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

Insider Request.....

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

  • Insider Request.....

    ESPN.com: NFL

    Friday, October 28, 2005
    Pending free agency, health creating concern at RB

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By Len Pasquarelli
    ESPN.com

    So, you want to play general manager for a day, do you? Well, then, put yourself behind the desk of Ted Thompson of Green Bay or his Baltimore counterpart, Ozzie Newsome, and start trying to determine exactly what to do about your team's unsettled running back situation beyond this season.


    Thompson and Newsome aren't the only personnel chiefs with question marks dangling over their backfields for 2006. Their cohorts in Indianapolis (retain Edgerrin James or allow him to walk), Seattle (ditto with Shaun Alexander), Philadelphia (big money for a guy who gets as few carries as does Brian Westbrook?), and the New York Jets (with Curtis Martin suddenly looking all of his 32 years), among others, also face tough decisions in the backfield after this year.


    But the situations in Baltimore and in Green Bay are particularly dicey ones, given recent developments with the two franchises and their franchise runners.


    Ahman Green
    Running Back
    Green Bay Packers

    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    Rush Yds TD Rec Yds TD
    77 255 0 19 147 0

    The Packers lost starter Ahman Green for the rest of the 2005 campaign to a quadriceps injury this week. An eight-year veteran, Green is slated for unrestricted free agency in March, at which point he will be 29 years old, basically in his NFL dotage by running back standards. Over the past five seasons, Green has averaged 293.4 rushing attempts and 349.8 touches, and that kind of workload wears a lot of tread off the tires. So can the Packers even make Green, who might not be fully rehabilitated when the free agent market opens in the spring, a viable contract offer?


    Probably not. Unless, of course, it's incentive-laden and loaded with all kinds of protections to diminish the team's financial exposure.


    Here, though, is the rub: The heir apparent to Green's starting spot, Najeh Davenport, an intriguing four-year veteran whose name is popular on the trade rumor mill, is also slated for unfettered free agency. To complicate matters even further, Davenport is also on the injured reserve list, with a broken ankle. And how about this: Tony Fisher, who will get the second start of his four-year career on Sunday, and who has assumed the No. 1 role by default, is in the final season of his contract, too.


    So, who plays tailback for the Packers in 2006? Who knows?


    The situation in Baltimore, where each of the top two tailbacks on the depth chart are both eligible for unrestricted free agency in March, is equally murky. Jamal Lewis, who only two years ago rushed for more than 2,000 yards, is currently averaging an anemic 2.9 yards per carry, and nearly 25 percent of his attempts have netted zero or negative yardage. The whispers are that Lewis, who spent four months this offseason in a federal corrections facility as part of a plea bargain on drug charges, and who had surgery on his ankle, is miffed that the Ravens haven't re-upped him with a fat extension.


    Chester Taylor, who is earning a cool $3 million this season as the backup, is regarded as a nice No. 2 tailback and a talented, if underrated, runner. But although Taylor has performed well when called upon to start, he has never registered more than 160 carries in a season. Assuming quarterback Kyle Boller is still, well, Kyle Boller in '06, the Ravens will need to remain a tailback-centric offense. For now, there is no tailback playing like the guy for the present, let alone the go-to back for the future.


    The NFL mind-set traditionally has been that every team covets stability at quarterback and that certainly remains a constant. Every general manager and coach wants the luxury of being able to look two or three seasons into the future and know that their quarterback position is solid. It's important, as well, to plan ahead at tailback and some teams can barely look a week or two ahead, much less a year or more.


    Because of injuries and general attrition and contract ramifications, about half of the league's franchises might have some degree of uncertainty at tailback by the end of this season. That's an unusually large number, even for a spot with the lowest average career shelf-life of any position in the league, a position in which the physical toll makes players old long before they should be. For the general managers or personnel directors of those teams, all the unsettledness has to be pretty unsettling.


