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

The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

    http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8853534?MSNHPHMA

    The story ESPN doesn't want you to know

    by Jason Whitlock



    This was going to be your run-of-the-mill, I-told-you-so column gloating about my Ball State Cardinals running the regular-season table and climbing to No. 15 in the BCS poll.


    I predicted all of this in August, and many of you justifiably thought I was simply mouthing off about my favorite football team in hopes of shining light on my long forgotten, never-remembered, mediocre playing days at Ball State and hamming it up in hopes of landing an invite to Dave Letterman's "Late Show."

    Look, there are people with tape of Western Michigan's Joel Smeenge waltzing by me in 1987 and 1988. I have no interest in drawing attention to my playing career. And as much as I love and support my fellow BSU alum, Letterman, the "Late Show" doesn't quite stack up to sharing Oprah's stage. I've been to the mountain top.



    My goal as a journalist/columnist is to be right about issues others don't see coming or don't have the courage/intellect to address.


    Ball State football in 2008 provided a perfect storm. And the more I thought about this column and tracked my Cardinals throughout the season, the more perfect this storm became.


    The column became bigger than an I-told-you-so moment. If I wrote a column every time I was right about something, I'd spend my entire career penning columns lampooning Charlie Weis' collapses. That would get old ... after four years or so.


    Ball State's football season perfectly illustrated my problem with ESPN and why I believe the World Wide Leader is the most evil and destructive force in the sports world. It has driven and hastened the destruction of authentic, independent, democratic, courageous sports journalism.



    ESPN is the enemy of the truth, and all who believe a pursuit of the truth is the lifeblood of a genuinely free society must stand against the Wal-Mart-ization of sports journalism.



    I reached this conclusion when trying to figure out why Ball State quarterback Nate Davis isn't one of the top-five Heisman Trophy candidates and Ball State coach Brady Hoke isn't the front-runner for national coach of the year.


    Do not laugh. I'm not on a high from Tuesday night's 45-22 thumping of Western Michigan, which secured Ball State's undefeated regular season and placed my Cardinals in the MAC Championship game. I'm not an overzealous fan. I was cold and rational in August when I told you the Cardinals had the schedule, personnel and maturity to run the table.

    And I'm cold and rational now when I tell you that Nate Davis is the best player in college football and Hoke has turned in 2008's best coaching performance. I love Ball State. I'm not willing to lie for Ball State.


    If it was 1985 and Sports Illustrated and print journalism were still the institutions driving the conversation in the sports world, a Ball State football alum and a late-night talk-show host wouldn't be the media people telling you about Davis and Hoke.


    Believe it or not, before ESPN purchased the majority of relevant sports programming and seduced most of the creative, independent-thinking, connected sports writers to join its evil empire, there was this magical time when substance and the little guy actually had a voice in the sports world.


    There was a time when writers would champion guys such as Gordon Lockbaum (fifth in 1986 and third in 1988) and Joe Dudek (ninth in 1985) for the Heisman Trophy. It's difficult to believe now, but in 1982 the 10 top vote-getters were all actually really, really good college football players: Herschel Walker, John Elway, Eric Dickerson, Anthony Carter, David Rimington, Todd Blackledge, Tom Ramsey, Tony Eason, Dan Marino and Mike Rozier.


    Yes, back before one television enterprise monopolized the sports world, you actually could put together a serious run at the Heisman even if you weren't the starting quarterback of the top-ranked team Kirk Herbstreit and Brent Musberger just anointed.


    Since 2000, here are your Heisman Trophy winners: Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Troy Smith and Tim Tebow.


    Do the 10 guys I named from 1982 form a better group than the eight winners from the new millennium, and if so why?


    The conversation about the Heisman Trophy and all things in sports has been dumbed down by the World Wide Leader.



    This year the network pretty much decided you had to play quarterback in the Big 12 to be in consideration for the Heisman Trophy. At different times throughout the season, Chase Daniel, Sam Bradford, Graham Harrell and Colt McCoy have been declared the leading candidates to win college sports' most prestigious individual award.



    When Oklahoma embarrassed Texas Tech, Bradford shot past Harrell. Here's what's frustrating. I live in Big 12 country. I follow the league and have watched them all play regularly. Texas Tech receiver Michael Crabtree is the best football player in the Big 12.

