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
-
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
Painter deserves the shot after giving away 14 points in one quarter? Color me confused.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
He led a touchdown drive though!Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
To me, I'd still rather have an ancient Kerry Collins out there. We aren't winning with either one, but Dick LeBeau's eyes lit up when Painter was inserted in the game. They were blitzing on every down. They weren't even trying to really confuse him. They made it clear: We are coming after you. Beat us. He made a few nice throws, but a split second later on two different plays (the goal line hand off and the pump fake that Polamalu bit on) and he would have fumbled again and probably had it taken back for 6. Not that Kerry Collins is setting the world on fire, but once he learns the playbook a little better he's still the better option.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
I know. I've seen a few people on Facebook clamoring for Painter to start now. It's silly.
The second Painter walked in there, it was instant pressure. The defense knew they could catch him off guard and unaware. It didn't take long. They knew better than to do that to Collins. He missed wide open throws (shocker) and they were only open because they were blitzing. Why blitz? Because they know he's inaccurate and is unlikely to consistently connect with those receivers.
Can't imagine where they got that idea from.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
I'm sorry but Painter's tying drive was better than anything Collins has given us this season. That is just a simple fact. It's not like COllins has given us any reaosn to continue playing him. We're picking between two piles of poop, might as well choose the one that smells the least.
Now for what I have decided about Andrew Luck which will almost certainly be controversial...
I've come to the conclusion that if we got the number 1 overall pick, we would either trade it or take the best defensive player available. We would not draft Andrew Luck. Why? Well, some might say because we are stupid (maybe so), but I think it would be the best way to keep the window open for one or two more runs for Peyton once he gets back. I know as fans we might want Luck so we feel have a "sure thing" (even though there is no such thing, has Luck become overrated now? I think so, sure fire number 1 picks are dangerous, even Peyton didn't have that title. Luck will be good, but he's already being proclaimed a top 10 QB in the league if he started playing today, eh...ridiculous, but I digress) anyway, yes Luck would make us feel more comfortable with our future, but it's sort of a big middle finger to the last couple years of Peyton IMO.
We owe him at least another 2 or 3 year window don't we? Tonight and arguably last week against the Browns, were lost by the QB position. The D has been serviceable, and the offensive players have been getting open and making plays when the ball is actually thrown on target (does Collins think Wayne is 18 feet tall?). My point, I don't think we are quite as far away as I originally thought. You put Peyton on this team and we are 2-1 right now, no doubt in my mind. So if we had the chance to load up the cupboards with picks by trading the Luck-lotto away or could take an instant impact defender with that pick, don't we at least owe Peyton that? Toss me in the camp that says we do, even if it is us as fans having to roll the dice and be unselfish, but the fact is without Peyton we don't have the Colts. I don't care how good Andrew Luck ends up being, we would owe Peyton to use the number 1 overall pick on our best option to WIN NOW, and Luck would not be that option.
Luck could become a great QB and live up to all the hype (doubtful at this point, I think ESPN and PD just reported that he can walk on water) but he would never be Peyton Manning, even if he won us 3 Super Bowls. Without Peyton we don't have the Colts, they are gone somewhere else without an argument or peep THEY WOULD NOT BE HERE. Losing him for the time has taught me this, he is our football Reggie Miller and one championship or not no other QB could ever replace him, at least in my memory. Peyton will always be the most important Indianapolis Colt of all time. Period. So yeah, there's my rant on the Luck subject, it's out there, and I'll stick to it. Luckily, I don't think we'll get the number 1 pick so the issue is out of our hands, but there's my stance on it if we do get it. We either trade it for a bounty or we take the best defender in the draft. Either way, we owe Peyton one last shot and that is the best way to do it.
Yes, we have to replace the coaches. Yes the secondary needs to be solidified. Yes we still need one more big talent on the o-line (hopefully at guard). But honestly, the team is sort of coming together. Angerer looks like a real honest to goodness linebacker who actually has some size to go with his speed. Our DTs look like they might actually be getting it and our young guy on the offensive line in Costanzo finally looks like someone that could pan out. You get a new coaching staff in here, and you bring back Peyton, and you add an elite defensive talent through the draft, and suddenly you're definitely a super bowl contender again. Gotta do it.Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-26-2011, 01:52 AM.
Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
Coaching is our biggest issue. Not defense. Not the offensive line. Not even the QB position (though its close.) Right this second, our biggest issue, by a mile...is Jim Caldwell. That issue COULD be easily rectified.
Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
I really can't stress this enough...our coachign is awful. Ming boggingly bad. Joe Addai is top 10 in the league in YPC and we take the ball away from him for long stretches. We play dumbass zones that leave gaps in our D that Deion Sanders couldn't cover. We gotta changes the coaches. They lost us this game tonight. Even with our terrible QB play.Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
Painter missed Garcon the first time, but he hit him twice on throws that Collins has been short arming all season long on that final drive. Arm strength folks, at the very least Painter can at least get the ball there.Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
He shouldn't make it past this season, but honestly I'd rather watch him than Collins. Collins feels like some old jackass just collecting a paycheck. Like he honestly gives two ***** about these games or this team? He just wants to get paid. At least Painter has something to play for, I can get behind that. If Collins had given me any hope that his experience was an advantage I'd sing a different tune, but like I said he really just looks like he is here to collect his paycheck. He has no fight, no drive, and doesn't look like his experience could lead us out of a paper bag.
Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
DING DING DING!Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
When the Steelers got the ball back did anyone feel confident? Doubt it, because we've all seen the movie before.
They were going to rush 4 and hope that they could get some pressure, and they were going to drop 7 about 10-15 yards off the line. Everyone knows you can dump your way off into FG range. It's not that hard to do when you're picking up 15yd gains every play, when the defense is asking you to do so.
And then they had a 3-10 so they actually brought a blitz, and then played soft zone coverage. Not hard to complete the pass when your DBs are playing 10 yards off the receiver.
I still think they looked their best blitzing, they just have to have the right coverage with it. It's pretty sad when your NFL coaches do some moronic things.
And so much for Polian not wanting to get help for run defense. Damn that man...../green
EDIT: And I really really don't like Collinsworth, but he was right on the money calling out Mathis on that loop. How dumb.
I don't know why you don't bring pressure up the middle, and hope Freeney/Mathis can put pressure on him from the sides and hope he throws it away or steps up into the oncoming blitz.
They have two guys that can control the edges and get to the QB. Get those guys single coverage and they'll come up with the sacks, and hopefully fumbles along with them.Last edited by Since86; 09-26-2011, 09:39 AM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
I was pretty impressed by the team last night, especially the defense. They played well all night (aside from the Wallace TD) and did an excellent job in stopping the run.
It's a shame that Manning is hurt because the rest of this team looks pretty decent right now. Collins and Painter are just horrible QB's. Garcon looks very solid (Painter overthrew him on what maybe would have been a TD) and Addai is strong. Clark had an inexcusable f up when he couldn't real in a Painter pass that should have easily been caught. If Manning were healthy then we would be a decent contender for a Super Bowl.
If Manning plays last night then we would have absolutely throttled the Steelers. Would have completely owned those fools.
The Colts fans in attendance were very good but there were waaaaaaaaaaaay too many Steelers fans there. There is nothing more annoying then seeing thousands of terrible towels waving in your stadium. I can't stand that team.
It would be nice to go into 2012 with a healthy Manning and new coach. Unfortunately, I'm sure Caldwell will be able to use the Manning injury as a crutch and will get another year.
What should we spend our top 10 draft pick on? If by draft time it's looking like Manning is healthy then I certainly don't think we should spend it on a QB. We should use it on a piece that will help maximize Manning's remaining years here.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
Respectively disagree. You take Luck because your HOF quarterback just had 3 neck surgeries in one year. There is no guarantee that he stays healthy at all.Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
In next years draft we will pick high in all the rounds not just in the first round which is why you can afford to take Luck first overall. The Colts haven't had the pick of litter since 98 and our team needs defensively can be addressed from rounds 2-7. Luck isn't a sure bet but he is a better bet than 90% of QB's taken first overall in recent history. You don't turn your back on those kind of odds IMO.Last edited by Gamble1; 09-26-2011, 10:40 AM.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
There's no way Luck would want to play here with the possibility of backing Manning up for 3, 4, or even 5 years. Luck is a guy who could start for a decent amount of NFL teams and he will want to go to one of them. I'd be beyond shocked if Luck was content to come here with the possibility of being a backup for a while.
I'm sure Luck respects the hell out of Manning, just like Manning respected a guy like Marino. But Manning wouldn't have wanted to be Marino's backup for a few years. Manning wanted to play immediately.
If by draft time it's looking likely that Manning will be back for 2012 then maximizing his remaining years here should be the number 1 priority. He's a once in a lifetime player for our franchise and I think he still have a bit of a window to make some noise if he can return.
And yeah, we'd be 2-1 at worst with Manning. We clearly would have throttled the Steelers with him and definitely would have handled the Browns. I think we might have beaten Houston too given the fact that Manning wouldn't have fumbled 11 times like Collins did.Comment
-
If Aaron Rogers could wait, so can this kid. I think he could easily put a positive spin on it.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
I am not sure whether he would like it or not but I guess he wouldn't prefer it. Overall it doesn't matter unless he's willing to sit out his entire rookie contract which he won't do IMO.Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
Its a hedge your bets type of scenario. IF Manning stays healthy then Luck is still very tradeable 2-3 years down the road. If Manning can't recover fully or gets injuried again then plug in Luck. Name one rookie quarterback that held out because he wanted to start over a HOF quarterback? Threats only go so far and I doubt any collegiate QB has the stones to not play for a great franchise.
Either way the first round pick of the colts isn't going to make or break the Colts future with Manning which is what some are impling. IT won't be like Kravitz says a waste of a pick either way.Comment
-
Re: Steelers@Colts Game/Post-Game
Originally posted by Hicks View Post
Rodgers was the 24th pick in the draft. Luck is a consensus # 1. Consensus # 1's who are some of the most hyped picks ever (Manning, Luck) don't go to teams to play backup for 4 or so years.
Would Manning have put a positive spin on backing Marino up for a few years? I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt it. He wanted to play immediately because he knew there were several teams who would gladly start him immediately, the Colts being one of them. Luck is in the same boat. The guy isn't going to want to wait until age 26 to take a snap.Comment
Tweet
Comment