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

  • Hoopsdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    "Andrew Luck’s retirement didn’t necessarily catch the Indianapolis Colts off guard. The former Colts quarterback would have retired earlier in the 2019 offseason, but team owner Jim Irsay convinced him to delay his decision, The Boston Globe’s Ben Volin reported Sunday, citing an NFL source. Critics blasted Luck for announcing his retirement Aug. 24, just over two weeks before the start of the regular season, but the Colts reportedly were prepared for the 29-year-old to walk away due to mental burnout. “… A league source said Luck wanted to retire earlier in the offseason, and Irsay basically didn’t let him, imploring Luck to take as much time as possible with his rehab and his mind-set,” Volin wrote in his Sunday NFL Notes column. “Luck reported for training camp, but not really — he mostly rehabbed and worked on his own with personal quarterback coach Tom House, while Jacoby Brissett took all of the reps with the starting offense and acted as the team leader. Luck held out on the decision as long as he could, but his mind was obviously made up. The fans didn’t see Luck’s retirement coming, but the Colts’ upper brass sure did.”

    Read more at: https://nesn.com/2019/09/nfl-rumors-...-why-he-didnt/
    I stopped reading at “Boston reporter citing NFL source”.

    No one hates Irsay and the Colts more than the chowda’s. This reeks of an attempt to shovel dirt onto the grave.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoopsdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
    The Colts should have let Luck retire and used the offseason to get a better quarterback. Foles was available.
    “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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Looks worse for Luck, if true..
    Ever quit a job ?? Ever go thru the Yeah, I'm going to get out of here. Nah - I'll stick around. Nope - better leave. Eh, on 2nd thought … no - I'm outta here.

    People play Devil's Advocate with themselves. It's the way decisions are made. Irsay did the right thing in trying to get him to stay. Luck did the right thing by giving it a shot and then speaking up when he made his final decision. Just the way things go.

    Leave a comment:


  • hoosierguy
    replied
    The Colts should have let Luck retire and used the offseason to get a better quarterback. Foles was available.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
    uh oh that doesn't sound good for irsay.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    I don't see it as a bad reflection on Irsay. First off - I don't really care for the guy. THAT said, it seems like the typical thing to do. Are you sure ?? Take your time. Let's see how things go. Yada-yada-yada.

    Pretty much what any employer would do with one of his good employees. AND - let's not overlook the source of this article. NESN - home of the Pats. So there's that . . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • ECKrueger
    replied
    uh oh that doesn't sound good for irsay.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    "Andrew Luck’s retirement didn’t necessarily catch the Indianapolis Colts off guard. The former Colts quarterback would have retired earlier in the 2019 offseason, but team owner Jim Irsay convinced him to delay his decision, The Boston Globe’s Ben Volin reported Sunday, citing an NFL source. Critics blasted Luck for announcing his retirement Aug. 24, just over two weeks before the start of the regular season, but the Colts reportedly were prepared for the 29-year-old to walk away due to mental burnout. “… A league source said Luck wanted to retire earlier in the offseason, and Irsay basically didn’t let him, imploring Luck to take as much time as possible with his rehab and his mind-set,” Volin wrote in his Sunday NFL Notes column. “Luck reported for training camp, but not really — he mostly rehabbed and worked on his own with personal quarterback coach Tom House, while Jacoby Brissett took all of the reps with the starting offense and acted as the team leader. Luck held out on the decision as long as he could, but his mind was obviously made up. The fans didn’t see Luck’s retirement coming, but the Colts’ upper brass sure did.”

    Read more at: https://nesn.com/2019/09/nfl-rumors-...-why-he-didnt/

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    This is how conversations start to go off the rails, lol.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kid Minneapolis
    replied
    This is how conversations start to go off the rails, lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    OK. Here's the double tin-foil helmet theory. I am not asserting that this is true. Just that it is a possibility.

    Luck made his money and he's now wanting to spend time with his family. He had a good last year but it took a number of shots to get him through the season and he was aching. He tells Irsay at the end of last season that he's done. Irsay, wanting to make sure the Colts got one more solid year of season ticket sales told him to ride it out until the beginning of the season (so that it looks as good as possible without Andrew having to take a snap). Luck says he just cannot do it. He has morals, you know. Irsay promises a financial incentive and Luck agrees. The rest is history. It could have easily happened that way. Again, I am not saying this is true only that it could be true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    I know my theory seems counter to the official narrative but the bizarre circumstances are what drives it. The shoulder surgery itself was bizarre and unexpected publicly. There's still info floating around that surgery was only necessary because he reinjured it snowboarding after the season.

    Then there was the entire lead up to the 2017 season, strange comments, no clarity. Some of it gets marked up to "the Colts being the Colts (when it comes to star player injuries)" but then it was missed goalpost after missed goalpost. Luck's own comments (Such as fans and media in early summer/late spring thinking things should be tracking semi-normally and Luck commenting "no need to be morose". Nobody was thinking there was any reason to be 'morose' until he said it). Then Irsay's comments putting a mental issue on the recovery. Once again, where'd that come from?

    And then more mystery and more missed goalposts... and ultimately "ready for the season" became "Injured Reserve for the season".

    Then more questions and little answers...

    And finally, a player able to return to the game. Looking better each game. A team looking more solid in the trenches each game. Finally the winning returns. Luck is healed we're told. All we hear is positive press about how he feels and how much fun he's having. A mostly clean pocket for once. Play calling, coaching, and an improved OL is heralded for it. The team keeps improving. He makes the Pro Bowl and plays. Heading into the off season feeling great. Team has a solid base and Ballard is being heaped with praise as is Reich. And Luck is healthy.
    Comeback player of the year.

    We hear the stories of the man who just loved playing football, the competitor, the next generational QB about to enter his prime (and with a team worthy of that) is happy he can play the game he loves. How he was in some dark spaces during the shoulder rehab and considering he might never be able to play football again. But he was back now, and happy. And healthy.

    But, strangely IMO, the team doesn't look to move Brissett even though allegedly he has high value. And the team does a lot of positive press for Brissett. But with Luck back healthy, keeping a "top 20" QB on the roster when you could trade him to a team in need of a top 20 QB and improve your own team in the process seems questionable to me.

    But whatever... Nothing wrong with having a top 20 QB as a backup if the team feels solid and not needing the assets he could bring. But what team settled at starting QB couldn't use some assets elsewhere?

    And then, the generational QB entering his prime who just loves playing football, has a minor calf injury. No word on where it came from exactly. It's minor so he'll be ready for the season.
    Then the mystery starts again.
    Goalposts are missed.
    But he'll still be ready for the season.
    Goalposts are missed.
    Injury still there... except now it's a "little bone thing" like Ryan Diem had. The internet and sports media figures out what that was and gets quote from Diem and doctors. And it's a minor issue. A minor surgery at worse.
    Except that's not it... Move the goalposts...
    It's a high ankle "issue".
    "Nothing like the shoulder was" Luck tells us during all of this.
    Cue talk of a high ankle sprain even tho the Colts didn't say sprain. Cue a public narrative that it was the calf, but now, somehow, it's a high ankle sprain.
    More missed goalposts but he should be ready for game 1.
    Cue Luck pregame looking fine on some footwork drills.

    Cue the fans and a collective sigh of relief after seeing Luck looking like he could play with still a couple of weeks to go before the season.

    And then during the Bears game, Luck is on the sidelines looking fine, and word leaks that he's planning to announce his retirement on Sunday. This generational QB who just loves playing football, who battled back from shoulder surgery that mysteriously cost him an entire season when the prognosis following the surgery was he'd be ready for the season. A QB that allegedly feared he'd have to give up the game he loves due to a major injury not responding to rehab, was now giving up the game he allegedly loves due to what was reported as a 'minor' injury. Even when he was seen, and videotaped, going through drills and looking fine with still several days to go before the season.

    And this is not bizarre?

    There's a disconnect somewhere. If it was not a minor injury then why say it was? If it was not a minor injury then how was he able to go through those pregame drills looking fine? And how was he able to be on the sidelines appearing to be fine?

    And add to it, FWIW "the proverbial friend of a friend who knows a guy" is telling me that my theory is essentially correct. Luck went to the team to tell them he was quitting in 2017. They negotiated/made promises trying to talk him out of it, and ultimately got the 2018 season out of him... But he was already leaning retirement and apparently couldn't be talked out of it this time. I'm not sure how much faith I put in that, except it fits with my theory and it makes more sense than the official story does.

    I could understand him reaching a point after some legitimate injuries, the cherry on top being a shoulder surgery (which may or may not directly relate to football) and just deciding he didn't want to risk going thru this again. But with the right promises, a year off, maybe give it a try if he liked what I saw.
    And then ultimately, decided he still don't want to risk major injury and rehab again so either use a minor injury as the excuse... or create the ruse of a minor injury to give him (or the team) some cover for this retirement. Something that bought the parties time to negotiate, or sell season tickets, and also gave Luck a direct and immediate injury excuse for the retirement versus saying he feared getting hurt again or better said, feared the rehab/recovery period of getting hurt again like the shoulder injury.

    I can't help it... I think this decision was all but made, if not made, at the end of this winter/early spring. In fact, I think it likely was all but made on the negotiations that made Luck's 2018 season possible with the wheels already in motion that Luck himself would think about it following the season whether the Colts understood that or not.

    I can't necessarily even say I blame him, I just think we've all be watching a ruse for the past couple of years as it all unfolded but was ultimately headed here all along.

    Otherwise, it's just all too bizarre...

    Leave a comment:


  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

    In a situation like this, it’s important to look at what the local reporters who cover the team say. They are the ones who are at the complex and training camp day in and day out. They are the ones who talk to players, coaches and management. They are the ones who have access.

    Mike Chappel, Mike Wells, Rick Venturi, Kevin Bowen - all of these guys know the team. All of these guys seemed stunned at the retirement. I heard all of them give interviews on JMV and Dakich and they all said in one way or another that it just doesn’t add up given what they’ve seen.

    Pretty much all of them questioned why in the hell he was out there doing leg drills and throwing balls a weekend before retiring. I bet most national NFL fans don’t even realize that he did this because the national media largely glosses over reporting in favor of narrative. Luck had perfectly fit their narrative that football is too violent and it’s great to see a guy make a decision like this.

    We still know next to nothing about the injury. Don’t know how it happened or what doctors were saying about it. We don’t know if he could play today if he really wanted to.

    There is plenty of stuff here to question. Plenty of stuff that Luck could clear up for everyone, but he clearly is not going to do that.


    Basketballfan is right - Luck’s reputation has allowed him to dodge any hard hitting questions. The local Indy radio hosts and Colts fans are the only place you’ll get it, but they are easily drowned out.

    This is exactly my problem with the whole thing why go through this dog and pony show if you're contemplating retirement to begin with. If you already are thinking of retirement you already checked out fine I rather he not be the QB if he isn't all in but at least be upfront about it a lot earlier than 2 weeks till the season began.

    Leave a comment:


  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Suaveness View Post

    The leg injury didn't really aggravate itself until March, so the Pro Bowl shouldn't come into play. He was obviously feeling fine then. But Andrew isn't there to time his retirement. He was under the impression he'd be playing, and only until the week or 2 before his announcement did he actually seriously consider retirement. He has no obligation to do it earlier for the team, that's ridiculous. He was trying to get himself ready and from what it sounds, he finally hit a point of exhaustion and decided against going forward.

    I understand it sucks for fans, but it's still to think he should have retired earlier to help the team and fans when he himself didn't seriously consider retirement until 10 days before the actual announcement.

    And again, there's nothing going. There's no nefarious plot. He was in discomfort, he did his best to get ready for the season - he hit a point where the pain and rehab weren't worth it and decided to step down.
    The Pro Bowl shouldn't come into play if injury is involved?! Really? Name an injured player who played in the Pro Bowl if anything most players avoid the Pro Bowl because its an invitation to an injury to see Luck play out there when he was supposedly too hurt etc yeah I think it should be questioned. Especially now when retirement was apparently a factor into this.

    If you really believe he didn't consider retirement until 10 days earlier I got a volcano in Montana to sell you.... there's a reason why the Colts were even shadier than usual about the whole thing Luck announcing retirement in Feb/Mar would mean less tickets being sold and yes they're Colts tickets not Andrew Luck tickets but he's the face of the franchise something he agreed to be when he signed that multi-million dollar contract and took upon everything that this entailed. There wouldn't be nearly as many tickets sold if most people knew Brissett was going to be the QB moving forward instead of Luck its a large part of why Jimbo wanted to move on from Manning to begin with he knows he needs a QB that matters to fill seats and an aging Manning wasn't going to do it forever hence why he moved onto Luck all those years ago unfortunately for him Luck left him on his own terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

    Well, they simply need something to fill their time with. What better than some speculation that gets people talking about it and them ??

    The local guys are hacks - to use a phrase from here - they're trash. Just trying to make something out of nothing. The next time one of them breaks anything of note will be the first.
    JMV broke the news that Manning needed second neck surgery right before the 2011 season. That’s one of the biggest Indy sports scoops ever.

    I get that Dakich is polarizing, but I don’t understand how anyone can have a problem with JMV. His stuff last week was great and very balanced. Conducted a lot of good interviews too. Even had Peter King on.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X