    Here's what's more frustrating. Not one of the Big 12's quarterbacks is in the same physical ballpark as Ball State's Nate Davis. It's not close. They can't match his arm, instincts, touch, accuracy, presence, ability to move in the pocket, out of the pocket or make plays when things break down.


    They can't match his resume. Getting Ball State to 12-0 under the best circumstances is far more difficult than getting Oklahoma to 11-1. I know Ball State's schedule isn't as difficult as Oklahoma's. I also know Bradford is surrounded by far more talent than Davis.



    Look, if the sports world didn't operate under the control of a sports-media dictatorship, I wouldn't have to provide you the context. A powerful, unbiased, independent journalist would've traveled to Ball State during the summer and talked with the man who recruited Tom Brady to Michigan (Brady Hoke) and the man who coached Tom Brady at Michigan (Ball State offensive coordinator Stan Parrish).


    Hoke and Parrish can put Nate Davis in context more effectively than I can.
    Nate Davis has the tools to be better than Tom Brady. Hoke and Parrish will tell you that, and they absolutely adore Tom Brady.
    If you watch Nate Davis play, he looks like the second coming of Brett Favre.



    Now, ESPN2 has broadcast Ball State's last four games. The first game I believe Lou Holtz and Mark May provided the color commentary. It was their first real look at Davis, and they were appropriately complimentary and a bit guarded. The second game was against Miami of Ohio and a non-descript B team called the game.



    The last two games were against Central Michigan and Western Michigan, two top-40-caliber squads who provided the Cardinals legitimate tests. Ray Bentley, an all-time great at CMU, a former NFL linebacker and a passionate follower of MAC football, was the color commentator.



    Unfortunately, ESPN did not require Bentley to leave his Central Michigan pom poms at home. Nor did the network force Bentley to disclose all pertinent information, such as the fact that his son is a walk-on member of the CMU football team and that the Ball State coaching staff declined to offer Bentley's kid a scholarship despite Bentley's request.

    If the viewers knew all the relevant information coloring Ray's commentary, then they probably would've understood why Bentley spent the entire Ball State-CMU broadcast pretending that CMU's outstanding MAC quarterback, Dan Lefevour, was on the same level as Ball State's once-in-a-lifetime passer.


    As a journalist, it's important that I disclose to you that I love Ball State. When I have a bias, I let you know it in hopes that you will read my commentary in context. I'm hoping most of you reading this realize or remember that I worked at ESPN for many years and parted company (was fired) with the network three years ago primarily after Mike Lupica and "Sports Reporters" producer Joe Valerio made it clear that I would not be allowed to talk about Barry Bonds and steroids in a way they found disagreeable. (There's more to the story and you can Google and find all of the additional background rather easily.)


    ESPN is so financially tied to the organizations it covers and so devoid of basic journalistic ethics that it cannot properly analyze the sports world. ESPN just bought the BCS television package. It has a vested interest in promoting all things BCS.


    If you're going to televise multiple Big 12 games in primetime on ABC and ESPN, you have every reason to promote the myth that the majority of Heisman Trophy candidates play in the Big 12.


    Let me tell you what passes for courage and independent thinking at ESPN. Chris Fowler dropped Ball State out of his AP top-25 ballot last week after the Cardinals beat a then-9-2 Central Michigan team on the road.



    I'm not someone who believes Ball State belongs in a BCS bowl game. Any team — not just a mid-major — needs a top-25 victory on its resume before you even begin the BCS argument. We don't have it. Right now, we've earned the right to be ranked — in my opinion — anywhere from No. 18 to 23. If we finish 14-0, I'll be satisfied with a ranking between No. 10 and 15.


    What Fowler has done is ridiculous and reeks of the kind of simple-minded arrogance that permeates ESPN. Fowler has had his *** kissed for too many years. He travels around the country during football season and everywhere he goes, there's an Army of BCS sports information directors waiting to kiss his *** and tell him how great "GameDay" is.


    He has never been a professional journalist a day in his life. He's a TV personality. He knows what someone else has told him. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'd suspect he hasn't worn a jock since junior high school.
    This is the combination that is killing the sports media. No journalism background, no real athletic experience and no backbone. No clue. Fowler wouldn't make a competent blogger.


