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

Colts defense beats up Leftwich

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

  • Colts defense beats up Leftwich

    Updated: Sep. 18, 2005, 7:32 PM ET
    Colts defense beats up Leftwich



    By Len Pasquarelli
    ESPN.com
    Archive





    INDIANAPOLIS -- More than the numbers on the scoreboard, more than the statistical recap of a tense game, it was the heavily-bruised body of Jacksonville quarterback Byron Leftwich that served up the most graphic representation on Sunday afternoon of how well the Indianapolis Colts defense has performed in its first two outings of the season.

    Swathed in more ice than the body of Ted Williams, bearing huge discolored splotches and limping noticeably, Leftwich settled in front of a locker stall following a 10-3 defeat, looking like one oversized 250-pound welt. Had the Colts been charged with assault and battery by the local constabulary, the prosecutor would have only had to present a naked Leftwich to the jury, and deliberations would have lasted maybe 30 seconds.




    Dwight Freeney drills Byron Leftwich during the Colts' 10-3 win.


    He was bloodied, bowed and beaten by the belligerent Colts' pass rush. If the Colts' two first games of the season are any indication, Leftwich likely won't be the last quarterback to be swatted around like a human piƱata.

    The Indianapolis Colts, a team synonymous with great defense, right? As incongruous as it sounds, people might actually have to get accustomed to it.

    "This is what we want to do, hit the quarterback, you know?" said Colts defensive end Dwight Freeney, who collected one of the Colts' half-dozen sacks, and who absolutely planted Leftwich on several other occasions after he had released the ball. "Whatever it takes. I mean, I'll do cartwheels, back-flips, whatever I have to do to get to the passer. And with our group (of defensive linemen), once one guy gets a hit, then everybody else wants to get in on the action, too. Today, it was a like a heavyweight fight out there."

    That the Colts survived a close decision, the powerful Indianapolis offense held scoreless until the final nine minutes, was attributable far more to patience than potency. On the only touchdown drive of the game, Peyton Manning was essentially an expensive hitting tee for his tailbacks, holding the ball up for 14 runs on a 17-snap series. Facing a scheme divined by the Jacksonville coaches that usually dropped eight defenders into coverage, Manning completed just 13 of 28 passes for 122 yards.

    But on a day when the Colts' meager 10 points were the sixth-fewest that Indianapolis has scored since Manning arrived in 1998 -- and the second-fewest points in a victory during his 114-starts tenure -- the defense stepped up big. Usually because the unit kept stepping into Leftwich, who demonstrated remarkable courage in constantly picking himself up, inventorying his remaining body parts, and soldiering on. The bottom line, though, was that for all Leftwich's heart, the Jaguars scored just three points.

    So in two weeks, the oft-maligned Indianapolis defense, the component characteristically cited as being the element that has kept the Colts out of the Super Bowl, has permitted a scant 10 points. That includes the meaningless, last-minute touchdown Baltimore scored in the opening week after Ravens coach Brian Billick extended the game calling timeouts as the Colts tried to run out the clock.

    Continued...

    Updated: Sep. 18, 2005, 7:32 PM ET
    Colts defense beats up Leftwich (Cont.)





    "Not bad, huh, just 10 points in two games?" said Colts free safety Bob Sanders, who on Sunday cemented the win by swatting away Leftwich's pass intended for wide receiver Jimmy Smith as time expired. "I mean, it's only two games, but I really do feel like we are maturing as a unit. The pressure was on us today. Probably in the past, this was the kind of game we would have lost, because you always think our offense is going to put up 30 or more (points). But a win like this means something special to us. We're off to a really good start on defense."

    Fortunately, for the Colts, that is the case, because the high-octane offense isn't hitting yet on all cylinders. In the first halves of their two games, victories over the Ravens and Jaguars, the Colts have managed only three points. Overall, Indianapolis has just three offensive touchdowns, and Manning has throw for only two scores. The Colts have tallied just 34 points in two games. They scored at least 34 points eight times during the 2004 regular season.

    In what appears to be the new blueprint for attempting to slow the Indianapolis offense, the Jaguars deployed a three-man front on nearly half their 66 defensive snaps Sunday, and the strategy limited Manning to a 44.0 passer rating, the third lowest of his brilliant career. Only once in the game did Manning manage more than two straight completions against a Jacksonville secondary that backed off and played "Cover 2" liberally, and that didn't come until the fourth quarter, when he completed his final five passes.

