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

ESPN: Andrew Luck retiring

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

  • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post



    Luck retired and we pretty much have no idea why other than extremely vague responses.

    I’ll link to this when I get back on the computer, but it’s easy to find online (just type Peter King Luck on youtube): Peter King interviewed Luck in early August at the Colts facility. He asked Luck point blank how the injury happened and Luck really sidestepped the question. Luck says he “remembered a specific time in the off-season” when he aggravated the calf. He doesn’t elaborate at all. Doesn’t say whether it happened in the course of football training or something else.

    Not that he owes us any explanation at all, but people’s minds are simply going to wander when a QB retires at such a young age without really pointing to anything concrete. We have been given literally nothing of substance related to any of it.
    In the Facebook video of the Ballard/Irsay/Reich presser Ballard says Luck dinged the leg late in the season (and he could not remember exactly when), got it better, played at KC afterwards, played at the Pro Bowl, and then reported pain while he was in Europe. If anyone knows when and what Luck was doing in Europe that might give a better timeframe of things and maybe something even to pinpoint as a potential reason for an injury recurrence.

    The strange parts of this are how the team called this minor from all along. Then towards the end, vaguely moved the injury to the ankle. And even with that it was vague, was the ankle a new issue or was it the original issue? Then it kind of morphed into a new issue in the reporting but it's never clear. Then some started calling it a high ankle sprain, but the Colts didn't say that. They used the word "issue". So some reporting and talk started calling a high ankle sprain but that wasn't based on actually what was originally said. I don't think the Colts ever called it a high ankle sprain.

    And even it was, it's not a career ending type of injury.

    The most concrete thing we heard was Irsay who in fact is the first that I'm aware of to talk about the ankle and a 'bone thing' and used Diem as an example of a player that had it. From that, if it was that, we know the two options are rest or simple surgery that pretty much clears the issue and keeps it from ever happening again. Again, not career threatening at all.

    At this point I'm of two minds on things. Either Luck was ready to contemplate retirement and when this issue arose he himself took the surgery option off the table because he was done with anything like that to play football and so it would either have to get better on its own or he was retiring... and might anyway.

    Or else there never really was an injury issue of any note, maybe none at all, and this all has been a smokescreen to some degree to give Luck time to decide if he really wanted to retire. In that case, then it probably goes back to the shoulder surgery and him leaning towards retirement then, but wanted to prove to himself he could get back and play at a high level. Once he did that, he'd proved all he needed for himself and so retirement moved higher on the probability list. You can mix in wife, child on the way, and all of those variables from this spring and summer.

    Think back to Pat Mcafee talking about how tightlipped everyone was about this "injury" and what was going on. I think he used the word 'weird' himself earlier this summer.

    Think back to Irsay talking about Luck's shoulder recovery and talking about his mind in the process (I forget the exact words... something about sometimes recovery is about the area between the ears or something like that).

    I'd love to know if Josh Daniels bailed on Indy not because of anything the Pats offered, not because of uncertainty about Luck's shoulder surgery directly, but inside knowledge that Luck was contemplating retirement sooner rather than later.

    It just seems weird to fight back from shoulder surgery, be comeback player of the year, declare the shoulder fine, have the best team he's had during his time in Indy ready to go this season, and a reportedly 'minor' injury leads to retirement. And we've heard nothing to think it's more than that.

    We do know he contemplated retirement during the shoulder rehab. We thought that was because the shoulder wasn't responding as planned. The apparent lengths he went to to get back would indicate he wanted to get back. Although... maybe the delay during the summer and finally missing the season was him trying to decide if he really wanted play again. Maybe the mystery of the recovery was him not going 100% on rehab like we all assumed from the start. Maybe it was only later that he decided to try harder to make a comeback.
    Last edited by Bball; 08-27-2019, 02:49 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


    • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

      but I think the Colts were saying and doing what Luck wanted them to do. This was all his decision after all.
      I keep seeing you post this. IMO this takes a lot of the heat off the Colts, and I’m not sure its appropriate (at least not 100%).

      I reserve the right to change my mind down the road if it comes out Lucks camp was pushing a certain narrative, but right now I feel like you are giving the team a free pass for something I think they played along with (at least a little, if not a lot)

      Comment


      • Even when Manning was going through his medical issues, we eventually got word of a general timetable of the issue, plus it immediately became public knowledge that he had the fusion surgery in Chicago right before the start of the 2011 season. And this was taking place under the super controlling Polian Colts.

