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

  • One thing to keep in mind with the national media reaction is this: yeah they keep a general eye on the Colts, but the Colts are still just one of 32 teams. They were very good last year, but there are still several other teams that warrant more attention than the Colts.

    So the national media knew that Luck had some bad injuries in the past. They knew that Luck was battling an issue this year. But they weren’t around the team every day like a Kevin Bowen or Mike Chappel is.

    So when the national media hears that Luck retired, it’s easy for them to fall back on the “well Luck had some bad injuries in the past and I guess Grigson and Pagano ruined him, so we have to respect his decision.”

    Add all of that to the anti-football national media narrative, and their reaction isn’t too surprising.

    But the local radio hosts and reporters who keep a very close eye on this team day in and day our know that this is a bizarre story that just doesn’t add up at all with the info that we’ve been given.

    A 29 old QB retires because of an injury that we know nothing about - one week after chucking balls around and doing leg drills. We still have yet to be given one concrete piece of info of what happened.

    Comment


    • The national media's narrative would be helped if Luck was actually helping push it and filling in the blanks.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • All the Manning talk still does nothing for me because he was never going to do here what he did in Denver. That Denver team was set up a lot like we are this year actually, a contender with a need for a QB. The Colts at that point were bogged down in big, bad contracts with old players, declining roster talent. We would've had Manning for 3 more years, and likely no more playoff success than we did with Luck, and would've been having a QB search 3 years earlier than this year.

        Manning made the right decision for his own career. The Colts made the right decision. No one could've predicted the outcome we just went through.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bball View Post
          The national media's narrative would be helped if Luck was actually helping push it and filling in the blanks.
          Why would he. I think you always go down this path of player communication. He's retired, why the hell does he give one **** what people are saying. Not gonna happen. On top of the obvious, he is notoriously private.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            All the Manning talk still does nothing for me because he was never going to do here what he did in Denver. That Denver team was set up a lot like we are this year actually, a contender with a need for a QB. The Colts at that point were bogged down in big, bad contracts with old players, declining roster talent. We would've had Manning for 3 more years, and likely no more playoff success than we did with Luck, and would've been having a QB search 3 years earlier than this year.

            Manning made the right decision for his own career. The Colts made the right decision. No one could've predicted the outcome we just went through.
            The Colts were a playoff team the year before Manning got hurt in 2010, and were a playoff team the 3 years after he got Hurt with Luck (12-14).

            The roster had problems, but I think the awfulness of it gets exaggerated a bit. Even in 2011 with the pure garbage rotation of Collins/Painter/Orvlosky, we STILL had the opportunity to win MULTIPLE games that season that were crapped away because of the hideous QB play.

            We would have got a haul for the Luck pick. We don’t know what the coaching hires ultimately would have been. We don’t know what FA’s might have come.

            I’m not saying that we would have built a better team than Denver. But we know Manning had plenty of gas left in the tank and we know Luck made 1 AFCCG and only played two seasons after Manning retired. Knowing all of that, it’s a no brainer that rolling the dice on Manning would have been the better move. I’d rather have the contentment of knowing Manning finished his career here than the torment of seeing Luck walk out during his prime.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

              The Colts were a playoff team the year before Manning got hurt in 2010, and were a playoff team the 3 years after he got Hurt with Luck (12-14).

              The roster had problems, but I think the awfulness of it gets exaggerated a bit. Even in 2011 with the pure garbage rotation of Collins/Painter/Orvlosky, we STILL had the opportunity to win MULTIPLE games that season that were crapped away because of the hideous QB play.

              We would have got a haul for the Luck pick. We don’t know what the coaching hires ultimately would have been. We don’t know what FA’s might have come.