    Around the league

    Julius Jones
    Running Back
    Dallas Cowboys

    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    Rush Yds TD Rec Yds TD
    112 407 3 12 82 0

    • One tailback whose durability was brought into question this week by his own coach is Julius Jones of Dallas, who almost certainly will be sidelined for a third straight game this weekend by a high ankle sprain. It's never good when Bill Parcells starts wondering about the long-term viability of his workhorse back, but The Tuna this week pointed out that Jones will have missed 11½ of 24 games in two seasons, if he doesn't line up against the Arizona Cardinals on Sunday afternoon.
    "You got to be a little concerned," Parcells said. Clearly, there was a message being dispatched by Parcells, a master at pushing the right buttons with his players. Truth be told, though, Parcells questioned how durable Jones might be even before he chose him in the second round of the 2004 draft. At Notre Dame, where injuries dogged him, Jones played just one full season as a starter. No one has ever questioned his toughness -- just his ability to stay on the field -- and Parcells has been around long enough to know that there are some players who just seem to get hurt a lot. When one of those players is essentially the centerpiece of your offense, though, it's an exacerbated problem.

    Jones can be a special back, one who is a perennial 1,200- or 1,400-yard rusher, but not if he isn't on the field. If there is a shred of positive news for the Cowboys, it is that rookie tailback Marion Barber, a fourth-round draft pick, might be ready to pick up the slack. In camp, one Dallas assistant told us that should Jones go down with an injury, Barber, the son of a former NFL tailback, would be the starter. What happened between then and the beginning of the season, we don't know, but it was former league offensive rookie of the year Anthony Thomas and undrafted free agent rookie Tyson Thompson who got most of the carries after Jones was first injured. Barber had a very solid game in last week's gut-wrenching loss at Seattle, though, and could be the starter this weekend. By the way, it's not just the absence of Jones the past two weeks that has slowed the Dallas offense. In Jones' five starts, the Dallas tailbacks averaged 30.8 carries and 107.2 rushing yards per game. In the last two outings, with Jones out of uniform, the average is 119.0 rushing yards and 34.5 carries.



    • If you don't want Bill Parcells questioning your durability, you sure as heck don't want him forgetting your name. So perhaps new Cowboys kicker Shaun Suisham, a rookie from Bowling Green who this week replaced the deposed Jose Cortez as the placement specialist, might want to sign just a week-to-week lease on his Irving, Texas, apartment. Parcells referred to Suisham as "Scott" this week. If the youngster doesn't satisfy Parcells any more than Cortez did, he might soon be referred to as the Cowboys' latest ex-kicker. Don't be surprised if the Cowboys don't soon come full-circle and arrive back at the guy who was supposed to be their kicker this season, three-year veteran Billy Cundiff, who sustained a partially torn quadriceps in preseason and was then released with an injury settlement. League rules stipulate that, because of the settlement, the Cowboys cannot re-sign Cundiff until Week 10 of the season. The only problem is that, by then, they could face some competition for his services. Or, worse, he could be signed elsewhere. Cundiff, 25, is apprising teams that he is fully recovered now and available for workouts. In three years with Dallas, he converted 55 of 74 field goal attempts (74.3 percent), including 20 of 26 in 2004, and hit all but one of his 87 extra-point tries.


    • While on the subject of kickers, the timing was a little strange, but Philadelphia's release of Todd France this week, and claiming of Jose Cortez off waivers, apparently signals the impending return of Eagles standout David Akers. One of the league's premier kickers, Akers has been sidelined by a severe hamstring injury for the past three games, but is said to have made excellent progress the past two weeks. He won't return for Sunday's contest at Denver, but could be back for the crucial Nov. 6 game at Washington. Even when Akers returns, it's possible the Eagles will retain Cortez to handle the kickoff chores. The itinerant Cortez has a strong leg and having him around to kick off will take some strain off Akers and perhaps diminish the odds of a recurring hamstring problem. France had made six of seven field goal tries, including his last six in a row, but was struggling on kickoffs. And with the Philadelphia special teams units having an uncharacteristically poor season, and the Eagles needing every edge they can get in a year in which they are being tested in a division they've basically owned the past four seasons, kickoff coverage came under heavy scrutiny. France's average kickoff was 60.6 yards, meaning he was barely getting the ball inside the opponents' 10-yard line, and the average return against him was 25.1 yards. By the way, counting position players who have been forced into action because of injuries for either placements (linebacker Mark Simoneau) or on kickoffs (deep snapper Mike Bartrum), the Eagles will have used five different kickers when Cortez suits up.


