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

Fire Ryan Grigson

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

  • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

    The Faulk trade was massively lop-sided, most folks recognize that. Faulk was given up for a bag of chips. Of course that was a massive mistake on the Colts' part, it was not an even trade. Lynch was nowhere near the back in Buffalo that he became in Seattle. He had put up a few stinker years in Buffalo prior to that trade. That trade was logical at the time.

    You gotta find better arguments than that, Soll. You can't measure the TRich trade based off of those two examples, because they don't apply at all. How a guy who we got for a #26 pick THIS YEAR who has been a serviceable back, a good pass protector, and improperly utilized... can be labelled a "massive failure" is pretty comical. I'll buy "underwhelming".... but not "massive failure".

    You guys act like we gave up 3 first rounders and a 2nd rounder just to move up FOUR spots to draft a quarterback who just got benched and who's market-value is basically rock-bottom. Here's the thing --- TRich has been a good soldier. He's not met most folks massively-, illogically-high expectations, but he's not been terrible, either. He's not exactly in the best run system, and this makes him look worse than he is. But people will continue to ignore these facts and keep railing him for what amounts to really silly reasons.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 05:47 PM.
    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


    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

      You gotta find better arguments than that, Soll. You can't measure the TRich trade based off of those two examples, because they don't apply at all. How a guy who we got for a #26 pick THIS YEAR who has been a serviceable back, a good pass protector, and under-utilized can be labelled a "massive failure" is pretty comical. I'll buy "underwhelming".... but not "massive failure".
      This is not the perception of Richardson pretty much anywhere, especially the servicable back part. Football Outsiders for example has him at 45th out of 47 qualified running backs last year. This year he's 34th out of 40. Looking at the names below him each year, I'm sure that if they put those years together, they would have Richardson as the worst runner in football over the last two years (Bradshaw and Brown last year, and Herron and Bradshaw this year all rate significantly better).

      The national media treats him as a massive joke. I've actually never ever heard of such a consensus that someone is a horrible player as they do for Richardson right now.

      As far as valuation, you brought up Donald Brown. That's a good comparison, but it also was 5 years ago. The market for runningbacks has changed massively during that time period. No runningbacks have been a first round pick each of the last two years. Even before his legal troubles, Adrian Peterson and Marshawn Lynch were both expected to be cut before 2015, and they are two of the top 10 backs in football! Franchise tags for runningbacks are now only higher than safeties, tight ends, and kicker/punters, and they'll get much worse when Peterson's deal goes off the books.

      Herron was pretty much the last straw for me. He is almost the definition of a replacement level running back. 6th round draft pick, had only 9 carries his first two years in the league. For him to come in and average over 5 yards a carry is only the latest indication that the situation in Indy is not nearly as horrible as it can sometimes appear to be (Bradshaw and Brown have been other data points supporting this theory). Sure, he gets a decent amount of carries out of the shotgun. But he takes advantage of those shotgun runs (averaging 6.5 yards per carry) while Richardson is averaging 3.7 yards on 45 attempts out of the shotgun this year! He also averages 3.7 yards per carry when the Colts have 3 receivers or more on the field. So yes, Richardson is better when they spread the field and give him space (like most runningbacks) but he can't even get anywhere near league average even if you just select what should be his easiest runs!

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

        I don't care about perception, I care about reality. I don't have to lean on other people's perceptions about his pass protection and pass catching skills, I can see with my own eyes that he has them. Most people commenting in the wild about him have no clue in general, and don't watch enough of him to have a valid opinion.

        You've provided no numbers in context to those shotgun plays, either. What was the play formations for those shotgun plays? Where do the plays call for the back to take the ball? If TRich goes shotgun in a run formation and the design calls for him to take it up the middle and the line disintegrates, that makes a lot more sense if Boom is getting a shotgun run in a pass formation with less defenders in the box and the play is designed for him to go elsewhere.

        This was frequently the case with DBrown too, and it takes little imagination to think that they use Herron the same way they used Brown.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 06:42 PM.
        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


        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          The Faulk trade was massively lop-sided, most folks recognize that. Faulk was given up for a bag of chips. Of course that was a massive mistake on the Colts' part, it was not an even trade. Lynch was nowhere near the back in Buffalo that he became in Seattle. He had put up a few stinker years in Buffalo prior to that trade. That trade was logical at the time.

          You gotta find better arguments than that, Soll. You can't measure the TRich trade based off of those two examples, because they don't apply at all. How a guy who we got for a #26 pick THIS YEAR who has been a serviceable back, a good pass protector, and improperly utilized... can be labelled a "massive failure" is pretty comical. I'll buy "underwhelming".... but not "massive failure".

          You guys act like we gave up 3 first rounders and a 2nd rounder just to move up FOUR spots to draft a quarterback who just got benched and who's market-value is basically rock-bottom. Here's the thing --- TRich has been a good soldier. He's not met most folks massively-, illogically-high expectations, but he's not been terrible, either. He's not exactly in the best run system, and this makes him look worse than he is. But people will continue to ignore these facts and keep railing him for what amounts to really silly reasons.

          Really? I say Edge was quite good here. Sure Marshall was a better player overall and unlike Edge did win an SB but I don't think giving up Faulk came back to haunt us this T-Rich trade has though.

          That 1st round pick could've been used for something else like an offensive lineman.

          I don't think T-Rich is worth a first round pick but that can't be undone I do think the Colts need to at least find ways to utilize his strengths and I don't think they do that either.

          Comment


          • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

            What does Edge have to do with the Faulk trade??? Did we have a #4 pick to burn this year???
            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


            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

              Edge was who we replaced Faulk with so really trading Faulk away didn't bother me because Edge made most of us forget about Faulk or how lopsided that trade may have been.

              If T-Rich produced as well the same would've been said about him but he hasn't so here we are.

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                But did we have a #4 pick this year to draft a replacement??? What does that have to do with anything? What a terrible argument.

                Even if Edge allowed you to "forget" about the epic fail trade that was Faulk, that doesn't absolve the fact we made a bad trade, value-wise. Who goes about business with that type of mindset? "Hey let's make bad trades.... and then draft someone to make everyone forget about that bad transaction." They could've drafted Edge regardless of the Faulk trade --- they should have gotten as much value as possible for Faulk AND drafted Edge, and that's not hindsight, that's common sense that they should have exercised at that time.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 07:18 PM.
                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


                • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  I don't care about perception, I care about reality. I don't have to lean on other people's perceptions about his pass protection and pass catching skills, I can see with my own eyes that he has them. Most people commenting in the wild about him have no clue in general, and don't watch enough of him to have a valid opinion.

                  You've provided no numbers in context to those shotgun plays, either. What was the play formations for those shotgun plays? Where do the plays call for the back to take the ball? If TRich goes shotgun in a run formation and the design calls for him to take it up the middle and the line disintegrates, that makes a lot more sense if Boom is getting a shotgun run in a pass formation with less defenders in the box and the play is designed for him to go elsewhere.

                  This was frequently the case with DBrown too, and it takes little imagination to think that they use Herron the same way they used Brown.
                  That's why I put the 3 wide receivers or more set numbers as a proxy for pass formations. Herron certainly isn't feasting off 2nd or 3rd and long situations...he has 9 carries for 30 yards in those spots (2nd or 3rd of 8 or more yards). Richardson also has his best yards per carry on carries up the middle (3.8) so it's not like the Colts weakness in that area is the main cause of his struggles.

                  Without breaking down video and charting every single play of their season, it's impossible to know for sure. But every single metric would suggest that there is no fundamental difference between what type of calls are made for them other than that Richardson gets most of the heavy run formation calls. But you could take those runs out of his numbers (which I agree set him up for failure) and his numbers still look terrible because they haven't been a massive percentage of his overall runs.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                    Even if true, it doesn't negate the fact that he's a better pass protector, and pass-catcher, and therefore not the black hole everyone thinks he is. He's overall a solid back.

                    And also keep in mind... Boom wasn't getting any carries earlier in the year when this o line was at it's dismal worst. The line has actually picked things up the last few weeks. That will skew the numbers. TRich also played through a groin injury the first few Boom games.
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 07:16 PM.
                    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


                    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Even if true, it doesn't negate the fact that he's a better pass protector, and pass-catcher, and therefore not the black hole everyone thinks he is. He's overall a solid back.
                      That makes him a solid 3rd down back, and those guys are just not that valuable. And how good is he in those departments? He's certainly had his ups in that department (several good blocks, that catch last week for example), and some downs (letting a free rusher getting past him without blocking anybody whatsoever for a key sack in Cleveland, several drops in the passing game).

                      I would say he is good in both areas without being elite in either, but I don't think we can really have a substantive discussion on that because there's no real evidence to present on either side, just opinions. I know you think higher of him in both areas, and I can't really refute that with anything more than anecdotal evidence. He's obviously a better pass protector than Donald Brown or Daniel Herron and I'm not one of those people who says that Richardson doesn't have a use on this team because of that, but those aren't high bars to get over either.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                        His drops largely came last year, a year that was just tough to handle, especially how the Colts mishandled the transition by throwing him out there as a starter with two practices under his belt.

                        Every receiver has drops, ask Coby Fleener and Reggie Wayne.

                        Like any 'back... or any lineman for that matter, he has had bad plays where his guy got through. But he does a damn good job pass protecting a large percentage of the time, more than the average 'back. He's always been known as a good pass protector and catcher.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 07:33 PM.
                        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


                        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          The Faulk trade was massively lop-sided, most folks recognize that. Faulk was given up for a bag of chips. Of course that was a massive mistake on the Colts' part, it was not an even trade. Lynch was nowhere near the back in Buffalo that he became in Seattle. He had put up a few stinker years in Buffalo prior to that trade. That trade was logical at the time.

                          You gotta find better arguments than that, Soll. You can't measure the TRich trade based off of those two examples, because they don't apply at all. How a guy who we got for a #26 pick THIS YEAR who has been a serviceable back, a good pass protector, and improperly utilized... can be labelled a "massive failure" is pretty comical. I'll buy "underwhelming".... but not "massive failure".

