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

Peyton to the Broncos....

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

  • #46
    Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    The die-hard faithful will turn the page, but I'm worried that a decent chunk of the casual fans will be more interested in Manning than the Colts. I certainly hope not though. Real fan bases root for franchises over players.

    Anyone that favors the Broncos over the Colts for the next few years but then comes back once Manning is done and Luck is beginning to hit his stride isn't a Colts fan in my book. Now I'm just some guy on a message board, so it's not like my opinion matters that much. But I doubt I'm the only one to feel that way.
    Fate, and a bad job by an overrated Bill Polian, have led to a circumstance that wasn't in anyone's crystal ball.

    Manning was a Colt for life, the team would shore up for his stretch drive even if it meant his own stats might take a hit. Then EVEN IF injuries reared their head the defense and surrounding team should never be so bad to be anywhere near owning the #1 pick in the NFL draft. So even if we find ourselves drafting his heir apparent it wouldn't be a #1 pick, high potential, franchise QB prospect.

    There's simply no way a true contender should find themselves in this position over the loss of one player... or even a few players...

    So clearly we were more pretender than contender. Something the franchise was faced with acknowledging no matter how much they didn't want to believe it. It's no wonder Polian was kicked to the curb. Every Colts and/or Manning fan should've helped them do it.

    So now the fanbase is faced with the wrong type of transition. We were supposed to either see Manning go out after chasing more SB's.... go out after admitting age had diminished his skills too much to chase SB's.... or go out with an injury that wouldn't let him continue his career. All of which leading to a transition period for Colts fans, and understanding.

    Casual fans clearly have no clue about cap issues and the business of football. Even some more hardcore fans have been too emotionally invested to step back and see the bigger picture.

    It's a sad day to think the team was so bad that even a healthy Manning wasn't really going to be the difference between contending and just making or fighting for the playoffs. We needed Manning just to have a shot at the playoffs. At this point in his career that was clearly a huge blunder by TPTB. And with Manning's contract and cap hit that wasn't likely to change in a hurry.

    Only trading the #1 pick could've made a difference and I don't think there was one NFL owner who would've acted differently than Irsay in his shoes when the rest of the factors came into play.

    Manning needed to go to a team that was ready to contend. The Colts needed cap space and time just to be competitive again with a hope of contending down the road. And with Luck on the board the decision couldn't have been easier... from a logic standpoint.... or harder from an emotional standpoint.

    But the transition period isn't going to be what it was supposed to be. Not even close. Thanks Bill Polian. Your arrogance was only outshone by your incompetence these last few years.
    Last edited by Bball; 03-20-2012, 01:57 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, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

      watching this press conference makes me wish we still had him.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
        I don't really get the loyalty toward professional franchises that could move away at any moment and not really care. I mean I still nerd out on stupid NFL offseason stuff so I'm as caught up in it as anyone, and it's fun, but these don't strike me as institutions worthy of some kind of unyielding loyalty. The "real fan" stuff re pro teams just seems so overblown. Except maybe in the case of something like the Packers. I don't really know what that'd be like.

        I'll always like the Colts, but I try to remember that to them I'm no more than just another butt in a seat and try to keep my fandom within that sort of perspective.

        I also don't see really what's wrong with being a fan of an athlete more than a franchise. We've taken pretty kindly to Reggie fans here. And Peyton has more than earned that kind of following.


        I don't really get the impulse to distinguish between real fans and whatever else. Purity contests are boring, and no one's ever pure enough.

        Sorry, I wasn't trying to come across as judgmental even though I probably did anyway. I definitely understand the loyalty toward Peyton. He is by far my favorite athlete ever and probably always will be. Never in a billion years did I think he would finish his career in another uniform. It's sickening to see him hold up that ugly Bronco orange. But at the end of the day, I think the franchise is more important than any player, even if it is Manning.

        Like I said, my opinions are just my own and I certainly don't expect everyone to think like me. Following sports is a time (and money) consuming hobby and everyone should do what's best for them. All I was saying is that it's my personal hope that most people remain fans of the Indianapolis Colts first and foremost. Our fan base has been mocked many times as being fickle and many have predicted for years that it would evaporate without Manning. It would pain me to see those people proven correct. I would love to have a fan base that never allows blackout to happen and is passionate about the team no matter what. I want there to be a solid, unfickle fan base here.

