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: Insider Request
After two days and 255 NFL draft picks, now's the time to evaluate what each team accomplished in New York. There's a clear group of teams that addressed needs and will be better because of it, led by Baltimore, Houston and San Francisco. How all this translates onto the field remains to be seen, but for now the guessing and second-guessing has already begun.
Arizona Cardinals: GRADE: B
I give them an A for the first day and a C for the second day. The Cardinals' QB of the future, Matt Leinart, fell into their lap at No. 10 (I had Leinart as the third best player in the draft). Guard Taitusi "Deuce" Lutui (second round) and TE Leonard Pope (third round) were great picks. Defensive tackle Gabe Watson underachieved at Michigan, and I wonder if coach Denny Green will be able to motivate him. OLB Brandon Johnson and DT Jon Lew could be good backups. The Cardinals didn't address the offensive line on the second day -- I thought they would come away with one or two more offensive linemen.
Atlanta Falcons: GRADE: C
You have to factor in the trade that brought them defensive end John Abraham. Cornerback Jimmy Williams will help the secondary and was a good second-round pick. RB Jerious Norwood has great speed, gives them some security and can take some of the load off Warrick Dunn. Adam Jennings will help with the return game and as a fifth wide receiver. D.J. Shockley is a developmental quarterback who may eventually be a serviceable backup.
Baltimore Ravens: GRADE: B+
The Ravens did a really good job of addressing needs effectively. Their first-round pick, DT Haloti Ngata, will help right away on the interior of the line and, they hope, will free up MLB Ray Lewis. Chris Chester will help on the offensive line, and David Pittman is an ideal nickel defensive back. On the second day, the Ravens helped themselves with WR Demetrius Williams, RB P.J. Daniels, TE Quinn Sypniewski and OLB Ryan LaCasse of Syracuse, who will be a good special-teams player.
Buffalo Bills: GRADE: C
While it was a reach to take safety Donte Whitner with the eighth pick, he is a great prospect and I like him. Giving up a third-round pick to get DT John McCargo in the first round was a reach. He's a solid player but not an elite one. Cornerback Ashton Youboty lasted longer than I thought but is a very good pick. Safety Ko Simpson and defensive tackle Kyle Williams are solid. Overall, the Bills reached on both of their first-round picks but drafted players who will help the team.
Carolina Panthers: GRADE: C
Carolina didn't draft a wide receiver and didn't take a tight end until the fifth round. Taking RB DeAngelo Williams at No. 27 gives the Panthers good security behind DeShaun Foster. Getting CB Richard Marshall makes up for the loss of Ricky Manning to the Bears. The Panthers made some reaches on OLB James Anderson, OT Rashad Butler and FS Nate Salley, but Jeff King could be a serviceable tight end.
Chicago Bears: GRADE: B
The Bears traded out of the first round and were still able to get secondary help in Danieal Manning. Devin Hester is a great athlete, but is he a cornerback or wide receiver? Hester will help the Bears in the return game. Dusty Dvoracek will get worked into the rotation at defensive tackle, and I really like the pick of defensive end Mark Anderson in the fifth round. J.D. Runnels could start as a rookie at fullback and was a great find in the sixth round. I was surprised the Bears didn't address needs at tight end and wide receiver.
Cincinnati Bengals: GRADE: C
Cincinnati needed a tight end but never took one. CB Johnathan Joseph was a solid first-round pick and OT Andrew Whitworth was good value in the second round, but DE Frostee Rucker was a reach in the third round. LB A.J. Nicholson slid because he has had off-the-field issues but is good with the pads on. Reggie McNeal isn't going to be an NFL quarterback, so it will be interesting to see where he plays. The Bengals also had a couple of insignificant late picks.
Cleveland Browns: GRADE: B
First-round pick Kamerion Wimbley will be a perfect OLB in the 3-4 defense, and D'Qwell Jackson reminds me of Jonathan Vilma. Wide receiver Travis Wilson could be a third or fourth option in the passing game. I like RB Jerome Harrison in the fifth round, and the Browns also got really good value in the sixth round with FB Lawrence Vickers and DT Babatunde Oshinowo of Stanford.
Dallas Cowboys: GRADE: B-
In the first round, they drafted a very versatile and talented OLB, Bobby Carpenter. Anthony Fasano is a good tight end, but the Cowboys already have Jason Witten, and more importantly, they didn't get the free safety and offensive line help I thought they needed. Skyler Green brings speed to the return game, and I do like the selection of DT Montavious Stanley in the sixth round.
Denver Broncos: GRADE: B
You have to factor in the acquisition of WR Javon Walker when grading the Broncos. I wasn't as high on QB Jay Cutler as much as some people were -- Denver took him at No. 11 -- but he is going to a well-coached team. Tony Scheffler is a very good pass-catching tight end, but taking him in the second round was too high. Guard Chris Kuper and C Greg Eslinger are both ideally suited for Denver's blocking scheme.
