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

2018-2019 Colts Regular Season Thread

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

  • Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post

    While those are valid points about Ballard I think people have unrealistic expectations amongst this fanbase. Luck just got back, a huge mess was left behind and this is Reich's first year with the team. Its not like it was with Pagano where the Colts made the playoffs that year. Plus Wells also said Manning was going to run the team and that Gruden was supposed to coach her he's not that knowledgeable...
    Who has unrealistic expectations? I think most of us would be happy if we simply improved from being one of the absolute worst teams in the league. I agree that Rome wasn’t built in a day and that this is a process. Just saying that two years is still enough time to put out a little bit better of a team than we’re looking at now.

    Just seems like the Colts are forever in a state of the current GM having to clean up the previous GM’s mess, who also had to clean up the previous GM’s mess. Just an astounding dozen years of overall pitiful roster construction.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

      First, I don't agree at all with pinning anything on Ballard for the McDaniels fiasco. That wasn't on Ballard, that was a douche who had committed to us, had been in deep conversations with us, and had started bringing coaches here. I don't see at all how Ballard was "responsible" for that. He followed that up by bringing in Reich, who was a pretty good backup plan, if not a better long-term option.
      Second, 2017 o line fail was definitely a fail, but it was Ballard's first year, did you expect that atrocious o line to get fixed in one off-season?? Expectations are fairly unrealistic on your part if that's the case. The reality is, we're 6 games into season 2 of Ballard, and the o line is *noticeably* better. That cannot be overstated. I honestly can't remember the o line being better than it has the last few game since Luck came to this team. Not to say that they can't still improve, but this current line has been serviceable.
      Third, your point that we have young guys making mistakes is based on the fact that these young guys weren't *supposed* to be having this much on-field time... it's the injuries that have been our biggest problem, taking our veterans off the field and putting these young guys in spots that allow them to make these mistakes.
      Fourth, for every example you provide of building through the draft not working, I can provide an example of when it did, including this very Colts team who won a SB for us, which was mostly built through the draft. It's a patient approach, and one that really just this year is getting started. We can't act like Ballard didn't have a gigantic mess to clean up in that first year, so acting like he's on the hot seat because he didn't turn that disaster into a contender last year is silly. And I don't think Ballard is going to *completely* go through the draft, I think he just cut back on the FA signings the last few years to clear out the books and clear some cap space. I fully expect some FA moves this next year, now that he's cut a lot of fat and started to get his guys in place.
      Fifth, this coaching staff is 6 games in. Let's not forget that 1) they are new at this too and going to make some mistakes, and 2) they are going to grow and improve.

      Of course we still have holes to fill. Focusing on those holes and not acknowledging that we have some good young pieces is some tunnel vision. I get it, when things aren't going well, the place gets down on itself, it always has, but that does't mean the sky is falling or the team is in shambles.

      We simply can't act like the version of the Colts we've seen these first 6 games is going to be set in stone going forward. This is a lot like last year when everyone was freaking out in the off-season for the Pacers, only for almost the entire board to have egg on its face when that team ran out of the gates and stuck it to most of the league. The fans couldn't see anything good going on last summer, but they were wrong, there were good things happening, and I think the Colts can be in the same boat this coming season. I honestly feel like we would've had a decent season *this* year, it's simply been derailed by injuries, which no one can predict or control. But it's not like years past, when even when we were healthy, it just felt like we had no playmakers. This year it feels like we are starting to accumulate some players... but the damn injury bug is nipping the growth in the bud.
      Man the next time I get robbed I want to talk to you. You could see a silver lining in a hurricane.

      First, anytime you give a job to an immature backpedaling Patriot and get burned you shoulder some of the blame. Ballard does not get off scott free. The history was there to show that McDouche wasn't the man for the job. Reich has nothing to do with that. Sure I'll give him credit for it. But my point is that we can't ignore failures because we are rebuilding. We shouldn't ignore failures because we have to be patient on a rebuild. You can be patient in a rebuild and realize the foundation was laid wrong.