        I take pride in following the home team and I think a true fan should do it through thick and thin. Again, that's just my personal belief. I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't want to spend their time or money on something they won't get satisfaction from.

        Honestly, if our fan base cannot survive without Manning then we don't deserve to have a team in Indianapolis. We simply should not have built that 750 dollar (mostly taxpayer funded) stadium if the turnout was so completely dependent on one player who was entering the twilight of his Colt career when the thing opened.

        The Colts will be good again someday, and those who stick with it through the dark period will get the most satisfaction out of it, just like the Pacer fans who stuck with the team through 06-10 are getting the most satisfaction out of the success of our young team. The Colts will have a phenom young QB, a new coach, a bunch of cap room next year, and new management that is bringing a new philosophy. That's plenty to get excited about and we are far better off than many NFL franchises.

        Bball, good post. I'd like to address it right now but I don't have time. I will later.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Honestly, if our fan base cannot survive without Manning then we don't deserve to have a team in Indianapolis. We simply should not have built that 750 dollar (mostly taxpayer funded) stadium if the turnout was so completely dependent on one player who was entering the twilight of his Colt career when the thing opened.
          Where can I get one of those $750 dollar stadiums for my back yard

          FWIW, I agree with both you and SIG.

          I love the Redskins, hell most would even say I am obsessed, but I understand I am but one voice and the team can move on and be gone in a flash.

          That said, I also value loyalty. I have stuck with all of my teams through thick and thin, even helped coordinate the "mail in your fan cards" protest for the Redskins when Vinny C was still here.

          As for the topic at hand, good luck to Peyton. I would hate to be Elway is Peyton does not work out (or worse gets injured early on)

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            Fate, and a bad job by an overrated Bill Polian, have led to a circumstance that wasn't in anyone's crystal ball.

            Manning was a Colt for life, the team would shore up for his stretch drive even if it meant his own stats might take a hit. Then EVEN IF injuries reared their head the defense and surrounding team should never be so bad to be anywhere near owning the #1 pick in the NFL draft. So even if we find ourselves drafting his heir apparent it wouldn't be a #1 pick, high potential, franchise QB prospect.

            There's simply no way a true contender should find themselves in this position over the loss of one player... or even a few players...

            So clearly we were more pretender than contender. Something the franchise was faced with acknowledging no matter how much they didn't want to believe it. It's no wonder Polian was kicked to the curb. Every Colts and/or Manning fan should've helped them do it.

            So now the fanbase is faced with the wrong type of transition. We were supposed to either see Manning go out after chasing more SB's.... go out after admitting age had diminished his skills too much to chase SB's.... or go out with an injury that wouldn't let him continue his career. All of which leading to a transition period for Colts fans, and understanding.

            Casual fans clearly have no clue about cap issues and the business of football. Even some more hardcore fans have been too emotionally invested to step back and see the bigger picture.

            It's a sad day to think the team was so bad that even a healthy Manning wasn't really going to be the difference between contending and just making or fighting for the playoffs. We needed Manning just to have a shot at the playoffs. At this point in his career that was clearly a huge blunder by TPTB. And with Manning's contract and cap hit that wasn't likely to change in a hurry.

            Only trading the #1 pick could've made a difference and I don't think there was one NFL owner who would've acted differently than Irsay in his shoes when the rest of the factors came into play.

            Manning needed to go to a team that was ready to contend. The Colts needed cap space and time just to be competitive again with a hope of contending down the road. And with Luck on the board the decision couldn't have been easier... from a logic standpoint.... or harder from an emotional standpoint.

            But the transition period isn't going to be what it was supposed to be. Not even close. Thanks Bill Polian. Your arrogance was only outshone by your incompetence these last few years.

            You make a great point about this being the "wrong" type of transition and I probably didn't give that enough wait. While everyone knew Manning would have to leave someday, we all thought he would easily play 17 or 18 years here and call it a career. Manning doesn't seem like a guy who would retire and then have comebacks like Favre, and I doubt the idea of the Colts releasing him ever crossed anyone's mind before last season. Manning finishing his career as a Colt seemed like one of the most guaranteed things in sports. As you point out, when he left here it was supposed to be because he simply was too old to play anymore. I certainly understand that fans will be upset when Manning is shredding teams next year because I will be upset too.