Detroit Lions: GRADE: C+
I thought I'd be higher on the Lions, but what concerned me was that they passed on Leinart. Ernie Sims (who they picked at No. 9 instead of Leinart) is a good linebacker, and Daniel Bullocks is a good prospect at safety. I also like the pick of RB Brian Calhoun in the third round if they can work him into the rotation with Kevin Jones. Guard Fred Matua was a very good pick, especially in the seventh round.
Green Bay Packers: GRADE: B
I gave Green Bay an A after the first day. The Packers had a lot of picks (12), and some were definitely reaches. Linebacker A.J. Hawk, their first-round pick at No. 5, will give the Packers a much-needed face on defense. Offensive tackle Daryn Colledge needs to get stronger and become a better run-blocker. I really like WR Greg Jennings, LB Abdul Hodge and C Jason Spitz. Will Blackmon was both a wide receiver and cornerback at Boston College, but reportedly he will get a chance to play corner initially.
Houston Texans: GRADE: B+
I would have taken Reggie Bush with the first overall pick. But I have to respect the pick of Mario Williams, especially if he's consistent from game to game. DeMeco Ryans at linebacker was a solid second-round pick, while Charles Spencer and Eric Winston will help out the offensive line. With TE Owen Daniels and RB Wali Lundy, Houston did a very good job of sizing up the board.
Indianapolis Colts: GRADE: C
First-round pick Joseph Addai (at No. 30) is a good blocking running back, but he is not all that dynamic running the ball. Tim Jennings will be a solid nickel cornerback, and I like the pick of LB Freddie Keiaho in the third round.
Jacksonville Jaguars: GRADE: C+
First-round pick Marcedes Lewis (No. 28) will get a great opportunity to be the pass-catching tight end the Jaguars need. His UCLA teammate, Maurice Drew, is a good runner and has good hands. He should also help Jacksonville in the return game. DE Brent Hawkins was one of the best defensive ends at the Division I-AA level, and DE James Wyche had great numbers but a disappointing senior season at Syracuse. CB Dee Webb went in the seventh round; he would have been better served staying at Florida for his senior season.
Kansas City Chiefs: GRADE: C
I thought the Chiefs would go with a cornerback, but you can't argue with their first-round pick at No. 20, DE Tamba Hali. S Bernard Pollard is a hitter but is questionable in coverage. Brodie Croyle might be the future at quarterback and will be able to learn a lot from Trent Green. I thought the Chiefs would take a cornerback higher than they did (Marcus Maxey in the fifth round). The Chiefs also needed a wide receiver but didn't take one until the sixth round (Jeff Webb of San Diego State).
Miami Dolphins: GRADE: C
Cornerback Jason Allen (No. 16), who was recruited by Nick Saban when he was the coach at LSU, has made a great comeback from a hip injury. I was never totally enamored with WR Derek Hagan, but getting him in the third round isn't a bad pick. OT Joe Toledo has a lot of potential but needs some coaching. DT Rodrique Wright's stock seemed to constantly be dropping.
Minnesota Vikings: GRADE: C+
Linebacker Chad Greenway was a very good pick at No. 17, while Cedric Griffin is a solid defensive back who needs to play the ball better. Ryan Cook is a versatile center who could be moved elsewhere on the offensive line. QB Tarvaris Jackson went a bit high, but he has a chance to be the Vikings' future quarterback. DE Ray Edwards struggled as a junior, and I thought he needed another season at Purdue.
New England Patriots: GRADE: B
Laurence Maroney, selected at No. 21, gives the Patriots a security blanket at running back. WR Chad Jackson was a nice pick in the second round and could have gone in the middle of the first. TE Dave Thomas has excellent hands, while Garret Mills might be more of a fullback. Kicker Stephen Gostkowski was a reach in the fourth round (I didn't think any kickers would get drafted). New England had a great first day and a good second day.
New Orleans Saints: GRADE: C
The Saints got the top player on the board in running back Reggie Bush, but I don't understand the pick of safety Roman Harper in the second round when they needed help at cornerback and linebacker. They didn't take a linebacker, and they waited until the sixth round to get a corner (Josh Lay of Pittsburgh). I do like guard Zach Strief in the seventh round, especially since he could have gone as high as the third round.
New York Giants: GRADE: C+
DE Mathias Kiwanuka was a reach late in the first round, but he will get a chance to learn from Michael Strahan and Osi Umenyiora. Getting WR Sinorice Moss in the second round was one of the best picks in the draft; he could be the deep threat the Giants' offense needs. Guy Whimper is a versatile offensive lineman and could have gone higher than the fourth round.