      Second, the OLine in 2016 was atrocious and Ballard followed it up by drafting Banner in the 4th round. Schwenke did not pan out. He did not address the line, he depended on previous draft picks panning out. They didn't. We gave up a lot of sacks and Ballard has responsibility in that. This year's line is better, but that doesn't erase the previous year's mistakes. He was expecting Luck to come back with that protection? It was a mistake.

      Third, the young guys were given the reigns in the preseason. Mack had a history of injuries, Turbin was suspended. We were satisfied with the rookies going into the season. The linebackers were given the reigns. Autry is starting because Ridgeway isn't that good and Ballard didn't load up like Reich prefers. The cornerbacks were young before they were injured. Geathers and Farley were known injury risks. Hooker was given the starting job out of the shoot. The young guys are playing because that is what a rebuilding team does. Now some of them are injured and we are playing practice squad players. WRs is clearly a botched decision by Ballard.

      Fourth my point on rebuilding through the draft is that it isn't a guarantee. You act like since we are doing things completely different everything is great and it has to work. I am not saying Ballard is on the hot seat, but I get it. Any criticism to this team permits you to jump to those conclusions. No one is expecting this team to be a contender. We expected the rebuild to be more productive and not have similar mistakes pre-Ballard. We do have young pieces, but having young pieces does not give Ballard a pass on the other holes. Again that isn't saying he should be fired it is a cause for concern for a patient rebuild claiming Ballard can do no wrong.

      I predicted 6 wins and still think we can get there. But my point is that it isn't a guarantee that we are rebuilding through the draft is going to get us to the promise land of contention. And the mistakes Ballard has made can't happen for it to happen. I am optimistic that he can get better in providing a solid team next year. The defensive front seven is better at stopping the run. Our upfront protection is better. Luck is better than Brissett. But everything else is bad. Some of it is bad because of injuries. Some of it is bad because we depend too much on young players. Some of it is bad because we didn't spend a little short term cash to bring in stop gaps.

      And we can have cause of concern for this team going forward. To not be realistic about the concerns is overl looking the mistakes made in the past.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

        Who has unrealistic expectations? I think most of us would be happy if we simply improved from being one of the absolute worst teams in the league. I agree that Rome wasn’t built in a day and that this is a process. Just saying that two years is still enough time to put out a little bit better of a team than we’re looking at now.

        Just seems like the Colts are forever in a state of the current GM having to clean up the previous GM’s mess, who also had to clean up the previous GM’s mess. Just an astounding dozen years of overall pitiful roster construction.
        I think had Pagano been cut loose before last season I think things might have improved by now. However Ballard should be taken to task for some of his questionable moves like Tolzien, some of his draft picks and the whole McDaniels debacle.

        I also t think a team adjusting to a new coach should also be factored in here.

        Comment


        • https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/10/17/derek-anderson-will-start-for-bills-on-sunday/

          Derek Anderson will start for Bills on Sunday


          Posted by Josh Alper on October 17, 2018, 11:52 AM EDT

          The word over the last few days has been that Bills quarterback Josh Allen‘s elbow injury will keep him from playing against the Colts this weekend and Bills head coach Sean McDermott calling him week to week did nothing to make anyone feel otherwise.

          The bigger question was whether the Bills would start Derek Anderson in his second week with the team or if they’d continue to ride the Nathan Petermanexperience. That question was answered on Wednesday.

          McDermott said at his press conference that the team will start Anderson against Indianapolis. He said Anderson is up to speed, although that didn’t deter a question about whether he feared losing the trust of players if he went back to Peterman after his two interceptions in relief last week and nine interceptions in 79 career attempts.

          “I’m always going to do what I feel is right for this football team,” McDermott said, via Vic Carucci of the Buffalo News. “I certainly trust and have a heck of a lot of respect for our locker room.”

