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

Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

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

  • #46
    Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

    Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
    Edge made the offense high powered because he could run and catch the ball. Addai was good, but didn't tun the ball hard enough and Rhodes was more of a short field running back

    Again, I would never say that they were as good as Edge. I'm just saying that they got the job done and that our running game was fine in 2006 and in the bulk of 2007. It wasn't until 08 that the running game began to look poor.

    We still had a good line in 06. That definitely helped.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

      The thing with Edge was he seemed to always get positive yardage, and almost always got a yard or two after he got hit. Addai and Brown so often only got a yard, or even stopped for negative yardage, usually getting pushed back rather than falling forward like edge.

      I can't remember what game it was, but the team was dropping 8 back to deal with Manning. And Addai was still struggling to get yards. I know the line was bad, but you shouldn't need a perfectly clear path to pick up 4 yards.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        I always felt like Edge was carrying his load on offense, he was a true stud that had to be accounted for... whereas Addai got his yards/TDs because defenses were so keyed on Peyton and the passing game. It was sort of an afterthought/nuisance for opposing defenses --- "Stop Peyton, Stop Peyton, Stop Peyton --- oh dammit, we had 8 guys back in coverage and forgot about Addai and he rattled off a 15-yarder, and now we gotta stick a guy in run support for a play or two to keep them honest --- Stop Peyton Stop Peyton Stop Peyton".
        This was my point. Sure, those guys put up some decent numbers earlier rather than later. But they did it because after James left, the top ten defensive priorities when facing the Colts were:

        1. Stop Peyton
        2. Stop Peyton
        3. Stop Peyton
        4. Stop Peyton
        5. Stop Harrison
        6. Stop Peyton
        7. Stop Wayne
        8. Stop Peyton
        9. Stop Clark
        10. Stop Peyton

        So there was a gulf to run into. As I said above, you couldn't play a dime defense against the Colts when James was there - you respected what he could do. You could play a dime defense agains the other guys because you weren't that worried about them and occasionally shift back into a nickel if it seemed the Colts were going to go after the soft spot in the dime.

        The Steelers went into that game in January of 2006 hoping to stop the run so that the Colts would become a one dimensional passing team. That's always Dick LeBeau's #1 goal - take away the run so that the opponent is forced to pass. That's well documented and the Colts voluntarily made themselves one dimensional.

        The Colts last eight offensive plays from scrimmage were a thing of defensive beauty. We were dialed up and ready to blitz, and I believe we just barely missed a sack/ had a "QB pressure" on the 3rd and 16 play.

        1. 1-10-IND 18 (2:31) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass to E.James to IND 20 for 2 yards (K.von Oelhoffen).
        2. Two-Minute Warning
        3. 2-8-IND 20 (2:00) (Shotgun) P.Manning sacked at IND 12 for -8 yards (J.Porter).
        4. 3-16-IND 12 (1:33) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete to B.Stokley.
        5. 4-16-IND 12 (1:27) (Shotgun) P.Manning sacked at IND 2 for -10 yards (sack split by J.Porter and J.Farrior).
        6. Pittsburgh Steelers at 01:20
        7. 1-2-IND 2 (1:20) J.Bettis up the middle to IND 4 for -2 yards (G.Brackett). FUMBLES (G.Brackett), RECOVERED by IND-N.Harper at IND 7. N.Harper to IND 42 for 35 yards (B.Roethlisberger, J.Tuman).
        8. Indianapolis Colts at 01:01
        9. 1-10-IND 42 (1:01) P.Manning pass to R.Wayne to PIT 36 for 22 yards (B.McFadden, T.Polamalu).
        10. 1-10-PIT 36 (:39) P.Manning pass to M.Harrison to PIT 28 for 8 yards (I.Taylor).
        11. Timeout #1 by IND at 00:31.
        12. 2-2-PIT 28 (:31) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete to R.Wayne (B.McFadden).
        13. 3-2-PIT 28 (:25) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete to R.Wayne.
        14. Timeout #1 by PIT at 00:21.
        15. 4-2-PIT 28 (:21) M.Vanderjagt 46 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-J.Snow, Holder-H.Smith. PENALTY on IND-M.Vanderjagt, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, 15 yards, enforced at PIT 36.



