The Colts need to find a QB who is fully committed to the game instead of one who has a book club and spends their offseasons in Europe.
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
-
Bball - the issue of how Schefter got wind of this is the most interesting mystery of the entire thing for me. Was it just a colossal gaffe or was it intentional to make Luck look bad? The latter is certainly plausible. You're definitely right. It would have to have been a minuscule number of people who knew it. He was set to announce to players after the game. Is it possible one or a few players could have known somehow? I find it hard to believe they would have leaked it.Leave a comment:
-
I'm seeing some FB comments more or less calling the booing fans classless. I don't think I would've booed... but I don't know. Imagine how blindsided they were by this, let alone the timing of it being during a game and 2 weeks prior to the season.
And the Colts have no one to blame but themselves for this being such a blindsiding. The Colts, and Luck for that matter, could've ramped up the seriousness of the situation as it went along. It dates back to at least spring.
Some actual comments, a leak or two, something, to get the word out that this was a concerning situation for all involved and the pain/rehab cycle was wearing on Luck. Particularly after what he'd dealt with with the shoulder. Instead we got the exact opposite of that.
A mild calf injury... a little bone thing... Definitely not like the shoulder injury... Played through pain before...
So...
When Luck shut it down this preseason, was that in fact to rest the injury or was that when the decision was actually made to retire?
And yes, the question of who leaked this has been on my mind since last evening as well. It had to be a small circle to know that a decision was made and a Sunday press conference was planned.
Clearly, someone in the tech end of things would know they were planning a Luck press conference for Sunday and could've leaked that easily enough. But they wouldn't know the substance of the PC.
The likely speculation would be a decision on Luck's status for the regular season opener and games. A potential for surgery. I don't think anyone would be speculating "retirement" as a high level guess beyond just a passing thought.
So someone either had to leak it entirely, or confirm what the leaked announcement of a press conference was about.
Have I mentioned this is all odd.
I'd like to hear more from people who denied there was anything strange about the way the Colts were handling this injury, their comments, and the reality of where it is now.Last edited by Bball; 08-25-2019, 05:12 PM.Leave a comment:
-
I think you combine your last two lines with Sollozo's description of the more stereotypical pro-athlete superstar who possesses the insatiable drive to compete and succeed at a high level and who probably also can't imagine/dreads life without the game.Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
I'm going with the mental side of it. From what I've read and seen on various networks, he just didn't want to keep going thru the process anymore. Some of his first words were injury, pain, rehab. And he talked about wanting (and being able to) enjoy life. I would imagine that whatever rehab they send these guys thru is pretty rigid, repetitive, exhausting, etc . . .
He just got tired of it.
Figured he might as well get out of it while he can. He's a unique person. Probably has a lot of other stuff he wants to do.
That combo kind of sums up Luck and why he'd make a decision like this in the apparent prime of his career. He's different than that elite athlete archetype. He's a lot more cerebral about life outside the game. Rather intellectual. Maybe philosophical is the right word. Whatever all the factors that coalesced to bring him to this point, it seems safe to say he's lost the level passion the reality of the game requires for him to continue. Perhaps, unlike someone like Manning, he has other immediate passions he wants to pursue that are not directly tied to football.Leave a comment:
-
I'm going with the mental side of it. From what I've read and seen on various networks, he just didn't want to keep going thru the process anymore. Some of his first words were injury, pain, rehab. And he talked about wanting (and being able to) enjoy life. I would imagine that whatever rehab they send these guys thru is pretty rigid, repetitive, exhausting, etc . . .Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
He just got tired of it. Figured he might as well get out of it while he can. He's a unique person. Probably has a lot of other stuff he wants to do.
Leave a comment:
-
The other big story here is that it seems like someone high up within the Colts organization deliberately set Luck up for a highly impromptu uncomfortable moment in front of the fans.
Luck said he was going to tell his teammates after the game, then hold a press conference today (Sunday). Well it clearly seems that someone in the know nixed his plans and deliberately gave the nugget to Schefter in the middle of the game so that Luck would be put in a highly uncomfortable situation with the fans and his teammates. Instead of announcing it on his terms, Luck was surrounded by thousands of people at a game who were finding out about it on their phones while he talked to his teammates.
Only a handful of people would have known about it in the Colts organization. There’s no way that the Colts would have told ticket reps or video guys that the franchise QB was retiring the next day. And there’s no way that Schefter drops one of the biggest whoppers of all time unless it’s from a highly legit source whom he trusts. I don’t think Schefty is putting his reputation on the line about Luck retiring if the scoop is coming from an assistant team nutritionist.
We will likely never know who it was, but it’s pretty interesting that someone likely high up in the Colts organization wanted to deliberately put Luck in a historically uncomfortable situation by giving this to Schefter in the middle of a game, which meant that within seconds Luck would be surrounded by thousands of fans getting the news on their phone.
This was crazy. What a wild and unprecedented turn of events.Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-25-2019, 03:50 PM.Leave a comment:
-
The Indy media is softer than Charmin toilet paper. Don’t expect hard hitting questions. The New York/Philly/Chicago/Boston media would be ruthless if this happened in their market.Leave a comment:
-
^ cant link because on phone, but PatsFootballTalk put up a link to a video of Luck throwing on August 17 before the pre-season game against Cleveland. That video is still up (just go to the Colts page on PatsFootballTalk and keep going back till August 17). Luck looked pretty good moving around. Well last night he was talking about how he knew even then that he was retiring and was just relishing the moment of throwing in Lucas Oil one more time.
I get that throwing the ball around isn’t the same as playing a game, but it’s a bit tough as a fan to see him moving fluidly and throwing, then retiring a week later.......especially after we all saw Manning return after having his neck cut into. As fans, we just expect every great athlete to have that maniacal Manning-like dedication when they get paid millions and have an opportunity that 99.9% of us can only dream of.
Its head scratching because the main question I have is.....what exactly is wrong with him physically right now? Is this more mental or physical?
I don’t expect us to get to the bottom of this because the media narrative has quickly turned into how noble it is for someone to retire young from the big bad game of football. I don’t expect too many hard hitting questions or investigative reporting.Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-25-2019, 03:23 PM.Leave a comment:
-
The odd thing with this situation is that, as far as we know, Luck doesn't have a nagging, recurring injury. It's not like his shoulder continues to bother him or he can't recover strength in it. It's not like he had a knee injury that just 'never got right'.
Assuming what Irsay said was right and it was a bone in his ankle like Diem had, he could've had some relatively simple (and minor) surgery a few weeks back and been perfectly fine for the season with no real concerns of that issue returning. Of course with the Colts' history of reporting on star players' injuries, all bets are off as to whether we've yet to hear the straight story.
But essentially, my point is, the shoulder appears to be fine now and by all accounts and by the comeback player of the year award last year, that seems to be true. None of Luck's other injuries that we're aware of would be appear to be career threatening... As long as he recovered from them, they would be behind him.
The recovery from the shoulder issue was odd, at least as far as the spin the Colts put on it. And now the new injury might be even more odd, because it seems like 'nothing' (much) overall. Yet, Luck is retiring from it. A new injury... seemingly minor... definitely sold to the fanbase as minor... again with the strange reports that didn't line up with reality from the Colts... and it leads to the retirement of the star QB a couple of weeks from the start of the season.
Odd....Leave a comment:
-
He wasn’t a good GM, but come on, Luck survived Grigson and played every game last year - winning comeback player of the year and playing like one of the best QB’s in the league.Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
Theres more to this than Grigson/Pagano/Irsay. We can’t blame everything that goes wrong with Luck on those guys.
Luck is the main reason Luck is retiring.Leave a comment:
-
The Grigson Era delivers the final blow. Never invested in building a real offensive line. QB took a beating his first 4 years in the league.Leave a comment:
-
I agree, it’s overly simplistic and naive to to say, “well Manning would have got killed behind the O-Line and would have been stuck with Grigson/Pagano”.Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
As I said above, Manning was the master of making adjustments, audibles, and quick reads/passes. There would have been a lot of quick short passes like he did in Denver. Manning was great enough to succeed behind a poor line. Luck OTOH always held onto the ball way too long.
If we make the decision to keep Manning, who knows if we hire Grigson and Pagano? Might have kept the Polians and Caldwell. Might have hired someone else. No one knows.
*WE WOULD HAVE GOT A KINGS RANSOM IN A TRADE FOR THE LUCK PICK*
Manning had the ability to make middling offensive weapons look like pro bowl quality players (look at Julius Thomas - he totally disappeared after Manning).
Manning was a team leader who just naturally put a winning swagger into any team he was on.
It would have been tough for the Colts to build as great a team as Denver. I’m not going to act like we would have had the best defense in 2015 like Denver did. But Manning was so great from 2012-14 that he absolutely would have enjoyed some successes here and I think we would have made one Super Bowl, especially with the stuff we could have got from trading the Luck pick.
It sure as hell would have been more enjoyable to see what happened with Manning than this Luck era has been, which was some early excitement that is forever clouded by injuries and a WTF retirement 7 years in.
I like Irsay more than a lot of people here do, but he made the wrong decision in 2012. Time has proven that. In fairness, after last year things were looking good for the Colts with a healthy Luck, good roster, and solid coaching/GM. But the Luck era is over now and no way in hell did it come close to justifying releasing one of the best QB’s ever.
Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-25-2019, 02:22 PM.Leave a comment:
-
In hindsight, no doubt letting Manning go was a mistake. The entire gamble was based on the hype that Luck was a cross between the next Manning and the next John Elway, while Manning was a gamble if he'd ever play again, how long, and whether he'd still be "Peyton Manning".
Well, now we know the answers to all of those questions. Manning did recover to play longer and play well. Luck's potential was real but never reached due to both some FO mistakes and injuries. And just maybe a bit of of a player of a different mold that didn't put football in the same space as a Peyton Manning (whatever is going on now with Luck can't be 'that' bad, yet he's retiring... unless we were lied to more than we even know by management).
The haul for trading the Luck pick is an unknown variable, but we can be assured there would've been several assets coming the Colts' way. And we have no idea what changes might've taken place in the FO and on the sidelines because retaining Manning would've put an entirely different mindset into play. And Manning would've been heavily involved in those decisions.
We still don't know how Manning finishing out his time as a Colt would've played out... that's still an unknown variable. But we know he would've returned to play at a high level and had the potential to reach multiple SB's in that period of time. And we know Luck's career was derailed and ultimately unfulfilled promise at best.Leave a comment:
-
Good to hear that the Colts are letting Luck keep his signing bonus as a parting gift for taking so many hits.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: