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

Peps plan for the offense

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

  • #16
    Re: Peps plan for the offense

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    It sounds like Pep is going to go to a more power running game and that requires a hard nosed guy who can also catch which is not easy to find. I certainly don't want a UDFA blocking or trying to catch a pass on a third and short from Luck. I haven't seen a ton of Jackie Battle but I know he is phenomonal athlete. IN his proday he ran a 4.42 and had a 41 inch vertical.

    Leach and Kuhn our household names because they make plays. I want Luck to have the same luxury and what worries me is that the Colts don't have a running back that has reliable hands.

    A smart guy with a hard nose and soft hands are hard to come by in the NFL and if he is going to be a part of the staple of the offense then I want the best and smartest guy on the field.

    Thats one of the reasons I bring up Jerome Felton. He would give Andrew Luck a run for his money in the smarts departement. As a 7th grader he took the ACT and got accepted into college. I don't think he would miss a blitz pickup and he was a big reason AP had the best season of his career.
    Vontea Leach is one of the top FB's and he went undrafted, most do, it is just the way that it is, Kuhn as well went undrafted.
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Peps plan for the offense

      Originally posted by Really? View Post
      Vontea Leach is one of the top FB's and he went undrafted, most do, it is just the way that it is, Kuhn as well went undrafted.
      I understand they often go undrafted but not every team runs a full back like Pep wants. We have marginal rbs who can catch the ball which will put more emphasis on a FB coming out of the backfield to catch the ball. I certainly don't want a rookie screwing up a 3rd and short in a important game which is every game in the nfl.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Peps plan for the offense

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        I understand they often go undrafted but not every team runs a full back like Pep wants. We have marginal rbs who can catch the ball which will put more emphasis on a FB coming out of the backfield to catch the ball. I certainly don't want a rookie screwing up a 3rd and short in a important game which is every game in the nfl.
        Do you know who often played fullback at Stanford atleast recently, they used a LB at times and a TE. I do not think this will be a position that you need to go and grab someone who is super, my thinking is that we either grab a TE known for his blocking, but who can also catch, a FB that has some catching skill or a strong RB who is decent at catching out of the backfield. There will be tons of these guys not drafted, also, with all of the other weapons that Luck will have, I doubt our new FB will see a ton of carries or catches, and will probably only be in the game in certain situations, not every down, especially since we have a guy like Allen that we can motion back into the backfield.

        I also doubt he will be in on many pass plays doing zone blitz pick ups, maybe in short yardage.

        BTW Jackie Battle came in the league undrafted as well as a RB, my thinking is as far as a FB, there are so many other positions of need that actually need depth so FB rarely get drafted and if you would like a decent one all you need to do is find a guy that fits the build for your system, teach him what you want him to do, and then let him play, that has been the case for all of these guys you are mentioning.

        If we were to grab any FB in the draft the only one I would feel good about adding would be Lonnie Pryor, check out his video, he is a converted RB, that has already added some size and has good technique blocking, he also has speed and can be used to run the ball at times.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doNyjdbdLOM
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Peps plan for the offense

          Also here goes your hope for Felton

          99 problems but Felton ain't one

          January, 23, 2013

          By AJ Mass | ESPN.com

          Adrian Peterson is certainly going to be one of the first players selected in 2013 fantasy leagues all across the country in any and all formats after the enormous success he achieved in his remarkable return from injury.

          While Peterson deserves much of the credit for his 2,097-yard campaign, he didn't do it all by himself. Lead blocker Jerome Felton certainly earned a ton of accolades for his part in helping Peterson reach that lofty 2,000-yard milestone. Not only was he rewarded with a Pro Bowl nod, but he should reap monetary benefits as well, in the form of a new contract.

          The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that both Felton and the Minnesota Vikings are anxious to lock down the fullback's services sooner rather than later. And with Adrian Peterson in his corner, Felton is sure to come out of negotiations with a huge smile on his face.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Peps plan for the offense

            Originally posted by Really? View Post
            Do you know who often played fullback at Stanford atleast recently, they used a LB at times and a TE. I do not think this will be a position that you need to go and grab someone who is super, my thinking is that we either grab a TE known for his blocking, but who can also catch, a FB that has some catching skill or a strong RB who is decent at catching out of the backfield. There will be tons of these guys not drafted, also, with all of the other weapons that Luck will have, I doubt our new FB will see a ton of carries or catches, and will probably only be in the game in certain situations, not every down, especially since we have a guy like Allen that we can motion back into the backfield.

            I also doubt he will be in on many pass plays doing zone blitz pick ups, maybe in short yardage.

            BTW Jackie Battle came in the league undrafted as well as a RB, my thinking is as far as a FB, there are so many other positions of need that actually need depth so FB rarely get drafted and if you would like a decent one all you need to do is find a guy that fits the build for your system, teach him what you want him to do, and then let him play, that has been the case for all of these guys you are mentioning.

            If we were to grab any FB in the draft the only one I would feel good about adding would be Lonnie Pryor, check out his video, he is a converted RB, that has already added some size and has good technique blocking, he also has speed and can be used to run the ball at times.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doNyjdbdLOM
            You are talking about Owen and he started out as a fullback then do to injuries played Mike in short yardage situations as a junior and senior.

            Thats hardly converting him as a TE or LB to play FB. The Full back positon rarely gets drafted since the NFL has changed from a running league to a pass happy league. The demand is down so they don't get drafted but that doesn't mean you can just sign anyone and have a great hybrid FB to play 15 to 20% of the offensive snaps and be effective.

            If the Colts want to get serious about rushing the football and have a guy able to catch the football they need to invest in it much like teams like the Chargers did with Lorenzo Neal. When he left for Baltimore LT numbers droped big time and he also helped Flacco have a great rookie season as far as completion %.
            Last edited by Gamble1; 01-24-2013, 12:49 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Peps plan for the offense

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              You are talking about Owen and he started out as a fullback then do to injuries played Mike in short yardage situations as a junior and senior.

              Thats hardly converting him as a TE or LB to play FB. The Full back positon rarely gets drafted since the NFL has changed from a running league to a pass happy league. The demand is down so they don't get drafted but that doesn't mean you can just sign anyone and have a great hybrid FB to play 15 to 20% of the offensive snaps and be effective.

              If the Colts want to get serious about rushing the football and have a guy able to catch the football they need to invest in it much like teams like the Chargers did with Lorenzo Neal. When he left for Baltimore LT numbers droped big time and he also helped Flacco have a great rookie season as far as completion %.
              You are correct on Owen, even though he was recruited as a FB/LB, he primarily played FB his first couple year, the TE to FB conversion I was talking about was their current guy that they used this previous year.

              Going along with your point that demand is down, that allows guys that are NFL quality FB's to emerge as UDFA, I guess that is more of my point. I am with you that you can not just sign anyone and they become a great hybrid FB, but you can get a guy that fits your system good, and take advantage of the skills he offers, and maybe he will turn out to be a very good guy. There have been around 8 FB's drafted in the past 2 years, but I would not say they have separated themselves from the guys that went to the NFL as UDFA's, and I feel your chances of finding a good FB are about the same whether you get them from the draft as UDFA's.

              For example Owen Marecic was drafted in the 4th round, played his first year as FB, and then was overtake in his second year by a guy who plays TE.
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Peps plan for the offense

                You may also like this guy, they say he has been targeted a lot in the senior bowl in the passing game and has not dropped a pass... he is projected as a 7th round draft pick, and could turnout to be a good acquisition as an UDFA.

                http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...2013&genpos=FB
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Peps plan for the offense

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  You are correct on Owen, even though he was recruited as a FB/LB, he primarily played FB his first couple year, the TE to FB conversion I was talking about was their current guy that they used this previous year.

                  Going along with your point that demand is down, that allows guys that are NFL quality FB's to emerge as UDFA, I guess that is more of my point. I am with you that you can not just sign anyone and they become a great hybrid FB, but you can get a guy that fits your system good, and take advantage of the skills he offers, and maybe he will turn out to be a very good guy. There have been around 8 FB's drafted in the past 2 years, but I would not say they have separated themselves from the guys that went to the NFL as UDFA's, and I feel your chances of finding a good FB are about the same whether you get them from the draft as UDFA's.

                  For example Owen Marecic was drafted in the 4th round, played his first year as FB, and then was overtake in his second year by a guy who plays TE.
                  I agree you can find a quality FB in the draft or in UDFA's but I don't want to go through the hassel of a rookie learning curve or if the guy doesn't work out in the long run.

                  Get the known vet that is more expensive by a million dollars and walk away from wasting a draft pick or having 3 on the roster during camp and trying to figure out if they are worth a roster spot or not.

                  ITs sort of the same postion some take with drafting offensive lineman when you have a 44 million to spend in FA's.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Peps plan for the offense

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    I agree you can find a quality FB in the draft or in UDFA's but I don't want to go through the hassel of a rookie learning curve or if the guy doesn't work out in the long run.

