not look like he's running in cement. TRich must have he slowest first step of any NFL RB and terrible vision.

      What point could you hope to be making for yourself? TRich Busted out of the NFL. If you're a RB as bad as TRich then of course you'll suck behind the Colts' O line. But only TRich couldn't do anything. Even the career backup scrubs could occasionally make chicken salad from the chicken sh it... And the icing on the cake is, he was so bad that he didn't make it to the regular season with the Raiders and couldn't even find another spot anywhere in the NFL. That is the definition of bust.
      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: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

        Indianapolis is where running back careers go to die. I said for the last few years that our problem wasn't the backs, it was the line and system. Was called a fanboy and all kinds of other crap. I wasnt a fanboy, I just knew that any running back featured in this offense would look terrible. Trent looked terrible, Boom looked terrible as the #1 back when Trent got benched, and now we're making a great back in Frank Gore also look very mediocre.
        That's all we were ever saying. Gore is obviously a better back, but the problem is and was the line and the system, proven by Frank Gore's subpar production this year. And I will even go on record as saying that our offensive line has actually looked considerably better this year compared to last year.

        If people started *****ing about Gore, I would defend him, too. Because I recognise his production is based on the train wreck he has to run through on every play. The train wreck he runs behind, however, is not near as bad as the train wreck that Trent and Boom ran behind last year.

        Gore is obviously a much better back, btw. He's the best back we've had since Edge. This team still makes him look mediocre.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-14-2015, 08:33 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


        • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I don't think too many of us thought Boom was some stud running back for the future. The point always was that Boom was simply better than T-Rich, which is 100% irrefutable, regardless of whether you use 100% of the carries for both backs or the top 96.7% carries for both backs. You can't throw out the outliers which helped Boom while not throwing out an equal percentage of outliers for Trent. With the outliers (which you defined for Boom) fairly thrown out for both backs, Boom was 0.6 yards better than Trent.
          None of that applies to my point. None. Not one single sentence or word.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            I can't believe you're actually bringing this up again. Trent Richardson sucked. Maybe he sucked worse because of the O-line, but he sucked so bad that he went from a top draft pick to out of the NFL with no known injury issue in a few short years. He was outplayed in Coltland by such RB stars as Donald "Who?" Brown and Boom Herron.
            Pointing out those guys were better than Richardson isn't to say they are great... It's to make the point that TRich couldn't even outplay career scrubs.

            You can watch Gore and see him hit the hole, follow his blockers, make people miss, get low, and most importantly- Not look like he's running in cement. TRich must have he slowest first step of any NFL RB and terrible vision.

            What point could you hope to be making for yourself? TRich Busted out of the NFL. If you're a RB as bad as TRich then of course you'll suck behind the Colts' O line. But only TRich couldn't do anything. Even the career backup scrubs could occasionally make chicken salad from the chicken sh it... And the icing on the cake is, he was so bad that he didn't make it to the regular season with the Raiders and couldn't even find another spot anywhere in the NFL. That is the definition of bust.
            My point had nothing to do with Trent, but rather your silence about Gore.

            Stop talking about Trent. He has nothing to do about the point.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-15-2015, 11:36 AM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              Indianapolis is where running back careers go to die. I said for the last few years that our problem wasn't the backs, it was the line and system. Was called a fanboy and all kinds of other crap. I wasnt a fanboy, I just knew that any running back featured in this offense would look terrible. Trent looked terrible, Boom looked terrible as the #1 back when Trent got benched, and now we're making a great back in Frank Gore also look very mediocre.
              That's all we were ever saying. Gore is obviously a better back, but the problem is and was the line and the system, proven by Frank Gore's subpar production this year. And I will even go on record as saying that our offensive line has actually looked considerably better this year compared to last year.

              If people started *****ing about Gore, I would defend him, too. Because I recognise his production is based on the train wreck he has to run through on every play. The train wreck he runs behind, however, is not near as bad as the train wreck that Trent and Boom ran behind last year.

              Gore is obviously a much better back, btw. He's the best back we've had since Edge. This team still makes him look mediocre.
              Someone knows how to read and not insert their strawmen? There is hope.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                None of that applies to my point. None. Not one single sentence or word.

                You said Boom's YPC was helped out from one run "here and there". I pointed out that if you take away an equal percentage of "here and there" outliers for Trent, Boom was still a better back. All anyone ever said was that Boom was a better back than T-Rich. I'm simply using the parameters that you defined back in January....the "96.7% of the time".

                It applies directly to your point. You've always said that Boom was helped by outliers while ignoring the fact that Trent was also helped by outliers. You can't take away outliers from one while not doing it for the other.

                Comment


                • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                  Right, you're trying to bring back a discussion from January, which is 11 months ago. I'm trying to talk about the point I made a page ago, how no one talks about how awful the Colts running game has been this season after it was pretty much the only discussion last season.

                  If you want to tell me that Boom is a better back than Trent, knock yourself out, I'm not going to argue about something we spent THIRTY FIVE PAGES on.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Right, you're trying to bring back a discussion from January, which is 11 months ago..

                    You're the one who first brought up Boom's outliers yesterday, not me. I have no reason to knock myself out on Boom vs. Trent because you easily made my point for me with the "96.7 % of the time" parameters that you chose. Using your parameters, Boom was obviously better.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                      I'm glad we've established that.

                      Now care to move on to a discussion that isn't a year old, or do we need to talk about whether or not money was the reason behind Irsay cutting Manning?
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I'm glad we've established that.