    • Now it can be told: When safety Quintin Mikell broke through the right side of the San Diego field goal unit last Sunday afternoon, and blocked a Nate Kaeding attempt that was then recovered by teammate Matt Ware and returned 65 yards for the game-winning touchdown, the Philadelphia Eagles had only 10 players on the field. Special teams coordinator John Harbaugh finally conceded Thursday that the folks who scrutinized the tape of the miraculous field goal block, and counted just 10 defenders, were correct. So one of the most improbable plays in recent league history came with Philadelphia one player short. And that player was defensive tackle Darwin Walker who, for some reason, felt the Chargers were going to punt rather than attempt a field goal, and ran off the field because he isn't on the punt return unit. Just before the field goal try, Walker realized his mistake and considered running onto the field, but thought he might be penalized for being offsides, so he remained on the bench. And, from there, he had a pretty good view of Ware sprinting down the left sideline with the recovery. "He realized his error," Harbaugh said, "and then had to make the determination, 'If I run back, maybe I'll be offside.' So, we give him credit for making a wise choice at that point."


    Sedrick Hodge
    Linebacker
    New Orleans Saints

    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    Tot Ast Solo FF Sack Int
    18 12 6 0 0 0

    • It has been nearly three weeks now since the Oct. 9 broadcast report that New Orleans starting strong-side linebacker Sedrick Hodge faced a one-year suspension for a repeat violation of the NFL substance abuse policy. The five-year pro hasn't been suspended yet, though, and, guess what? Unless he experiences another misstep, he won't be. Maybe he ought to change his name to Sedrick Dodge because, in the rare bit of good news for the Saints this season, ESPN.com confirmed that Hodge has won his appeal. Hodge was to have been suspended, not because he was flagged for a positive test, but because he failed to show up for a test. According to league policy, missing a test is tantamount to failing one, and Hodge was already a repeat offender and subject to a one-year sanction. But Hodge and his attorney successfully argued that he did not receive notification of the pending test, in part because he was on a cruise. Part of the strength of the NFL policy is its rigidity. In the case of Hodge, though, that was a deterrent. Hodge convinced the league that he couldn't show up for a scheduled test that he knew nothing about, and so he dodged the suspension bullet. A third-round choice in the 2001 draft, the repentant Hodge has vowed not to slip again, and he needs to keep that promise to stay out of trouble. Hodge has started every game this season and has 19 tackles.


    • For all the rhetoric about the possible relocation of the Saints, and the potential that they could end up eventually filling the league's void in Los Angeles, a red flag was raised in Jacksonville, Fla., this week that suggested it might be the Jaguars heading for the West Coast. Senior vice president Bill Prescott, angered by the city's decision Tuesday to preclude the team from operating its electronic signage at Alltel Stadium during Saturday's annual Florida-Georgia college game, used pretty strong language to contend the franchise might be forced to relocate. "We're not interested in going," Prescott said. "We're interested in making it [here]. In 10 years, this is going to be a great NFL market. We want to bridge the gap, but if the city intends to not allow us to generate additional revenue, and to take revenue away that we're using today, we're not going to be able to bridge the gap. The indications we're getting is that they want us to move. If they want us to move, just ask. If you're cutting off our revenue source, any responsible person would sit here and say, 'What are they trying to tell you?' They're trying to tell you to move."
    No doubt, some of Prescott's vent is posturing. But the city and the franchise have been warring for some time now over stadium revenue issues and who controls the revenues from signage at the stadium. The city council is expected to pass an amendment in two weeks that would ensure the city and the Gator Bowl will share revenue at non-Jaguars events designated by Jacksonville officials. The city is also demanding from the team a payment of $2.7 million for money generated by Super Bowl XXXIX and claims the Jaguars have breached their lease by selling naming rights for club-seating portions of the stadium. A story posted on the team's Web site at mid-week stated, "This town could lose this team. That's a fact." Prescott contended that the Jaguars, who he said ranked next-to-last in the league in ticket revenues, could lose money this season for the third time in five years and said the loss of stadium-related revenues would have "a dramatic financial impact" on the franchise.



