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
-
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.... -
Re: NFL Honors program
I actually didn't really think it was appropriate, tbo. It felt like quite a jab at Luck. As big a Manning fan that I am... the Favre-Rodgers debacle had a lot more layers to it. With Manning and Luck... Luck really didn't ahve anything to do with anything, other than be the player Irsay went with to replace Manning. There was no overlap, Luck didn't play in Manning's shadow for years, didn't endure multiple comebacks by Manning.... Why Manning would even relate the two situations was sort of out of place.Originally posted by RWB View Post
It seems like Luck has taken quite a bit of flack in the few clips I've seen of him since the season ended. Got ribbed quite a bit at the Pro Bowl... snubbed for the ROY award... sort of slammed by Manning at the awards ceremony.
I'm glad to see Luck is keeping his composure, it would be easy for a lot of guys to sort of fire back jabs and get stupid, but he's conducting all this crap pretty well. He really does seem like an easy-going guy who just wants to play football and be nice to everyone.Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-05-2013, 11:53 AM.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league. -
Re: NFL Honors program
Speaking of awards, I guess it comes as no surprise that RG3 robbed Luck and Wilson of the award. He had less stats and a worse record, and missed quite a bit of time on a better team. People really do gloss over the fact. RG3 looks cool, acts cool, is way more hyped and has way more marketing presence, and therefore he wins the award. I don't believe the award was given based on football merits, it was based on hype. When you compare the obstacles each faced, the pressure, the actual achievements, and the system each played in, Luck should have been the winner of this award, followed closely by Wilson. It was the only award I didn't agree with this year.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
I think you're looking too deep into it. I thought it was a funny joke that was perfect given that Rodgers and Favre were up there. Of course the Manning/Luck circumstances are different than what happened with Favre and Rodgers, but one simple fact remains: Manning was kicked out the door for Andrew Luck. Therefore, they will always be linked. If last year's draft had this year's players, then we almost certainly would have rolled the dice and kept Manning considering there is no great QB prospect this year. Peyton Manning was fired because we wanted Andrew Luck. It certainly looks like we made the right choice, but it was indeed a firing. Manning and Luck will always be linked together.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
As far as getting ribbed at the pro-bowl, that's just a right of passage for a rookie. Any rookie pro-bowler is going to get clowned on. It's all in good fun. Luck will be the one doing the ribbing someday.Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
Huh? I thought Manning was just making the connection between two great Packers QBs and two great Colts QBs and the connection that Rodgers did follow Favre and Luck is following Peyton. There's no way around that. If anything I think Peyton is giving Luck praise. If Rodgers ended up sucking he wouldn't have been up there presenting that award.
Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
Heh, I don't think that at all. Everyone knew of the animosity between Rodgers and Favre back then, and their appearing on stage together was a sort of burying of the hatchet... hence why Favre tentatively patted Rodgers back and Rodgers said "that was awkward." I don't see that correlation at all between Manning and Luck. If you really thought it wasn't about that, then why does Luck have that look on his face, lol.... a sort of "wow... can't believe he just said that." I'm reading exactly what I'm reading, there.
I'll buy that he's a rookie and rookies get ribbed... I'll go with that. I'll buy that Manning and Luck will be forever linked... but the situation was completely different from Favre/Rodgers. I still felt the Manning comment was a tad over the line.Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-05-2013, 12:37 PM.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
I thought Luck's reaction was a simple "crap, now they are going to show me on camera when I wasn't expecting it" moment.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View PostComment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
I was waiting for this thread/post last week
I could write paragraph after paragraph but it would be a waste of time.
All 3 had a good year, and I would not have knocked Luck had he won, but Luck came to a team that had talent, lost a great QB, and then got a great QB in Luck and won against some crappy teams.
I actually thought Wilson deserved it more then Luck, and RG3 would have and should have won.
People like to point out how great our team was, yet our defense was one of the worst, especially when it came to pass coverage and the fact half of our d-line was injured
In short, RG3 should have and did win. And it had nothing to do with being "cool" or "overhyped" or "overmarketed".Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
You keep saying that but it's wrong. The Colts were not that stacked with talent this year. You could say the ones we drafted proved good value and had an excellent season as rookies but that's it. OL joke most of the time bar Castonzo. Receivers, only Reggie was proven value. DL granted has had Redding mainly as their leader and then Mathis, Freeney (who suffered in the new 3-4 scheme) from LBs . Bethea kinda shocking year and from CB's only Davis played really well.Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
I don't really care who wins ROY, but teams that have talent don't go 2-14. Manning hid how awful the roster was for years.
