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:
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

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

2013 colts pro bowlers

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    Schaub has a top 3 RB, a top 5 WR, and had his head coach the entire season.
    Every good QB who has ever been effective has had weapons. No QB with terrible receivers, no OL and no RB could be successful.

    For what it is worth Luck had #87, which is a pretty darn good weapon himself.


    • #17
      Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
      Every good QB who has ever been effective has had weapons. No QB with terrible receivers, no OL and no RB could be successful.

      For what it is worth Luck had #87, which is a pretty darn good weapon himself.
      Reggie Wayne is magnificent. But the Colts have no running game (or RB's to throw to), very likely the worst OL in the league, and all pass catchers not named Wayne are all rookies or an unreliable reclamation project named Donnie Avery.

      The rushing is ranked 22nd in the NFL with 1,590 yards. Take out Luck's yards and they fall to 1,336 and 27th in the league. They're tied for 17th in the NFL with 10 rushing TDs. Take out Luck's 5 and they fall into a tie for 29th. Think about that. Alfred Morris has more yards and twice as many touchdowns as all of our running backs combined.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson


      • #18
        Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
        Schaub has a top 3 RB, a top 5 WR, and had his head coach the entire season.
        The Pro Bowl is not about who you play with or your story in the sesaon. It is supposed to be about the guys who played the best in the season. Yes, Andrew had a great ride this season, but statistically speaking Schaub had a much better year. Luck's interceptions and completion percentage is pretty awful so I cannot really see him getting in above Schaub.

        Ultimately who cares about the Pro Bowl? Saturday being voted in after being benched says enough about the validity of that game.


        • #19
          Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

          Just a waste of time for everyone.


          • #20
            Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

            The Chiefs have more pro bowlers than wins lol.


            • #21
              Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

              Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
              but statistically speaking
              This right here is why the pro bowl is a joke.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?


              • #22
                Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                They should make it into a skills competition or just stop the whole thing. Just nominate pro bowlers each year to give the honor and then leave it as is.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


                • #23
                  Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Schaub: 64% completion percentage, 22 TD's 10 INT 92.4 rating for the potential number one seed in the AFC

                  Luck: 54% completion percentage, 21 TD tied for league lead with 18 INT, for a wild card team.

                  The pro bowl is all about stats, a d Schaub's are way better. It doesn't matter anyways though, the pro bowl is a joke
                  Pro bowl is not about stats... YOU LIE.... lol, but honestly it is a combination of stats, perception, and popularity..., more than anything it is popularity, especially on defense.
                  Why so SERIOUS


                  • #24
                    Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                    I care about the pro bowl as much as I care about the girl I dated for two nights back in 1892.

                    I wish they would stop playing the stupid game.
                    you must be the oldest dude on the internet.


                    • #25
                      Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                      Maybe they should turn it into a flag football game instead.... might be kind of interesting, still big plays, but less contact...
                      Why so SERIOUS


                      • #26
                        Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                        Originally posted by Really? View Post
                        Maybe they should turn it into a flag football game instead.... might be kind of interesting, still big plays, but less contact...
                        It already is a flag football game. Few players go all out, and no one plays defense.

                        I say hand out the award and dont play the game.

                        It will never happen, though. Plus the players love the week vaca in Hawaii


                        • #27
                          Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                          It already is a flag football game. Few players go all out, and no one plays defense.

                          I say hand out the award and dont play the game.

                          It will never happen, though. Plus the players love the week vaca in Hawaii
                          and the checks, and I completely disagree,lol in flag football you have some defense and players play hard....
                          Why so SERIOUS


                          • #28
                            Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                            Not really pro bowl, but can somebody post this?

                            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


                            • #29
                              Re: 2013 colts pro bowlers

                              Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                              Not really pro bowl, but can somebody post this?

                              Originally posted by The only NFL expert in the world, Mel "Kipper" Jr.

