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.
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
-
The Indy Star piece you quoted in the post I replied to said the players knew for two days before the game - according to Shefter. -
I read where Brissett knew, but nothing about any other players knowing. And there's an article, I think on the Star, about a fan that had sideline passes seeing it on his phone and asking the players about it and word spreading on the sidelines from that.Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
So, I'm questioning if many, or any players besides Brissett knew.
One thing that made me doubtful it came directly from a player was the timing. Surely the entire leak and reporting of it went down pretty quickly. The players were in a game.
I think if a player leaked it, they had to leak it to someone who strategically leaked it later during gametime. And then we're back to questioning just how many players knew it in the first place...Leave a comment:
-
Here's an interesting mental exercise- Repicking the top section 2012 NFL draft knowing what teams know now. I believe this keeps all the trading scenarios in place and doesn't decide they wouldn't have happened or make any new ones. Which, honestly, probably negates this as anything but fun to consider since it's almost certain the Colts wouldn't take Luck and would've just kept Manning knowing what the know now. So the Colts would've traded out of that first slot.
But the other side of the what-if coin is that the other teams in this exercise know Luck only plays 86 games as well, so they wouldn't all be selling the farm to get him, unless you buy the '5 year window and move on' argument.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/r...ly-retirement/Leave a comment:
-
https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...er/2156619001/
Schefter said he was surprised the news kept as long as it did with owner Jim Irsay, general manager Chris Ballard and coach Frank Reich being aware of it the previous week, and Luck telling teammates two days before the game. The team considered a Friday news conference before planning to announce it Sunday.
"I don't know why they waited," Schefter told Patrick. "This is a sad story. It's unfortunate for Andrew, for the Colts, for the city of Indianapolis, for football. He's an unbelievable player. Nobody wants to see him leave the game. But when there are that many people who know, I'm shocked it didn't get out sooner."Leave a comment:
-
I don't disagree that it sucks, all that reasoning make 100% sense. I'm only saying that while I wouldn't root for a guy to retire in his prime like you said, I certainly also won't begrudge a guy for doing that and living his best life. That's all we all want, and no matter how talented and successful he is, that's still all he wants too. Difference is just that a lot of players see the gridiron fame as their best life above all else because it is all they've been chasing their whole life.Originally posted by Sollozzo View PostLeave a comment:
-
Running parallel to all of this is what the Colts were saying. That's a part of the problem I think. The Colts in no way set the fans up for this possibility. Whether it was the shoulder or this mysterious leg injury, Luck was going to be ready for the start of the season. Neither case was true.
Irsay got roasted for mentioning Luck's mental state with the shoulder recovery, but I think that was one of the few glimpses of truth we got along the way.
I'm liking my theory more and more that Luck had decided to retire following the shoulder surgery at some point. I can even see his rehab regimen not being full steam ahead once he made that decision. Then the Colts talk him out of him via going ahead and taking the season off, getting paid, and getting his bonus money free and clear if he goes hard on rehab and comes back to play another season. And then he can make the decision about his future.
All of a sudden Irsay's comment about Luck's mental state during the recovery makes sense. Josh McDaniels bailing on the Colts at the 11th hour makes sense. The mysterious and long drawn out nature of the shoulder recovery AND this leg/ankle injury makes more sense. I can even see something that makes some sense in the bombshell dropping during the Colts preseason game with Luck on the sidelines...
Jacoby Brissett would've been the one teammate likely to have had a heads up about all of this because of his closeness to Luck, and his status as #2 QB. I could see him being the one to tell someone in the Pats camp about Luck's consideration of retirement prior to Josh McDaniel's arrival as HC and that derailing that.
I could also see him telling someone in the Pats camp about Luck's decision to retire prior to Saturday's game. ...And then they sit on it to then leak it during the game for maximum embarrassment for the Colts.
Did anyone see The Hoodie a couple of days after the announcement pretending not to know anything about Luck's retirement when asked about it? The biggest NFL story in months and days later he's not heard about it? Hmmmmm...