And either way, Grigson turned over something like 65% of the roster. Hell half the offense were rookies.Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
No doubt Manning hid a lot, which is part of the reason why I consider him one of the greatest QB's I got to see play (and I caught him once live....it was awesome. Same as with Farve).Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
I agree about the turnover, and maybe it is just me but I felt like a large majority of the rookie class this year really performed well or overperformed (hell, Morris for us was a huge shock, but a welcome addition)Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
And the 35% holdovers had to learn a completely new offensive or defensive system. Even the Colts stars, Wayne, Freeney, and Mathis all had their roles drastically changed from what made them elite, Pro Bowl level players.Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
Regarding the ROY, Luck, RG3, and Wilson all played exceptionally well. Each of them had strong arguments on why they should have won. I think Luck is and will be the better player, I think he had less support this year (defense, running game, protection), and I think he should have won the award if I had any say in the matter. But I also don't think he was robbed or screwed over either. RG3 had a heck of a year. But in the end, the only award I really care for is the Super Bowl MVP.Last edited by bunt; 02-06-2013, 12:38 PM.Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
Your defense was one of the worst? Our defense was the worstOriginally posted by vapacersfan View Post
I was waiting for this thread/post last week
I could write paragraph after paragraph but it would be a waste of time.
All 3 had a good year, and I would not have knocked Luck had he won, but Luck came to a team that had talent, lost a great QB, and then got a great QB in Luck and won against some crappy teams.
I actually thought Wilson deserved it more then Luck, and RG3 would have and should have won.
People like to point out how great our team was, yet our defense was one of the worst, especially when it came to pass coverage and the fact half of our d-line was injured
In short, RG3 should have and did win. And it had nothing to do with being "cool" or "overhyped" or "overmarketed".
Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
It has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with why he won.Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
I was waiting for this thread/post last week
I could write paragraph after paragraph but it would be a waste of time.
All 3 had a good year, and I would not have knocked Luck had he won, but Luck came to a team that had talent, lost a great QB, and then got a great QB in Luck and won against some crappy teams.
I actually thought Wilson deserved it more then Luck, and RG3 would have and should have won.
People like to point out how great our team was, yet our defense was one of the worst, especially when it came to pass coverage and the fact half of our d-line was injured
In short, RG3 should have and did win. And it had nothing to do with being "cool" or "overhyped" or "overmarketed".
RG3 has ability, he has persona... but he is also hype and fool's gold. It's not hate... it's not a racist sentiment... it's not a regional sentiment. It's not a homer sentiment. I don't even hate the guy. I actually think he's alright, personally, and from a football ability perspective. I don't mostly blame HIM for why he won the award over guys that I think deserve it more, except for the massive image he built around himself --- I blame the ignorance of uninformed people who voted him in, who don't know what to truly look for or take context into account, who can't look past hype and image and vote on actual context..
The minute that the pundits start throwing around phrases like "he's going to revolutionize the position", I immediately become skeptical, because guys who are annointed to revolutionize the position, never do --- Michael Vick was given this same title 10 years ago... the guys who actually revolutionize the position are guys who have already done so, and we the observers realize it in retrospect. Manning revolutionized it without being predicted that he would do so. One year we all just looked back and around and realized --- wow Manning is doing this. He's revolutionized the position. He did it without a 4.2 40-yard dash. He did it without Brett Favre's arm. He did it without a 4-foot vertical. Somewhere in the early 2000s, most of us looked around and thought: "He's up there gyrating around and motioning and moving guys and he's not receiving plays from his coach --- he's running his own offense and he's outsmarting Bill Belichick. No one else is doing that. That's..... ridiculous. That's..... amazing. He's... I dunno...... revolutionzed the quarterback position." It wasn't something that was predicted of him in 1998 when we drafted him.
My sentiment regarding RG3 is a sentiment based on football ability and what I see from RG3's conduct, his ability that he does put on display, and what I know about the game of football. I don't mindlessly buy the hype around the guy. I think he's pretty good. That's it. But America thinks he's a demi-God. That is a image that is not sustainable on his part. He cannot keep up that image forever, and mark my words --- it's an image. He's built up this incredible image that makes people believe he's better than he actually is. He's already breaking under the pressure, in this case, physically.
