Tweet
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
PM could be released instead of traded...
PM could be released instead of traded...
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
-
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained. -
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
I don't even know if financially (cap) the Colts can trade Manning and be better off than just letting him walk.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
You really are irrational about this issue. You've missed several points along the way. There's absolutely nothing in that article that disagrees with what I've presented as fact and what I've speculated upon.
Nobody said Luck would be starting over Manning (unless Manning is injured of course).
I've said the same thing at least 3 different ways, elaborated, etc... and you still don't get it. This is my last time trying to explain my opinion on the situation to you. If you have a question I'll answer it but I can't keep coming back to these same points you are missing and misconstruing.
Manning's health will be in question from here on out and his career is in the final chapter no matter what. Therefore, there's absolutely no way the Colts can put all their eggs in that basket when they have a chance to draft one of the highest QB prospects since Manning himself was the #1 pick. Teams covet the QB position. Irsay covets the QB position. Having the ability to follow Manning with another universally high QB prospect is too good of a situation to pass up.
It's not likely either of the 2 QB's could coexist and certainly not for long on the Colts. Even if Irsay would like that to happen it's going to take concessions and creativity from all 3 parties. Maybe Luck would sit short term and maybe Manning would agree to renegotiate his contract. Maybe. Not likely. Possible.
The cap situation, being what it is, means having both QB's would seriously dampen the ability of the FO to field a contending team without some ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat. See above. This is one of the reasons that point #2 is not likely. Manning won't want to be part of a rebuilding Colts team. It would have to be competitive. He also might not like having his heir apparent looking over his shoulder. Luck is going to want to get his NFL career kickstarted ASAP. He's going to have to feel any bench time will be very shortlived if he's willing to accept that at all. Irsay and the new GM would really have their work cut out for themselves to make such a scenario work. Again, possible... but that's all... just possible...
Economic realities, both long term and short term will impact these decisions. If Manning doesn't renegotiate then that probably forces the team's hand right there (too much cap in one position, too much risk with Peyton's injury, Luck waiting in the wings to start the rebuild). Manning might not be traded in this scenario... his option simply won't be picked up. Or maybe this whole scenario forces a situation where a Manning trade goes back on the table. I don't know... I can take Irsay at his word that Peyton won't be traded. ...And I could easily seeing him changing his mind as time goes forward too. But neither changes my position one iota.
So come next season, assuming Manning is ready to play... either he's agreed to a restructure and with whatever Irsay pulled out of his hat to field a competitive team and Luck's sitting on the bench with some type of promise it won't be for years and he believed it enough to go along (even if it's begrudgingly).... Or Manning is not in a Colts uniform and Luck will be the starting QB.Last edited by Bball; 01-11-2012, 10:07 AM.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
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
Man you sure act like you know a whole lot, without knowing if any of its true. You have your mind set on Colts drafting Luck, its obvious you want it so bad you arent even willing to look at a scenario where they dont draft Luck. At least Since and I can see both sides of the equation.I Bleed BlueComment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
So what did you mean exactly when you said Irsay is going to pick Luck over Manning, if given a choice?Originally posted by Bball View Post
Right now, all you're doing is spinning that statement into a totally different meaning, and it tells a lot about your position.
The fact that you, and xbullet, think it's a good idea to only plan on PM not returning say's enough about who's position is irrational. I usually like your posts, even if the majority of them are negative, but this time you're just completely off your rocker.
It's down right stupid to try and argue that, that's the only outcome you plan for, and yet that's what xbullet said and you thanked and then piggybacked off of.
You are so focused on the idea that PM might not come back, that you can't even entertain the idea that the Colts go in a different direction.
Look at your last post. The only conclusions you can think of is that they draft luck and they trade peyton, or that they draft luck and peyton plays with luck sitting.
That's the only two solutions.
It's down right insulting for you to try and claim that I'm irrational, when you can't even admit that they MIGHT have a different of opinion than you.
Even if you don't think it will happen, and even if you don't think they should, you should atleast have the ability to acknowledge that there's another course of action.
That's been my complaint for this entire season, but instead of just trying to entertain the idea that they might not draft Luck, you just dig your heels in even deeper and tell me for the 1000th time why you think PM won't be back.Last edited by Since86; 01-11-2012, 10:48 AM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
I'll try and answer your question. There's just too much other stuff in your post that it's clear we're just talking right past each other so much that it's pointless to point out where you are misconstruing what I am saying.
First, I don't think Irsay has any other plan than to pick Luck. Now, maybe I'm wrong and he's going against the grain but I doubt it.So what did you mean exactly when you said Irsay is going to pick Luck over Manning, if given a choice?
