Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

Insider Request

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

  • Insider Request

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft...odd&id=2431123
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

  • #2
    Re: Insider Request

    With another NFL draft in the books, here's my take on how the AFC teams fared this year:
    Baltimore Ravens
    Best pick: Wide receiver Demetrius Williams, Oregon. This pick is classic Ravens -- selecting the best available athlete regardless of position. Williams' lean build and durability issues led to his nose-dive on draft weekend, but the Ravens were glad to provide him with a parachute in the fourth round. With Derrick Mason, Mark Clayton, Clarence Moore and Devard Darling already in the stable, Baltimore does not need Williams to produce. However, if he can stay healthy and reach his full potential, Williams has the speed and hands to emerge as a vertical playmaker in the near future.
    Worst pick: Cornerback David Pittman, Northwestern State. By no means was this a bad pick in the third round, but there were some better options. Pittman is a slightly overrated prospect and will need time to make the transition from the small-school level to the NFL. More polished prospects who were available include Penn State's Alan Zemaitis and Georgia's DeMario Minter.
    Work to do: The Ravens were successful in their pursuit of defensive line help (Oregon NT Haloti Ngata, first round) and offensive line help (Oklahoma OC Chris Chester, second round), but they failed to make a serious dent at free safety. Georgia Tech's Dawan Landry, who was selected in the fifth round, projects as nothing more than a reserve safety and special-teams contributor. The team must do something between now and the start of the 2006 season to upgrade the safety spot opposite Ed Reed, as B.J. Ward simply will not get the job done.
    Buffalo Bills
    Best pick: Cornerback Ashton Youboty, Ohio State. Youboty was a terrific find in the third round. After giving up some big plays and seemingly losing some of his confidence last season, Youboty's ability to handle the mental aspect of the cornerback position was questioned, and he fell as a result. In all reality, though, Youboty is a late-first round talent with the speed and athletic ability to eventually develop into the starting cornerback opposite Nate Clements if his technique improves and his confidence is restored.
    Worst pick: Defensive tackle John McCargo, N.C. State. Taking Ohio State safety Donte Whitner eighth overall was a reach, but not nearly as big a reach as McCargo was with the 26th overall selection. Making matters worse was the Bills' decision to trade up from the second round, where McCargo likely would have fallen to them in the first place.
    Work to do: Although Whitner and McCargo were reaches, at least they both fit positions of high priority for the Bills. The one area the Bills must still address, however, is offensive tackle. Brad Butler (Virginia) should provide depth as a fifth-round pick, but he is not projected as a starter. The problem is on the left side, where Mike Gandy lacks ideal athletic ability and has problems holding his own in pass protection. Cincinnati Bengals
    Best pick: Johnathan Joseph, cornerback, South Carolina. The Bengals took advantage of a deep cornerback class by taking Joseph with the 24th overall pick. Joseph lacks ideal experience as a first-round prospect, but his combination of size, speed and natural athletic ability is outstanding. He should compete immediately with Keiwan Ratliff for playing time in the nickel and dime packages, and he ultimately should take over for Tory James as the starting right cornerback for the Bengals.
    Worst pick: Frostee Rucker, defensive end, USC. Defensive end was definitely a need area, but Rucker was taken too high at No. 91 overall. Rucker has enough quickness and size to develop into an effective situational reserve, but he simply is not dominant in any one area. He lacks power to consistently hold his ground versus the run and isn't fast enough to develop into a legitimate threat as a situational edge rusher. The Bengals could have found a more explosive end prospect, including Victor Adeyanju (Indiana) or Ray Edwards (Purdue).
    Work to do: The Bengals failed to improve their tight end situation via the draft. Matt Schobel signed with Philadelphia this offseason, which leaves Reggie Kelly as the starter and Tony Stewart as Kelly's backup. While both Kelly and Stewart block well, neither is a weapon in the passing game. Cincinnati needs an athletic tight end with enough speed to make some big catches down the middle of the field. At this point, though, it might be too late to find someone who fits that description.