        Wirh Luck, we literally get nothing of substantive news: the calf flares up, the calf can’t just get right, no one knows how it happened, might be an ankle injury too, no info ever released regarding medical treatments, hey look he’s throwing balls and he’ll hopefully be ready for the start of the season....then BOOM, he retires right before the season - after the best season of his career which was on the Heels of shoulder recovery (which one would think was much worse of an injury than the calf). I mean WTF?

        As strange as it sounds, very few in the media seem interested in trying to figure out what exactly happened. It’s all “(in so many words) “it’s his life, he’s his own man and you can go to hell you loser fan on the couch If you dare question it.”

        You can’t divorce the National media’s reaction from the fact that they’ve been on an anti-football crusade for a while. This fits right into their football is too violent narrative. Kornheiser was beside himself giddy at the idea that this Luck Early retirement might be a watershed moment of prominent players leaving early.

        Maybe Florio will do some digging. He likes anything that can embarrass the Colts, so I have no doubt that he’s trying hard.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-27-2019, 05:07 PM.

        Comment


        • Fair enough

          Total side note (and probably should be another thread): A few years ago a good friend of mine posted on Facebook he could see tackle football dying out eventually. Not in 1 year, 10 years, or even 50 years. But with more and more research, TBI becoming common knowledge, etc - his take was its bound to happen. So while I hear you - I don’t know if it’s necessarily the national media being giddy - so much as it is interesting that a narrative is being formed (and IMO its not just by the media - its by parents of little kids as well). I’m not educated enough to speak on the topic - but I think it will be a fascinating thing to watch throughout my life

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
            Fair enough

            Total side note (and probably should be another thread): A few years ago a good friend of mine posted on Facebook he could see tackle football dying out eventually. Not in 1 year, 10 years, or even 50 years. But with more and more research, TBI becoming common knowledge, etc - his take was its bound to happen. So while I hear you - I don’t know if it’s necessarily the national media being giddy - so much as it is interesting that a narrative is being formed (and IMO its not just by the media - its by parents of little kids as well). I’m not educated enough to speak on the topic - but I think it will be a fascinating thing to watch throughout my life
            This is a great observation. Will tackle football as we know it survive? My son is 7. He's playing football for the first time. There's a tackle league and a flag league. Not surprisingly, we put him in flag. And I can guarantee you we'll do our best to push him toward another sport or flag as long as possible, before allowing him to play tackle. I'm an older parent. I've grown up being an NFL/tackle football fan. I did not play a lot of football though. I had other sports where I excelled more. While the idea that tackle football eventually dies out produces some sadness, when it comes to safety for people I actually know, I'd have to opt for no tackle even if it contributed to the disappearance of the game.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • P.S. - I would just like to say that the discussion of the Luck retirement news here has been fascinating for me. I really respect the honesty of the posters and respect for the variety of perspectives. I truly feel that I identify in some way with all the opinions that have been presented, even if I feel more strongly about some than others.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • On the discussion of tackle football going away eventually -- doubtful in my lifetime (yeah - I'm old-ish) - but I do see more and more players retiring from it early. Gronkowski did it. Other than the timing - what's the difference ?? He had a bunch of injuries and said 'that's enough'. He hasn't received ANY backlash, He had plenty of years left that he could have played.

                But with the money these guys are making currently - it's easy for them to not concern themselves with the money being 'lost', instead, they look at their life going forward, realize that they can live a pretty nice life with the cash on hand, most of them have other opportunities for income and simply say that they might as well get out while they can. Gronk, McAfee, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown - the list is there thru the years.

                Given the injuries, if you had the option to retire early with a nice chunk of change - how many here wouldn't ??

                Comment


                • Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post

                  He has no choice. The Colts own his rights for three seasons.
                  He can come back after that if he wanted and wouldn't be with the Colts. He wasn't outright released like Manning was.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                    P.S. - I would just like to say that the discussion of the Luck retirement news here has been fascinating for me. I really respect the honesty of the posters and respect for the variety of perspectives. I truly feel that I identify in some way with all the opinions that have been presented, even if I feel more strongly about some than others.
                    My thoughts have really been all over the place. I've felt something wasn't right all summer long with just the way the injury was being reported, yet the goalposts being missed at each turn.
                    And it's always been "minor"...
                    Yet here were are at retirement.