                    Get the known vet that is more expensive by a million dollars and walk away from wasting a draft pick or having 3 on the roster during camp and trying to figure out if they are worth a roster spot or not.

                    ITs sort of the same postion some take with drafting offensive lineman when you have a 44 million to spend in FA's.
                    Humm James Casey? he is a vet that can catch out the backfield, and can be a lead blocker as well. I will say I would not mind the idea of bringing in the UDFA's at the FB position, because unlike the lineman even good ones don't always get drafted, and it is not as much of a wish and hope type thing compared to most other positions. But hey to each his own, who ever we get I hope they can catch and develop chemistry with the RB, O-line and the QB quick.
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Peps plan for the offense

                      Originally posted by Really? View Post
                      Humm James Casey? he is a vet that can catch out the backfield, and can be a lead blocker as well. I will say I would not mind the idea of bringing in the UDFA's at the FB position, because unlike the lineman even good ones don't always get drafted, and it is not as much of a wish and hope type thing compared to most other positions. But hey to each his own, who ever we get I hope they can catch and develop chemistry with the RB, O-line and the QB quick.
                      Thats the problem with the FA FB class outside of Jerome there really isn't well known guys and Casey is a medicore FB IMO. The off the radar guy I like is Owen Schmitt. He played for the Raiders last year but they had Reece at FB who is pretty good. Schmitt also was in Philly when Grigson was there so thats the guy who is affordable and experienced that I see him going after if we don't draft a guy.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Peps plan for the offense

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        Thats the problem with the FA FB class outside of Jerome there really isn't well known guys and Casey is a medicore FB IMO. The off the radar guy I like is Owen Schmitt. He played for the Raiders last year but they had Reece at FB who is pretty good. Schmitt also was in Philly when Grigson was there so thats the guy who is affordable and experienced that I see him going after if we don't draft a guy.
                        Yeah I know about him, he is a pretty crazy dude, but did not think him or Jerome Felton really had much in the receiving department. Schmitt is pretty crazy, but I remember his WVU days.... seems like you are more focused on guys who are big time hole openers, instead of dual threats, rarely you will find a guy that is really good at both, or really good at one and good at the other. In many cases we can use two guys depending on the situations.
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Peps plan for the offense

                          Originally posted by Really? View Post
                          Yeah I know about him, he is a pretty crazy dude, but did not think him or Jerome Felton really had much in the receiving department. Schmitt is pretty crazy, but I remember his WVU days.... seems like you are more focused on guys who are big time hole openers, instead of dual threats, rarely you will find a guy that is really good at both, or really good at one and good at the other. In many cases we can use two guys depending on the situations.
                          I hope the Colts go for the guy who is a heck of a blocker. To me, you get a fullback to help move the chains in short yardage situations and convert in the redzone...get those tough yards. Personally, I could care less if the fullback can catch a pass. I just want him to help open some holes for the running back. JMO.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Peps plan for the offense

                            Originally posted by Young View Post
                            I hope the Colts go for the guy who is a heck of a blocker. To me, you get a fullback to help move the chains in short yardage situations and convert in the redzone...get those tough yards. Personally, I could care less if the fullback can catch a pass. I just want him to help open some holes for the running back. JMO.
                            Yeah, I think it would be a plus for a weapon in the pass game, especially with the Y-Banana... maybe we could get a guy like Hillis to be a FB in our system, that might work, in the short yardage situations, when we are going hard we can use some other guys like LB/DE as well. On a every down type of situation, I would like a guy like Lonnie Pryor who can block but can also run and is a weapon out the backfield.
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Peps plan for the offense

                              Originally posted by Really? View Post
                              Yeah I know about him, he is a pretty crazy dude, but did not think him or Jerome Felton really had much in the receiving department. Schmitt is pretty crazy, but I remember his WVU days.... seems like you are more focused on guys who are big time hole openers, instead of dual threats, rarely you will find a guy that is really good at both, or really good at one and good at the other. In many cases we can use two guys depending on the situations.
                              Most FB aren't used to catch the ball but looking at James Casey vs Owen Schmitt I don't think there is much of difference. Schmitt is the better blocker but I don't see a huge difference in recieving skills there. The Colts are also going to the use the FB in special teams so I would rather have a nut like Schmitt than Casey.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Peps plan for the offense

                                Lol just saw Vonte Leach is getting pad 4.3 million... you can keep him for that ...
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X