Tweet
After his first couple of games I was all in on Saturday. Since then, WTF dude. Anyone can see Ryan is done, dead arm and can't move. Start anyone but him, PLEASE.
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
"Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead" -
Not giving Foles ONE snap in the regular season is clinically insane at this point.Originally posted by Hoop View Post
I know the defense has given up some brutal end of games drives, but these guys are humans - not robots. It has to wear on them when they play pretty good for most of the game only for the offense to give them NOTHING. You get a big stop, then the offense goes 3 and out and the d has to go right back out. You gift wrap the offense 7 points with a pick six. You get a turnover in prime field position and all they get is a FG. Just nothing, NOTHING from the offense. At some point it just wears on a defense.
I think this would have been a defense that could have helped carry us on a playoff run in the Manning or Luck days. Hell we wouldn’t even need a QB near as good as those guys - just someone who can get some first downs and touchdowns every once in a while.
What would the record have been with Wentz this year? Maybe not playoffs, but certainly not this level of humiliation. We probably would have at least had a chance of playoffs with a healthy Wentz. He looked like prime Big Ben compared to Ryan.Comment
-
You are a much braver man or better fan that I. I couldn't watch the game due to Christmas stuff. But there was no way in heck I was going to sit through that if I didn't have to given how I know it turned out.Originally posted by Bball View Post
On the plus side, Jeff Saturday has pretty much fixed our "slow start" problem.
You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song
- Jimmy BuffettComment
-
Haven’t watched any Colts this season really, NFL makes to stupid difficult or expensive to watch out of market games compared to the NBA.
So an outsiders perspective - is this just a bad franchise that reverted to the mean after Polian lost his touch and Peyton retired? The discourse around the Colts right now really feels like the early 90’s all over again.
Comment
-
Aside from a few unique situations (like a San Francisco who can just seemingly plug anyone in at QB), it’s really all about who has the quarterbacks in the NFL. Colts looked pretty smart for a while when they had Manning and Luck. They don’t look so smart now. Bengals and Bills had a lot of lean years - now look at them.Originally posted by idioteque View Post
Look at the Patriots - Belichick doesn’t look like quite the genius without Brady. They look completely ordinary.
Comment
-
Man, I wish the Colts could at least look ordinary right nowOriginally posted by Sollozzo View Post
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 WoodenComment
-
I don't think so. I think when you have a star quarterback that decides he just doesn't want to play football any longer at age 29, it throws a major monkey wrench into the works. Particularly, when that team was had been and was being built around him. There wasn't any question that Luck was the Colts franchise QB. It was all about the pieces around him. Grigson screwed the pooch with the Trent Richardson debacle and the failure to adequately address the line, but that was dealt with.Originally posted by idioteque View Post
Who knew the franchise QB would mess up his shoulder snowboarding, or even take part in anything risky in the off season? But worse, who knew the franchise QB, who actually played at a high level, would be the only know NFL star QB to just WANT to walk away from the game at age 29?? The level of bizarreness that surrounds that is immense! High level athletes want to do whatever it takes to continue playing the game as long as they can. They have to be forced into retirement, sometimes kicking and screaming. But the Colts had the absolute (in hindsight) misfortune of having one of the best QB prospects since Peyton Manning fall into their lap just as Manning was injured and rehabbing in the twilight of his career with no guarantee he could return to form, or for how long.
Then that quarterback turned out to be a quitterback.
Rivers made it SEEM like a team already close to where they needed to be could plug in a QB with the right amount of ability and desire in the tank, and carry on. Unfortunately, that was fool's gold. A one year rental that worked great... except it just delayed the inevitable and made it seem there were answers out there. Wentz wasn't it- A guy who had the arm and wanted to throw the hero ball every play rather than "just taking the layups". So he played reckless and he played dumb. Missing plays in the process.
Then in comes Ryan. Maybe a perfect QB for the Colts... 5 years ago. But now? He makes the line look bad (or worse than they are). No mobility. No arm. No ability to stretch the field. No ability to avoid the rush. No zip on the ball.
So, the Colts now have what could've and should've been a development year for a young QB turning into a lost season. Another lost season. Someone with more of an eye on college talent than me will have to tell me if there are any true, can't miss QB prospects in the draft that the Colts have a shot at.
As for Saturday coaching the team... It probably made zero difference to anything EXCEPT the firing of Reich told people heads would roll if the team doesn't do better. MAYBE the team is rallying around Saturday but from the outside looking in, I'm not sure what Saturday would bring to the Colts as a long term hire unless he has a rolodex full of high quality assistants ready to bring in if this gig was to become "for real".
The recent Andrew Luck interview answered a lot of questions on the Luck side of things, except when the Colts first had an inkling he could actually just up and quit... or when they learned for real that he really planned to up and quit.
It's understandable that if you heard an injured player was having 2nd thoughts about the rehab, or just questioning if it was working, that there would be some concerns about the ABILITY tor return... eventually... But, we're talking a lack of DESIRE to return. Who sees that coming in a 29 year old star QB? So, were there REAL signs that Luck truly was someone to just up and quit at any point? And did TPTB believe those signs?
But, it's going to be important now to see how the Colts handle things KNOWING the QB spot isn't plug and play, and that there aren't many plug and play 'good idea' options even out there now. Not in the context of what they know now.