            I wanted Manning back and I'm indeed worried that releasing him was the wrong move. If a Top 5 all time QB has 4 or so quality years left in him then you don't release him, regardless of how bad the rest of your roster is. I think that it has been set in stone for a while that we are drafting Luck, but I held out hope that we could somehow bring Peyton back and take it from there.

            I just wish we could know what exactly Irsay and Manning discussed and how serious we were about keeping him. Would Manning have renegotiated his contract and given us the protections against his neck that he gave his Broncos? If we wouldn't have then I don't blame Irsay one bit, but if he would have been willing to do that for Denver then why not us?

            http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post...ee-to-contract

            Manning's contract is guaranteed for next year (like the one he signed last year was guaranteed for 2011), but it also lets the Broncos get out of it after that if he re-injures his neck.

            Manning's contract here was obviously expensive, but when he signed it Irsay and Polian praised it as being a friendly deal. But then all of the sudden after 2011 we were told that we were in cap hell and basically couldn't afford to keep Manning. That doesn't make much sense to me on one hand.

            Regardless, the Indianapolis Colts are the only team I care about. I wish Manning the best and will root for *him* against other teams, but screw the Denver Broncos and their orange. I could never say that I am a "Broncos fan" now. We stomped them for years and I still view them as an AFC rival.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-21-2012, 09:56 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              You make a great point about this being the "wrong" type of transition and I probably didn't give that enough wait. While everyone knew Manning would have to leave someday, we all thought he would easily play 17 or 18 years here and call it a career. Manning doesn't seem like a guy who would retire and then have comebacks like Favre, and I doubt the idea of the Colts releasing him ever crossed anyone's mind before last season. Manning finishing his career as a Colt seemed like one of the most guaranteed things in sports. As you point out, when he left here it was supposed to be because he simply was too old to play anymore. I certainly understand that fans will be upset when Manning is shredding teams next year because I will be upset too.

              I wanted Manning back and I'm indeed worried that releasing him was the wrong move. If a Top 5 all time QB has 4 or so quality years left in him then you don't release him, regardless of how bad the rest of your roster is. I think that it has been set in stone for a while that we are drafting Luck, but I held out hope that we could somehow bring Peyton back and take it from there.

              I just wish we could know what exactly Irsay and Manning discussed and how serious we were about keeping him. Would Manning have renegotiated his contract and given us the protections against his neck that he gave his Broncos? If we wouldn't have then I don't blame Irsay one bit, but if he would have been willing to do that for Denver then why not us?

              http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post...ee-to-contract

              Manning's contract is guaranteed for next year (like the one he signed last year was guaranteed for 2011), but it also lets the Broncos get out of it after that if he re-injures his neck.

              Manning's contract here was obviously expensive, but when he signed it Irsay and Polian praised it as being a friendly deal. But then all of the sudden after 2011 we were told that we were in cap hell and basically couldn't afford to keep Manning. That doesn't make much sense to me on one hand.

              Regardless, the Indianapolis Colts are the only team I care about. I wish Manning the best and will root for *him* against other teams, but screw the Denver Broncos and their orange. We stomped them for years and I still view them as an AFC rival.
              These contract are very different and their cap ramifications are also very different.

              Manning lowered his first year asking price by a considerable amount going from 26.4 million to 18 million with that opt out clause in 2013 "IF" he doesn't pass a physical. Thats a 32 percent drop in guaranteed money!

              The break down of his Denver contract goes like this..

              2012: $18 million, fully guaranteed.
              2013: $20 million, everything guaranteed unless there is a neck issue.
              2014: $20 million, everything guaranteed except for neck.
              2015: $19 million, not guaranteed.
              2016: $19 million, not guaranteed.

              So basically Denver pays more money overall but they get much more protection if Mannings neck problem doesn't pass physicals on his guaranteed years.

              I bring this up because Adam Schefter said in Jan. that Manning would not restructure or push back the March 8th deadline. I am not sure if he retracted that statement but its clear atleast to me that Manning didn't want to be a Colt by restructuring his deal.

              As far as I know Manning or his agent never said they would do that for the Colts and only Jim Irsay said he was willing to keep Manning if he was willing to restructure.

              You can read in between the lines there but its clear to me that things didn't work out because both guys saw the writing on the wall. Manning needs to win now and the Colts due to salary cap problems and age wouldn't be able to field a championship team.