    • Whether you agree with the guy's methods and track record or not, ailing St. Louis Rams coach Mike Martz did a prudent thing this week, announcing he will not return to the team for the balance of the season and will instead concentrate on his health. After all, Martz isn't coming back to St. Louis in 2006, either (yeah, we're joining a burgeoning chorus on that one), and any team interested in hiring him after his divorce from the Rams is finalized will want assurances that there won't be a reoccurrence of the heart infection that has currently sidelined him. What's that? You say no NFL team is going to be in a hurry to hire Martz, whose team has been a lot of flash and dash and glitz under his stewardship, but who hasn't won't a Super Bowl title? Not true. We disagree with the pundits who have suggested there could be 9-12 head coach vacancies after this season. But with only three changes in 2005 -- in San Francisco, Miami and Cleveland -- it figures to be a pretty hectic hiring-and-firing season on the horizon. And who is going to fill all the openings? In some precincts, Martz, his quirks aside, might be a pretty attractive candidate.
    You think some of the young, struggling quarterbacks around the NFL wouldn't benefit from his tutelage? Think again. There is little doubt that he will be available. In the last three or four years, the St. Louis front office has been at odds, filled with a lot of people with divergent agendas, pulling in a lot of different ways. There has been a ton of internecine bickering, backstabbing and palace intrigue, none of it very good for a franchise that possessed talent but could never get things straightened out. One of the team's two presidents, John Shaw, has essentially been an absentee manager. The other, Jay Zygmunt, has been working without a contract. The battles between general manager Charley Armey and Martz were the NFL's poorest kept secret. Martz overreached at times, but he did what every NFL coach eventually does, seeking more control over his own destiny. Maybe he'll have more influence at his next stop.

    One more item on the coaching front: There's been a lot of speculation this week about the possibility that Charlie Weis will exit Notre Dame after just one season to return to the NFL as a head coach. Who knows, the speculation might eventually be true, as Weis is free to depart with just a $1.5 million buyout. But according to league people we trust, Weis ranks no better than third among college coaches who will be attractive to NFL teams seeking to make a change. That seems a bit low given that Weis has won Super Bowls with New England, but folks contend that Pete Carroll of Southern California and Iowa's Kirk Ferentz are higher on most wish-lists.



    • We're certainly not accomplished enough with words to even remotely approximate some of the eloquence written in memory of the late New York Giants president/CEO Wellington Mara this week. So a brief anecdote instead: In 2004, when the Giants hired head coach Tom Coughlin, he accepted the job without ever having interviewed with Mara about it. Coughlin instead met with executive vice president John Mara and general manager Ernie Accorsi. Two points to be made here, each of which illustrates Wellington Mara's greatness. First, he believed in the people in whom he had essentially placed stewardship of his beloved franchise to make a good choice. No need for him to meddle. Second, and nearly as significant, the fastidious Coughlin knew enough about Wellington Mara, for whom he had previously worked as an assistant, to realize that he would have the full support of an owner who wasn't even part of the interview process. They still tell tales in Cincinnati, where Coughlin was a candidate for the position that subsequently was awarded to Marvin Lewis in 2003, about how much control of the organization he sought. If the stories are true, the detail-oriented Coughlin even wanted to be able to choose the groundskeeper. There were no such demands in New York, in large part because Coughlin knew a team owned by Wellington Mara would provide him with what he needed to win.