I've said that from the beginning. I questioned the long-term effectiveness of the offense he runs... I questioned his ability to get out and run the way he does for an entire career, and he didn't even make it through his first season (I don't wish harm on the kid, it was an observation from watching him, he is in love with the flash of the bulb when he gets out and runs, and he has no idea how to avoid collisions. I knew that it would result in injuries). I question his ability to grasp a pro-style offense, which I believe will HAVE to do eventually, even if people are starting to actually buy into the long-term effectiveness of those option offenses. Kaepernick is another guy who is going to get lost in the shuffle down the road. He is almost identical to RG3, but has a monster o-line to operate behind and Frank Gore is a beast. It was Kaepernick-mania leading up to the SB, and you mark my words, from what I've seen, he's not a long-term option in this league. He will have his moment, though.
The one thing I credit RG3 for is restoring the faith of the Redskins fanbase, he gives them something exciting to think about and for that I can completely understand. He IS exciting. He IS cool. But it's not going to last... they need to look into the future and build this thing properly. Shanahan didn't do that --- he almost broke RG3 right off the bat in his first season. The organization is saying one thing (that they're going down a new path now), when in actuality, I think they are going down a destructive path. Washington lost draft resources to acquire him and I think it will come back to bite them. They signed some guys to expensive contracts... they are already $4mill over the cap for 2013. Seattle has 18mil to play with --- Indianapolis has $46million to play with this next season. This is going to have a huge impact and it HAD a massive impact this past year. The media and fans didn't look at that, didn't realize that Luck was working with SO LITTLE. What that should tell the smart fans out there was that Indy was working with a ton of dead money --- essentially earning 11 wins with a tiny actual payroll, and says even more about the kind of impact Luck actually had. This all opens up next year AND they have an almost full draft to use. I look at the skillset of Tannehill and see good things in Miami... and they have 35+ mill in cap space this next season, they have the centerpiece and they have the resources to put pieces around him. The 'skins are missing the next two 1st-round picks, and are $4 million over the cap. Their quarterback crumpled like a paper sack to the ground and is facing a long recovery. What are they going to do?
There are red flags going up all over the place for me in regards to the 'Skins and how they are proceeding forth with this entire thing. Looking into the future, they have little to work with... a broken down rookie quarterback... it's not pretty. That's not the image they are projecting, however. They act like the sky's the limit. It's dangerous.
People didn't take into account the down-field, complicated, risky offense that Indy ran, putting Luck in positions to execute much more complicated completions (and for the most part actually pulling it off). They just looked at the safe offense that the 'Skins ran and said "wow, RG3 had 49 less interceptions than Luck, he must be better."
RG3 wasn't what everyone thought he was this year. I believe Luck and Wilson were the two actual talents that entered this league this year. I would even be acceptable of Wilson earning the ROY over Luck moreso than RG3. I know you don't want to hear that and don't believe me now... that's fine. I don't expect you to.
Bottom line is, he didn't even beat Wilson in the playoffs, and he was at home. Fact is, Wilson had better stats, more wins, (and this is my own opinion), but is just a flat-out better quarterback from pure observation (same with Luck, who I think shows the most of any of them). Fact is, Luck took a 2-14 team that experienced a 65% overhauled roster using only a fraction of their cap space, played in Manning's shadow, broke numerous rookie passing records, still won more games while his head coach had cancer, having 9 come from behind wins, while actually calling almost all of his own plays from week 10 on. Fact is, RG3 didn't last a full season, had less wins, yardage, and touchdowns than either one, and also missed more time. RG3 wasn't the best rookie this year.
Guess who won the award?
So with all this laid out, and the fact that most people were willing to be blind to it... and the fact that he still won the award... what else is there to point to other than hype and marketing?Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-06-2013, 05:07 PM.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: NFL Honors program
RG3 is not fools gold.
He may be over hyped by the media, but he put up numbers and did his job.
The Redskins are in "so much danger" that when RG3 got hit with a freak injury the team was still able to win the NFL east, have a huge winning streak with major injuries, and make the playoffs for the first time since 1999. With RG at probably 60-70%. Yeah buddy, I semm disaster
RG3 had to learn how to slide. He did not brake under pressure. Unless you mean him getting hurt on a freak play. But if that is the case then Manning and Brees broke by getting hurt in their careers as well..........