          McDermott repeated the week to week timeline for Allen and said that there is no plan for surgery at this point.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

            Man the next time I get robbed I want to talk to you. You could see a silver lining in a hurricane.

            First, anytime you give a job to an immature backpedaling Patriot and get burned you shoulder some of the blame. Ballard does not get off scott free. The history was there to show that McDouche wasn't the man for the job. Reich has nothing to do with that. Sure I'll give him credit for it. But my point is that we can't ignore failures because we are rebuilding. We shouldn't ignore failures because we have to be patient on a rebuild. You can be patient in a rebuild and realize the foundation was laid wrong.

            Second, the OLine in 2016 was atrocious and Ballard followed it up by drafting Banner in the 4th round. Schwenke did not pan out. He did not address the line, he depended on previous draft picks panning out. They didn't. We gave up a lot of sacks and Ballard has responsibility in that. This year's line is better, but that doesn't erase the previous year's mistakes. He was expecting Luck to come back with that protection? It was a mistake.

            Third, the young guys were given the reigns in the preseason. Mack had a history of injuries, Turbin was suspended. We were satisfied with the rookies going into the season. The linebackers were given the reigns. Autry is starting because Ridgeway isn't that good and Ballard didn't load up like Reich prefers. The cornerbacks were young before they were injured. Geathers and Farley were known injury risks. Hooker was given the starting job out of the shoot. The young guys are playing because that is what a rebuilding team does. Now some of them are injured and we are playing practice squad players. WRs is clearly a botched decision by Ballard.

            Fourth my point on rebuilding through the draft is that it isn't a guarantee. You act like since we are doing things completely different everything is great and it has to work. I am not saying Ballard is on the hot seat, but I get it. Any criticism to this team permits you to jump to those conclusions. No one is expecting this team to be a contender. We expected the rebuild to be more productive and not have similar mistakes pre-Ballard. We do have young pieces, but having young pieces does not give Ballard a pass on the other holes. Again that isn't saying he should be fired it is a cause for concern for a patient rebuild claiming Ballard can do no wrong.

            I predicted 6 wins and still think we can get there. But my point is that it isn't a guarantee that we are rebuilding through the draft is going to get us to the promise land of contention. And the mistakes Ballard has made can't happen for it to happen. I am optimistic that he can get better in providing a solid team next year. The defensive front seven is better at stopping the run. Our upfront protection is better. Luck is better than Brissett. But everything else is bad. Some of it is bad because of injuries. Some of it is bad because we depend too much on young players. Some of it is bad because we didn't spend a little short term cash to bring in stop gaps.

            And we can have cause of concern for this team going forward. To not be realistic about the concerns is overl looking the mistakes made in the past.
            Everyone one here likes to think they are "realistic" about concerns. So what happens is we get a whole slew of people whining and *****ing about the team and refuse to acknowledge any positives. Not only that, if someone speaks up about positives, they get shut down, sort of like you're trying to do to me. My entire point is, of course there are concerns. But it's not the only path going right now, and I like to speak up and acknowledge that it's not a trainwreck, and that's it's easy to fall into that rut when things aren't going well.

            You can continue to spout the negativity, but just know, I'm not gonna sit around and not let the positives be acknowledged, either. Because listening to you talk, it's depressing. Let's roast Ballard for a coach backing out, let's roast Ballard for not correcting Grigson's 5 year mistake in 1 off-season, let's roast Luck for "not improving" and not acknowledge that 3 months ago 75% of this board thought Luck was "done". Let's point out every single negative, and then let's also look at the positives and also try to turn those into negatives, lol. Anything we can do to pee in everyone's cheerios.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-17-2018, 09:40 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


            • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

              Everyone one here likes to think they are "realistic" about concerns. So what happens is we get a whole slew of people whining and *****ing about the team and refuse to acknowledge any positives. Not only that, if someone speaks up about positives, they get shut down, sort of like you're trying to do to me. My entire point is, of course there are concerns. But it's not the only path going right now, and I like to speak up and acknowledge that it's not a trainwreck, and that's it's easy to fall into that rut when things aren't going well.