    • Because of the death of Wellington Mara, the league postponed a meeting that had been scheduled for next week in Kansas City, a discussion at which the still-lingering and critical issues of an extension to the collective bargaining agreement and a new revenue sharing model would have again been notable items on the agenda. The meeting has been reset for Nov. 15-16, still in Kansas City, which will provide owners two more weeks to mull over those issues, each of which reaches right to the heart of the NFL's preeminence as the greatest sports entity in history. Just a suggestion but, in those two weeks, perhaps some of the owners might do well to dwell on Mara's legacy as a gentleman who often sacrificed the good of his franchise for the overall well-being of the league.


    • With salary cap room to spare, the San Diego Chargers made two solid moves this week, signing left offensive tackle Roman Oben and fullback Lorenzo Neal to two-year contract extensions each. The two deals cost the Chargers, who exercised considerable foresight with the extensions, only $900,000 total in upfront money. Neal, who was in the final season of his contract, received a $500,000 signing bonus, along with base salaries of $750,000 each for 2006 and 2007.
    The applause you hear in the background is coming from tailback LaDainian Tomlinson, who knows that Neal, one of the NFL's premier lead blockers, is like money in the bank when it comes to clearing the way for 1,000-yard rushers. Assuming Tomlinson doesn't fall down an open manhole, this will mark the ninth season in a row in which Neal has blocked for a 1,000-yard tailback. He escorted Tomlinson, of course, in 2003-2004, Corey Dillon in Cincinnati (2001-2002), Eddie George in Tennessee (1999-2000), Warrick Dunn in Tampa Bay (1998) and Adrian Murrell with the New York Jets (1997).

    Oben's two-year, $2 million extension, through the 2008 campaign, looks like a steal for San Diego, but also hints at the team's thinking for the 10-year veteran tackle. Oben, who has played well for the Chargers, and started in all 23 games since he was acquired via a trade with Tampa Bay last summer, received a signing bonus of $400,000 and base salaries of $800,000 each for 2007 and 2008. He will earn $1.1 million this season and $1.2 million the next. But by the time the extension part of the deal kicks in for 2007, Oben, who goes into this weekend with 129 career starts, probably will be a backup. He'll be 35 years old then, but still a nice insurance policy, a terrific character presence in the locker room and, with the modest extension, a backup with a very palatable price tag. And, if by chance Oben beats the odds and advancing age, and is still a starter two seasons down the road, he'll really be a bargain at the extension price. Nice job, indeed, by Chargers management.



    LaMont Jordan
    Running Back
    Oakland Raiders

    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    Rush Yds TD Rec Yds TD
    115 432 7 30 245 1

    • A few Oakland players indicated to us this week that, for the team to continue the progress is made on offense last Sunday, coach Norv Turner needs to keep feeding the ball to tailback LaMont Jordan. The squeaky wheel -- Jordan had publicly complained last week about his lack of carries -- certainly got oiled in last Sundays' win over Buffalo, and the consensus is that the brutish running back is a key to the club's offense. In the 38-17 win, Jordan had season highs in rushing attempts (28) and total touches (32), and totaled 162 yards from scrimmage. Going into the game, Jordan had logged only 87 carries in five contests and just once, when he rushed 26 times for 126 yards against the Dallas Cowboys, posted more than 20 attempts. In the other four games outside of the Dallas encounter, Jordan averaged a mere 15.3 rushes. Before Sunday's game, Jordan was on pace for 278 carries. On Sunday afternoon, Turner stepped up that pace, and Jordan, a guy who runs heavy and has the potential to erode defenses with the more carries he logs, stepped up his performance.
    • After several drafts with strong defensive tackle classes, the 2006 lottery could be the second in a row that is weak at the key interior position. There is word, however, that Oregon junior Haloti Ngata is strongly considering making himself available for the '06 draft, and his presence would considerably bolster the quality of the tackle prospects. Ngata is a shade under 6-foot-4, weighs 330 pounds and has excellent movement and pursuit skills, scouts say. He plays the run tough and can provide some inside push on the pocket in the passing game. Ngata is getting double-teams virtually every week, and still enters this weekend with 38 tackles, seven tackles for losses, three sacks, seven pressures and three pass deflections. If he does bypass his final season of college eligibility to go into the draft, some scouts feel he would be taken in the first half of the opening round and perhaps in the top 10.