    "GameDay" and Fowler are unlikely to ever visit Muncie, Ind. ESPN2 televises midweek MAC games in November. Fowler must primarily worry about his reception at BCS institutions. You would not believe how many alleged "journalists" and "media personalities" spend much of their time fretting about whether an SID, a coach or a player likes them. It's an embarrassing obsession among the media.


    Fowler knows little about football and nothing about Ball State. His celebrity status justifies his AP vote.



    He can't fathom the difficulty of going undefeated in any conference, especially one that is traditionally as evenly matched as the Mid-American Conference.



    Brady Hoke built the Ball State football team around two players, Nate Davis and receiver Dante Love. In the fourth week of the season, in the middle of the school's most important game of the season, an Indiana University football player nearly paralyzed Dante Love with a legal and fair hit.



    Love lay stretched out on the field motionless for more than 20 minutes. I knew the season was over. Love's career was over. He was Robin to Davis' Batman. Seventy percent of Ball State's offensive playbook was predicated on getting the ball to Love or pretending to give the ball to Love. He returned kickoffs, was our No. 2 tailback and quarterback. He was going to catch 120 passes. NFL scouts loved him.



    Hoke and his team adjusted on the fly. Hoke orchestrates the defense. For two years, Davis, Love, Stan Parrish and the offense carried the football.
    Brady Hoke and the defense elevated their production and performance from the moment paramedics carted Love off the field. While the offense struggled to score points without Love, the defense kept the opposition out of the end zone and created turnovers.


    Ball State is the most disciplined, well-coached team in college football. Check the stats. The Cardinals almost never get penalized. We're the least flagged team in the nation. We're in the top 20 in the country in turnover margin.

    Someone like Chris Fowler can't grasp how that helps you win football games. No penalties, no turnovers and Nate Davis are how Ball State would beat the ACC or Big East champions, teams that will play in BCS bowl games.



    When you have a great quarterback and a coach who has matured over six years into one of the best in the business, anything is possible, even a school like Ball State being in the BCS discussion.



    This story needs to be told. It's an awesome tale with lots of gory details. Hoke is at a university where the administration works pretty much in direct opposition to the success of the football program.



    Our school president, Jo Ann Gora, wants to be the face of the university until the moment she lands a job at an elite East Coast university. She stars in the TV commercials aired on ESPN2. Three years ago she delighted in paying the women's basketball coach more money than Brady Hoke, a Ball State alum with very deep roots at the school.


    At one time, President Gora had the ideal, liberal sports resume: A female women's basketball coach (Tracy Roller) was the highest paid coach at the school, an angry, spoiled, militant, high-profile black man was the men's basketball coach (Ronny Thompson) and the football coach and his staff were the lowest paid in the conference and didn't have offices.



    Roller had a self-admitted mental breakdown and quit shortly after inking her new contract. Thompson claimed Gora's athletic department was racist and quit.



    Hoke built one of the nation's best teams, is the MAC's eighth-highest-paid coach and still doesn't have his own office.



    Stories like Hoke's and Davis' used to define my profession and enrich our enjoyment of sports. Now we're fed a steady diet of Donovan McNabb didn't know games could end in a tie and fake Red Sox press conferences.



    Sports media is dying by suicide and ESPN is Dr. Jack Kevorkian. You're dying, too. ESPN just hasn't told you yet.
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

    I was gonna post that. We've been talking about it on the BSU sports forum I participate on.

    I really dislike ESPN, but they are the easiest to get info out of. Too bad you have to wade through stupid personalities like STEPHEN A. SMITH, just to get it.
    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

      Ya know, normally I'd dismiss this as sour grapes, especially coming from Whitlock, but he laid down his argument pretty good this time.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

        ESPN has been a joke for at least a decade. This is hardly news.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          ESPN has been a joke for at least a decade. This is hardly news.
          For you, that's true, but for many, this is news. I'm glad he's speaking out.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            For you, that's true, but for many, this is news. I'm glad he's speaking out.
            Very true. I'm all for their skeletons being tossed out of the closet for all to see.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

              Before you even open this thread, you already know it's by Whitlock.
              2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                Is Foxsports more trustworthy than Fox News?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  Is Foxsports more trustworthy than Fox News?
                  A lil bit...