I'm not saying Brissett was a double-agent or purposely did this to hurt the Colts. I'm just saying he has connections that connect with both camps, he's a young guy, it's big news, and I could see him telling someone not realizing the politics of the situation that would then be sent into motion.Leave a comment:
-
I agree that it sounds like Luck basically wants to be an ordinary guy (or as ordinary as you can be with $100 mil in the bank). However, as sports fans we aren’t conditioned to root for guys to stop playing in their prime and live a life like the rest of us untalented people. No, sports fans generally root for talented people to attain excellence in their sport, which is what gives it the entertainment value.
We’re conditioned to see an athlete like Peyton Manning who obviously appreciated that he had a talent and opportunity that few on Earth would ever attain. He devoted himself to greatness and it obviously showed. Almost Every second was dedicated to football greatness. That is what makes our jaw drop as fans. The guy came back after literally having his neck cut into.
One thing that keeps coming up from local media guys who were around during the Manning era is that Luck just never had that maniacal obsession with football like Manning. That not to say that he didn’t work hard because obviously he did. But it just sounds like it wasn’t life for him like it was Manning.
Manning would have played until age 100 if he could. Brady probably actually will still be playing at age 100. This is what draws fans in. Retiring early to spend time with your family might sound wholesome, but most fans don’t envision family time when they’re watching the sport. Fans cheer for greatness and watching guys use their talent.
That is what makes this so tough. Luck obviously had the talent to win in this league, as he’s proven multiple seasons. This would all be easier to digest if he was some untalented bust. The prime years that will never be are haunting.Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-29-2019, 01:24 PM.Leave a comment:
-
I think I kind of side more with Luck also because I see myself like him in a microscopic way. I like my job okay, it has some good moments, but my priorities in life are my wife and dog, friends, church, and personal enjoyment. I don't think that makes me bad at my job, though. I consider myself to be a pretty good worker with above average intelligence. I do my best at my job, I can go above and beyond when the situation presents itself, but I am not going to come in early, work nights and weekends, or stay glued to my phone in case I get an email unless there's some specific and important reason to do that.
Part of me thinks Luck is like that. I think to be as good as he was, there's no chance he wasn't incredibly dedicated to the game. He obviously enjoyed it as well. However, he probably places his wife and child, health, and maybe even architecture above football. So when the cost and time involved in football became greater and took away from the other interests, it made sense to retire, especially given his financial ability to do so. At least that's how I see it - I think the bottom line is that Luck is a rare player that has a lot more going on in life than football and since his identity is not tied as strongly to that, he can let it go a lot easier and more accurately weight the costs and benefits.
Leave a comment:
-
No one has fished a quote out of Peyton about this yet, have they?
I wonder what he thinks? On one hand, I’m sure the competitor in him wants Irsay to feel like he made a mistake by cutting him. OTOH, I don’t think Manning ever had anything against Luck personally and wanted to see him succeed especially once he retired and had no dog left in the fight.
Despite the awkwardness with cutting him, Manning has had a good relationship with the franchise since retired. Pretty much the first thing he did after retiring was return to Indy to gush about his time with the Colts. Then you had the nice statue ceremony. He also showed up to training camp this year, plus when the 2006 team was honored. Peyton is clearly always going to have a special relationship with the Colts and I think he holds the fanbase and franchise history in high regard. Manning clearly wishes the Colts well.
I have to think that Peyton is just dumbfounded that someone would retire from the opportunity to quarterback the Colts at age 30. Peyton would probably give anything to be 30 again. Peyton had his neck cut into well past age 30 and still returned to play. Plus the Luck retirement just cheapens the reasoning for cutting Manning in the first place.Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-29-2019, 12:01 PM.Leave a comment:
-
I see that point, but assuming he truly had decided to retire and did not enjoy the game, what is the alternative? Suffer through the season and half-*** it? Sit on the bench on IR and collect the paychecks while not helping the team at all? Comeback in the second half of the season, where you already had made up your mind that you were done and try to fake it?
I just don't think any of those help the Colts either. Again, assuming he's truly checked out.Leave a comment:
-
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/f...ks-retirement/
Steve Beuerlein isn't a fan of how Andrew Luck went about his stunning decision to retire from the NFL this weekend.