    • If the Cincinnati Bengals are going to contend for their first division title since 1990, the defense is going to have to play markedly better against the run. And that might be tough if, as expected, safety Madieu Williams is lost for the rest of the season after surgery this week to repair a torn labrum in his left shoulder. As noted in this space in recent weeks, and about other defenses struggling against the ground game, safeties are key in supporting against the run, and the unheralded Williams was big for the Bengals in that regard. In the first three games of the season, with Williams in the lineup, Cincinnati surrendered an average of only 92.7 rushing yards per game and just one team ran for more than 100 yards. The Bengals allowed an average of 4.6 yards per rush and two touchdowns. With the former University of Maryland player out of the lineup, the Bengals defense has allowed 161.5 rushing yards per game. Cincinnati permitted more than 100 rushing yards in each of those contests, with two opponents running for more than 180 yards, including last Sunday's loss, when the Steelers trampled the Bengals with 221 yards on the ground. The Bengals have allowed an average of 4.9 yards per rush in Williams' absence.


    David Carr
    Quarterback
    Houston Texans

    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    Att Comp Yds TD Int Rat
    142 85 523 5 5 71.6

    • Want to know just how bad the Houston Texans' offense has been? Well, we went through all six play-by-play books for the winless Texans, broke down every offensive possession, and came up with some predictably dismal statistics. Discounting those series in which Houston was simply trying to run out the clock, and the kickoff return for a touchdown by rookie Jerome Mathis last week (which technically does not represent an offensive series), the Texans have had 52 offensive possessions so far in 2005. And only six of those possessions, using our standards, were "clean" ones. A "clean" possession, by our definition, is one that does not include a fumble (lost or recovered), interception, sack, penalty or negative-yardage play. Only in the opening day defeat at Buffalo did the Texans have more than one "clean" possession in a game. In the Oct. 2 loss at Cincinnati, they had none. There has been at least one sack on 25 of the 52 possessions and multiple sacks -- including last week, versus Indianapolis, when embattled quarterback David Carr was sacked three times on one series -- on seven of them. Houston has multiple miscues, in general, on 23 offensive series. That includes nine series with at least three errors each and one possession with an amazing four botches.


    • Unless the Texans get things in gear, and maybe it will help that they play Cleveland on Sunday, they could establish a new record for biggest average losing margin during a 16-game schedule. Houston has been outscored 179-74 through six games, an average loss of 17.5 points. Projected over a full season, the Texans' scoring differential, at the current rate, would be a whopping minus-280 points. Since 1978, when the NFL adopted the 16-game schedule, there have been 101 teams that had negative differentials of at least 100 points. Thirty-six clubs in that period had negative differentials of 160 points or more, an average of at least 10 points per contest. But the closest anyone has come to the pace the Texans are setting was the 1990 New England Patriots, who surrendered 265 more points than they scored. The other nine seasons, excluding strike years, in which teams posted a negative differential of 200 or more points: Baltimore in 1981 (274), Cleveland in 2000 (258), Indianapolis in 1991 (238), Cleveland in 1990 (234), Tampa Bay in 1986 (234), Arizona in 2000 (233), Arizona in 2003 (227), Minnesota in 1984 (208) and Buffalo in 1984 (204).


    • Another week and another set of quarterback changes. In Tampa Bay, Chris Simms assumes the starting job, presumably for the rest of the season, for the injured Brian Griese. Ken Dorsey will start for San Francisco for the injured Alex Smith. And Steve McNair returns to the lineup for Tennessee after missing last week's game. Following this weekend, teams will have used 45 different starters, a fairly large number for such an early juncture of the season. Two teams, San Francisco and the Jets, will have employed three different starters each. And there will be more changes, for sure, in the coming weeks. In Cleveland, rookie Charlie Frye is going to get a start or two at some point and it seems only a matter of time until Sage Rosenfels gets at least a cameo in Miami. The quarterback carousel, for sure, is spinning wildly.