              You can continue to spout the negativity, but just know, I'm not gonna sit around and not let the positives be acknowledged, either. Because listening to you talk, it's depressing. Let's roast Ballard for a coach backing out, let's roast Ballard for not correcting Grigson's 5 year mistake in 1 off-season, let's roast Luck for "not improving" and not acknowledge that 3 months ago 75% of this board thought Luck was "done". Let's point out every single negative, and then let's also look at the positives and also try to turn those into negatives, lol. Anything we can do to pee in everyone's cheerios.
              Yeah I’ve been all negative. Not one single positive thing in my posts. Sure. If you believe that you are negative after all. Keep being you dude. You clearly don’t like pointing out failures.

              It’s not roasting someone for clearly seeing that Ballard isn’t perfect. I never once said I expected things turned around in one year. I clearly stated my expectations. I think Ballard is doing a C grade average job. You seem to think he is the freaking Messiah and won’t admit any fault.

              Whay postive did I turn into a negative? Please tell me. I did state positives. But the difference between you and most people is that a few positives doesn’t erase all the negativity and should make you have concerns about the future. So stop with you extremism of “everyone is being a big meany because they aren’t as high on the team as me”. You act like you are the only one who thought Luck would be back.

              So please stop with the negative/positive crap and actually talk on the points. If not freaking ignore me.

              Comment


              • So, a poor Bills team with a just-arrived, back-up QB coming to our turf. There's no such thing as an easy game, but if we can't find a way to win this one, injuries or no injuries, the unintentional tank will gain some serious momentum.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...olts/#comments

                  Jim Kelly heading to Indianapolis to watch the Bills against Frank Reich’s Colts

                  Hall of Fame quarterback Jim Kelly has been through a tough cancer battle over the last few years, so it’s good to hear he’s feeling well enough to take a trip to take in a game.

                  Kelly will be there to see his old team, the Bills, take on the Colts, who are coached by Kelly’s longtime backup Frank Reich. Reich told the Buffalo media that Kelly, former Bills punter John Kidd and former Bills running back Thurman Thomas are among the former teammates who will be getting together at the Bills-Colts game.


                  “Jim Kelly will be here,” Reich said. “John Kidd was another teammate of mine, he will be here. I’ve heard Thurman and some others, but I’m not sure who. I don’t think they all are going to make it. I think a few of the guys are going to make it.”

                  Reich played for the Bills from 1985 to 1994, starting just three regular season games in that time but famously filling in for the injured Kelly in two playoff victories, one of which was the greatest comeback in NFL history. Reich said he’s still close with those teammates.

                  “Yeah, it was a real close-knit group,” Reich said. “We had a lot of good years and a lot of wins together, so it will be good to see whoever ends up showing up.”

                  Reich said he won’t ask Kelly who he’s rooting for, probably because he knows that, as close as the two former quarterbacks are, Kelly could never root against the Bills.

                  Comment


                  • Much better start for the Colts. Hey, catching balls helps!
                    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                      Much better start for the Colts. Hey, catching balls helps!
                      The running game helped more.
                      Edit Signature

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Natston View Post

                        The running game helped more.
                        100%. Great job pushing the run, great holes and great burst through the holes that are open.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • I wish that I would have bought tickets now...
                          Edit Signature

                          Comment


                          • The Bills could get seven field goals...
                            Edit Signature

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Natston View Post
                              I wish that I would have bought tickets now...
                              Haha I was thinking the same thing.

                              What a great game. Luck has only thrown 22 passes so far, we have a 100 yard rusher finally! This is what we need to see every week
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment


                              • Someone with a football understanding can confirm, but Mike Mitchell looks better to me than the safeties he replaced. Does that seem right?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X