              I’m not saying that we would have built a better team than Denver. But we know Manning had plenty of gas left in the tank and we know Luck made 1 AFCCG and only played two seasons after Manning retired. Knowing all of that, it’s a no brainer that rolling the dice on Manning would have been the better move. I’d rather have the contentment of knowing Manning finished his career here than the torment of seeing Luck walk out during his prime.
              Nah, I know people say this, but I've never agreed with it. That roster minus Manning won ~10 less games without him. It was a **** roster. That team any way you slide it was a lot worse that Denver's. There's a reason Manning went there. And remember, that Denver team won a lot in spite of Manning at times. It was a strong roster. Polian had just been removed and we were facing a rebuild.

              And people still don't want to face the notion that Manning may not have even wanted to stay. Had he stayed, we still would've been out a QB. I firmly believe this team with Manning would've fared no differently in the playoffs had he stayed.

              So no, it's not a no-brainer that we should've kept him. Until a week ago that same statement would be silly. At the time it was made, it was the right decision for the long term. We couldn't have foreseen Luck would retire at 29. It still seems unfathomable to talk about it.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-30-2019, 03:23 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

                Nah, I know people say this, but I've never agreed with it. That roster minus Manning won ~10 less games without him. It was a **** roster. That team any way you slide it was a lot worse that Denver's. There's a reason Manning went there. And remember, that Denver team won a lot in spite of Manning at times. It was a strong roster.
                If the roster won a lot with Luck from 12-14, how does it not win a lot with Manning who was Better than Luck during that time period? And it’s just a fact that we were very close to winning several extra games in 2011 despite having arguably the worst rotation of QB’s in league history that season.

                Yes, I get that Luck extended plays with his body that Manning couldn’t have made. But Manning was also much better at reading defenses, making audibles, and dumping it quickly.

                The fallacious thinking is people always acting like you swap Manning for Luck, but everything else stays the same. But It wouldn’t have been the exact same. We would have got a ton for the draft pick. Wasn’t Cleveland willing to trade us their entire draft class or something crazy? And that’s when we weren’t even shopping it. A public auction of the Luck pick would have led to an insane haul and we’d still be feeling the ripples of acquired talent.

                I was fine with it a few months ago when it looked like Luck was just hitting his prime, but the Luck era is over now and no way was it even close to being worth missing out on Manning resurgence.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-30-2019, 03:14 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                  If the roster won a lot with Luck from 12-14, how does it not win a lot with Manning who was Better than Luck during that time period? And it’s just a fact that we were very close to winning several extra games in 2011 despite having arguably the worst rotation of QB’s in league history that season.

                  Yes, I get that Luck extended plays with his body that Manning couldn’t have made. But Manning was also much better at reading defenses, making audibles, and dumping it quickly.

                  The fallacious thinking is people always acting like you swap Manning for Luck, but everything else stays the same. But It wouldn’t have been the exact same. We would have got a ton for the draft pick. Wasn’t Cleveland willing to trade us their entire draft class or something crazy? And that’s when we weren’t even shopping it. A public auction of the Luck pick would have led to an insane haul and we’d still be feeling the ripples of acquired talent.

                  I was fine with it a few months ago when it looked like Luck was just hitting his prime, but the Luck era is over now and no way was it even close to being worth missing out on Manning resurgence.
                  Dude....

                  You're leaving out a ton of context. Manning was just coming back from missing a year at age 36, and reports were that he was barely able to throw a ball.

                  Polian had just been let go. Much to a lot of fans desire.

                  The roster and salary cap were all jacked up and needed to be cleaned up.

                  We had a new GM.

                  We had an entire new coaching staff.

                  It was full-blown rebuild mode.

                  The ONLY bonus we had was the #1 pick. Absolutely, we could've brought in a bunch of picks for Luck. But regardless, step into Manning's perspective ---- late in career, just seriously injured, new coaches, new GM, we had let go of a bunch of Manning's old teammates... The roster and salary cap weren't in great position to make serious moves.... why on earth would he have wanted to come back into that rebuild??? He didn't --- it's why he got on a podium, generated a few tears, made it look like he was being ousted against his will, and then orchestrated the greatest free agency tour de force of maybe all time.

                  He wasn't looking to limp through a rebuild. He was looking for a contender that was just short a QB (which was not the Colts) where he could have a chance at a few rings before his neck gave out. Enter Denver, who had assembled a good roster and was in win-now mode and were looking to upgrade from Tebow.