                              If anybody ever questioned the immediate impact of the NFL draft, you could keep him quiet for a while by pointing to the 2012 class. We have seen not just good QB play but also the fortunes of franchises completely change. And we've seen not just typical early value at running back; we've also seen guys considered among the best in the NFL emerge from the beginning of the draft to the end.

                              Here I will go through the best at every position this year, essentially building a team of my best rookies at every position on both offense and defense. At some positions, I have more than one player, as this reflects how a team might typically line up. And later this week I'll be looking at rookies whom I expect to have big breakthroughs at the outset of 2013. So if you don't see a guy here, he might be on that list.


                              Andrew Luck, Colts: This could have gone to either Robert Griffin III or Russell Wilson, and it wouldn't offend most close observers. But if it offends you, before you leap to the comments to have your say, let me make my case for Luck. The rookie record for passing yardage (4,374 yards) is nice, as is that he ran for five touchdowns to go with 23 touchdown passes. But he gets the most juice here because no team in history has had this kind of a turnaround after drafting at No. 1, and Luck was the greatest reason the Colts turned it around. Folks around the NFL will tell you the same thing.

                              The Colts were 2-14 in 2011 and didn't add any significant value in free agency, and this season they went 11-5. The Colts were 26th in total defense and used numerous rookies on offense, and Luck was hit more than any other quarterback in the NFL. But he managed to improve, get results and deliver late, as evidenced by the six fourth-quarter comebacks he engineered. RG III was exceptional, too, but loses slight ground because he has a better supporting cast (Washington beat the Giants twice in 2011) and didn't play in one of the huge wins of the season, when Kirk Cousins led the team to a win in Cleveland, which kept Washington's playoff hopes alive. Wilson has been exceptional, but the defense carried the Seahawks early in the season as he got comfortable. Luck wins here based on his body of work over the course of the season, which spearheaded Indy's stunning turnaround. But they're all great.

                              Running backs

                              Alfred Morris, Redskins: The No. 173 pick led all rookies with 1,613 yards, which was the second-highest total in the league behind the great Adrian Peterson, and would have led the NFL last season. He was efficient, at 4.7 yards per carry, and a 52 percent success rate. He was also second to only Arian Foster in rushing touchdowns with 13.

                              Doug Martin, Buccaneers: He was fifth in the NFL in rushing yards, with 1,454, and added tremendous value as a pass-catcher. Consider that he caught 49 passes, whereas Morris caught just 11. Martin does everything well, including block, which is why Tampa Bay stopped taking him off the field once it realized early on what it had. He gets the edge over Trent Richardson, who we now know played through a lot of pain.


                              Evan Rodriguez, Bears: You can't build much of a statistical case for him -- he had zero carries and just four catches on the season -- but Rodriguez was a tight end at Temple who has created a role for himself with the Bears and could be a bigger part of the offense in years to come.

                              Wide receivers

                              T.Y. Hilton, Colts: The No. 92 overall pick led all rookie wide receivers with seven TD catches and was second in yards with 861. Where he adds value is as a big-play option. His 17.2 yards per catch was fifth in the NFL, more than bigger-name downfield targets like DeSean Jackson, Demaryius Thomas or Julio Jones. He figures to continue to pile up totals as Luck gains comfort with him, and Hilton's stature might remind some Colts fans of the similarly slight Marvin Harrison.

                              Justin Blackmon, Jaguars: Considering the state of the QB situation in Jacksonville, Blackmon put together a decent rookie season. He tied for the lead among rookies with 64 catches and led rookies with 865 receiving yards, and I liked how he got better as the season progressed. He answered some questions about whether he's a big-play threat in one of his best games of the season at Houston.

                              Josh Gordon, Browns: Gordon came in a bit rusty, but the second-rounder from the supplemental draft might be the future No. 1 in Cleveland. He finished the season with 50 catches and 805 yards, and showed off an ability to take the top off a defense by getting behind safeties. He has size and the physical ability to beat cornerbacks.