                    I can't help feel there wasn't a lie in there somewhere between spring when we first heard of this and now. Either it was more severe than "minor", or "minor" was the straw that broke the camel's back and Luck refused surgery and wanted to wait it out, let nature take its course, and consider retirement in the meantime. Or was there ever really an injury of note? And is there more to the shoulder injury and that timeline that would help put all of this into a fuller context (like, even healed or not was he considering retirement then and did that have some bearing on the length of time he was out?).
                    What did the Colts know and when did they know it?
                    Who was lying to whom and why?

                    I suppose there'd be some closure on this chapter of Colts' football with that information. I feel I just have more questions as this goes on. Hopefully, Brissett leaks something to Brady or some of his friends connected with the Pats because you know that will get leaked to the media ASAP if it happens.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      On the discussion of tackle football going away eventually -- doubtful in my lifetime (yeah - I'm old-ish) - but I do see more and more players retiring from it early. Gronkowski did it. Other than the timing - what's the difference ?? He had a bunch of injuries and said 'that's enough'. He hasn't received ANY backlash, He had plenty of years left that he could have played.

                      But with the money these guys are making currently - it's easy for them to not concern themselves with the money being 'lost', instead, they look at their life going forward, realize that they can live a pretty nice life with the cash on hand, most of them have other opportunities for income and simply say that they might as well get out while they can. Gronk, McAfee, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown - the list is there thru the years.

                      Given the injuries, if you had the option to retire early with a nice chunk of change - how many here wouldn't ??

                      Gronk retired shortly after the Super Bowl, giving the Pats plenty of time to recoup. Plus it seemed to be common knowledge that Gronk's retirement was going to come sooner rather than later. It's not unprecedented to see great position players retire around that age (look at Barry Sanders and Calvin Johnson). Gronk had a history of well-documented injuries and procedures. By contrast, we really don't know what in the world was going on with Luck this time around.

                      Gronk's best football was behind him. Luck OTOH was a QB who was just now entering the prime of his career. It's virtually unprecedented to see a great QB retire at that age. Gronk reached the pinnacle of his position and was already the best TE ever, whereas Luck was just scratching the surface. After 2018, I think most of us felt that he was just now entering his prime. That's what makes it so shocking. He retired before he he reached his peak. He walked away from the potential of 6-7 peak years at least.

                      I'm trying to be as delicate as I can about this because none of us know how his body felt. But the whole thing is just weird. Since he and the team have chosen to really not give us anything of true substance, all we can do is let our minds speculate a bit. It's human nature. But when you're caught on tape doing leg drills and throwing a week before retirement, people are going to ask some questions.

                      Comment


                      • Chris/Bill Polian and Ryan Grigson get every bit of vitriol I can muster. Those 3 took 2 franchise QBs and made them quit the game earlier than they should have. I blame Irsay for not firing them earlier.

                        None of this should have ever happened. What I wouldn't give to have Ballard in charge for longer than the past 3 years.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • Andrew Luck Indpls highlights:
                          http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-throwb...eer-highlights
                          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


                          • https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/a...-drafted-luck/

                            Andrew Luck retires: How history would change if the Colts kept Peyton Manning, never drafted Luck
                            Playing the "what if" game when it comes to Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning results in some fascinating alternate realities
                            Will Brinson

                            @WillBrinson
                            11 hrs ago • 11 min read

                            Few NFL stories are big enough to take multiple days to unpack, shoving all other headlines to the side and dominating the news cycle. Andrew Luck retiring from the NFL at the age of 29 just weeks before the 2019 season begins absolutely qualifies.

                            There are many questions that need asking of the Colts' current state -- can they win with Jacoby Brissett, did the fans have the right to boo him, what does the bettor market look like -- but I'm more interested in diving into the past and asking some questions about the year 2012.

                            When Luck came out of Stanford, he was one of the three best NFL Draft prospects of the last 35 years, along with Peyton Manning and John Elway. Boy, the Colts really can choose them. He was a no brainer choice with the top overall pick, provided you didn't have a quarterback.

                            Which is what makes the Colts draft-day decision so interesting: they DID have a quarterback. Peyton spent the 2011 season not playing football after undergoing what we would eventually learn was four different surgeries on his neck. The Colts made a tough decision, knowing Luck would leave Stanford (he was out of eligibility) and gambled on the young player instead of hoping the single greatest player in the history of their franchise could overcome his medical issues.