                  And then take things further --- imagine Manning behind that now infamous Colts o-line. If Luck, as sturdy as he was, got lit up behind it, Manning wouldn't have lasted a year with that swiss cheese neck of his. Yes, Manning is faster getting rid of the ball, but he would've been bent in half behind that line. Luck was scrambling for his life half the time, and he was mobile. Manning would've been a sitting duck.

                  And finally, it's in the past, and it's moot. Getting all bent about it now is just silly. I won't ever agree with the notion that keeping Manning was better for us or him. It was the right move for both parties. He wasn't going to stay here. We made the right move for our future. Who'da thunk that tough ol Luck would walk away from the game because of a sprained ankle. No one. It came so out of left field that everyone was shocked. Still am. Most folks thought Luck was about to embark on a stretch of years kicking the league's ***, not retire.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-30-2019, 03:51 PM.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • I look at it like a "knowing what we know now" question. Knowing that Luck quits in 2019, and misses an entire season too, of course it's a no-brainer the team should've kept Manning. In hindsight. Hindsight is 20-20.

                    We don't know what the team would've looked like with Manning because having Manning, and have the #1 draft pick with 2 alleged "superstar QB's" waiting to be drafted, would've changed everything.

                    The one thing we do know is we would've gotten to see Manning make his comeback, and it would've been as a Colt, and we would've gotten to see him retire a Colt. We got two more seasons out of Luck on the field than what we would've had with Manning. What Manning would've been able to do with his return and resurgence as a Colt would've been gravy.

                    So, knowing what we know now, we made a mistake. Knowing what we knew then is still a different variable entirely.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • I don't think Manning would've been nearly as successful here as he was in Denver at the end of his career because Denver has the good sense to build teams that don't live and die by a QB the Colts don't seem to learn. The Broncos knew that Manning was up there in age they complimented him rather than expected him to carry the team which is something the Colts expected him to do until he broke. Then they repeated the same mistake with Luck up until last year and by then it was too late.

                      That being said at the time the Colts made the decision 31 other teams would've. Its also true that in retrospect and the end result shows the Colts look like morons in this whole scenario because the guy they got rid of got to play in 2 more SBs and win another while the Colts are at a crossroads because the guy they chose turned out to not last as long as expected.

                      I hope the Colts finally take the opportunity to build a team that isn't all about the QB for once.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post

                        I hope the Colts finally take the opportunity to build a team that isn't all about the QB for once.
                        Well, they are being forced to now. I have confidence Ballard will do a good job. Building a winning team without a franchise QB is the biggest challenge a GM faces. Irsay should give Ballard and the entire front office a raise.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

                          This is the part that's hard for me to digest. I don't know if we've ever seen such a high-profile, super-talented guy walk away from a sport *right* when he was entering his prime. And Luck was entering his prime. You look at the big names who've walked, like Barry Sanders, or Jim Brown, they still got in an almost 9-10 year career, they were "short", but still not like... THAT short. Luck got in 7 years, but really it was just 6 seasons. I whole-heartedly felt that we were about to see a 5-6 year run from Luck that would've put him in the upper echelon all-time. Everything had lined up, he was finally healthy, the team was fixed, the front office had it's **** together, salary cap was awesome, team drafting was totally squared away, we could've pumped out a 5-6-7 year run of just dominating the league, maybe pulling home a plurality of rings...

                          And he just walked away. He was like... literally about to go off on the league. And instead he goes out. We as a fan base just had a huge rug ripped out from under our feet. A huge window of opportunity just suffered a MAJOR setback just as it was opening up. Soooooo.... disappointing.
                          I agree with you and Bball about the decision to draft Luck and move Manning being the correct one at the time. No qualms with that. The team wasn't going to be good enough anyway.

                          But Andrew Luck wasn't "finally healthy". He's obviously not healthy now. He hasn't been healthy for years. Yes, he played well last year but on how many shots and how much was kept from the fans? The fact is, his body simply could not take the punishment of the NFL and it's more likely he would get knocked out and ultimately we would be faced with another tough decision, signing a guy who is never healthy. It's really too bad how it ended but better than it might have been.

                          As for the Colts, they seem to have a policy of hiding the truth from the fans. The boos were largely because of that, not because fans were mad at Andrew Luck. They were probably mad because they bought season tickets and suspected Luck knew months ago he was done and the Colts influenced him to stay quiet. It's a shame but that's what happens when an organization loses trust.

                          Comment


                          • Make of it what you will, and consider the source, but suddenly there's clarity in here on Luck's leg "injury" as far as how it was diagnosed (or misdiagnosed), how Irsay got around to changing it to a bone issue (and where that came from), and finally the area they honed in on as the actual problem. And this seems to move away from the narrative (that never seemed to be official anyway) that it was a high ankle sprain and a 'new' injury.

                            It also doesn't explain how it happened. Only the message given to Irsay late winter/early spring about it from the staff.

                            This also has a timeline of Luck's injuries, though it conveniently doesn't mention the oft-stated reinjuring of the shoulder via snowboarding that has been said (rumored? confirmed?) is what ultimately led to the surgery.

                            Of course at this point this could be the "Let's try and explain how we were so ambiguous and all over the map about Luck's leg injury leading up to his retirement".... Or it could be the truth.
                            I'm not sure what would've been so hard about just stating this all up front, all along though...

                            https://www.colts.com/news/andrew-luck-paradox

                            Much more at the link but here is what it says about the current injury:
                            t started in March with a voicemail from Dave Hammer, the Colts’ head athletic trainer, to Irsay.

                            “Minor leg thing we’re looking at, but he should be OK.”

                            “He,” meaning Luck, who had spent part of his offseason traveling overseas — he married his longtime girlfriend, Nicole, in the Czech Republic in late-March — and was feeling pain in his left calf area.

                            An MRI showed a strained calf, and Luck and the team began treating the injury. A couple months later, still feeling pain in his lower leg, Luck sees a specialist who administers a numbing shot that should indicate whether the issue is still in his calf.

                            “Well, that wasn’t the case,” Ballard told reporters on Aug. 13. “There was maybe a little relief, but not a lot of relief.”

                            Without the answers they were looking for, the team continued to work its way down Luck’s lower left leg; the quarterback was held out of on-field offseason workouts as a precaution.


                            Fast forward to late July, and Luck is able to participate in two of the first three days of training camp practices in a limited role, mostly doing position drills and 7-on-7 work. But on July 28, after participating in what will be his final practice with the team, Luck reports feeling more pain in his lower left leg, and he’s once again pulled off the practice field.

                            The focus is shifted to Luck’s os trigonum, a small bone located behind the ankle, but that was eventually ruled out. After seeing another specialist, the pain was sourced to the front of Luck’s left ankle; he continues throwing workouts to the side and leading the team’s walkthrough sessions.

                            Meanwhile, the Colts begin preparations for their season opener against the Chargers.

                            His mind was made up.

                            On Aug. 19, Luck met with Irsay, Ballard and Reich and told them he had no other choice but to retire from the NFL.

                            The three Colts leaders didn't see it coming.

                            Only a week after they believed they finally isolated the source of the pain in Luck’s lower leg, and three weeks before the start of the regular season, the team was losing its franchise quarterback.

                            “We have a very close relationship with Andrew … so these were real life, hard, difficult conversations, not only about football, but about life, and going forward, and where we're going to end up,” Ballard said. “There were four or five days of difficult talks between all of us.”

                            Luck said retiring was the “hardest decision of my life,” and was something he had been mulling for about a week or two prior to having those conversations with Colts’ leadership.

                            “For the last four years or so I’ve been in this cycle of injury, pain, rehab, injury, pain, rehab, and it’s been unceasing and unrelenting both in-season and offseason,” Luck said in his retirement press conference Saturday night. “I felt stuck in it and the only way I see out is to no longer play football. It’s taken my joy of this game away. I’ve been stuck in this process. I haven’t been able to live the life I want to live — (it’s) taken the joy out of this game.”