    • Stat of the week: When the Philadelphia Eagles and San Diego Chargers combined for a paltry 45 rushing yards last Sunday, it represented the third-fewest combined yards on the ground in league history. The only games with lower combined rushing yards: The Detroit Lions and Chicago Cardinals had an aggregate minus-15 rushing yards in a 1943 contest and the Lions and Chicago Bears totaled minus-four yards in a game in 1940. With just 34 rushing attempts between them, the Eagles and Broncos tied the NFL record for fewest carries in a game, matching a 1993 contest between the Atlanta Falcons and the Houston Oilers and an Atlanta-San Francisco game in 1995.


    • Punts: There are rumblings that University of Hawaii coach June Jones, a former head coach with the Falcons and the Lions and one of the game's best offensive minds, would listen to offers to return to the NFL, even as a coordinator. Jones resuscitated the program at Hawaii and has become a iconic figure in the islands. But he might have taken the program, which continues to run a financial deficit, about as far as he possibly can … When New England placed Tyrone Poole on injured reserve earlier this week, ostensibly creating a roster spot for the return of linebacker Tedy Bruschi, it probably marked the end of the veteran cornerback's Patriots tenure. Poole played in just five games in 2004 and made just one appearance this season before sustaining an ankle injury. He is due compensation of $2 million for 2006, including a $500,000 roster bonus that is payable in March, and the Patriots aren't likely to bring him back. Poole will be 34 in February … Washington wide receiver Santana Moss, who is having a brilliant season, already has as many receptions for 30 yards or more (10) as the entire Redskins team did for all of 2004 … Baltimore quarterback Kyle Boller, sidelined since the opener by an ankle injury, ran the scout team for the Ravens this week, could be the No. 3 quarterback Monday night at Pittsburgh, and might be back in the lineup soon. By the way, the top two quarterbacks on the Ravens' depth chart for the prime time game at Pittsburgh, starter Anthony Wright and backup Kordell Stewart, are both former Steelers players … There was no official admonishment from the NFL, but folks in the league hierarchy weren't exactly thrilled when the television cameras captured Atlanta coach Jim Mora doing smelling salts with some players on the Falcons sideline Monday night … For all the improvement that the Denver defense has made this season, and all the hype the team has received for the performances of the four castoff defensive linemen that it acquired from the Cleveland Browns, the Broncos have only eight sacks … Defensive end Derrick Burgess, who signed with Oakland after Philadelphia didn't try very hard to keep him as an unrestricted free agent, has seven sacks. The Philadelphia defensive ends, on the flip side, have just three sacks combined. Always a solid outside rusher, Burgess has rounded out his game and enhanced his sack total by mastering some inside counter moves … Buffalo has no immediate plans to sign Rohan Davey, but the Bills were very impressed by the veteran free agent quarterback during a Tuesday workout … Their offense hasn't produced as well as they had hoped, but the Carolina Panthers are more than satisfied with the move of offensive tackle Jordan Gross back to the right side. Gross struggled in 2004, during his first season at left tackle, and first-year starter Travelle Wharton has played well enough on the weak side this year to allow the former first-rounder to stay at his more natural position … Jerry Rice sent some backdoor signals to Green Bay officials this week that he might consider unretiring to help the Packers with their current shortage of bodies at wide receiver. The Packers brass, however, demonstrated no interest … Based on their success last week, and the production that the scheme got from linebacker LaVar Arrington, look for the Redskins to continue using the 3-4 front in Sunday's big NFC East contest against the Giants, and to possibly expand its deployment a bit.


    • The last word: "I think it's somebody who got pissed off for us losing to Detroit [last Sunday]. They've got a little pull in Vegas. Too bad I'm not a gambler. I'd go with the underdog." -- Cleveland fullback Terrelle Smith on the Browns being underdogs against the winless Houston Texans this week.

    Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com. To check out Len's chat archive, click here .



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731
Working...
X