                              Tight end

                              Dwayne Allen, Colts: Allen fell on a lot of boards because he didn't shine during the draft process and in workouts. But he was my No. 1 tight end for much of last season because of what he can do on the field, and it showed this season. He was by far the most productive rookie tight end, with 45 catches for 521 yards, and should have a great future along with Coby Fleener in Indy.

                              Left tackle

                              Matt Kalil, Vikings: Very quietly, Kalil was exactly what the Vikings needed, and he should only get better. He might have been underrated as a run-blocker, and clearly the run game thrived for the Vikings. He started all 16 games for Minnesota and should continue to for years to come.

                              Right tackle

                              Kelechi Osemele, Ravens: This could go to Osemele or Mitchell Schwartz of Cleveland, but I'll give the slight edge to Osemele, who also managed to start all 16 games as a rookie.


                              Kevin Zeitler, Bengals: Another guy from the offensive lineman assembly line at Wisconsin, Zeitler was needed immediately and played at a Pro Bowl level for much of the season in Cincinnati. The Bengals lost a guard early in the year, and Zeitler's steady play was a huge lift for this team.

                              Jeff Allen, Chiefs: There's a lot of talk about Peterson's incredible comeback from injury in Minnesota, but what about Jamaal Charles in Kansas City? The Chiefs were able to run the ball even as they had a disastrous year at quarterback, which is in part a credit to Allen, a rookie out of Illinois.


                              Trevor Robinson, Bengals: There wasn't a lot to choose from here, but Robinson stepped in to help the Bengals when Kyle Cook suffered a foot injury. The Notre Dame alumnus has a bright future.


                              Defensive end

                              Derek Wolfe, Broncos: As a college player at Cincinnati, Wolfe was a guy I rated a bit higher than most, mainly because of his relentlessness. He piled up sacks from the interior as a defensive tackle. Denver moved him to defensive end, where he continued to play with great energy and got some sacks as well. He finished with 6.0 for the season and looks like a steal as a second-round pick.

                              Kendall Reyes, Chargers: A 3-4 defensive end, Reyes was maybe the most athletic defensive tackle in the 2012 draft. Once he got the reps in San Diego he produced, and he should be a stud going forward. He finished with 5.5 sacks and simply destroyed the Jets in Week 16.

                              Quinton Coples, Jets: Another guy who really started to figure it out later in the season, Coples was a 4-3 defensive end at North Carolina, but he's being asked to do some different things with the Jets. I think along with Muhammad Wilkerson, he can help make the Jets' defensive line one of the best in the NFL in the years to come. I give Coples the edge on Seattle's Bruce Irvin, who had some sacks but was one-dimensional. Irvin should improve as his game expands.

                              Defensive tackles

                              Fletcher Cox, Eagles: As he got more comfortable, the first-rounder out of Mississippi State became a lot more disruptive. He finished the season with 4.5 sacks over the final seven games and should be a fixture for the Eagles going forward. Cox has a chance to become a Pro Bowl-level interior lineman.


                              Michael Brockers, Rams: Brockers was slowed down by an injury early in the season and didn't play in a game until Sept. 30, but he came on as the season progressed and started to show refinement. He has a ton of ability, but I still saw Brockers as a guy who was pretty raw on draft day and would get a lot better after his rookie season. I still think that'll be the case, which is why Rams fans can be really excited about the future of their defensive line, which is good across the board. Dontari Poe was next on the list.

                              Inside linebackers

                              Luke Kuechly, Panthers: Not only did Kuechly lead the NFL in tackles with 164, he also had the same number of solo tackles (103) as the next-highest tackler on the Panthers had combined. Last season Carolina was 25th in rushing yards allowed per game; this season it was 14th. Kuechly is the future heart and soul of this defense, but he's pretty close to the present one as well. The Boston College star became exactly what I thought he'd be, and in a hurry.

                              Bobby Wagner, Seahawks: A really good get of the draft at a spot where I thought Seattle could have gotten even more value, Wagner led one of the NFL's best defenses in total tackles with 140 and should be a fixture for years to come. With him and second-year man K.J. Wright in place at linebacker, the Seahawks are set for the foreseeable future. Dont'a Hightower was a close third here.