                            It came down to this: after playing through a torn labrum — and, therefore, immense pain — in his shoulder throughout the 2016 season, and then experiencing a roller coaster of emotions the next year as he underwent surgery and just couldn’t work his way back for the regular season, Luck promised that he would never put himself through something like that again.
                            Last edited by Bball; 08-31-2019, 04:00 PM.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                              I agree with you and Bball about the decision to draft Luck and move Manning being the correct one at the time. No qualms with that. The team wasn't going to be good enough anyway.

                              But Andrew Luck wasn't "finally healthy". He's obviously not healthy now. He hasn't been healthy for years. Yes, he played well last year but on how many shots and how much was kept from the fans? The fact is, his body simply could not take the punishment of the NFL and it's more likely he would get knocked out and ultimately we would be faced with another tough decision, signing a guy who is never healthy. It's really too bad how it ended but better than it might have been.

                              As for the Colts, they seem to have a policy of hiding the truth from the fans. The boos were largely because of that, not because fans were mad at Andrew Luck. They were probably mad because they bought season tickets and suspected Luck knew months ago he was done and the Colts influenced him to stay quiet. It's a shame but that's what happens when an organization loses trust.
                              He looked fine to me. He played well all season, played in the Pro Bowl, and I believe he was even quoted as saying he was healthy and for the first time entering an off-season where he didn't have to rehab, just rest and prepare for the next season. So, I think that he was healthy. This ankle/calf thing happened after the fact, because I don't remember much talk about that part of his body prior to this spring.
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                I look at it like a "knowing what we know now" question. Knowing that Luck quits in 2019, and misses an entire season too, of course it's a no-brainer the team should've kept Manning. In hindsight. Hindsight is 20-20.

                                We don't know what the team would've looked like with Manning because having Manning, and have the #1 draft pick with 2 alleged "superstar QB's" waiting to be drafted, would've changed everything.

                                The one thing we do know is we would've gotten to see Manning make his comeback, and it would've been as a Colt, and we would've gotten to see him retire a Colt. We got two more seasons out of Luck on the field than what we would've had with Manning. What Manning would've been able to do with his return and resurgence as a Colt would've been gravy.

                                So, knowing what we know now, we made a mistake. Knowing what we knew then is still a different variable entirely.
                                Oh, no, again, I disagree. Keeping Manning was never the best option. We had 4 options, keeping in mind that we were in full-blown rebuild mode:
                                1. Keep Manning and his huge cap hit and trade the pick for assets
                                2. Let Manning walk, freeing up cap space and drafting Luck to be our franchise QB (which was honestly the best decision 7 years ago, you can't pass up franchise QBs if you've just entered rebuild mode)
                                3. Let Manning walk, freeing up cap and we trade the pick for a ton of assets.
                                4. Keep Manning AND draft Luck (this was actually discussed).

                                If we knew back then Luck was going to walk on us, then the proper business move at that time would've been option 3 ---- let Manning walk... and then trade our #1 for a boatload of assets and let someone else draft Luck. That would've been the "no brainer" decision. Keeping a 36-year-old, half-broken Manning when we were in full-blown rebuild mode just so he can "retire" with us would never have been the no-brainer decision in my mind, and I don't think Manning ever saw it that way, either. I think Manning was out, in his own mind. Again, I think the biggest factor to Manning leaving was he wanted to leave, and I don't blame him. So, if we're talking about 20/20 hindsight, if we knew then that Luck would walk on us, we should've traded him for assets, and then let Manning walk so we can re-allocate our cap space and he could contend with another team. The only reason I'd ever consider convincing Manning to stay was purely sentimental, and that's just never a good way to go about business in the long term.

                                So in la-la land where we can see 7 years in the future, we dump Luck for assets... but in reality, I think we went with the proper option at that time.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-31-2019, 09:42 PM.
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X