So then you have to consider the financial ramifications of having two QB's on the roster when one of them eats up the amount of cap Peyton does. And you have to consider Peyton's age and his injury. And no doctor is going to tell you that if Peyton is better this spring then that injury is no longer a concern at all. It will now always be a concern with the potential for symptoms to return. So if Peyton plays hardball and refuses to restructure his contract, let alone promises to demand a trade if they choose Luck, then that IMHO will settle the issue and Manning will be released (or traded if Irsay changes his mind and cap ramifications work better that way).
Luck doesn't have quite that much leverage but he has to have quite a bit (I already explained why so unless you ask I am not repeating it). I suppose if Peyton bent over backwards to allow the Colts to take Luck and keep him as well, and then Luck played massive hardball and P.O.'ed Irsay then you could have an alternate situation playing out. But that's about the only way I see it happening that Luck wouldn't end up a Colt.
I just don't see what other scenarios you guys are looking at. Irsay IMHO is not passing up on Luck. Not in this situation with a 36 yr old injured Manning who comes with no guarantees on his health and longevity at this point.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
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
I haven't seen a viable scenario where the Colts don't draft Luck when you consider the totality of the situation. It is what it is....Originally posted by CreekShow View Post
The only question I have at all is if there's a scenario where Irsay can pull a rabbit out of the hat and have both. I do believe he'll do whatever he can to make that happen... but if either balks or team building economics say otherwise... then next season the Luck era begins.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
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
We're not talking past each other. You have no clue what I'm even saying.
I'm complaining about your inability to even entertain the idea of the Colts not drafting Luck, and then you proceed to tell me all the reasons, YET AGAIN, as to why you think they're going to draft Luck, and that you can't envision any other scenario.
I don't know whether to laugh, or just to say "**** it" and just completely ignore you.
I guess laugh. It has to be a joke for someone to call me irrational, beause I supposedly cant see the other side of the discussion, when the person calling me irrational refuses to see the other side of the discussion.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
Here's another perspective. I'm not even a Colts fan. I'm not a Jags, Titans or Texans fan, either.
But if I were a fan of those 3 other teams, my sincere hope would be for the Colts to outthink themselves and do something that ultimately results in NOT getting Andrew Luck. Trading down for RGIII or waiting a year for a "chance" at Barkley? I could only hope for the Colts to do something like that.Comment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
Having both Luck and Manning is a viable option from what we know which includes quotes from Irsay and Luck.Originally posted by Bball View Post
Its not crazy to think that for one year Luck and Manning will coexist. I will go as far as to say there is 70/30 odds that this is what will happen next year.
It may not be the best move but its not a bad one either considering PM injury and BPA at number one or QB's in this draft.
Solid point.Originally posted by d_c View PostComment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
Taking Luck with the #1 is a freebie when you consider we have the 1st pick in the 2nd round too. That pick is only a couple of slots lower than we normally pick in the first. So it is almost like having two 1st.Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.Comment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
Not that it changes your point very much, but Kravitz just tweeted that the Colts and StL are going to swap second round picks, for some odd reason. I took it as saying this is coming from the league.
Either way, it doesn't make much sense.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
How does anyone know Andrew Luck is a "sure" thing. You guys seem to take that as fact because the media says he will.
And you guys are focusing on me bringing up Barkley too much. Hes just one example. Im saying if PM is healthy enough to play, youll have time to find a replacement before he hangs it up. I would take a Proven Peyton Manning on 75% health before I give him up for a 100% healthy Prospect.
In all reality its pointless to debate back and forth until we know whats up with Peyton. You guys have yout mind set, and can not phathom any other outcome. So lets hope for your own sanity they do pick Luck. Either that or you better hope you all can return your Luck jerseys if Colts go in another direction. Myself on the other hand, if Peyton can in fact play and Indy gets rid of him, well ill be re-evaluating my loyalty to this team.I Bleed BlueComment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
You'll never get a better time to get a replacement than now. If Manning plays, we are not going to have this good a draft pick and chance to get a good QB from the draft. Nobody said Luck is a sure thing, but he's as sure as they come. I'd rather go with Luck than someone with the 26th pick in the draft 2 years from now. Assuming Manning stays healthy. And we have no idea what's going to happen with PM now, and we may not really know even when March rolls around. So it would be stupid to pass on the chance to get Luck.Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.Comment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
Probably because the Colts and Rams finished with the same record. Colts get the first pick, Rams get the first in the 2nd round, and probably Colts get the first in the third, then back and forth through the draft.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....Comment
-
Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say
Then don't let the door hit you on the way out.Originally posted by CreekShow View Post
You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....Comment
Comment