In the aftermath of the Colts quarterback's announcement, Beuerlein, who played 17 seasons in the NFL and is currently serving as a CBS Sports NFL analyst, took to Twitter to express his displeasure of the timing of Luck's retirement. He is of the mindset that because it's so close to the regular season, Luck shouldn't have walked away from his team.
"I am a HUGE Andrew Luck fan. Always have been. But this I cannot defend or justify," Beuerlein tweeted. "NO scenario where retirement is defensible. To do this to his teammates, organization, fans, and the NFL 2 weeks before the season is just not right. I love the guy but this will haunt him."
"Point is this is a massive decision he SAID he has pondered for 10 DAYS!" he continued. "Colts invested in him for 5-10 more YRS! Go on IR, get away for a few weeks and think about it. Get healthy for 2nd half of season and make a run! Colts are good! If Jacoby [Brissett] goes 4-4 they have a chance! His team needs him to make this run. I know rehab is tough. I had 19 surgeries as a player... 8 over 2 years. It sucks! But he owes it to his team. It is just a lower leg injury and it will heal! Just give it a chance. If it doesn't, walk away after this year."
Beuerlein is highlighting that while Luck is deciding to retire, he's turning his back on the entire Colts operation.
"The MILLIONS he walked away from affects only HIM," he said. "The DECISION to walk away just prior to the season affects his TEAM, ORGANIZATION, FANBASE, and the ENTIRE NFL... ALL had invested in him for this year at least. Walk away AFTER the season."
---
Quoted elsewhere:
“A lot of guys have gone thru multiple years of rehab after bad luck w injuries. Not unusual! This injury WILL get better and is not career threatening. Retire AFTER this season if it does not get better and if you still feel this way,” he wrote.Last edited by Bball; 08-29-2019, 03:43 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Some reporting/reviewing circumstances that got the Colts to this point:
Andrew Luck's retirement made sense. The Colts' confusion around his injuries still doesn't.
WRITTEN BY
MIKE DECOURCY
@TSNMike
Share
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
EMAIL
COPY LINK
AndrewLuckFans-Getty-FTR-082619(Getty Images)
WATCH NFL WITH
NFL
COLTS
There was a middling audience in attendance at Saturday night's preseason game, and only a smallish portion of those fans remained late in the game, and a tiny group of those leftovers created such an enormous commotion. They were the ones who booed quarterback Andrew Luck as he departed the field at Lucas Oil Stadium for the final time as a member of the Colts, but their anger was amplified through modern media and lingered through the weekend as the NFL digested the shocking news of Luck's sudden retirement.
It didn't have to end this way. It was destined to, though.
MORE: Luck explains his decision to retire
This fiasco was the product of years of obfuscation from Luck and the Colts about the origin, nature and severity of his various injuries. Colts fans often have been in the position of being uncertain how their quarterback got hurt, how each issue might encumber his return and when to expect he would play again.
When the answer became "never" - well, no one saw that coming because no one really had been given the opportunity to understand how much pain Luck had endured or how long he'd suffered or whether it all might be terrible enough for him to consider giving up the game he loved.
And when that answer came during an exhibition game in which Luck was standing on the sideline as though mentally preparing himself for the 2019 season - the news leaking out of the spectators' smartphones with no warning and minimal context - the combination created that unfortunate scene.
It was out of line for fans to boo Luck in that circumstance, no doubt. Luck's retirement was a personal decision easy to justify given his means and myriad injuries. However, proper management of this occasion and so much that led into it would have resulted in an entirely different scene.
"I don't think fans were booing Luck," lifelong Colts fan Dustin Craig, who was not part of the crowd at Saturday's game, told Sporting News. "I think they were booing because we feel like we've been taken for the proverbial 'ride' several times over the last few years."
MORE: Why Colts can still win AFC South
In his time with the Colts, Luck has been afflicted with injuries to his throwing shoulder, ribs, head, kidney, throwing shoulder and, most recently, his lower leg. Through nearly every one of these episodes, there has been persistent uncertainty about what the impact would be for his team.
One of the only times we can be sure someone told the whole truth about the impact of Luck's physical troubles, it was whispered to ESPN NFL reporter Adam Schefter, who broke the news of Luck's retirement on Saturday evening. We don't know who was Schefter's source, but the decision to feed him that scoop rather than allow Luck to make the announcement contributed to what occurred during the game.