        Plus, it's not like we got blown out. We were a missed FG away from going into OT, so the comeback would have been complete had it not been for Vanderjagt's miss.
        And its a good thing the comeback was incomplete, since eight of those points occurred just a couple of plays after the blown call on the "incomplete" pass:

        http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playof...ory?id=2294309

        = = = = = = =

        My purpose is not to rehash that game. Even though I enjoyed all of it except for the play in the link above. But those that have been around here know that I've said many times that Manning-the-offensive-coordinator was Manning-the-QB's worst enemy that day. My point in this thread is to remind of the context behind my statement that I believe he's learned his lesson on balance. If you don's see the play-calling errors of that game then the context doesn't matter to you. That's fine.

        This isn't the National Passing League (although just think how crazy he would be under the Canadian rules/ in the CFL), this is regular tackle football and is still a 22-man game that requires balance and tradeoffs among all six dimensions (passing offense, passing defense, rushing offense, rushing defense, coverage, and returns). Denver whooped us Sunday night because they were not one dimensional. They ran 27 times for 90+ yards and picked up eight first down on the ground. That's running the ball when you need to. 26 pass attempts and 2 sacks mean there were 27 rushing plays and 28 passing plays. Can't argue for better balance than that! My team, on the other hand, is no longer the poster child for balance and had 26 rushes (for only 2 first downs and 4 TFL's, YUCK!! That's not running the ball when you need to) and 45 passing plays (including five sacks).

        Barf. Just barf. That's how you can win ToP 35 minutes to 25 minutes but still lose by two scores.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

          the top ten defensive priorities when facing the Colts were:

          1. Keep Peyton and offense on bench and away from the football
          2. Stop Peyton
          3. Stop Peyton
          4. Stop Peyton
          5. Stop Harrison
          6. Stop Peyton
          7. Stop Wayne
          8. Stop Peyton
          9. Stop Clark
          10. Stop Peyton
          Fixed
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

            I am just tired of seeing one team being the standard or the litmus test for "good football"...
            Edit Signature

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              Fixed
              I'll buy that.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Fixed
                The Steelers did it for most of the 3rd Q and yet Manning only needed 36 seconds to get a TD go figure.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  The Steelers did it for most of the 3rd Q and yet Manning only needed 36 seconds to get a TD go figure.
                  Well, just like Luck's 1st pass for a TD was poo-pooed for how it happened, let's not exactly say that 'Manning' got a TD in 36 seconds. Let's say that Denver did.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    The Steelers did it for most of the 3rd Q and yet Manning only needed 36 seconds to get a TD go figure.
                    While that is true, Manning isn't going to average a TD every 36 secs, or anything close to that. Teams that are able to manage the clock and keep Manning off the field put a lot of pressure on not only Manning, but the entire team.

                    What Indianapolis couldn't do was stop a team from managing the clock. Although this one series might say otherwise, most believe Denver has the tools to negate a team's ability this season to keep the ball away from Manning.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Well, just like Luck's 1st pass for a TD was poo-pooed for how it happened, let's not exactly say that 'Manning' got a TD in 36 seconds. Let's say that Denver did.

                      I don't get how Luck's first TD was discredited he still got it just like Manning. My point is that the 3 Q reminded me of that game the Fins/Colts had three years ago on MNF where Manning made the most of the TOP despite the opposition having the ball most of the game and managed to pull out a win. I don't see Denver as a shut down defense but they make plays I'd say they're ballhawks above all else.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        I don't get how Luck's first TD was discredited he still got it just like Manning. My point is that the 3 Q reminded me of that game the Fins/Colts had three years ago on MNF where Manning made the most of the TOP despite the opposition having the ball most of the game and managed to pull out a win. I don't see Denver as a shut down defense but they make plays I'd say they're ballhawks above all else.

                        A TD pass is a TD pass whether the QB throws it down the field or throws a screen and the receive gains all the yards after the catch. That's one of the problems with a single individual stat trying to describe a team outcome.

                        Denver's defense is not going to be stifling. But they're designed to play with a lead. They've got two good LBs that can get to the QB and two good cover corners. When teams become one dimensional against Denver, they'll make stops with pressure - hurried passes to well-defended recievers - giving the ball back to Manning & Co. It will be important for teams to be able to run the ball against Denver, even when trailing. The Steelers still aren't a good running team - with Mendenhall and DeCastro still out with major knee injuries and struggled running the ball against Denver (and also the Jets) so that's not the right measuring stick.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                          His throws to the right just don't look good. No arm strength, floaty passes. Still some work to do.
                          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                            Horrible throw right there.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                              Ouch.... 2 picks in 3 minutes. Bad throws and a lot of confusion in the entire offense.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                                And again to the right. Though I feel those 2 picks were just poor reads
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X