Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Colts bench Trent Richardson

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

  • #61
    Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

    If you isolate the last few weeks this probably isn't true (although if you just isolate it to Richardson's time on the time it might be), but the 2013 Colts offense for the season has still been more efficient than the 2012 version. Slightly less yards per drive, but significantly better in points per drive and a humongous difference in turnovers per drive.

    Brown kind of did during the Titans game what I expected. Below average for what you want, a few negative carries to drive down the yard per average, with some flashes of very good. That's essentially what's been happening to Richardson, except Richardson hasn't had those flashes. Both of the last two games that Brown has gotten carries the Colts have put together big drives using power formations. What makes Brown able to have occasional success behind power formations that makes Richardson struggle?

    That's really the reason the Colts switched. I would hope they know the OL is the big culprit letting too many players into the backfield. It's what happens on the plays where the OL doesn't do that though which is the reason Brown is in there. He has been able to take advantage of those better than Richardson has. Richardson did do the one big thing the Colts asked him to do in this game though which was to pick up that 4th and 1.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

      I came around a bit with that performance, but I still think Trent has a lot to work on when it comes to vision and finding another hole.

      With that said though I think Pep just compounds the issue even further. Yes, our offensive line, especially the interior OL, has been awful this season, but when you continue to just trout these obvious running formations you do nothing to help the running game. You pull TY off the field and do a three tight end formation in the middle of the field we all know you are freaking running the ball. A lot of the time there just is no threat to actually pass the ball so the defense knows it will be a run.

      Why not try more three and four wide formations and run out of that? Why not give Trent some draw plays in the shotgun after letting Luck throw it a bit? Trent will never be the focal point of the offense. The focal point that drives this offense is Luck and they need to realize that. Let Luck loosen them up and force them to bring the DBs out and then let Trent bulldoze them.

      The play yesterday along the goal-line where we took TY off and had absolutely no threat of a pass summed it all up. The defense did not respect the lone WR out there. They just stacked the box and DB got stuffed.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

        Richardson has had some DHB level drops as a Colt. I think they've lost confidence in his ability to catch the ball. Is there a site that tracks targets? I'd like to see how many receptions he has versus targets. Both as a Colt and as a Brown.

        I did not pay much attention to him as a Brown so I don't know if he actually caught the ball better or they just continued to throw to him (something the Colts don't appear to be willing to do).
        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, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          Richardson has had some DHB level drops as a Colt. I think they've lost confidence in his ability to catch the ball. Is there a site that tracks targets? I'd like to see how many receptions he has versus targets. Both as a Colt and as a Brown.

          I did not pay much attention to him as a Brown so I don't know if he actually caught the ball better or they just continued to throw to him (something the Colts don't appear to be willing to do).
          There's not a receiver on this team that hasn't had some bad drops.
          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


          • #65
            Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

            I am not a big Trich fan at this junction but will agree that we have too many inexperienced people running this show. I'm talking about Grig, Pep, Pagano, and whomever else is responsible for the inability to play to the strengths of the team.

            It's a lot better to see Luck run than sacked.

            The trouble with next man up is that is who we are playing with.
            Last edited by speakout4; 12-02-2013, 07:22 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

              It's funny, having spent so many years watching Peyton run this offense has spoiled us. But not only spoiled us, but has shown us what a proper offense should be like. I'm ALL for having more run plays than we did during the Peyton era, but dear god, you have to play to the strengths of the team. Right now, your best players are your QB and Hilton/Fleener. Why do you continue to force the run out of obvious running formations, and why do you take your best players off the field...ever? Unless TY runs out of breath, he should never leave the field. This has been harped on by everyone here, but there is zero creativity in the offense. The personnel is an issue, but they are not THIS bad. You can mask a lot of the problems by running more 3-4 WR sets and running draw plays. Or play action. Or designed QB draws. Or rolling Luck out of the pocket. Quick slants. Curls. Comebacks. Anything to get the ball out of Luck's hands before he gets pummeled. Included in this is utilizing your RBs in the passing game. For the love of god, any of these ideas would work. Your RBs aren't designed just for running into the porous sieve that is our offensive line. Get them into space and let them do what they do.