                              Outside linebacker

                              Lavonte David, Buccaneers: David was one of my favorite players in the draft, but we knew he would drop because of questions about his size. Still, I compared him to a similarly small former Buc named Derrick Brooks, and David lived up to the comparison in 2012. The No. 57 overall pick played at a Pro Bowl level, started every week and finished the season with 139 combined tackles. He was a steal when he was drafted, and he looks like a bigger one today. Smaller linebackers (Khaseem Greene from Rutgers) in coming drafts can point to David in the way David could've pointed to Brooks.

                              Vontaze Burfict, Bengals: One of the great stories of the season not just in the rookie class but everywhere. Burfict led the Bengals in tackles playing on the weak side for them, this after going undrafted out of Arizona State. Burfict was a disaster during the draft process, and a guy I once had in my top 10 on the Big Board could have missed out on the NFL entirely. But coach Marvin Lewis clearly saw what Burfict was capable of when focused and got a steal. Burfict finished the season with 127 total tackles and has the playoffs to look forward to. Other guys in the conversation were Chandler Jones, Melvin Ingram, Miles Burris and Mychal Kendricks.


                              Janoris Jenkins, Rams: We were pretty clear on Jenkins during the draft process -- he had the ability of a top-10 pick, but some of his decision-making in college created questions. The Rams appear to have gotten a steal, however, in getting him in the second round. Jenkins finished the season with four interceptions and seems destined for Pro Bowls in the future.

                              Casey Hayward, Packers: I really liked Hayward coming out of Vanderbilt because he had the ability to be a good slot corner. Turns out he's just a really good corner, period. He combines great technical ability with those instincts you see from ball hawks. He had six interceptions to lead all rookies.

                              Stephon Gilmore, Bills: Much was expected of Gilmore after Buffalo took him with the No. 10 pick, but I think he fulfilled expectations this season. In terms of simply being able to cover, he was the best corner the Bills had this season. I think he needs to improve but will continue to and will live up to the spot where he was taken. I had Gilmore just ahead of Morris Claiborne, who was very good this season, as well as the emerging Alfonzo Dennard. Josh Norman was also in the mix.


                              Mark Barron, Buccaneers: My strong safety choice finished the season with 89 total stops, 72 of them solo, and has already developed a reputation as a guy who can line up the big hit. What I like about Barron is the way he takes great routes and lays hits without costing his team.

                              Harrison Smith, Vikings: The Vikings nailed their first two picks. Smith was the free safety Minnesota desperately needed. He finished the regular season with 103 total stops and three interceptions and has dramatically improved the back end of Minnesota's defense. A former standout at Notre Dame, Smith just makes great read after great read. He should be reliable for years to come.

                              Special teams

                              Punt returner

                              Keshawn Martin, Texans: He returned 22 punts, averaged 12 yards per return and returned 31 kickoffs. When Martin was a receiver at Michigan State, I liked his ability to create space, and that skill is obvious as a punt returner.

                              Kick returner

                              David Wilson, Giants: He'll have a bigger role in the run game next season, but Wilson carved out a significant role in the return game as a rookie. He returned 57 kickoffs for an average of 26.9 yards and broke one for a 97-yard touchdown. There may be a point when the Giants limit him in this role so they gain more value from him as a running back.


                              Blair Walsh, Vikings: Great scouting by the Vikings, who looked past a bad stretch Walsh had at Georgia and got a steal in the sixth round. Walsh nailed 35 of 38 kicks and was particularly deadly from long range. He was 10-of-10 on kicks from 50-plus yards; no other kicker had more than seven makes.


                              Bryan Anger, Jaguars: The selection of Anger in the third round drew some snickers on the set, but at least Anger was solid this season. He averaged 47.8 yards per punt and consistently got good hang time. Only 5.5 percent of his punts went for touchbacks. Let's hope the Jags can avoid a special-teams selection in the early rounds in April with Anger in place.
                              Three Colts.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson