Tweet
I want to read this also it would be great is someone could help out and post it.
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.
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
-
-
Re: Article Request from ESPN
I'd do it if I could.... -
Re: Article Request from ESPN
I was wondering if someone could get this one also:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/columns...reg&id=2022566
Or if it's been posted already, show me where it's at.
Gracias.
IndyToad
Completely invisibleComment
-
Re: Article Request from ESPN
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=10540Originally posted by indytoadComment
-
Re: Article Request from ESPN
Thanks.Originally posted by rcarey
IndyToad
No, reallyComment
-
Re: Article Request from ESPN
I got ya man, I'll paste it into the next post.Comment
-
Re: Article Request from ESPN
No. 1 pick rumored to change hands
Scouts Inc.
Only ESPN.com Insiders get complete access to scouting reports, match-up breakdowns and more from Scouts Inc. Who are these guys? Check 'em out.
# Take the Insider tour
Become an Insider
Our scouts have been tracking the top NFL prospects since last summer, evaluating their in-season performances both on film and in person, comparing notes with NFL personnel experts, and scouting all-star games and the NFL combine. Individual scouting reports from that legwork can be found in DraftTracker.
Below is our fourth crack at mapping out the first round. We'll be scouting individual workouts, as well as zeroing in on NFL teams' ever-changing needs to make sure our projections remain accurate and realistic.
* = underclassman
2005 NFL draft, projected first round
1. San Francisco 49ers (2-14)
Aaron Rodgers* | QB | California
One rumor that is picking up speed has the 49ers dealing this pick in exchange for Chargers QB Philip Rivers. It might not come to fruition, but it certainly makes sense for both sides. The Chargers would then have three first-round picks and their starting quarterback of the future in Drew Brees. The 49ers, on the other hand, would get a better quarterback prospect than they could find in this draft, as Rivers grades out considerably higher than Rodgers and Alex Smith (Utah). If that potential deal fizzles, the 49ers are left with a difficult decision. In our opinion, WR Braylon Edwards is the top-overall rated player in the 2005 draft, but the Niners need a quarterback much more than they need a receiver. Personnel officials across the country seem to be split between Rodgers and Smith as this year's top-rated quarterback, but we think Rodgers gets the slight edge because of his greater arm strength and experience in a pro-style system.
2. Miami Dolphins (4-12)
Ronnie Brown | RB | Auburn
The Dolphins' best bet would be trading down in order to acquire extra picks, but that scenario is unlikely. New head coach Nick Saban and his staff have addressed needs along the offensive line and throughout the defense via free agency, which leaves the running back and quarterback positions as the most glaring weaknesses. Saban must first decide if A.J. Feeley is his quarterback in the future. If not, drafting a quarterback would be the right move. If, however, Saban can live with Feeley as his franchise quarterback, drafting one of three top running backs in this class -- Cedric Benson, Ronnie Brown and Carnell Williams -- becomes the next best move because there simply isn't an offensive tackle who warrants consideration with the second overall pick. Benson might be the more powerful runner and Williams might be the most elusive, but Brown is the best overall running back in this year's draft. Brown is big, strong and fast enough to carry a heavy load in the NFL and he also possesses considerably better skills in the passing game than those of Benson and Williams.
3. Cleveland Browns (4-12)
Alex Smith* | QB | Utah
Like the two teams ahead of them, the Browns would ideally like to trade down, acquire extra picks and get a better value on one of three mid-to-late round offensive tackle prospects in this draft class -- Alex Barron, Jammal Brown and Khalif Barnes. Assuming, however, they get stuck at No. 3, new GM Phil Savage has to decide whether he wants to draft his quarterback of the future -- Smith or Rodgers, depending on which is available -- or go in a different direction. Judging by Savage's game-plan when he was helping control things in Baltimore, Savage would like to build the rest of the team first and then plug in the quarterback later. The problem, however, is that there just isn't an elite defensive prospect worth picking at No. 3. The Browns have most recently addressed needs along their offensive line (Joe Andruzzi and Cosey Coleman) and at cornerback (Samari Rolle), which may signal Savage's realization that his best draft-day value will be at quarterback. Smith is one of the most intelligent and consistent quarterbacks to come out of the collegiate ranks in years and he solidified a top spot in this year's draft with a recent awe-inspiring workout on campus. He will need time to develop physically and that may be the exact reason for acquiring veteran QB Trent Dilfer.
4. Chicago Bears (5-11)
Braylon Edwards | WR | Michigan
Don't be shocked if the Bears use this pick on a wide receiver, even after signing Muhsin Muhammad to a long-term deal. The Bears have enough young talent on defense, but they desperately need more playmakers on the offensive side of the ball. The team might draft one of the top three running backs, but Edwards is the best available prospect at a position with similar need. Adding Muhammad and Edwards in one offseason could be just what QB Rex Grossman and RB Thomas Jones need. Finally, some think that the Bears will shy away from using another top pick on a Michigan wide receiver, but that theory is ridiculous. For starters, the current regime wasn't in place when the Bears drafted David Terrell. Secondly, Edwards is bigger and faster than Terrell and he made far more big plays at the collegiate level than Terrell did. Edwards is the best receiver in this year's draft and he has elite NFL potential.
5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5-11)
Carnell Williams | RB | Auburn
The Buccaneers could go in several different directions with this pick, including RB, OT, OG, QB, WR, DT or DB. Looking at the probabilities regarding how the top of the draft board will unfold, RB is likely to be the position that the Bucs will get their best value with the fifth overall pick. While Benson is a better fit for an offense looking for a load-carrying power runner, Williams is a better fit for Jon Gruden's version of the West Coast offense. Williams still needs to improve as a blocker, but he's the shiftiest and most elusive of the top three backs (Brown and Benson) and has the hands to become a legitimate weapon as a receiver out of the backfield. It also won't hurt Williams' chances that Gruden fell in love with him while coaching him at the Senior Bowl.
6. Tennessee Titans (5-11)
Adam Jones* | DC | West Virginia
The needs keep piling up thanks to another free agency mass exodus. Considering both of last year's starting cornerbacks (Rolle and Andre Dyson) are gone, the rebuilding Titans could really use a playmaker like Jones on defense and special teams. Not only does Jones have the cover skills, speed and toughness to develop into a shutdown cornerback in the NFL, he also has loads of upside as an NFL return specialist.
7. Minnesota Vikings (from Raiders) (8-8)
Mike Williams* | WR | USC
The Vikings have few needs to address and can really focus in on the ones they do have with two first-round picks thanks to the Randy Moss (Raiders) deal. The team did sign Travis Taylor in free agency, but it plans on using him in the slot. Nate Burleson is entrenched as a starter but Marcus Robinson is aging and inconsistent. In all reality, the Vikings have great depth at the position, but they lack a premier No. 1 now that Moss is gone. Williams might not possess Moss' freakish talents, but he's a dynamic weapon in his own right. Running in the 4.5s at the combine really solidified Williams as a top-10 selection and the corps of Williams, Burleson, Robinson and Taylor could make the transition a lot easier than expected for QB Daunte Culpepper.
8. Arizona Cardinals (6-10)
Cedric Benson | RB | Texas
If the board unraveled as such, Dennis Green and company would have a difficult decision to make between Benson, and Miami DC Antrel Rolle. Running backs have a tendency to slip on draft day, but Benson is one of three outstanding prospects in this year's class and Green is notorious for drafting offense ahead of defense. Benson doesn't have great speed or elusiveness, but he's a north-south runner with great vision, size and power. He would instantly solidify one of the team's most glaring weaknesses after Emmitt Smith's retirement.
9. Washington Redskins (6-10)
Antrel Rolle | DC | Miami-Fla.
Rolle has the size, instincts, toughness and athletic ability to quickly become a solid starter in the NFL. His biggest obstacle in solidifying a potential spot in the top-10 was proving that he was fast enough to turn and run with NFL receivers. His recent 4.49 in the 40-yard dash should ease those worries. With DC Fred Smoot's departure, Rolle would be the best match for the Redskins at No. 9.
