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

Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

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

  • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    If you listen to what Irsay is blabbering on twitter, it sounds like the leading scenario is draft Luck, hang on to Peyton and hold on to your butts to see what happens.
    Ya my assumption is we will do some digging to find out if Luck will be OK with sitting behind peyton, if not i think they will trade him for whatever they can get and keep peyton.. Really sounds like they are gonna side with sticking with Manning on this debate.

    Comment


    • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Saying Peyton shouldn't play, no matter what this season, is saying you know more than the doctors, if/when they clear him.

      Maybe my post wasn't directed at you, but other people......
      You must be misreading me. Adam got what I was saying and explained it well I thought. I'll try it again.

      The Colts would be fools to put a rusty Peyton Manning on the field to play a game this season. Here's why (in no particular order):

      We're 0-10 and headed for 0-16. It's a lost season with the brass ring being the #1 pick in the draft. No need to win now.

      Peyton will be rusty. The team is not good. Even IF the doctor's clear him why risk re-injury or more importantly a NEW injury in an otherwise doomed season?

      You can test his throwing arm and abilities out on the practice field in a more controlled setting where the risk of injury is less.

      Even if there's no risk of reinjuring the neck and every expert agrees (which is a questionable scenario itself), there's still the issue of the nerve regeneration and muscle atrophy. A doctor could clear him due to injury concerns but that doesn't mean Peyton could return to the field 100% so what good is your evaluations if you know his strength isn't back anyway? Now... factor in the changes that would make in Peyton's game and the weakness of the team... and Peyton getting blindsided and blowing a knee out playing the 16th game of the season for an 0-15 team.

      Now let's assume Peyton magically has regained his arm strength at some point before the end of the season. He's still going to be rusty but he's Peyton Manning so even a rusty Manning is better than most QB's could hope to be. We're 0-10 now. It's not likely he's going to have 100% arm strength back anytime soon. Certainly not for the next game. So then, you'd have to be optimistic to say it could be for the final 5 games. If you have questions about his recovery then why are you putting him out there (shouldn't you be sure he's OK... Why not use the practice field to answer questions about where his recovery has him)? If he turns the team around and we win our final 5 what did that do for the Luck sweepstakes? What would 5-11 mean to the fans or franchise at this point? If he gets injured in some other way playing for a 0-11 team then what have you accomplished and what exactly were you hoping to accomplish? And how many people would be asking how a rusty Peyton playing for a bad team was just asking for trouble? And how would you as the Colts reply to that?

      And this doesn't even mention what a mess that could make to the decision process coming up for March.

      What is the strategical upside to playing Manning this year at this point?

      I see one upside and that is evaluating Peyton's progress/rehab. And I'd argue that could be done just as well in a controlled setting like practice. Everything else is downside that goes from marginal to terrible scenarios for the Colts.

      And then common sense tells you that with Manning's surgery, rehab, last update, normal recovery times... He's not likely going to be ready this season anyway and no doctor will clear him anytime soon making this all moot.

      But my point is- This isn't about when the doctor's say he's reached an acceptable level of recovery to play without any significant risk of reinjury... It's about whether there's any upside, medically or strategically, for the team in him taking the field this season at this point in time or any point in these last 6 games.

      The answer is: There's not.
      Last edited by Bball; 11-22-2011, 01:50 PM.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

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

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I'll be sure to comb through your posts and find Monday errors next time. Good to know you've never made a mistake.

        The point of my post was to point out that using released medical information, especially from the Colts who keep pretty much everything in house.
        Mistakes happen but they don't have to be so abrasive in the first place which is my point. The Colts have strayed away from the traditional keep it in house philosophy. Irsay's twitter account proves that and if Mannings brother says something I would call that a good source as well.

        I can find doctors that have said they wouldn't let Peyton play this year which follows Bball opinion because there is too much of a risk of injuring his neck again. Either way it doesn't matter because the doctors in charge are the ones that matter and whether there is little to be gained from him playing again really doesn't matter, if he wants to play this year and he is medically cleared he will play based on the owners and his quotes that I posted.