                            Manning did overcome those issues, by the way. He would sign with Elway (hello history, nice to see you all intertwined and inextricably linked) in Denver and have just a little bit of success in his four years with the Broncos.

                            So here is my question: knowing how things played out with Luck and knowing how things played out with Peyton, would the Colts have walked the same path they took in 2012 over again?

                            It's an incredible "What if" scenario to look back on and something we covered on Tuesday's Pick Six Podcast (listen in the player below and make sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts for your daily dose of NFL banter).


                            We're talking two Hall of Fame talents, one on the precipice of a career, the other winding down a masterful run with Canton on lockdown and an owner desperate for a second Super Bowl willing to sacrifice the veteran at the crossroads.

                            But here is my hypothesis: I do not believe Jim Irsay would have drafted Andrew Luck with the first overall pick if he'd known the outcome for Luck and Manning. We're talking hindsight here, of course, and I don't begrudge him for making the move that he did. But if he could do it over? I believe Irsay would have kept Manning.

                            For starters, there is a very simple argument that taking a quarterback No. 1 overall, with as much hype as Luck had, and watching him play just 86 games without bringing a team a championship, while missing an entire season with a shoulder injury, would qualify him as a bust.

                            Yes, that's right. You can argue Andrew Luck was a bust where he was drafted. Not in the sense of JaMarcus Russell or Joey Harrington or, if you want to wrap another strand in the historical weave we've built here, Ryan Leaf. Luck was one of the five best quarterbacks in football for various stretches of his career. That 2012 season, in which first-year coach Chuck Pagano battled leukemia and was replaced by Bruce Arians, was magical. (Also, without drafting Luck in Indy and hiring Pagano, Arians might never get a job in Arizona -- we'll get to the historical ramifications of this hypothetical move in a minute.) Luck led seven (!) game-winning drives that year and engineered four fourth-quarter comebacks en route to the Colts going 11-5.

                            Oddly, he didn't even win NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year; that would go to Robert Griffin III of the Redskins. But Luck was more than deserving -- he won those games out of sheer will. The defense for the Colts was terrible (31st in DVOA) and Indy had no run game. The Colts would just kind of flop around for three quarters, hope the game was close and then hand the ball to Luck and ask him to go full Houdini. Somehow it worked. Luck would get a little more help over the next two years and manage a pair of division titles thanks to 11-5 seasons, but the Colts would never advance further than the AFC Championship Game.

                            Perhaps the karma of kickstarting the Deflategate saga in their beatdown at the hands of the Patriots derailed a budding AFC South dynasty, or maybe Luck having no help just caught up with the team. 100 sacks over three seasons beget a 2015 shoulder injury that was poorly managed by the Colts (and Luck himself if we're being honest), leading to the 2017 season being missed. The old "playing with a lacerated kidney" move in 2015 didn't help matters either. Luck actually turned in an impressive 2016 season, despite often returning too quickly from injury, but it was obvious he wasn't right and the injuries were starting to pile up. The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish. This headline was more accurate than I ever thought it would be.

                            screen-shot-2019-08-27-at-11-30-57-am.png
                            CBS Sports
                            Whatever the case, Luck retired after playing just six seasons. Manning got four in Denver. And when you compare the start of Luck's career in Indy to the start of Manning's career in Denver, well, the Broncos were just better and Manning was a more impressive player.



                            RECORD PASSING YARDS PER YEAR AVG. TD-INT APPROX. VALUE
                            Peyton Manning

                            DEN (2012-2014)

                            38-10

                            4,954

                            131-36

                            50

                            Andrew Luck

                            IND (2012-2014)

                            33-15

                            4,319

                            86-43

                            44

                            Approximate value is Pro-Football-Reference's metric to determine what a player's individual season is worth. Luck's total over three years is great, but Manning's is stratospheric. He also won a Super Bowl in his fourth year with Denver, even though he was clearly a shell of himself at that point. Irsay wouldn't admit it, but he would happily lop off both of Luck's arms this instant for Peyton to have raised a second trophy in Indy, regardless of the circumstances.

                            Bottom line: the Colts drafted a player who was not as good as the franchise icon they let walk was over the next three years. Does that make Luck a bust? Not on its own. But he only played 86 games after being a top pick and the reason Peyton departed. Six seasons out of a No. 1 pick and a highly heralded quarterback? That's a disappointment. And if the Colts could redo history? That probably puts Luck somewhere on the sliding scale of being a bust.