    Cleveland Browns
    Best pick: Travis Wilson, wide receiver, Oklahoma. Defensive end/outside linebacker Kamerion Wimbley (Florida State, first round) and inside linebacker D'Qwell Jackson (Maryland, second round) were good picks in the first two rounds, as were inside linebacker Leon Williams (Miami) and cornerback DeMario Minter (Gerogia) in the fourth and fifth rounds, respectively. The Browns' best overall value, however, came in the third round when they disregarded needs and went with the best available athlete in Wilson. In my opinion, Wilson is one of the most underrated prospects in this year's class because he battled a foot injury for most of his senior season in 2005. Wilson has the size, speed and hands to eventually develop into a fine No. 2 starter opposite Braylon Edwards.
    Worst pick: Isaac Sowells, offensive tackle, Indiana. The Browns could have addressed other positions in the fourth round. More importantly, there were many better offensive line prospects still on the board when the Browns selected Sowells. While Sowells possesses good size and adequate strength, he lacks the size and athleticism to hold up on an island as an offensive tackle in the NFL. I'm also not convinced that Sowells will develop into anything more than a backup interior offensive lineman for the Browns.
    Work to do: The Browns were fortunate that Stanford defensive tackle Babatunde Oshinowo fell to them in the sixth round, but he cannot be expected to emerge as the long-term replacement for Ted Washington at the all-important nose tackle position in their 3-4 defense. So Cleveland still lacks ideal talent and depth along its defensive front. The team also failed to draft a cornerback before the fifth round (Minter) or a safety before the seventh round (Virginia Tech's Justin Hamilton), which are two position they are thin at.
    Denver Broncos
    Best pick: Wide receiver Javon Walker, Packers. Trading for Walker was the smartest move the Broncos made during draft weekend. In Walker, the Broncos get a known commodity at wide receiver. Walker should bounce back after an injury-riddled 2005 season and is the type of consistent weapon Denver has been missing for years opposite Rod Smith. Ashley Lelie could be a good vertical threat as a third option out of the slot, but there's also a chance the disgruntled receiver could be playing in a different uniform next season.
    Worst pick: Wide receiver Domenik Hixon, Akron. Hixon was a bit of a reach in the fourth round with the 130th pick, but the even bigger problem I have with this pick is that the Broncos selected receiver Brandon Marshall (Central Florida) 11 picks earlier (119th pick) and traded for Walker. Hixon can help in the return game, but the Broncos could have used this pick on a running back such as P.J. Daniels (Georgia Tech) or a defensive tackle such as Orien Harris (Miami-Fla.).
    Work to do: When you add Walker to the mix, it's safe to say the Broncos had a successful 2006 draft. They addressed pressing needs at wide receiver (Walker, Marshall and Hixon), tight end (Tony Scheffler, Western Michigan, second round) and defensive end (Elvis Dumervil, Louisville, fourth round), while also taking care of the future of the quarterback position (Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt, first round). However, the area of need the Broncos overlooked was running back. Unless the team makes an unforeseen move in the next few months, it will rely on the one-two punch of Tatum Bell and Ron Dayne in 2006. The Broncos were unable to improve the depth problem at defensive tackle, as well.
    Houston Texans
    Best pick: Offensive tackle Eric Winston, Miami-Fla. After two years of ignoring offensive line needs on Day 1, the Texans hit the jackpot with Winston and Pittsburgh OG Charles Spencer in the third round of the 2006 draft. Winston slipped due to concerns regarding his 2004 knee injury, but if he returns to form, the Texans may finally have the left tackle they've been searching for since Tony Boselli's premature retirement.
    Worst pick: Mario Williams, DE, N.C. State. Williams is cheaper and fits a much bigger position of need, but passing on USC running back Reggie Bush with the No. 1 overall selection was a mistake that the Texans might never live down.