10. Detroit Lions (6-10)
Alex Barron | OT | Florida State
The Lions could use a playmaker at defensive end, but finding a replacement for the departed Stockar McDougle at right tackle is more glaring. Barron needs to become more physical, but he has the size, strength and feet to develop into a starting right or left tackle in the NFL.
11. Dallas Cowboys (6-10)
Derrick Johnson | OLB | Texas
The Cowboys have been busy in free agency, addressing needs at defensive tackle (Jason Ferguson), quarterback (Drew Bledsoe) and cornerback (Anthony Henry). However, they are still in pursuit of upgrades at wide receiver, offensive tackle (ROT) and OLB/DE. Linebackers have a tendency to slip on draft day, but Johnson is too athletic to slip very far. He still needs to become more physical and learn to take on blocks, but Johnson has Derrick Brooks-like potential and would give Bill Parcells a lot of versatility as the Cowboys make the conversion to more 3-4 looks on defense.
12. San Diego Chargers (12-4)
Shawn Merriman* | OLB/DE | Maryland
The Chargers were tied for the third-fewest sacks in the league (29) in 2004 and they need to use this selection to improve that area. Merriman has the speed, athleticism and pass-rushing skills to immediately upgrade the Chargers' defense in that department, and he is a "tweener" DE/OLB prospect who would fit perfectly as a rush linebacker in the 3-4 scheme.
13. Houston Texans (7-9)
David Pollack | DE | Georgia
If Barron is already taken, the Texans' focus will likely shift to the OLB position in their 3-4 defensive scheme. The team used a first-round pick on Jason Babin in 2004 and, while he did make strides late last season, the team still needs a legitimate pass rusher and playmaker opposite him. Pollack might lack ideal size and top-end speed, but he has the quickness, power and playmaking instincts to immediately contribute in the NFL. Furthermore, his best fit might be as a 3-4 rush linebacker.
14. Carolina Panthers (7-9)
Troy Williamson* | WR | South Carolina
The Panthers have a No. 1 in Steve Smith and a No. 3 in Keary Colbert, but they could really use another receiver with the size and speed to draw attention on the opposite side of Smith. In our opinion, Williams would be the perfect fit. Williams is finally beginning to get the credit that he deserves after running in the 4.3s at the combine. He has the size, long arms, hands and explosive speed to quickly develop into a deep threat in the NFL.
15. Kansas City Chiefs (7-9)
Marcus Spears | DE | LSU
A DE would help most, followed by a corner who can hold up in man-to-man coverage and then some speed/youth at the WR position. The Chiefs have a decent starting combo at DE in Jared Allen and Eric Hicks, but they really are missing depth and size at the position. Spears would be a good fit, as he is a "tweener" DE/DT who could really make an impact as an interior pass rusher and play in a rotation that would give Allen and Hicks a breather while beefing up the line on first and second downs. Spears is currently rehabilitating an ACL injury he suffered while training for the combine, but he is expected to make a full recovery by early April. If he can run well (in the 4.8 range), Spears should land in the 10-20 range of the first round.
16. New Orleans Saints (8-8)
Travis Johnson | DT | Florida State
The Saints would really like to address their glaring lack of athleticism at linebacker with this selection, but the value isn't there. Instead of reaching, the Saints can get a great value at a position that unfortunately is still a weakness, despite drafting Johnathan Sullivan in the first round just two years ago. After struggling through some off-the-field issues that affected his play early in his career at FSU, Johnson had a breakout season as a full-time starter in 2004. In our opinion, he's the best defensive tackle in this year's draft class and has a chance to make a huge impact early in his NFL career as a one-gap penetrating DT with enough bulk and strength to hold the point of attack.
17. Cincinnati Bengals (8-8)
Erasmus James | DE | Wisconsin
The Bengals lessened the need at defensive tackle with the addition of Bryan Robinson, but if Johnson is still available he should be the team's pick. The other big area of need that the Bengals could address here is defensive end, where a pass rusher opposite Justin Smith is desperately needed. If James slips to 17, he'd be just as appealing as Johnson. James' less-than-impressive workout at the combine and his history of injuries might have some teams concerned about his NFL playmaking ability. However, he's the best pure pass-rushing DE in this class and is worth taking a chance on in the middle of the first round.