                            It gets worse when you factor in the value of the 2012 No. 1 overall pick in terms of trade value. Let's say that Irsay finds Biff Tannen's Sports Almanac and realizes how well Manning would recover and decides to keep Peyton on the Colts roster. At that point he is unlikely to draft Luck (knowing he will get four seasons of Manning and, in this scenario, just six from the Stanford quarterback).

                            The Colts would, instead, trade down. And boy would they get a haul. We already know what the price of the second quarterback was in this class, because the Redskins surrendered three first-round picks and a second-round pick to the Rams to trade up for Robert Griffin III in the very same draft class. RG3 was highly thought of and some people argued he could be better than Luck, but ultimately this was a Manning-Leaf situation. Luck's true value to teams was substantially higher throughout the entire draft process.

                            Former Browns GM Mike Holmgren said as much after the fact, admitting in 2013 that he called the Colts and offered HIS ENTIRE DRAFT CLASS to Indy for the No. 1 overall pick.

                            "I talked to [then Colts GM Ryan Grigson] last year [at the owner's meetings] before we made the trade [up in the draft to get Trent Richardson]," Holmgren said. "I said, 'I'll give you all of our draft picks for the No. 1 pick and I'll take Luck. I'll give the whole draft to you."

                            That's called "The Full Ditka" if you aren't aware, and even then it wasn't even close to enough for the Colts to consider it. Holmgren also said that Grigson didn't take his offer seriously -- they were apparently by the pool and Holmgren was sipping a lemonade! -- but he was ready to pull the trigger that afternoon.

                            If the Redskins were giving up three first-round picks for RG3 and the Browns were willing to surrender an entire draft class ... I don't know if anyone was giving up FOUR first-round picks, but the actual haul the Colts could have gotten from teams to move up to No. 1 for Luck would have been completely unprecedented. (Obviously no one else has seen Irsay's Almanac in this scenario.)

                            The point being if you gave the Colts the choice today of holding onto Manning and getting his 2012-2015 seasons along with a huge pile of draft picks with which to rebuild the roster around their future Hall of Fame quarterback while ensuring Manning never donned another uniform and instead broke all the NFL's passing records while wearing "the shoe" OR six years of Andrew Luck with a few magical runs sprinkled in but ultimately a situation that ends in heartbreak?

                            Come on. Who is arguing for door No. 2? I can't know what Irsay is thinking -- no one but Irsay can -- and I don't think he would ever admit he'd prefer keeping Manning and not drafting Luck, mostly because it would nuke bomb the bridge between he and his recently retired quarterback, something the Colts don't want to do as long as the specter of Luck's return lingers.

                            But if you got Irsay in a room alone and promised him no one would know what he said? He'd tell you he'd go the Manning route.

                            The tentacles of this move can send you down a wormhole. Where does Luck go? The Browns make sense, and clearly Holmgren was willing to pony up for the pick. But maybe the Redskins go over the top and figure out how to get to No. 1. Does Washington manage to also ruin Luck's health? History says yes given what they did with RG3, although Luck in a Mike Shanahan scheme while being coached by Kyle Shanahan, Matt LaFleur and Sean McVay? That would work!

                            If Manning stays, Bill Polian probably isn't fired. Grigson is hired by someone else. Who does Polian draft with his top 2012 selection? Trent Richardson? If it's a top-five pick, probably, given that he called Richardson a "sure thing" before the draft. If there was a demand to improve the defense, though, we could have seen Luke Kuechly or Fletcher Cox land in Indy. If you prefer to be a little more pessimistic (realistic?) Mark Barron or Morris Claiborne could have been the pick.

                            Who becomes the quarterback in Denver without Manning landing there? Does John Elway just give the reins to Brock Osweiler out of the gate following the draft?? How long does Tim Tebow last with the Broncos??? Does Ryan Wilson ever even get to write his award-winning Sanchbow column if the Broncos don't send Tebow to the Jets?

                            More importantly, does Peyton actually win a second Super Bowl with the Colts? Luck had Indy positioned to pull it off at various points but usually fell short against the Patriots. Manning didn't own the Pats or anything, but he got past them a few times for a look at a title. The AFC playoff bracket would have been dramatically altered.