    Work to do: The mistake of selecting Williams over Bush aside, the Texans wound up with an excellent 2006 draft class. As the team transitions to a four-man front this season, Williams fits a huge need at defensive end, and second-round pick DeMeco Ryans (Alabama) could quickly emerge as a starter at weakside linebacker. The team also did an excellent job of addressing needs along the offensive line (Spencer and Winston) and at tight end (Wisconsin's Owen Daniels, fourth round) with the next three selections. If there was one area Houston failed to address, though, it was cornerback. Dunta Robinson and Phillip Buchanon form a talented starting tandem, but Buchanon is coming off a season-ending ankle injury and there isn't great depth here.
    Indianapolis Colts
    Best pick: Running back Joseph Addai, LSU. Using the 30th overall pick on Addai was the Colts' best option. Addai has a history of durability issues and was never the premier back for an entire season at LSU. However, he showed flashes of brilliance early in the 2005 season, when he rushed for 642 yards as the starter for the first six games. Addai has big shoes to fill, stepping in for the departed Edgerrin James (Cardinals), but at least he possesses the size, speed and versatility to fit well in the Colts' offensive scheme.
    Worst pick: Cornerback Tim Jennings, Georgia. Jennings is a quick, athletic and experienced cover corner who should be able to contribute in sub packages on defense as a rookie. However, his upside is somewhat limited by his poor size (5-foot-8, 188 pounds) and he's never been a huge playmaker. Jennings was a bit of a reach in the second round. The Colts had a chance to select OLB Jon Alston (Stanford), who would have addressed a more pressing need.
    Work to do: The Colts took care of their biggest hole with the selection of Addai late in the first round. They also improved their secondary depth with Jennings in Round 2. However, they did not solve the problem at outside linebacker. Cato June returns on the right side, but it's unclear who will start opposite him because David Thornton signed with the Titans and Gilbert Gardner hasn't progressed as hoped. While third-round pick OLB Freddie Keiaho (San Diego State) is a good fit athletically, he lacks ideal instincts and has a history of durability problems. Keiaho cannot be expected to start in the near future.
    Jacksonville Jaguars
    Best pick: Outside linebacker Clint Ingram, Oklahoma. Ingram is an underrated prospect and a good find for the Jaguars in the third round. The Jags targeted Ingram because he possesses the size to fill their void at the strong-side linebacker position, and it was wise for them to move up 11 spots to secure him with the 80th overall selection.
    Worst pick: Tight end Marcedes Lewis, UCLA. For a team that typically selects the best player available, Jacksonville focused on filling needs with each of its first four selections. Lewis wasn't a huge reach with pick No. 28, but other players offered better value, including Alabama OLB DeMeco Ryans. Had they gone in a different direction with the first pick, the Jaguars still could have upgraded the tight end position in the next round with a player such as Western Michigan's Tony Scheffler or Georgia's Leonard Pope.
    Work to do: The Jaguars' 2006 draft can be considered decent but unspectacular. They did a fine job of addressing needs with their first three picks. However, Jacksonville failed to draft a defensive end prior to the fifth round and did nothing to improve the depth issue at offensive guard.
    Kansas City Chiefs
    Best pick: Quarterback Brodie Croyle, Alabama. The Chiefs could have addressed other areas of need in the third round but wisely chose the better value in Croyle, who will be groomed as the eventual replacement for 35-year-old Trent Green.
    Worst pick: Safety Bernard Pollard, Purdue. Pollard was a bit of a reach for the Chiefs in the second round. He is a versatile safety with enough upside to potentially develop into a starter, but he lacks ideal range in coverage and had some issues taking orders from coaches in college. Furthermore, the Chiefs had much bigger needs at wide receiver and cornerback that were ignored until the second day of the draft.
    Work to do: Surprisingly, the Chiefs waited until Day 2 to address pressing needs at wide receiver and cornerback. They could have selected Ohio State WR Santonio Holmes in the first round and Fresno State DC Richard Marshall in the second round. Instead, Kansas City went with Penn State DE Tamba Hali (first round), Pollard and Croyle with its first three selections. As a result, the Chiefs still have a gaping hole at the cornerback spot opposite Patrick Surtain and a noticeable lack of playmaking ability and depth at wide receiver.
    Miami Dolphins
    Best pick: Defensive tackle Rodrique Wright, Texas. Wright was already sliding because he underachieved throughout his career at Texas, but a torn rotator cuff is the bigger reason he slipped all the way to the seventh round. Despite the obvious concerns, Wright was a steal with the 226th overall pick. If his rehabilitation is successful and Nick Saban can light a fire under him, Wright could become one of the best values of the 2006 draft.