18. Minnesota Vikings (8-8)
Dan Cody | DE | Oklahoma
After using their first selection (No. 7) on a wide receiver to help overcome the loss of Moss, the Vikings will have some more options with this pick. The team has been moving and shaking in free agency, addressing needs all over its defense with the additions of DT Pat Williams, LBs Napoleon Harris and Sam Cowart, DC Fred Smoot and DS Darren Sharper. The only position left on that side of the ball needing an upgrade is defensive end, and drafting a pass rusher like Cody would help to solidify things in a hurry. Cody has the athleticism, speed and instincts to step in as a rookie and immediately make an impact.
19. St. Louis Rams (8-8)
Jammal Brown | OT | Oklahoma
The Rams could use upgrades at defensive end and right tackle but, now that it is clear that Kyle Turley will not return, neither of those needs is as pressing as the one at right tackle. Brown needs to become more physical, but he has the size and feet to develop into a solid starter in the NFL.
20. Dallas Cowboys (6-10)
Shaun Cody | DE | USC
After addressing their need at OLB with the 11th overall pick, the Cowboys should turn their attention to finding either a vertical threat at wide receiver or a defensive lineman who can make an immediate impact. The team is slowly moving to a 3-4, but it still needs depth at the DT/DE position, as DE Greg Ellis fits more as a rush linebacker than he does a 3-4 end. Cody is a "tweener" DE/DT who would be a perfect fit as a one-gap penetrating DT next to La'Roi Glover and could also play the DE position when the team is in its 3-4 look.
21. Jacksonville Jaguars (9-7)
Khalif Barnes | OT | Washington
The Jaguars addressed their most glaring need (DE) with the free-agency addition of Reggie Hayward. Finding an upgrade over Mike Pearson at LOT is the next objective. Barnes has had a huge postseason, as he has wowed NFL brass at both the Senior Bowl and combine. He clearly has the athleticism and size to develop into an above-average starter at the next level. All he needs is good coaching and motivation. He's certainly worth the risk late in the first round.
22. Baltimore Ravens (9-7)
Roddy White | WR | Alabama-Birmingham
By adding WR Derrick Mason and DC Samari Rolle via free agency, the Ravens have given themselves a lot of draft-day flexibility. However, with Travis Taylor gone, the team still needs WR depth. White left the Senior Bowl earl with a hamstring injury, but he proved during the first couple days of practice that he has the speed and playmaking capability to make a difference in the vertical passing game at the next level. He doesn't have elite size, but White has the speed to draw attention away from Mason, which is something the Ravens lack on their roster right now.
23. Seattle Seahawks (9-7)
Carlos Rogers | DC | Auburn
After losing Ken Lucas via free agency, the corner position is weakened to the point Kelly Herndon is penciled in as the starter opposite Marcus Trufant. While addressing the linebacker corps is a greater need, Rogers is a better value at this point than any of the available linebackers. Rogers has good size and speed. Most importantly, he is a physical cover corner with the athletic ability and confidence to play both man-to-man and zone coverage in the NFL.
24. Green Bay Packers (10-6)
Thomas Davis* | S | Georgia
The Packers need help at linebacker and a replacement for Darren Sharper at safety. Davis can't do both, but he should be able to solve one of those problems. Davis played OLB early in his collegiate career but moved to safety and became an absolute terror as a sideline-to-sideline run stopper. Davis might not have the range and cover skills to develop into a safety in the NFL, but he has bulked up to 230 pounds and ran a 4.6 at the combine. In our opinion, Davis has a chance to develop into an athletic OLB in the NFL or an "in-the-box" SS type. Either way, Davis would provide an upgrade for the Packers' defense.
25. Denver Broncos (10-6)
Demarcus Ware | DE | Troy
After losing Reggie Hayward (Jaguars) via free agency, the Broncos need a young perimeter pass-rushing presence and Ware could be just the answer. He's a "tweener" DE/OLB who fits perfectly as a rush linebacker in the team's new 3-4 scheme.