    ā€œ"This is what we want to do, hit the quarterback, you know? Whatever it takes. I mean, I'll do cartwheels, back-flips, whatever I have to do to get to the passer. And with our group (of defensive linemen), once one guy gets a hit, then everybody else wants to get in on the action, too. Today, it was a like a heavyweight fight out there. ā€
    ā€” Dwight Freeney, Colts DE


    He didn't have consecutive completions until the final two minutes of the first half. His longest completion of the day was for 20 yards. And there were three stretches of three or more straight incompletions from Manning, who was uncharacteristically errant even in warm-ups, coach Tony Dungy revealed. On just three of their 10 offensive possessions did the Colts have the ball for more than six snaps.

    Still, except for an interception that killed off a promising opening possession, the Colts didn't turn the ball over. And sensing the soft spots in the Jacksonville three-man front, the always cerebral Manning went more to the run. The Colts finished with 146 yards on 38 rushes. Tailback Edgerrin James had 27 rushes for 128 yards, his first-ever 100-yard performance against the Jaguars. No. 4 tailback Ran Carthon scored the winning touchdown on a six-yard burst off the right side, when Manning audibled out of a pass play he originally called in the huddle.

    Coming off his record-setting campaign of 2004, when he tossed 49 touchdown passes, Manning acknowledged Sunday evening that he had "a little talk" with himself during the offseason. The upshot of his inner dialogue: All he wants this season is enough victories to get to a Super Bowl. The other things will take care of themselves.

    "It got to the point last year, where I was a three-question man," Manning said. "All anyone asked was: 'Can you sign an autograph? How many touchdowns are you going to throw? When are you guys going to beat New England?' There's more to it, I know now, than those things."

    There is much more to the Indianapolis defense now, too, than a year ago. For one thing, this is Dungy's fourth season here, and the players who have been with him during that time have become considerably more comfortable in the scheme. Dungy and Ron Meeks, the Colts' defensive coordinator, have more of the type of players they need to play a scheme predicated on speed and quickness. And the Colts possess a defensive front that loves to pin its ears back and rush the quarterback on third-and-long.

    Colts linemen, who basically play their one-gap, upfield techniques on every snap, kept shooting into the Jacksonville backfield, as if launched from the starting blocks in a sprint to see who could arrive first at the target in the pocket.

    Defensive tackle Montae Reagor, who didn't play in the opener, had three sacks. Raheem Brock, the starting left end who usually moves inside to tackle on third down, Freeney and "nickel" end Robert Mathis had one each. About the only thing the line didn't do, Dungy pointed out, was recover any of the three fumbles it forced on a day when the Jags put the ball on the turf six times.

    "Looking at this team from the outside, you might not realize just how good the defensive line is," said new tackle Corey Simon, who unofficially played 26 snaps and who forced a fumble. "But they all get off the ball and they're all very active guys. It's a good, young defense that is going to keep getting better."

    Those should be ominous words for the rest of the AFC since it's a given the Indianapolis offense isn't going to be contained every week. The statistics from Sunday's game might not necessarily show it, since the Colts surrendered 303 yards, but this is a unit capable of keeping people out of the end zone. As Meeks noted, many of the yards Baltimore rang up in the opener were "garbage" yards at the end of the game. So while the Colts might not be very high in the league rankings, it seems they are rising to pretty lofty heights.

    "This is the kind of game that, in the past, we might have lost," conceded Freeney, who may now be the NFL's most accomplished pass rusher, given that he just keeps spinning to the quarterback and never quits moving his feet. "Maybe before, we would just have folded in this game, but this time we finished if off."



    And, in so doing, nearly finished off Leftwich as well. Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com. To check out Len's chat archive, click here .

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...=2165628&num=2


    Why Not Us ?


  • #2
    Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

    "Whatever it takes. I mean, I'll do cartwheels, back-flips, whatever I have to do to get to the passer."


    hahahah

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

      That is an excellent article. I actually learned a thing or two

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

        I know that this is only the second week of the season but I think the entire Colt's D should get MIP.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

          He and Clayton are quite good really. One of the few things left at ESPN worth enjoying...
          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

            Yeah, I generally enjoy Lenny P. and J. Clay. They're probably the most knowledgable guys on ESPN.

            Great article. I love how our defense is getting so much POSITIVE attention for a change.
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

              I like the guy, but Clayton's voice kind of annoys me. He is a quality analyst though.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

                The coverage for the NFL is so much better than it is for the NBA. They actually discuss the games. Across the board the difference is night and day. Even ESPN has pretty good NFL coverage.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

                  I think it's because there are fewer NFL games than NBA games hence more time to give them indepth discussion. Plus, popularity which is much greater for the NFL probably factors in in how much time the networks give them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Colts defense beats up Leftwich

                    Originally posted by t1hs0n
                    "Whatever it takes. I mean, I'll do cartwheels, back-flips, whatever I have to do to get to the passer."


                    hahahah

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X