              Can we steal Tom Moore from Arizona for a few games?
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Richardson has had some DHB level drops as a Colt. I think they've lost confidence in his ability to catch the ball. Is there a site that tracks targets? I'd like to see how many receptions he has versus targets. Both as a Colt and as a Brown.

                I did not pay much attention to him as a Brown so I don't know if he actually caught the ball better or they just continued to throw to him (something the Colts don't appear to be willing to do).
                I think they have lost faith in him rushing the ball. It's not like he has disappointed the team in catching the ball. He has been targeted 22 times and has made 14 receptions out of them while averaging 9.1 yards. That's pretty good. Why don't they use him in the passing game with screen passes is beyond me. What is more, you will use DHB at what he's doing best. Run blocking. Yayyyyyyyyy!

                Never forget

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Does anyone remember the last time we did no-huddle? I mean seriously? Luck is a freak at that, and calling his own plays.

                  I get the feeling now it's all being phoned in from Pep. And it sucks. SET LUCK LOOSE.
                  I agree with this. Luck should be in the no huddle and calling his own plays the majority of the snaps.

                  Still not convinced TR should be the tailback during those stretches. Brown seems to thrive in situations where the defense is on its heals.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                    I found a picture of the missed hole against Arizona:



                    Guess what direction he ran in? Hint, it's not the red one.

                    Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this illustrates in a nutshell the criticism of T-Rich. Yes, the line has certainly been horrible for the most part, but on those rare occasions where he has something to work with like the massive hole above, he blows it.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Guess what direction he ran in? Hint, it's not the red one.

                      Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this illustrates in a nutshell the criticism of T-Rich. Yes, the line has certainly been horrible for the most part, but on those rare occasions where he has something to work with like the massive hole above, he blows it.
                      "Offensive line"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                        Rare is right. All but the LG, which I'm assuming is Thornton, have gotten a good push*. Can probably count the number of times that happens in a game on one hand.

                        *Although without looking at the progression of events, it looks like Cherilus got beat to the inside and some how came up with a pancake.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                          So who's gonna post the holes that DBrown has missed?

                          I got news for y'all; RBs "miss" holes on occasion. It's part of the game. I don't see how posting a pic of TRich missing a hole means that he's somehow bad at this. It's a wham-bam sequence, there are designs and places that they are sposed to go to and holes that open up in an instant and close down in an instant and they have to process all that in a micro-second. It doesn't always work out.

                          This is like posting an instance when Luck makes a bad play. Guess what --- it happens. It doesn't represent the norm and it's normal.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                            Yes, the offensive line is miserable and probably deserves much of the blame for not only Richardson's struggles, but for the entire Colts offense. But Richardson shows absolutely no burst. He looks and runs slow. Put him behind a decent Oline and he probably becomes an average-slightly above average RB. But he certainly looks far from being one of the top RBs in the NFL.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              So who's gonna post the holes that DBrown has missed?

                              I got news for y'all; RBs "miss" holes on occasion. It's part of the game. I don't see how posting a pic of TRich missing a hole means that he's somehow bad at this. It's a wham-bam sequence, there are designs and places that they are sposed to go to and holes that open up in an instant and close down in an instant and they have to process all that in a micro-second. It doesn't always work out.

                              This is like posting an instance when Luck makes a bad play. Guess what --- it happens. It doesn't represent the norm and it's normal.

                              I'll back off if someone can post me a couple pictures of T-Rich hitting holes this season like Brown has at least been able to do a few times this year.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I'll back off if someone can post me a couple pictures of T-Rich hitting holes this season like Brown has at least been able to do a few times this year.
                                What's the point? Trent Richardson has done absolutely nothing in his NFL career to lead anyone to believe he is anything better than average. No matter how much evidence or what it is, KM will simply not admit this under any circumstances. Honestly, I would respect his opinion a lot more if he admitted Richardson is at least partially to blame for this, but he can't do it. It's 90% the offensive line, 10% play calling, 0% Trent. At least the rest of us are willing to acknowledge other factors, because I think we all know the line is bad and Pep's play calling, well, it has it's own thread already.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X