26. New York Jets (10-6)
Heath Miller* | TE | Virginia
The Jets' most glaring weakness on either side of the ball is at cornerback, but their second-biggest need is at tight end after Anthony Becht fled to Tampa Bay. Furthermore, Miller is a much better value than any cornerback the Jets could get with this pick. Miller lacks Todd Heap- and Tony Gonzalez-type speed, but he's just a notch below the elite in terms of playmaking ability. He has very good size, is a smooth athlete, has a terrific feel for the passing game and might have the best hands of any skill position player in this draft. There are some concerns right now about a lingering sports hernia injury that kept him from working out at the combine.
27. Atlanta Falcons (11-5)
Fabian Washington | DC | Nebraska
The Falcons have bigger needs. They could entertain the idea of drafting Oklahoma's Brodney Pool, the best true free safety prospect in this year's class, but they picked up Ronnie Heard and Rich Coady via free agency. The next biggest need is at defensive tackle, but there isn't a player close to matching this value at the position. Finally, they also could pounce on one of the top three offensive tackles -- Barron, Brown and Barnes -- if one is still around at No. 27. So, if the draft board plays out like this, drafting another young potential star cornerback to play opposite DeAngelo Hall wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if Jason Webster is your No. 2 CB at this point. No player improved his stock at the combine more than Washington, who ran one of the fastest 40-yard dash times (4.25) in the history of the event.
28. San Diego Chargers (12-4)
Mark Clayton | WR | Oklahoma
If the Chargers improve their pass rush with the 12th overall selection, their attention should turn to the other side of the ball with pick No. 28. Roddy White would make sense if he slips, but Clayton is just as good of a value -- if not better. Clayton's lack of size is somewhat concerning, but he has very good speed, exceptional hands and is a threat after the catch.
29. Indianapolis Colts (12-4)
Channing Crowder* | ILB | Florida
The Colts made the right decision parting ways with former starting MLB Rob Morris because he just didn't fit. He will be a good run-plugger in a different uniform, but he didn't have the speed or cover skills that are necessary to play in the cover-2. Crowder is still raw, but he's a good athlete with a mean streak. His range and agility make him a much better fit for Tony Dungy's scheme.
30. Pittsburgh Steelers (15-1)
Marlin Jackson | DC | Michigan
The Steelers have other needs at right tackle, defensive end, wide receiver, tight end and free safety, but none of them are pressing. The Steelers say they are content with their cornerback position, but if that's the truth they are missing something. Ricardo Colclough should emerge as a solid starter next season and Deshea Townsend is decent at the other corner, but Chad Scott was a cap casualty and Willie Williams is 34-years old. By drafting Jackson, the Steelers could solidify this position for the future. Townsend could eventually move inside to the slot position, where he fits best, and the Steelers would have an excellent young tandem of Colclough and Jackson on the perimeter.
31. Philadelphia Eagles (13-3)
Matt Roth | DE | Iowa
After re-signing DT Corey Simon and MLB Jeremiah Trotter, the Eagles' only needs in the draft are for depth purposes. Look for them to add a guard/tackle, wide receiver, running back, defensive lineman, linebacker and safety if they keep all five of their day-one picks. Roth has the athleticism, quickness, instincts and tenacity to provide quality reps as a rookie. With Derrick Burgess leaving town and Jerome McDougle failing to stay healthy, this also is the safest pick.
32. New England Patriots (14-2)
Odell Thurman* | ILB | Georgia
The Patriots have needs at cornerback and along their offensive line, but inside linebacker is the most pressing now that the team is fairly confident that Tedy Bruschi (heart) is gone for at least one season. However, he has the physical tools of a late-first-round pick and was a vacuum when on the field during his two-year stint at Georgia.Comment
-
Re: Article Request from ESPN
Why is everyone thinking we will pick Crowder? This kind of guarentees that we won't...Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.Comment
-
Re: Article Request from ESPN
i think we should get Odell Thurman! he has delivered some PUNISHING blows (not that kind, i mean tackles!). GO DAWGS!Comment
Comment