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 WoodenComment
-
Saturday has definitely fixed the slow starts…..Only problem is that one week we allow Dallas to have (I think) the second highest scoring 4th quarter ever, then the following week allow Minny to literally have the biggest comeback ever.Originally posted by Doug View Post
How is it even possible for a team to do that back to back weeks?
Comment
-
I"m thinking we bring Reich back in to coach the 2nd halves. We'll be undefeated!Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song
- Jimmy BuffettComment
-
Originally posted by Bball View Post
Really good recap of everything.
Look at a QB like Ryan - he is going to have to basically be drug off the field before he throws the towel in on his career. While I absolutely hate watching him play right now, I do on one hand respect the competitiveness and desire. I don’t doubt for a second that he wanted nothing more than to have a successful playoff season here.
The Colts had pretty much the one and only QB in NFL history who was just content to walk away from the opportunity. It’s unprecedented. Manning literally had his neck cut into but still wanted to play. Imagine what Luck could have accomplished with that sort of desire. His life and his decision, but it definitely screwed the Colts for years. Where would Reich’s coaching career be with Luck? Can you imagine the W-L record? Probably would have been pretty damn good.Comment
-
Well, Ryan benched again. Finally.
Now it's Foles' turn...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 WoodenComment
-
Imagine before the season if someone would have told you that
1) The Colts would beat Kansas City
2) The Titans would start off 7-7
You probably would have felt REALLY good about our chances, right?
We can’t even compete in a division where the leading team is 7-7. There is nothing else to discuss with Ballard at this point. That single fact is worth a termination.Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-22-2022, 10:31 AM.Comment
-
Questions, questions, questions... random thoughts on a season gone off the rails...Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
It will be interesting hearing how some of this downfall is explained.
Reich fired midseason.
Ryan benching #1 for the young QB with a SB winning QB on the roster and a lot of season left.
Ryan reinstated after coaching change and ultimately still looks old and the team has two monumental 2nd half point giveaways.
Ryan benched again, with only 3 games remaining, and now the SB winning coach is given the opportunity to start those 3 games.
The O-line, allegedly one of the best in the league... wasn't...
The WR corps, questionable heading into the season, is still questionable. But then again, with Ryan, how do you know how much of that is on the QB or the receivers (and play calls, and going away from Ryan's inability to get the ball downfield)?
JT... the season that wasn't.
Darius Leonard left the team, replaced by Shaq Leonard... Maybe bring back Darius?
The defense has looked, at times really good... but a lot has been asked of them. Meanwhile, they've given up some monster numbers too. Sometimes looking good, and bad, in the same game. But how much of that is an anemic offense forcing the defense to put a BUNCH of minutes into the game and try and keep the game in reach because the offense can't score TDs?
Were their lockerroom issues this season?
Was everyone happy to see Wentz go, or did he have some followers and supporters on the team?
Was Ryan embraced like we thought he was, or was that a PR job by the Colts and a willing to believe fanbase and soft press?
Was Ballard, Irsay, and Reich on the same page... ever... and when did it diverge and where was the divergence?
And who is on the same page NOW?
Irsay and Saturday?
Irsay and Ballard?
Who in the organization is now in a position to say "I told you so!"?
Who is hearing "What were you thinking!?"?
JT's injury isn't anything too concerning (unless it was Andrew Luck it had happened to), so does the team plan on JT next season, or is he a trade piece?
The NFL has morphed away from 'star' running backs... It seems most teams can plug and play a young RB into their system and get decent enough results that you don't have to throw tons of money at the position. But you do need backups there too for the inevitable injuries. But what does that mean for the Colts whose biggest position of need, or positions of need, isn't necessarily RB.
Is the team bought in on being a team with a heavy focus on the run game? Irsay has always been infatuated with star QB's, so maybe the passing game is so ingrained into the culture to the point THAT has to be there first, and then the running game follows. I think it likely is with fans. But that said, Ryan was a QB not getting it done. There HAD to be some questions amongst the players and coaches. Stick with your guy? Give the young guy a chance? Try the other veteran?
At what point as a player do you look at the record, the still possible playoff chances, and compare to pre-season expectations and start mumbling "try something different!" as Ryan doesn't get it done and clearly looks washed? Meanwhile, things just continue to go downhill.
The league has teams paying 800 million to fired coaches. The Colts are part of that. You have to wonder how sustainable that really is.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 WoodenComment
-
For a chance to win, probably the best option. At this point I'd rather lose out and get top 5 pick.Originally posted by Bball View Post"Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"Comment
-
I still don't think our overall roster is THAT bad. Just 2 years ago we went 11-5. Last year we controlled our own fate at the end of ths season before the hideous collapse. This is a roster that SHOULD be able to certainly contend for the division title......except for that pesky problem at QB which of course has just brought the entire team down to this nasty record.
You can't underestimate how bad QB play can depress an entire team. You can almost see it on the defense's faces every game when it hits them that the offense just isn't going to give them anything to help win the game. They had a pick six against Minny and we returned a blocked punt for a TD. The offense STILL couldn't do enough to win with that gift-wrapped to them.
In the modern NFL, you just have to be able to score points even if you have a great defense. There is too much offensive talent and the rule changes have helped offenses over the years.
The 2011 2-14 Colts that got beat 62-7 in New Orleans had a lot of the players who went to the Super Bowl two seasons prior when Manning was the QB. Great QB play can elevate the rest of the team to high levels, or it can completely depress a team to what we've seen this year. At this point they really have no other option than to finally bite the bullet and draft a high QB.Comment
Comment