              I think Jim Irsay would have signed Manning to the Denver deal because its a pretty good deal that would allow him to get out from under a the contract if Mannings health was a problem. Of course it takes 2 to tango and Manning was the one looking for another partner and rightfully so if his goal is to win a SB in the next 2/3 years.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 03-21-2012, 10:59 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

                If Manning wasn't willing to give the Colts the same concessions he ended up giving the Broncos then I have no problem whatsoever with Irsay's decision. That's a decision most owners probably would have made in those circumstances.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Sorry, I wasn't trying to come across as judgmental even though I probably did anyway. I definitely understand the loyalty toward Peyton. He is by far my favorite athlete ever and probably always will be. Never in a billion years did I think he would finish his career in another uniform. It's sickening to see him hold up that ugly Bronco orange. But at the end of the day, I think the franchise is more important than any player, even if it is Manning.

                  Like I said, my opinions are just my own and I certainly don't expect everyone to think like me. Following sports is a time (and money) consuming hobby and everyone should do what's best for them. All I was saying is that it's my personal hope that most people remain fans of the Indianapolis Colts first and foremost. Our fan base has been mocked many times as being fickle and many have predicted for years that it would evaporate without Manning. It would pain me to see those people proven correct. I would love to have a fan base that never allows blackout to happen and is passionate about the team no matter what. I want there to be a solid, unfickle fan base here.

                  I take pride in following the home team and I think a true fan should do it through thick and thin. Again, that's just my personal belief. I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't want to spend their time or money on something they won't get satisfaction from.

                  Honestly, if our fan base cannot survive without Manning then we don't deserve to have a team in Indianapolis. We simply should not have built that 750 dollar (mostly taxpayer funded) stadium if the turnout was so completely dependent on one player who was entering the twilight of his Colt career when the thing opened.

                  The Colts will be good again someday, and those who stick with it through the dark period will get the most satisfaction out of it, just like the Pacer fans who stuck with the team through 06-10 are getting the most satisfaction out of the success of our young team. The Colts will have a phenom young QB, a new coach, a bunch of cap room next year, and new management that is bringing a new philosophy. That's plenty to get excited about and we are far better off than many NFL franchises.

                  Bball, good post. I'd like to address it right now but I don't have time. I will later.
                  I wouldn't say you were being judgemental. It's just this thing where I never really know what to think. Pro sports has to be the only business where if management outs put a bad product, the customers get blamed for not buying it. And while that's a harsh way to put it I don't mean it quite that harshly, as I do the same thing sometimes. I feel like I'm always renegiotiating how important I think loyalty is as a fan is in pro sports. I can get with loyalty to a city pretty easily, but even though the Colts have been huge for Indy I don't see them as so instrinsically tied to this city that my support for Indy wholly transfers nto support for the Colts. The Pacers have a little bit more of thst going for them for me.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Peyton to the Broncos....

                    Rather interesting read in retrospect

                    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...gn=Twitter_atn

                    Elway: Peyton was the only replacement for Tebow



                    Broncos general manager John Elway has endured his fair share of criticism despite bringing the team its third Super Bowl championship in 2015.

                    But in a retrospective about the first five years of his career published in The Denver Post on Sunday, he discussed one move we seldom give him enough credit for.

                    "Because (Tim) Tebow had such a fan base behind him ‚€” there was probably only one guy that we could have replaced him with that people would understand," Elway said. "And that was Peyton Manning."


                    Elway joined the Broncos in his current capacity back in 2011 -- the same season that Tebow led the Broncos to an improbable 29-23 victory over the Steelers in the first round of the playoffs. In that game, Tebow threw for 316 yards, two touchdowns and finished with a 125.6 passer rating before the team was waxed by the Super Bowl-bound Patriots the following week.

                    While it was evident that the Tebow-led offensive system was not sustainable long-term, the miracle moments against Pittsburgh brought Tebowmania to a fevered pitch. Elway brokered the Peyton Manning deal gracefully and he's right -- there was no other quarterback available at that time who would have been a fan-acceptable replacement.

                    We talk often about making the tough decisions and how it has led some of the best talent evaluators, coaches and general managers to the apex of this profession. And while Elway's decision seemed like a no-brainer at the time, it was not an easy one. The Broncos have a few more banners and a Lombardi trophy to show for it.

                    The entire piece is well worth reading (another link here). Elway continues to be one of the most fascinating stars in the sport and is always candid and honest about the job.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X