Shanny made some stupid decisions.
We are over the cap. Guess what. We normally are. Lets see how things look after cuts and after all our guys restructure their contracts (which happens every off season)
Funny Kapernick had a great year, and yet people still dont want to give him credit. He could have won SB MVP and people would say "its all flash, it wont last". I hope you, and this site, and still around in 10 years so I can look back and say "I told you so".
You always questioned the offense, and even when it worked you knocked it. I think we all get it. You dont like it. Hell, TPTB even changed the offense. Of course I can predict your next line "he wont be able to learn or run a "real" NFL offense.
The Skins are able to trade...if they need to. Oh, and the QB is projected to be back for opening game. But if not, we have this other rookie who can tide us over. and please dont waste your time telling us how Cousins is a better option then RG3. I literally laugh out loud every time you spew that crap. The sad thing is you probably believe that ****.
I would even be acceptable of Wilson earning the ROY over Luck moreso than RG3. But he didnt. He lost. I know you don't want to hear that and I know you dont want to accept it;.. that's fine. I don't expect you to. Just like I dont expect you to EVER comment on how RG3 thanks Morris and congratulated him during his acceptance speech. That does not fit well with your RG3 is overhyped and nothing but full of himself crap, so of course you would never mention that
Bottom line is he seriously injured, and the team actually started hot then got burned by the terrible defense they had all yaer. But sure, you can blame it all on the QB. The guy who was hobbling and playing like a warrior. For one thing in this post I may actually agree with you, RG3 needs to stop trying to be a hero and put his health first before the team. But I can live with him not doing that one year....a lot better then having a QB who doesnt give 2 ***** about the organizations and his teammates
Face is RG3 took a team that played an extremely tough schedule, tougher then the Seahawks or Colts, and won more games then he lost. Face is he is the QB of the NFCE champs and face is he took us to the playoffs for the first time in 14 years. My opinion is he is better then Luck and Wilson, and FACT IS he DID win the ROY award.
In short, RG3 got the ROY. Not Luck, not Wilson, RG3. and he earned every bit of it.
Except for your blind homerism, nothing. But facts be damned. Why let them get in the way of a good story?So with all this laid out, and the fact that most people were willing to be blind to it... and the fact that he still won the award... what else is there to point to other than hype and marketing?
- Named offensive Team co-Captain (mid season)
- Earning that "C" by leading the Redskins to our first NFC East Division Title in 12 years and
- First Playoff Berth in 5 years.
- Named to Pro Bowl 2012 (Only non-specialist Rookie selected as either a Starter or Reserve -- A.Luck and R.Wilson were subsequently chosen as Alternates)
- Led the Skins to the 5th Best NFL Offense (YPG per NFL.com, 3rd highest in NFC, highest Rookie-led team)
- 3rd Best Passer Rating in NFL for 2012 regular season (behind only A.Rodgers and P.Manning highest for a Rookie)
- Set NFL Record for Highest Season Passer Rating by Rookie (held by Big Ben in 2004)
- Tied for Best Season Interception Rate in the NFL (tied for No. 1 with T.Brady)
- Set NFL Record for Best Season Interception Rate by Rookie (1.3 interception rate)
- Set NFL Record for Rushing Yards by Rookie QB (815 yards)
- First player in NFL history to compile 300-plus passing yards, two or more passing touchdowns and no interceptions in a record breaking NFL debut (vs. Saints in our season opener, finished with Passer Rating of 139.9)
- QB'd the NFL's 59th "Perfect Game" (perfect passer rating of 158.3) vs. the Eagles on Nov. 18, '12 (only 2nd Rookie ever to accomplish this in NFL history)
- Named 7 time Offensive Rookie of the Week in the 2012 season (most by any Rookie)
- Named 2 time Offensive Player of the Week in the 2012 season (most by any Rookie)
- Named 2 time Offensive Player of the Month in the 2012 season (most by any Rookie)
- Named 7 time Pepsi Rookie of the Week in the 2012 season (most by any Rookie)
- Named Sporting News Rookie of the Year 2012
- Named PFW/PFWA Rookie of the Year 2012
- Named AP NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year 2012
Last edited by vapacersfan; 02-06-2013, 07:05 PM.Comment
Tweet
Comment