New York Jets: GRADE: B-
I thought the Jets reached late on the first day with LB Anthony Schlegel and S Eric Smith. They did do a good job of building an offensive line with their two first-round picks, OT D'Brickashaw Ferguson (No. 4) and C Nick Mangold (No. 29). RB Leon Washington was a nice second-day pick. Former Missouri QB Brad Smith went on the second day, but I'm not sure where he'll fit in. DT Titus Adams was a really good pick in the seventh round; I thought he could have gone a bit higher.
Oakland Raiders: GRADE C:
Safety Michael Huff, their first-round pick at No. 7, and linebacker Thomas Howard will help the defense, while S Darnell Bing made sense in the fourth round. Weber State's Paul McQuistan will help the offensive line next season, and Cornell guard Kevin Boothe was a solid pick. I didn't give the Raiders a high grade because they didn't address needs along the defensive line and at running back.
Philadelphia Eagles: GRADE: B
I really like DT Brodrick Bunkley playing next to Mike Patterson on the defensive line. OT Winston Justice and Georgia OG Max Jean-Gilles will solidify the left side of the offensive line for years to come. Chris Gocong was a solid pick, whether they play him at defensive end or linebacker, and Jeremy Bloom will be a great pick once he shakes off the rust from being away from the game. Still, Bloom can help the Eagles in the return game this season.
Pittsburgh Steelers: GRADE: C+
The Steelers have replaced Antwaan Randle El with wide receivers Santonio Holmes (first round, No. 25) and Willie Reid. On defense, getting Anthony Smith at safety makes up for the loss of Chris Hope in free agency. DT Orien Harris could turn out to be one of the better Day 2 picks.
San Diego Chargers: GRADE: C
CB Antonio Cromartie (first round, No. 19) could be a great player and has tremendous upside. The Chargers needed a cornerback, and Cromartie is worth the roll of the dice. OT Marcus McNeill is good, but he plays tall and could have trouble with quick, smaller defensive ends. I have no idea what San Diego is getting in QB Charlie Whitehurst -- he's great one week and average the next. I am surprised the Chargers didn't go after a wide receiver, which was one of their bigger need areas.
San Francisco 49ers: GRADE: B+
I gave them an A on the first day with tight end Vernon Davis (at No. 6) and OLB Manny Lawson. DE/OLB Parys Haralson, who has good pass-rushing skills, was a solid second-day pick. Penn State QB Michael Robinson landed with the 49ers, but it will be interesting to see what position he ends up playing next season. Lawson's teammate at NC State, Marcus Hudson, could be a versatile safety in the NFL.
Seattle Seahawks: GRADE: B
They had only six picks, but I like what the Seahawks did with each of them. You can't argue with CB Kelly Jennings in the first round and DE Darryl Tapp with the 63rd pick. Seattle did a good job of addressing needs early and followed that up with Ohio State OG Rob Sims and USC fullback David Kirtman.
St. Louis Rams: GRADE: C+
I like some things the Rams did -- like taking CB Tye Hill at No. 15 -- but they gambled on DT Claude Wroten in the third round. They got two very good tight ends in Joe Klopfenstein and Dominique Byrd, although Byrd dropped because of concerns about his knees. Jon Alston is a fast outside linebacker, while ILB Tim McGarigle will help out on special teams.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: GRADE: C+
Tampa Bay went offensive line with its first two picks: OG Davin Joseph and OT Jeremy Trueblood. Joseph might have been high for the first round, while Trueblood is tall and sometimes plays upright. Wide receiver Maurice Stovall really improved under coach Charlie Weis and was a very good third-round pick. Alan Zemaitis is a solid cornerback who has a knack for the ball.
Tennessee Titans: GRADE: B
I would have taken Leinart, but Vince Young will be a very good quarterback. RB LenDale White will be highly motivated coming in as a second-round pick. Don't forget that he's reunited with Norm Chow, the former offensive coordinator at USC who holds that position with Tennessee. Calvin Lowry was a very underrated safety at Penn State.
Washington Redskins: GRADE: C
The Redskins had only one pick on the first day, and that was used on Rocky McIntosh in the second round (No. 35 overall); McIntosh will come in and start at weakside linebacker. Last year, Washington traded picks in this draft to take QB Jason Campbell last year, and they traded their third-round pick this year to get WR Brandon Lloyd from the 49ers. -
Re: Insider Request
Thanks!!!
Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
I hate Mel Kiper.Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Who in the hell is Mel Kiper, anyway?Originally posted by Believe_in_blue
Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Yeah, has he ever put on a jock before?Originally posted by KegboyWho in the hell is Mel Kiper, anyway?
Definitely my favorite Polianism.:thepacersComment
Tweet
Comment