                        Now care to move on to a discussion that isn't a year old, or do we need to talk about whether or not money was the reason behind Irsay cutting Manning?
                        You're the one who brought up a year old issue, so if you're ready to move on then I'm fine with it.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          My point had nothing to do with Trent, but rather your silence about Gore.

                          Stop talking about Trent. He has nothing to do about the point.
                          OK.... Frank Gore has had a subpar year.... and he's still better than TRich.

                          First off Gore has looked better than Trent. He looks like an NFL RB. He doesn't look molasses slow and he makes quick decisions. Gore is also on his first year here, meanwhile we had to suffer threw 2 years of TRich being outplayed by career scrubs while we tried to force feed him and watched it all go for waste. We also spent a first round pick for TRich when he sucked so bad we already had better RB's and could've just used that pick ourselves more wisely.
                          There were questions about TRich's desire since he couldn't make weight yet seemingly was worse for it. With his slow feet and slow decisions that isn't a good place to be attitude wise. Nobody has questioned Gore's desire and nothing on the field has led to any questions.

                          Everyone knows the Colts' line has had problems basically the entire tenure of Grigson. But everyone also knows that TRich was a giant bust in the NFL and couldn't stick with 3 teams and has found himself out of the NFL in nearly record time for an NFL top draft pick with no injury issue. He's right there with the likes of Ryan Leaf. So of course he got lambasted. Of course he eventually was talked about. His suckage was bigger than the Colts' OL issues.

                          He was outplayed by scrubs. Gore has not been outplayed by scrubs. Nobody has talked about Gore because there are bigger issues this season. Plus Gore is not an NFL bust. Being a huge NFL bust, a high draft pick, costing the team a first round draft pick then getting outplayed by scrubs, etc... that is the stuff that will get you talked about. Especially when you get an off season and another season to work the excuses out. Like all of the talk about needing a training camp and the complicated Colts' offense... blah blah blah...

                          Again, what is your point? You'd think you'd want to let sleeping dogs lie rather than regurgitate this stuff. Especially when hindsight makes you and Kid look foolish with your defense of an NFL bust.
                          Last edited by Bball; 12-15-2015, 12:35 PM.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

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

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            Again, what is your point? You'd think you'd want to let sleeping dogs lie rather than regurgitate this stuff. Especially when hindsight makes you and Kid look foolish with your defense of an NFL bust.
                            Let sleeping dogs lie?

                            My intention was never to argue Trent was good as a Colt. (I'll continue to contend he produced pretty well as a rook for Clev) I argued that the OLine was THAT bad. You guys continually told me that anyone not named Trent Richardson would turn the running game around. The Colts went out and got a continual 1000yd rusher, and the Colts have turned him into Trent Richardson 2.0.

                            I just wanted to see if you'd make excuses for why you suddenly have no issue with a **** poor running game. You haven't disappointed. You spent a year making jokes about 3.3ypc and now you're defending 3.6ypc.

                            Instead of just owning up to the fact that there were other issues behind the running game being so bad this year, you're trying to now explain the difference of .3yds. I guess if I spent that much time roasting one player, rather than the obvious issues, I'd pretend like this year's running game was that much better too.

                            Trent Richardson 3.3ypc= 35pages of blasting Trent.
                            Frank Gore 3.6ypc=well Frank passes the eye test.



                            And as far as saying there's other issues, the main issue last year and this year IS THE OFFENSIVE LINE. So the only reason why you think it's two issues, is because you think Trent sucked because of Trent and Gore sucked because of the offensive line. When reality shows, that the Colts running game has sucked for two years and there's one constant in the equation.
                            Last edited by Since86; 12-15-2015, 12:50 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Someone knows how to read and not insert their strawmen? There is hope.
                              Wait a minute.... He just explained to you that Gore is a good back. He even said if people *****ed about him he'd defend him. He said he's our best RB since Edge. And you hopped in line to compliment his post? How does it make your point at all?
                              He just told you there's no reason for people to b itch about Gore.

                              Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, TRich has been a huge NFL bust and is already out of the league. That, to me, justifies all the b itching about TRich. He went from early draft pick to out of the NFL in what 4 seasons? All the while putting up lackluster numbers and looking like anything but an NFL RB.

                              What IS your point??? Kid sure didn't make your point. He just made it even more questionable when you complimented him for it.

                              If TRich had left the Colts and went on to a productive year elsewhere then you'd have a point. Instead he went on to a preseason where he turned into an internet meme and couldn't even make the team. Or any team. That was the end of your argument.

                              Now you're thanking KM for making this new argument of your's even look sillier when he defended Gore and is saying Gore is good!! LMAO!
                              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: 2015-2016 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread: The March of Champions

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                My intention was never to argue Trent was good as a Colt. (I'll continue to contend he produced pretty well as a rook for Clev) I argued that the OLine was THAT bad. You guys continually told me that anyone not named Trent Richardson would turn the running game around. The Colts went out and got a continual 1000yd rusher, and the Colts have turned him into Trent Richardson 2.0.
                                No we didn't. Maybe that is what you thought you read... What we said was TRich was getting outplayed by scrubs.... So at a certain point, which both seasons the Colts eventually did, you have to just let the scrubs play instead and admit TRich just sucks.
                                NOBODY thought the other guys were great. Almost everyone just thought they were better options than who was thought then to be an NFL bust. And who is proven now to be an NFL bust.

                                That's why you just look silly right now. If I was you I'd delete these last few posts and just pretend they never happened.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X