As well, Luck's presence on the sideline was out of line, and the decision to have him there as opposed to sitting in a team box or sequestered in someone's office was a blunder that belonged to any team official aware of what was to come.
"What else are fans to do in that situation but to gain a little hope from him being out there?" Craig said.
There were so many opportunities to handle all this better.
And by that, I mean there have been years' worth of opportunities.
MORE: Ripple effects of Luck's retirement
In September 2015, Luck was known to have injured his shoulder and missed early October games as a result. A month later, Jay Glazer of Fox Sports reported Luck also had broken ribs at that point, contributing to his suddenly inaccurate passing. The NFL eventually acknowledged it would examine whether the Colts were properly reporting injuries. In late December, there was a report from Stephen Holder, then of the Indianapolis Star, that Luck actually had torn cartilage in his ribs in the September game.
Luck played throughout 2016, as it turned out, with shoulder problems that eventually required surgery. Those issues may or may not have been exacerbated by a snowboarding accident - something he did not acknowledge until more than two years later.
Luck played reasonably well that season - 31 touchdowns, 13 interceptions - but those who covered the team regularly were commenting he wasn't quite the same. Then owner Jim Irsay announced in January 2017 that Luck had undergone surgery to repair the shoulder.
"The Colts misled us for the entire 2016 season about Luck's shoulder," Star columnist Gregg Doyel wrote then. "Irsay just admitted it."
Irsay also said of Luck: "Will be ready for season!" Full disclosure: He did not say which season.
Luck was a mysterious figure through much of 2017 training camp. Although team representatives consistently said they expected him to return to start the regular season, uncertainty about his status lingered throughout training camp. Luck didn't help clear things up, either. At one point, he acknowledged to reporters he was throwing a tennis ball as part of his therapy but declined to answer whether he'd thrown a football.
The saga of whether he would return lingered all the way to November, when he was placed on injured reserve.
So perhaps fans should not have been surprised to see this year's injury, from a training session, develop into something so consequential. It alternately was reported as a calf injury, a high-ankle sprain or related to a "small bone," in Irsay's words.
It never was expected to linger past mini-camp into training camp and then 66.5 percent of the exhibition season - to the point where Luck was 100 percent done with playing football.
Perhaps it should be no surprise that, according to The Athletic's Zak Keefer, some fans were calling the team's offices Monday, requesting refunds for their season tickets.
There is a tremendous value to the truth. In a public enterprise, it can be difficult to share it completely, without exception. There usually is a price to pay for avoiding it, though, and that regrettably unforgettable scene that scarred a beautiful evening in the heartland will be tough to shake.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...r192o910sag7toLeave a comment:
-
Colts reportedly considered placing Andrew Luck on injured reserve to postpone a final decision
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/c...inal-decision/
New info in this piece:
While this news came as a shock to everyone, it was not a shock to Colts' management. They knew that he had been mulling retirement over the past couple weeks, and according to a new report, the Colts thought about forcing him to reconsider his options.
According to Ed Werder, the Colts hierarchy discussed placing Luck on injured reserve to postpone a final decision as their starting quarterback worked to return from injury. Luck was adamant that he was done with football, however, so the Colts decided to respect his decision.
Back in March of this year, Luck underwent an MRI that revealed a calf strain. There was quite a bit of mystery surrounding Luck's diagnosis, but he sat out parts of the Colts' OTAs in May and June, then carried the leg issue into training camp. Placing the quarterback on IR would have given him time to heal instead of feeling rushed to prepare for the season opener, which could have put his mind more at ease. Instead, Luck was placed on the reserve/retired list Sunday.Leave a comment:
-
I'm not sure if it's been said already but I wonder if this is just mental fatigue with the injuries more than anything. A calf injury isn't a career ending injury.
Or it may be lingering concerns about the shoulder along with new injuries that might prevent him from protecting himself. Apparently the injuries have become too much for him.
I'm really not surprised. I've thought for a long time his career would be short the way it was going....largely because of the way the Colts "protected" him, the number of hits and the nature of his injuries.
Good "luck" to him. I'm sure he has invested well and can continue with a career in the league, off the field.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: