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

  • PocketwatchFox
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    So a lazy narrative was set: idiot franchise forces phenom into retirement. It was easy to run with. It’s easy for the masses to be anti-Colt because they are a franchise that’s viewed as being absurdly lucky and undeserving of Luck to begin with.
    I take some comfort when I hear NFL insiders break the narrative. I listen to the Tony Kornheiser podcast and for the longest time he would refer to Irsay as "The Mad Tweeter." When he had Jason La Canfora on to talk about the Colts hiring of Chris Ballard he asked (paraphrasing) 'Why would anyone want to work for the Mad Tweeter??' La Canfora, who resides in Baltimore and does an all-things-Baltimore-sports podcast, would have been forgiven if he'd piled on to the son of the guy who 'stole the Colts' from Baltimore, but instead he defended Irsay, saying that while he had his demons, he was a good owner who wanted his team to win and wasn't afraid to spend money to bring in the best people. He also said he was very hands off with the coaching and management staff and gave them time to succeed or fail rather than impulsively turning over the staff at the first 5 game losing streak (again, paraphrasing). I don't think Kornheiser's mentioned 'Mad Tweeter' since then.

    But getting back to the faulty, sloppy narrative you mention: Let's not forget that in his first couple years the coaching staff was all but begging Luck to take better care of himself whenever he'd take off with the ball and for heaven's sake LEARN HOW TO SLIDE. Rather than run out of bounds or give himself up any time a defender got within 10 yards of him, he'd lower his head and try to power for more yards like a vindictive fullback. I loved him for it. I think most of us did. Yeah, angry, fearless Luck! But while it was fun to watch I can't help but think it contributed in part to some of his injuries. I mean, wasn't his lacerated kidney on a scramble against the Broncos where he was trying to get a few more yards out of the play?

    I agree that it sucks seeing how the Colts are portrayed here, but the real games are starting now and if they go out there and play well and win that narrative will be quickly forgotten.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kid Minneapolis
    replied
    Ya, that's how I feel too. The team did a bunch to set the ship right the last few years and surround Luck with all he needed, so it doesn't make sense that he walked away when he did in terms of a bad environment or anything. I'm beginning to think the leg thing wasn't even really a thing, it was more of a excuse to explain why Luck wasn't practicing... which was he mentally checked out. And I can totally see their response as logical --- "well, take your time, think it over, let's not do anything hastily, you go take all the time you need get your mind right, and let's re-visit closer to the season, we'll cover you in the meanwhile", hoping/believing that whatever funk he was in would shake off and he'd return. And then he didn't.

    Really starting to think Luck just sorta had something going on, and the team was just trying to accomodate him. Seems like they still are... leaving un-retirement open, giving him all that extra money.... Bottom line is, that injury he had was 1) not even a big deal, he was shown moving around just fine, and 2) completely recoverable... there was no reason to retire because of it. I think Luck just checked out for *whatever* reason. Again, baffling... doesn't make sense... but it's technically his right to do whatever wants. He evidently has other opportunities in life that make being an elite NFL quarterback rather non-appealing... again, hard for us simpletons to understand, but there are people out there with opportunities available that the rest of us don't get, so it's just really hard to put ourselves in their shoes. He's clearly got other things to pursue.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-06-2019, 02:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    The Colts are a very easy target as a franchise. We aren’t going to get much sympathy from any other fanbase because we’re viewed as the team that lucked into both Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck. We’re also viewed as a team that tanked for Luck, fair or not.

    Grigson and Pagano were easy targets because of their incompetence. Irsay is an easy target because of his past demons.

    Meanwhile, Luck is the bookworm do-no-wrong “aww shucks” protégée who just wants to play football, but was ruined by this moron franchise.

    So a lazy narrative was set: idiot franchise forces phenom into retirement. It was easy to run with. It’s easy for the masses to be anti-Colt because they are a franchise that’s viewed as being absurdly lucky and undeserving of Luck to begin with.

    Sprinkle in a little “football is too violent and this was inevitable” into it, and bam, this is the reaction.

    Thus, no serious effort to really find out how hurt Luck is, what actually happened, and if he could really play right now.

    As a Colts fan, I’m pretty irked by how the team has been painted here.

    I think the Colts have behaved with total class. IMO, They likely know more than they are saying, but are keeping their tongue tied out of respect for Luck and keeping the team focused.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-06-2019, 05:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

    And that's fine too. He's an intelligent guy that will go on to do other things in life more important than football. Money wasn't/isn't/ain't gonna be an issue for him. Hell, he could have come out of Stanford a year early and still been the #1 pick. There was no decision to make - he was always going to finish college.

    As for it 'not adding up' - well - those guys base their life around football. Maybe to them - playing until the very end doesn't make sense. Walking away from the $$$, the fame - all that stuff is just odd TO THEM. Can't remember the guy's name, but a few years back, an Ivy League player passed on the NFL to become a Rhodes Scholar. Kudos to him. Different strokes - different folks. Luck never was your typical personality as an NFLer. Geek, odd, weird, bookworm ……….... all words that have been used to describe him.

    Maybe these guys should look a little outside their football world and ask questions about that. They might get better answers.
    If he wanted to walk away because he wanted to walk away, then fine, his decision. My problem is that a picture has been painted that all Andrew Luck wanted to ever do was play quarterback until he was 40 years old, but those damn incompetent Colts and their looney owner ruined the poor guy and forced him to retire so that his body wasn’t ruined forever.

    I don’t think the Colts deserve to be drug though the mud like they have been. I don’t even think Grigson/Pagano deserve the blame that has been thrust on them for this retirement. Those two were utterly incompetent and deserved to go, but we have no idea what caused Luck’s injury and if it’s related in any way to his early years. We don’t even know If it’s related to football. All Luck said to Peter King a month ago was that he remembered a specific instance in the off-season where it happened. He didn’t elaborate.

    I wish more people would just acknowledge that maybe Andrew Luck’s heart just wasn’t in this anymore and that maybe he just didn’t have the drive of a Peyton Manning. That’s a damn likely possibility given the info that we know right now.

    Whats done is done and he’s gone. Not much else to say except for Go Colts.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-06-2019, 11:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

    Looks worse for Luck, if true.

    Irsay of course was trying to persuade a 29 year old franchise QB to stay. He would have been utterly insane not to.

    If the above is true, sounds like Luck was pretty detached from the team. It would also help explain why we know so little about the injury. Doesn’t sound like Luck wanted people to know much.

    Andrew Luck could have retired anytime he wanted regardless of how much Irsay was begging him not to. But he didn’t until right before the season, which strung a lot of people along. Andrew Luck was in total control of the timing of this.

    It’s still fair to question whether this was more mental than physical, it’s still fair to question what actually happened, and it’s still fair to question if he could play today if he really wanted to. We have even told next to nothing of substance.
    Seriously and asking common sense questions doesn't make people conspiracy theorists on that alone. If Andrew retired a few months ago instead of two weeks before the season there would've been fewer questions. He's fortunate he has a good reputation and is in a market that won't ask the hard questions had he done this in Chicago or NYC he would never have peace.

    Leave a comment:


  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Hoopsdoc View Post

    “A better quarterback” and “Foles was available” don’t really mesh.

    Id much rather have Brissett and I don’t think he’s all that good.
    Well Foles won an SB with Frank Reich being his QB coach so its not that laughable that being said I think Foles Magic only works in Philly too.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    I think it all boils down to the fact Luck never really was healthy and he saw more trouble coming if he kept playing. I don't believe the leg injury was much of a factor if it is even real. I think he was done mentally a long time ago but owed the Colts and his family the monumental effort. He probably feels he earned the right to retire after last year. This is really what I believe.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I do however think it's very possible that Luck just didn't quite have the drive and dedication of other QB's at his skill level..
    And that's fine too. He's an intelligent guy that will go on to do other things in life more important than football. Money wasn't/isn't/ain't gonna be an issue for him. Hell, he could have come out of Stanford a year early and still been the #1 pick. There was no decision to make - he was always going to finish college.

    As for it 'not adding up' - well - those guys base their life around football. Maybe to them - playing until the very end doesn't make sense. Walking away from the $$$, the fame - all that stuff is just odd TO THEM. Can't remember the guy's name, but a few years back, an Ivy League player passed on the NFL to become a Rhodes Scholar. Kudos to him. Different strokes - different folks. Luck never was your typical personality as an NFLer. Geek, odd, weird, bookworm ……….... all words that have been used to describe him.

    Maybe these guys should look a little outside their football world and ask questions about that. They might get better answers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
    I really feel you're all looking for a story when there isn't one. Shrug. I guess that's just me.

    I do think it's very plausible that Luck wanted to retire earlier and that Irsay asked him to take his time to think about it. That sounds reasonable. But I just don't see a conspiracy.
    I don't see a "conspiracy" in the traditional sense of what that implies. I do however think it's very possible that Luck just didn't quite have the drive and dedication of other QB's at his skill level.

    The people closest to the team (Chappell, Wells, Venturi, Kevin Bowen) have all said in so many words that there is a bizarre story here that quite doesn't add up.

    Luck has always been likeable. Grigson and Pagano were not. Irsay has had his issues. So a lazy narrative was quickly formed based on all of that, but almost anyone I've heard who actually has access to the team was stunned last week and articulated many intriguing questions.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-03-2019, 05:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Suaveness
    replied
    I really feel you're all looking for a story when there isn't one. Shrug. I guess that's just me.

    I do think it's very plausible that Luck wanted to retire earlier and that Irsay asked him to take his time to think about it. That sounds reasonable. But I just don't see a conspiracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I tend to think our best chance of catching a break and someone breaking some info that leads to a better understanding of all of this will be on the Pats side of thing.
    I think they'd like to make the Colts look bad if they can, not that they are just focused on it or anything, but those on that side of the aisle might be in a position to get a piece of info, which then opens the floodgates that our local reporters can use. And give the national media something besides the "How Brave and Sad That Luck's Body and Mental State Forced Him to Retire From the Game He Loved" narrative.

    I don't think any legitimate site is just going to make something up. They'll need a source, but it could also be the confirmation someone local needs to piece together something they were told but couldn't confirm.

    I don't think I've ever seen a story default to such a canned lazy narrative quite like this. This one took virtually no effort to write: "The quarterback phenom who wanted to have an 18 year career but was let down by an incompetent franchise with a goofy owner and a horrific HC/GM combo who forced him into an early retirement because of their idiocy."

    The national media knew that Pags/Grigson were bad and they know that Irsay had his demons, so it was super easy to go with the incredibly lazy "blame it all on the Colts" narrative.

    Then the icing on the cake is that the media is using Luck as a posterchild for early retirements from this evil violent game, and implying that his retirement might just be one of the first of many early notable retirements. That argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as it relates to the QB position. Brady is 42. Brees is 40. Peyton played until almost 40 even after getting his neck cut into. Eli, Big Ben, Rodgers, Matt Ryan, and Philip Rivers are all mid-to-late 30's with quite a bit of miles on them. Favre played until 41. We've recently had a large batch of quarterbacks who are playing to old ages even though we're being led to believe that Luck's retirement is a sign of things to come. To me it seems to be quite the contrary. Looks like Luck with his early retirement is the outlier among the recent batch of elite quarterbacks.


    Maybe it's just as simple that guys like Peyton, Rodgers, Brady, and Big Ben are more dedicated to the game and greatness than Luck was? All of them came back from wicked injuries. Peyton even battled through a foot injury to come back and quarterback Denver to their Super Bowl title in 2015 even though his skills were zapped. That's how dedicated the guy was. We root for greatness as fans, not noble early retirements.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-03-2019, 04:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

    Right, we haven't, but that hasn't stopped a few of you from inventing your own story.
    I'm just seeing theories posted speculating on what could be the case given the variables that we have to work with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kid Minneapolis
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post

    It was off the rails the moment a 29 year old QB with a "minor" leg injury that "will be ready for the season" retired 2 weeks before the season.

    We've definitely not heard the truth or complete story for a while. At least not yet.
    Right, we haven't, but that hasn't stopped a few of you from inventing your own story.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    I tend to think our best chance of catching a break and someone breaking some info that leads to a better understanding of all of this will be on the Pats side of thing.
    I think they'd like to make the Colts look bad if they can, not that they are just focused on it or anything, but those on that side of the aisle might be in a position to get a piece of info, which then opens the floodgates that our local reporters can use. And give the national media something besides the "How Brave and Sad That Luck's Body and Mental State Forced Him to Retire From the Game He Loved" narrative.

    I don't think any legitimate site is just going to make something up. They'll need a source, but it could also be the confirmation someone local needs to piece together something they were told but couldn't confirm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoopsdoc
    replied
    FWIW, I’m really starting to come around to the “Luck decided to retire 2 years ago” theory. It makes perfect sense and it would explain the obfuscation.

    I also dont beleive he was injured, at least not seriously. No one with a bum ankle could have done the pregame drills he did, at least not without medication.

    Again, I wish him nothing but the best, but the timing REALLY sucked.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X