        We all want Peyton well again and hopefully that happens sooner than later.
        Last edited by Gamble1; 11-22-2011, 01:52 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

          No, I got your point, I just completely disagree with it. Which is fine.

          You saying things like this:
          And then common sense tells you that with Manning's surgery, rehab, last update, normal recovery times... He's not likely going to be ready this season anyway and no doctor will clear him anytime soon making this all moot.
          Is what I keep talking about. Unless you are privvy to his medical records, and you have access to Peyton himself, how do you know this? You don't. You're making an opinion about a situation that you have nothing to base your opinion on.

          At some point in time the Peyton is going to have to step on the football field during a game. If he's healthy enough this season to do it, then he needs to do it.

          I don't know why anyone would want to make a decision with 90% of the information available, instead of using 100% of the information available.

          EDIT: And I say you don't have anything to base your opinion on, because Peyton himself and Eli both have said publically that he might be back this year. If they have reason to believe it will happen, I don't see how you can disagree with their assessment on the timeline.
          Last edited by Since86; 11-22-2011, 01:59 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            IEither way it doesn't matter because the doctors in charge are the ones that matter and whether there is little to be gained from him playing again really doesn't matter, if he wants to play this year and he is medically cleared he will play based on the owners and his quotes that I posted.
            If you would have said this in the beginning, then there wouldn't have been a reason to direct anything at me, considering this is the exact position I've been taking.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              No, I got your point, I just completely disagree with it. Which is fine.

              You saying things like this:


              Is what I keep talking about. Unless you are privvy to his medical records, and you have access to Peyton himself, how do you know this? You don't. You're making an opinion about a situation that you have nothing to base your opinion on.
              I'm basing it on the normal recovery time from the type of surgery Manning has had as well as his own words on where he's at right now. He wasn't ahead of the normal recovery time a couple of weeks ago so it gets less likely he's going to be ahead of it any time soon. And the season is winding down.

              But at this point that is really beside the point. The team's horrible performance means there's no good reason for Manning to come back until he's 100%. And further, there's no good reason to start winning now because that only hurts the Colts draft position and their ability to secure a future asset.

              At some point in time the Peyton is going to have to step on the football field during a game. If he's healthy enough this season to do it, then he needs to do it.

              I don't know why anyone would want to make a decision with 90% of the information available, instead of using 100% of the information available.

              EDIT: And I say you don't have anything to base your opinion on, because Peyton himself and Eli both have said publically that he might be back this year. If they have reason to believe it will happen, I don't see how you can disagree with their assessment on the timeline.

              I don't think he 'needs' to do it at all....on several levels. He might want to do it... but that is different.

              I'm sure Peyton is trying to be optimistic that he can come back this season. But there's more to it than just being cleared medically to play. The Colts have the future to think about. And not just the immediate future.

              I suspect the Colts' hierarchy might be saying one thing right now to maintain the optimism for Peyton and fans but as stupid as I think they have been I don't think they are stupid enough to let Manning play at this point in the season with little to no upside in it.

              Practice field... Possible.

              A start and farewell snap... maybe... if a decision has been reached or is looking more than likely on either retirement or the Colts having decided that their future doesn't include Manning (and personally I have a hard time imagining Irsay would ever let Manning walk or be traded except on Manning's terms).

              A full game or games just because he's been cleared medically?... I'm doubtful he'd be cleared medically in the first place, and certainly doubtful he'd be 100%, and of course considerably rusty but even more doubtful the Colts would want Manning on the field with so little to gain from it even if he is cleared.
              So I see that as the most unlikely scenario at all.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                But my point is- This isn't about when the doctor's say he's reached an acceptable level of recovery to play without any significant risk of reinjury... It's about whether there's any upside, medically or strategically, for the team in him taking the field this season at this point in time or any point in these last 6 games.

                The answer is: There's not.
                Playing him shows other teams that he is the same old Manning and increases his trade value. Thats the only advantage I can see but that could easily backfire if he plays bad. I could see him playing against the Jags this year.

                Comment


                • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  Playing him shows other teams that he is the same old Manning and increases his trade value. Thats the only advantage I can see but that could easily backfire if he plays bad. I could see him playing against the Jags this year.
                  Rust could negate that quickly and have everyone wondering how much was rust and how much was the 'new' Manning....