    Worst pick: Cornerback Jason Allen, Tennessee. Allen possesses an outstanding combination of size, speed and athletic ability. He also is a versatile defensive back with experience at both the safety and cornerback positions. However, Allen projects to be a better fit at safety in the NFL and also comes with durability issues after suffering a season-ending hip injury in 2005. Nevertheless, Allen was too much of a reach for the Dolphins with the 16th overall pick.
    Work to do: When evaluating the Dolphins' 2006 draft, it must be taken into account that QB Daunte Culpepper was traded for their second-round pick. With that in mind, Miami was able to address significant needs at safety (Allen), quarterback (Culpepper) and wide receiver (Arizona State's Derek Hagan, third round) with its three first-day selections. As it stands right now, the team doesn't have any glaring needs, so long as it gets production from Allen and Hagan as rookies. The biggest priority left on the Dolphins' list is to secure QB Joey Harrington (Lions) as insurance behind Culpepper. Virginia Tech QB Marcus Vick accepted an invitation to camp to compete with Cleo Lemon and Brock Berlin for the No. 3 quarterback job.
    New England Patriots
    Best pick: Wide receiver Chad Jackson, Florida. RB Laurence Maroney (Minnesota, first round) warrants some consideration, but Jackson gets the slight edge because he was such a tremendous value in the second round. The Patriots need help at wide receiver after losing David Givens (Titans), Andre Davis (Bills) and Tim Dwight (Jets) in free agency.
    Worst pick: Tight end/Fullback Garret Mills, Tulsa. This is a tough call because Mills was a good value in the fourth round and fits the Patriots' mold as a versatile H-back who can catch and block. However, after selecting a similar player a round earlier in David Thomas (Texas), the Patriots could have used this pick to address need areas such as linebacker and cornerback.
    Work to do: The Patriots' 2006 draft was loaded with value and their first two selections (Maroney and Jackson) also helped fill voids. Unfortunately, the team failed to find help at linebacker and cornerback, considered two of New England's three most pressing positions of need. Signing Eric Warfield prior to the draft helped, but Ty Law could also be in the mix at cornerback. The Patriots will continue to shuffle their linebackers to find the right combination. They are also hoping for more production from youngster Tully Banta-Cain at outside linebacker.
    New York Jets
    Best pick: Kellen Clemens, QB, Oregon. After choosing D'Brickashaw Ferguson (Virginia) over QB Matt Leinart (USC) with the fourth overall selection, the Jets knew they had to deliver a quarterback at some point. They moved twice in the second round before getting Clemens at the right value. Clemens is coming off a season-ending leg injury in 2005, but he was having a monster senior campaign up to that point. His improved decision-making, strong arm and above-average mobility make Clemens a legitimate candidate to emerge as the Jets' future franchise quarterback.
    Worst pick: Anthony Schlegel, ILB, Ohio State. The Jets completely overvalued Schlegel (third round) as a prospect. They need depth at inside linebacker as they continue to transition to more 3-4 defensive packages, but Schlegel was not worth the Day 1 pick. In my opinion, Schlegel is too stiff and slow to ever develop into more than a backup inside linebacker and special-teams contributor.
    Work to do: The Jets upgraded their offensive line and found a future starting quarterback with three picks in the first two rounds. However, they were unable to address the need at running back until the fourth round. The Jets were fortunate to get such a great value in RB Leon Washington (Florida State, fourth round), but he has too many durability issues and question marks to be considered the heir apparent to Curtis Martin. The Jets also exited the draft with depth issues at outside linebacker and nose tackle.
    Oakland Raiders
    Best pick: Michael Huff, DB, Texas. Drafting a safety in the top 10 is always a risky proposition, but Huff is the type of impact playmaker the Raiders need on defense. His versatility will give coordinator Rob Ryan options that he hasn't had the luxury of working with since taking the job three years ago.
    Worst pick: Paul McQuistan, OT, Weber State. McQuistan was a decent value in the third round, but he's a developmental prospect at a position that the Raiders would have been better served addressing on the second day. Better uses of this pick would have included DT Dusty Dvoracek (Oaklahoma) or ILB Gerris Wilkinson (Georgia Tech).