                          If the best thing you can say about a running back who we traded a first round pick for is that he's "serviceable", then that makes it a horrible trade. New England and other teams find "serviceable" backs for pennies. You don't pay a premium price for something that is "serviceable", especially when no one spends that kind of price on the position anymore. Boom Herron is "serviceable" and came at a much cheaper cost.

                          T-Rich not being good isn't just some biased narrative that sprung up on PD. No, pretty much everyone that writes about the Colts and NFL as a whole has mocked the trade. No one pays that price for a RB anymore, and if they do then that RB better easily be a top back in the league, not one who is near the bottom. T-Rich can block and catch, but the position is still called Running Back. If you can't run, then your value at the position is severely limited. His burst is just way too slow for him to be anything other than an extremely mediocre back.

                          No one takes running backs high anymore. Top five rushers this season: Murray (third round), Bell (second), Lynch (first), McCoy (second), Forsett (seventh). Lynch is the only one of those selected in the first, but that was way back in 2007 and a lot has changed since then. Losing one draft pick certainly isn't the end of the world, but it was a God awful trade and is a lesson that our front office will hopefully learn from.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                            Most late first rounders are lucky to be "serviceable", hate to tell ya... and you are exactly right about later round guys being just as good, which buys right into my point that where you draft someone doesn't matter. The draft is a crap shoot, you can miss on early guys and find good players late, which you evidently agree with, and ultimately why I find it so funny that people are so up in arms about this holy first round pick that everyone is so upset about "losing". And the silly thing is, TRich is still actually here and contributing to the league's most prolific offense, so ultimately was he that disastrous of a pickup?

                            No he wasn't. So perhaps people should stop *****ing about him all the time.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 11:14 PM.
                            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


                            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Most late first rounders are merely "serviceable", hate to tell ya... and you are exactly right about later round guys being just as good, which buys right into my point that where you draft someone doesn't matter nor, the draft is a crap shoot, which you evidently agree with, and ultimately why I find it so funny that people are so up in arms about this holy first round pick that everyone is so upset about losing.
                              But the league as a whole as spoken, and teams are now saying that the odds of a running back drafted in the first round being significantly better than running backs drafted in later rounds are much lower than that of other positions. Sure, maybe the CB you draft in the first round doesn't end up being very good, but the odds of him being elite relative to CB's drafted in the second round and beyond are still much better than the odds of a RB drafted in the first being a lot better than RB's drafted later in the draft. The RB position just doesn't have much individual importance anymore, which is why teams don't burn valuable first round picks on it. The Colts pretty much bungled Cost/Benefit Analysis 101 when they made the trade. The odds of T-Rich ever being anywhere good enough to justify it were slim from day one. Had they drafted a CB, DT, or O-Linemen, at least the odds of that player outperforming the rest of the guys at the position would have been better.

                              Sure, the draft is a crap shoot to some extent. These are humans after all and there were will always be some unpredictability. But on a year to year basis, most of the best players will be selected near the top of the draft. As a whole, the NFL knows what it's doing. These guys have the absolute hell scouted out of them by people who are paid to do nothing but watch football. This is why the cream on average will rise to the top. Let's look at the 2007 draft - 8 years in so everyone has had a ton of time to establish themselves. I count 14 Pro Bowlers in the first round - an absurd 43%. There were 17 Pro Bowlers taken in the next 6 rounds - just 8%. Let's also look at 2008. 7 years in, so everyone has had a ton of time to establish themselves. I count 10 pro bowlers taken in the first round (almost a third of the first rounders), yet just 10 more in the rest of the draft (about 5%).

                              This is far from being some crap shoot. Your odds of drafting a Pro Bowl caliber player in the first round are much much much higher than the other rounds. In most years, you probably generally have about as many first round Pro Bowlers as you do in the other six rounds combined. This is no surprise since you have brilliant football minds scouting the hell out of the players. When spending a first round pick, you go for positions where you have the best chance of drafting a true difference maker. In this day in age, you don't spend a first rounder on a position like running back in which the odds of finding a true difference maker are low.

                              Earlier I listed all of the big names from the mid 2000's who were first rounders: Harrison, Glenn, Manning (unique first pick, so not the best example), Edge, Wayne, Freeney, Clark, Addai. These guys succeeding wasn't just some random crapshoot in which the Colts got lucky. No, they were cream of the crop type players who were correctly scouted to be taken at the top of the draft.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-18-2014, 11:31 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                                Who spoke? What is all this rabble about teams and running backs and odds? Every position on the field is valuable. Every position has the same pass/fail odds in the draft. This nonsense that seems to be commonly copied and pasted on message boards is nonsense.
                                I've heard some real humdingers this year... offensive lines don't matter... running backs don't matter, coaching doesn't matter... all you need is a good quarterback... teams don't care about running the ball... it's a passing league... you win with high draft picks....

                                All Nonsense.

                                Look at the reigning SB champs. They don't adhere to a single one of those myths.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 11:39 PM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X