Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

ESPN: Andrew Luck retiring

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

  • Originally posted by 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.

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.
                  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 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.

                    Comment


                    • There's an even easier way to connect the dots here - I didn't realize it until now that it was staring at us in the face the whole time. The Schefter tweet said the following:

                      Filed to ESPN: Andrew Luck has informed the Colts he is retiring from the NFL, per source. There will be a press conference Sunday to make it official, but Luck is mentally worn down, and now checking out.

                      https://twitter.com/adamschefter/sta...35636893016064

                      So not only was this source bold enough to break this news to Adam Schefter, but they were also bold enough to blame it on a mental wearing down instead of a concrete physical injury. Given that they were 100% correct about the retirement, I think that this person who broke the news has a lot of credibility. And since two weeks have passed without us getting a single concrete piece of info regarding any sort of physical injury, I think that it can be assumed that this individual who was CORRECT in breaking the news to Schefter is also correct that this was a mental retirement instead of some unrecoverable physical injury. This person who was obviously in the know also blamed it on “checking out”.......bold - but not a shred of evidence to prove them wrong so far!

                      So much attention has been given to the fact that someone broke this news to Schefter that we've glossed over the other major nugget in the tweet, which is that this was a mental wearing down and checking out.

                      I'm tired of the crap that the Cotls have gone through over the last two weeks. Everyone makes it seem like that this guy was left limping and hobbled because he had the misfortune of being drafted by the Colts. Until we get ANY sort of concrete piece of info which can attest to the injury, I feel pretty confident in holding to my opinion that Luck checked out on the team and left the franchise picking up the pieces..

                      His life, his decision, but the narrative that he had no choice because of the situation the Colts put him in is just total garbage. Seems fair to say that there’s a good chance Luck simply quit on the team.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-09-2019, 05:30 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I think its obvious that he just quit on the team which would be easier to take had he done it in Feb/March instead of two weeks before the season began. I mean I don't want a QB who doesn't want to be here but at least give the Colts time to move on.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          There's an even easier way to connect the dots here - I didn't realize it until now that it was staring at us in the face the whole time. The Schefter tweet said the following:

                          Filed to ESPN: Andrew Luck has informed the Colts he is retiring from the NFL, per source. There will be a press conference Sunday to make it official, but Luck is mentally worn down, and now checking out.

                          https://twitter.com/adamschefter/sta...35636893016064

                          So not only was this source bold enough to break this news to Adam Schefter, but they were also bold enough to blame it on a mental wearing down instead of a concrete physical injury. Given that they were 100% correct about the retirement, I think that this person who broke the news has a lot of credibility. And since two weeks have passed without us getting a single concrete piece of info regarding any sort of physical injury, I think that it can be assumed that this individual who was CORRECT in breaking the news to Schefter is also correct that this was a mental retirement instead of some unrecoverable physical injury. This person who was obviously in the know also blamed it on “checking out”.......bold - but not a shred of evidence to prove them wrong so far!

                          So much attention has been given to the fact that someone broke this news to Schefter that we've glossed over the other major nugget in the tweet, which is that this was a mental wearing down and checking out.

                          I'm tired of the crap that the Cotls have gone through over the last two weeks. Everyone makes it seem like that this guy was left limping and hobbled because he had the misfortune of being drafted by the Colts. Until we get ANY sort of concrete piece of info which can attest to the injury, I feel pretty confident in holding to my opinion that Luck checked out on the team and left the franchise picking up the pieces..

                          His life, his decision, but the narrative that he had no choice because of the situation the Colts put him in is just total garbage. Seems fair to say that there’s a good chance Luck simply quit on the team.
                          I mean, I never really thought it was a physical thing. It's entirely mental. Not exactly sure if it was the mental wear of being physically beaten, or he just lost his love over time... but he checked out. Again, not sure the NFL has ever seen such a high-profile case like this, a guy who was arguably one of the best players in the league, healthy finally, entering his prime, team looking much better, and he just leaves. 6 seasons. Unprecedented, on this level. And ultimately, the people left high and dry are the fans of the Colts. I really felt we were a SB contender this year, and even moreso over the next few years. Just a huge rug pulled out from under our feet.
                          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

                            I mean, I never really thought it was a physical thing. It's entirely mental. Not exactly sure if it was the mental wear of being physically beaten, or he just lost his love over time... but he checked out. Again, not sure the NFL has ever seen such a high-profile case like this, a guy who was arguably one of the best players in the league, healthy finally, entering his prime, team looking much better, and he just leaves. 6 seasons. Unprecedented, on this level. And ultimately, the people left high and dry are the fans of the Colts. I really felt we were a SB contender this year, and even moreso over the next few years. Just a huge rug pulled out from under our feet.
                            Oh I know you’ve never thought it was much of a physical thing. But the national narrative has largely been “the moron Colts left this guy so physically battered that he had no choice but to retire so that he wasn’t in pain for rest of his life”

                            Even the Indy media coverage was pretty gooey towards Luck. Only radio hosts like JMV and Dakich really dared to question anything.

                            There was never a single piece of substantive info released about the calf injury from Luck, the team, or any doctor. Normally you will get something like “well the player met with X Physician and was told X”, but there was nothing like that here. It was always shrouded in total mystery. Luck was completely evasive about it when Peter King asked him directly about it to his face in early August.

                            Really the easiest way to show that there’s a good chance this was mental is to look at the starting point - the correct Schefter tweet which blamed it on a mental checking out.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-10-2019, 12:31 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Really the easiest way to show that there’s a good chance this was mental is to look at the starting point - the correct Schefter tweet which blamed it on a mental checking out.
                              Because of the continuous injury, pain, rehab, injury, pain, rehab.

                              Seems like a combo of both.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                                Oh I know you’ve never thought it was much of a physical thing. But the national narrative has largely been “the moron Colts left this guy so physically battered that he had no choice but to retire so that he wasn’t in pain for rest of his life”

                                Even the Indy media coverage was pretty gooey towards Luck. Only radio hosts like JMV and Dakich really dared to question anything.

                                There was never a single piece of substantive info released about the calf injury from Luck, the team, or any doctor. Normally you will get something like “well the player met with X Physician and was told X”, but there was nothing like that here. It was always shrouded in total mystery. Luck was completely evasive about it when Peter King asked him directly about it to his face in early August.

                                Really the easiest way to show that there’s a good chance this was mental is to look at the starting point - the correct Schefter tweet which blamed it on a mental checking out.
                                Ya.

                                I'm not terribly tore up about the national mindset. I think it's generally human nature to go after the fanbase. We know the truth. Indy fans are generally considered some of the nicest fans around, so if we're boo'ing, that's a pretty good indication that we're getting tired of it. I've seen other fan bases act way worse for far less. I'm not losing sleep over it.
                                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