                            You can go a little more indirect with the alternate universe stuff and wonder how it frames the outcomes hundreds of parties. Joe Flacco and the Ravens actually beat both the Colts and Broncos in the playoffs after the 2012 season: do they beat Indy with Manning? The Mile High Miracle probably never happens without Manning going to Denver. Without that Super Bowl victory, Flacco never gets paid.

                            In 2013, the Broncos toppled the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game and the Chargers before that. I wouldn't DARE suggest this is a really long and winding way of suggesting that Philip Rivers would have won a Super Bowl if the Colts hadn't drafted Andrew Luck, but maybe either the Patriots or Chargers are able to beat the Seahawks in the Super Bowl and prevent the Legion of Boom securing its first title. Unlikely, but you get the point here. It would have completely altered history.

                            From a coaching perspective, Pagano is probably never hired. Which means, as we noted above, he never hires Arians, who had "retired" from the Steelers recently. Without Pagano taking over and then having to leave the Colts, Arians might never get the job with the Cardinals. Without Arians in tow, does Arizona ever trade for Carson Palmer? And if they do, does he flourish under a different coaching staff? The power structure of the NFC West would be altered.

                            Maybe Aaron Rodgers already has a second Super Bowl (he lost to Arizona in 2015). Maybe the Carolina Panthers beat whoever comes out of the AFC in 2015 and Cam Newton is a Super Bowl champion.

                            There are a billion different permutations and alternate realities if you flip Manning back to the Colts and send Luck somewhere else. In the end, it a) is just a fun exercise for speculation and b) probably ends up in a Thanosian inevitably and the Patriots destructive monolith that is the Patriots winning two or three more Super Bowls. Time is a flat circle after all.

                            Indy made the right choice at the right time not knowing what the future would hold. Luck wasn't bad, just bittersweet. It doesn't mean the choice won't haunt Irsay when he starts sifting through what could have been.
                            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


                            • Clearly with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it was a monumental mistake to release Manning. I’m sure no one is more aware of that than Irsay.

                              The argument at the time was that we’d get the benefit of Luck’s long career instead of just a few years of Manning. Well Luck ultimately only played 2 more seasons after Manning retired (since he missed 2017). Luck only made the playoffs one time after Manning retired (2018).

                              Obviously that’s nowhere close to being worth missing out on Manning’s comeback. It’s also not as simple as swapping out Luck for Manning and saying everything else would still be the same (coaching, GM, Line, etc). We might have gone in a different direction on some of those hires and could have struck some gold with the assets we got for Luck.

                              We would have had a chance at a Super Bowl and it would have been awesome to see Manning get those records in Indy, especially the TD one.

                              Maybe we wouldn’t have been as great as Denver, but it still would have been worth finding out given what we know the Luck era was: a few good early years and 1 AFC title game, then some injury seasons, and ultimately a phenomenal 2018 season followed by a WTF retirement obviously doesn’t come close to being worth kicking Manning out there door for.

                              I would rather be content knowing Manning played his entire career here than haunted by knowing Luck retired before his prime.

                              In fairness to Irsay, this decision didn’t look too bad after 2018. Looked like Luck was on the cusp of his prime. But now it unfortunately goes down as a terrible move.

                              Comment


                              • There was another part to the story about swapping Luck for Manning at the end of Manning's career and the beginning of Luck's and having 15 years of Luck at the helm instead of just a few more Manning years... It was not just the luck of having the opportunity to get the 'next great generational QB', it was to do it with the immediate knowledge of the mistakes made during the Manning years.
                                Putting too much emphasis on "Star Wars numbers" and not enough on a solid defense and being solid in the trenches. "Building the monster".

                                We could have the next John Elway and Peyton Manning rolled into one for 15 years and build an even better team around him. A better defense certainly. Less pressure on the QB to perform.

                                Someone forgot about that defense, didn't build the line to protect the QB, and didn't call plays and coach the QB to release the ball quickly and try and make up for the porous line. And whiffed on building a running game in there too. But then when all that starts getting fixed... Luck retires.

                                Whether anyone thinks the retirement was justified or not, a player too beat down to continue on, or a player that doesn't want to play football into his 30's who sees football as too violent and not worth risk, or simply a player that's a quitter, one thing is for certain-
                                This is not the scenario anyone had in mind when Manning Irsay decided to punt on the final Manning years. Hindsight is 20-20 but the one thing you'd expect from the "next generational QB" is him giving it is all to get out on the field and play the game and not giving up until it was clear he couldn't do it any longer. It's not clear that's the case here.
                                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