                  It's almost a certainty he can't come back 100% this season due to the limited time left for regaining strength and practice. And every day he's not cleared and practicing is just a further setback towards that goal with the end of the season looming.

                  So, I agree with your premise but still say the reality of the situation makes the risk versus reward not worth it.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

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

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    I'm basing it on the normal recovery time from the type of surgery Manning has had as well as his own words on where he's at right now. He wasn't ahead of the normal recovery time a couple of weeks ago so it gets less likely he's going to be ahead of it any time soon. And the season is winding down.
                    Yes, he has said that. For the thousandth time, he has also said that he might be back this season.

                    I would think the latest comments trump previous comments, but I guess not.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                      Is what I keep talking about. Unless you are privvy to his medical records, and you have access to Peyton himself, how do you know this? You don't. You're making an opinion about a situation that you have nothing to base your opinion on.
                      When you say that there is nothing to base that opinion on you are wrong. Recovery is not magic. It happens in a time frame and depends on the severity of the procedure and health of the individual. There are timelines based on statistics of recovery that one can cite for thousands of people who have had this procedure all over the country. You make this out to be some novel operation procedure which it is not. What do you think the doctors are looking at when they give their opinions. With regard to fusions they are looking at bone scans and X-ray images. With regard to arm strength and nerve regeneration they are giving him nerve conduction tests and strength tests. Yes we do not have the results of these particular tests but we know fairly well averages of recovery and that is all people are citing. No one knows jack but most people agree that getting through this in a minimum time period is at best low probability. So saying time after time that his doctors have better information is not even worth mentioning because everyone knows this. I am going to go way way out on a limb and defy all sanity by saying that Peyton probably won't get into a game this season.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                        I don't know why anyone would want to make a decision with 90% of the information available, instead of using 100% of the information available.


                        It won't be 100% of the available information though.

                        In 2008 when he missed training camp and all of the preseason, he was very rusty for the first few weeks of the season and was on record saying that he didn't even feel like himself until late October.

                        If missing training camp and preseason made him rusty, then god only knows how rusty he would be after missing all of these games this season. So would you really be getting an accurate representation of how well off he really was? Odds are he's going to be pretty sloppy (by Manning standards). So how much extra could you really gain from the games that you couldn't get by watching him throw in a controlled environment?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                          Yes, his doctors do have something to base their opinions on. However, none of us posting on this forum do. I wasn't talking about his doctor's opinions not being based on anything. I was talking about our opinions not being based on anything.

                          The only thing we have to base our opinions on is the information they decide to give us. Right now, the latest information we have is that Peyton might be back on the field this season.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            So how much extra could you really gain from the games that you couldn't get by watching him throw in a controlled environment?
                            Wouldn't you agree that game speeds are a little different than practice speeds?

                            Pretty much every player coming off serious injury is slowly rolled out. They aren't given the green light and given as many minutes as they were prior to their injury. They're brought on at a slower pace to see how their body handles the game, rather than how they're handling practice.

                            This situation isn't any different.

                            Even pitchers go from game simulations to the minor leagues, before they're brought back up to the majors.

                            You can't fully replicate a game. There's no substituting it.

                            EDIT: I'm not even saying he should play. I'm saying that it's way too early to making the decision now, one way or the other.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Yes, he has said that. For the thousandth time, he has also said that he might be back this season.

                              I would think the latest comments trump previous comments, but I guess not.
                              Now that I agree with... I'm glad you see the light 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 Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                Rust could negate that quickly and have everyone wondering how much was rust and how much was the 'new' Manning....

                                It's almost a certainty he can't come back 100% this season due to the limited time left for regaining strength and practice. And every day he's not cleared and practicing is just a further setback towards that goal with the end of the season looming.

                                So, I agree with your premise but still say the reality of the situation makes the risk versus reward not worth it.
                                IMO Peyton being rusty can be explained and it would go along way for a team to see him on the field again. Its not like he has to win a game or anything. Have him go out and throw some quick slants and hand the ball off and call it a day. I think that would be enough to increase his trade value and the number of teams interested.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X