    Work to do: The Raiders passed on USC QB Matt Leinart with the seventh pick, which means Aaron Brooks is the present and Andrew Walter is the future of their quarterback position. Oakland did address needs at safety and outside linebacker (Thomas Howard, UTEP, second round) with its top two selections, but big problems still exist along the defensive front. Derrick Burgess is a good starter at right defensive end, but there is no depth behind aging DEs Bobby Hamilton and Lance Johnstone. Even bigger issues exist inside, where RDT Warren Sapp is over the hill and Tommy Kelly is in over his head as the projected starting nose tackle.
    Pittsburgh Steelers
    Best pick: Wide receiver Santonio Holmes, Ohio State. Moving up seven picks in the first round for Holmes was an aggressive and wise decision for the Steelers. Holmes should represent an upgrade over Cedrick Wilson at the No. 2 receiver spot and can compete with third-round pick Willie Reid for the opportunity to replace Antwaan Randle El in the return game.
    Worst pick: Offensive tackle Willie Colon, Hofstra. The Steelers did an excellent job overall, but Colon was a bit of a reach in the fourth round. The team could have gone after a running back such as P.J. Daniels (Georgia Tech) with this pick, rather than waiting until the seventh round to draft Cedric Humes (Virginia Tech).
    Work to do: The defending Super Bowl champions were able to patch the few holes that did exist on their roster with the first-day additions of Holmes, DS Anthony Smith (Syracuse, third round) and WR/RS Willie Reid (Florida State, third round). They also used three second-day picks on offensive linemen who project as interior players (guard and center) in the NFL. The one surprise is that Pittsburgh failed to legitimately improve its depth at running back by waiting until the seventh round to draft Humes.
    San Diego Chargers
    Best pick: Offensive tackle Marcus McNeill, Auburn. McNeill fell to the second round because of concerns regarding his back (spinal stenosis), but he was a steal for the Chargers at that point. McNeill has played through the injury for years now and has the size, technique and experience to immediately push Shane Olivea for the starting right tackle job.
    Worst pick: Quarterback Charlie Whitehurst, Clemson. Whitehurst was a fine value in the third round and will ultimately develop into a good backup behind starter Philip Rivers. However, the Chargers could have put this pick to better use by selecting a wide receiver such as Arizona State's Derek Hagan.
    Work to do: As mentioned, wide receiver is the one position the Chargers failed to upgrade in this year's draft. Keenan McCardell is a very good starter, but he is aging, and neither Eric Parker nor Rashaun Woods can be considered a solid No. 2 starter at the position. If the Chargers believed wide receiver was not a position of need heading into the 2006 draft, they vastly overrated their existing personnel.
    Tennessee Titans
    Best pick: Running back LenDale White, USC. A hamstring injury and concerns regarding weight and conditioning were the reasons White slipped into the second round. Despite these issues, White is still a first-round talent. The Titans have a coach in offensive coordinator Norm Chow who has experience dealing with White, and they also have two injury-prone running backs (Chris Brown and Travis Henry) for whom White can provide insurance early in his career. If White stays motivated, he can become a terrific backfield mate with quarterback and first-round pick Vince Young (Texas) for many years.
    Worst pick: Safety Calvin Lowry, Penn State. Lowry was a reach in the fourth round, especially for a team that already has Chris Hope, Lamont Thompson, Vincent Fuller and Donnie Nickey at the position.
    Work to do: With Young and White, the Titans have to be excited about the future of their offensive backfield. However, the team failed to address some significant positions of need (offensive tackle and cornerback). The Titans are expected to move Michael Roos over to left tackle to replace Brad Hopkins, but it's unclear who will start opposite him. Jacob Bell, David Stewart and Daniel Loper are the three unattractive candidates. The cornerback situation isn't as dire, but question marks exist with all three of the top candidates (Pacman Jones, Andre Woolfolk and Reynaldo Hill) competing for time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Insider Request

      Thanks but you need to remove that video...
      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

      Comment

      Working...
      X