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                    I would love for the Colts to draft Nat Davis in the first round if he available. I have watched him play four times, once live. The kid is the real deal and will be an excellent pro QB. He has a strong arm, is very accurate, and good size. He has excellent footwork and can run if necessary. I know we have Manning but the guy is getting older and I have zero trust in Jim Sorgi leading my team to victory.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                      Let me consult my dictionary for the right word here...

                      meh.

                      (Whitlock article, not Jonathan's post...though I have no opinion on Jonathan's post, so I guess, technically, it could perform double duty...however, for Jonathan's post, it would reflect lack of opinion, but for Whitlock's article it would be meant to convey the contempt I have for that rotund piece of ****.

                      Of course, explaining "meh" kind of defeats the purpose...

                      meh.)
                      Last edited by count55; 11-30-2008, 10:05 AM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                        Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                        I would love for the Colts to draft Nat Davis in the first round if he available. I have watched him play four times, once live. The kid is the real deal and will be an excellent pro QB. He has a strong arm, is very accurate, and good size. He has excellent footwork and can run if necessary. I know we have Manning but the guy is getting older and I have zero trust in Jim Sorgi leading my team to victory.
                        No chance. I like Nate as much as the next guy, and certainly agree about Sorgi. But Nate as a first rounder is beyond a longshot, espcially for the Colts. In fact, the QB crop is sooo deep this year that I would almost guarantee that Sorgi is elsewhere in 2009. The Colts will be able to cherry pick a good QB in the 5th, maybe even 6th round this year. You have to understand that there are a LOT of good QB's coming out from well respected programs. Mark Sanchez, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Chase Daniel, TimTebow, Graham Harrell. Those are all great QB's from big time, big conference programs, and three of THOSE six won't even go in the first round. I'd say the only two of those that are definite first rounders are Bradford and Stafford. I know that the size of the school shouldn't matter, but it does, unfair or not. Nate might be better than all of those guys, but he's gonna have to prove it from a later draft position. Nate does have two things going for him. First, he's got the PERFECT frame for the pro QB. Size is the FIRST thing pro teams look at in a QB, and Nate has it. Second, he played his best games when the spotlight was the brightest. He rung up Nebraska's well regarded defense for 442 yards and three scores. They played four menaingful primetime games on ESPN2 this season, and he played well and won all four. Teams use things like that to separate the crop and he did do well there. I still think he's a 3rd rounder unless he has an oustanding combine which I admit is possible.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                          I think we need to get a back up QB sooner than later is all. Do not give me this BS on big conference QB's Matt Ryan Boston College Joe Flacco Delaware Steve Mcnair Alcorn State. If you can play you can play. I believe !!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                            I think we need to get a back up QB sooner than later is all. Do not give me this BS on big conference QB's Matt Ryan Boston College Joe Flacco Delaware Steve Mcnair Alcorn State. If you can play you can play. I believe !!
                            I understand that you need to be able to play. The six guys I mentioned ALL have proven they can play against MUCH better competition than Nate has faced. And throwing Matt Ryan in to help you prove your point is a bit strange since Boston COllege is a big program in a big conference with a proven track record of producing NFL talent.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: The story ESPN doesn't want you to know- Foxsports

                              Originally posted by travmil View Post
                              I still think he's a 3rd rounder unless he has an oustanding combine which I admit is possible.
                              In my completely biased opinion, he will shred the combine.

                              He has all the tools, not just two NFL strengths. His arm strength is in the top tier, you can tell that by watching him throw deep with a flick of his wrist or watching him throw on the run. Obviously his accuracy is there considering he's making almost 70% of his throws.

                              What will really make his stock jump is his athleticism. He scrambles well, nothing flashy, but he picks up yards when he needs too. He is a lot faster than he shows on the field, and it's because he doesn't open up. If you would have the chance to watch him play basketball, you would walk away with a completely different opinion on his athleticism. He looks like a plodder on the field that manages to pick up just enough yards when he needs too, but he is extremely nimble on the court. West Virginia was actually recruiting him to play WR, instead of QB.

                              (Nate is actually #7 on Ohio's all time scoring list, and averaged close to 43 pts his senior year. First time I ever saw Nate was in the gym playing a pickup game. He was wearing new balance running shoes and sweat pants, while dunking on people whenever he wanted too. He could have played basketball easily in the MAC, and could have went to a bigger conference.)


                              He will be a top 4 QB in next years draft. I'm just hoping he decides to stay another year!
                              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X