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

Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

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

  • Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

    Okay, so in my Sports Illustrated that I received today, Peter King has his predictions for the 2011 NFL Draft. This may be on Sports Illustrated's website, but I'll go ahead and type it out for you

    Picks 1-16:


    1. Carolina Panthers


    Cam Newton, QB, Auburn

    2. Denver Broncos

    Marcell Dareus, DT, Alabama

    3. Buffalo Bills

    Von Miller, LB, Texas A&M

    4. Cincinnati Bengals

    Blaine Gabbert, QB, Missouri

    5. Arizona Cardinals

    A.J Green, WR, Georgia

    6. Cleveland Browns

    Julio Jones, WR, Alabama

    7. Houston Texans (Trade via San Francisco)

    Patrick Peterson, CB, LSU

    8. Tennessee Titans

    Nick Fairley, DT, Auburn

    9. Dallas Cowboys

    Tyron Smith, OT, USC

    10. Washington Redskins

    Robert Quinn, DE, North Carolina

    11. San Francisco 49ers (Trade via Houston)

    Prince Amukamara, CB, Nebraska

    12. Minnesota Vikings

    Jake Locker, QB, Washington

    13. Detroit Lions

    Da'Quan Bowers, DE, Clemson

    14. St. Louis Rams

    Corey Liuget, DT, Illinois

    15. Miami Dolphins


    Andy Dalton, QB, TCU

    16. Jacksonville Jaguars

    Ryan Kerrigan, DE, Purdue




    Picks 17-32 next
    Last edited by Psyren; 04-20-2011, 10:13 PM.
    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

  • #2
    Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

    Picks 17-32:


    17. New England Patriots

    Mike Pouncey, G-C, Florida

    18. San Diego Chargers

    Cameron Jordan, DE, California

    19. New York Giants

    Anthony Castonzo, OT, Boston College

    20. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

    Aldon Smith, DE/OLB, Missouri

    21. Kansas City Chiefs

    Gabe Carimi, OT, Wisconsin

    22. Indianapolis Colts


    Nate Solder, OT, Colorado

    23. Philadelphia Eagles

    Danny Watkins, G, Baylor

    24. New Orleans Saints

    Adrian Clayborn, DE, Iowa

    25. Seattle Seahawks


    Marvin Austin, DT, North Carolina

    26. Baltimore Ravens

    Jimmy Smith, CB, Colorado

    27. Atlanta Falcons

    J.J Watt, DE, Wisconsin

    28. Tennessee Titans (Trade via New England)


    Christian Ponder, QB, Florida State

    29. Chicago Bears

    Derek Sherrod, OT, Mississippi State

    30. New York Jets

    Muhammad Wilkerson, DL, Temple

    31. Pittsburgh Steelers


    Brandon Harris, CB, Miami

    32. Green Bay Packers

    Cam Heyward, DE, Ohio State



    Peter King made some trades that haven't happened yet/may not happen, but based on that draft what are your guys' thoughts? What picks do you like/not like? I'm just curious now that we're basically a week from draft day what you guys are thinking.
    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

      I'm pretty sure I saw McShay had us picking Solder on SportsCenter yesterday. I didn't pay any attention to college football this year, and hence have paid no attention to the draft either. A good OT would be nice, but has Polian ever picked somebody that was mocked for us, besides Peyton of course?
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

        Solder at 6'9 and Charles Johnson at 6'7 would be one big left side.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          I'm pretty sure I saw McShay had us picking Solder on SportsCenter yesterday. I didn't pay any attention to college football this year, and hence have paid no attention to the draft either. A good OT would be nice, but has Polian ever picked somebody that was mocked for us, besides Peyton of course?
          Walterfootball had us taking Bob Sanders in 2004 in the first round. Of course we traded down to get him. I have seen sites guess right before but its rare. Whats not rare is the position that is mock drafted for us is the actual position that we draft. (RB Maroney mocked we took Addai, Alex Brown mocked drafted we took Freeney, the year we took Edgerrin James many people had us taking Ricky Willams.)

          Those are just a few examples but I wouldn't be shocked if we took a OT because Charlie Johnson is a FA this year.

          I would much rather have Carimi than Solder though.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

            Personally, I would hate it if we draft Solder.

            The guy is absolutely not ready to play in the NFL this season. We need a line upgrade this year, not in 2 years when he might actually be ready to play.

            In the NFL, he'll get bull rushed and shoved backwards every play, which is what most teams did to him in college. He really on excelled against people who tried to run around him, which he was only good at because of his size.

            Granted, he can be a good player someday. But he needs a lot of work and needs to be coached up. We need to try and trade up for Castonzo or Carimi if we want to LT. Otherwise I think the Colts should try for Corey Liuget.
            Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

              Originally posted by Psyren View Post
              Personally, I would hate it if we draft Solder.

              The guy is absolutely not ready to play in the NFL this season. We need a line upgrade this year, not in 2 years when he might actually be ready to play.

              In the NFL, he'll get bull rushed and shoved backwards every play, which is what most teams did to him in college. He really on excelled against people who tried to run around him, which he was only good at because of his size.

              Granted, he can be a good player someday. But he needs a lot of work and needs to be coached up. We need to try and trade up for Castonzo or Carimi if we want to LT. Otherwise I think the Colts should try for Corey Liuget.
              I definitely feel the same concerning the OT. Castonzo or Carimi or address other concerns. I'm not really high on Luiget as some people, but I haven't seen a whole lot of him. I thought we needed a 1-tech, and isn't he a 3-tech DT?

              I don't think trading down is an option is it since the lockout is still going on? That would be the best option if an OT is not available.
              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                I definitely feel the same concerning the OT. Castonzo or Carimi or address other concerns. I'm not really high on Luiget as some people, but I haven't seen a whole lot of him. I thought we needed a 1-tech, and isn't he a 3-tech DT?

                I don't think trading down is an option is it since the lockout is still going on? That would be the best option if an OT is not available.
                We can trade down, but only if it involves picks. Players can't be involved.

                And I'd love to have Carimi or Castonzo.

                As far as Liuget goes, he is a 3 tech DT but he's really good at eating blocks as well for a 3 tech. Granted, if we were to want a 1 tech I'd probably have to look at Phil Taylor from Baylor who's 6'3 340. Problem with him is that he has foot injuries, so that's a concern there. I'd personally take a shot on Liuget if Carimi and Castonzo are both gone because Liuget actually eats blocks better than some think, and he's a really good run stopper.

                If we still prefer OT if Carimi and Castonzo are gone, I'd rather go with Sherrod who is still the most solid of all the LT's. Probably the lowest upside in terms of being a superstar, but he's been by far the most consistent of any of the 5 OT's considered in the first round.
                Last edited by Psyren; 04-25-2011, 05:40 PM.
                Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                  The Colts could use some help in a lot of places. I just hope whoever they draft is ready to play right away.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                    Originally posted by Young View Post
                    The Colts could use some help in a lot of places. I just hope whoever they draft is ready to play right away.
                    Agreed.

                    I'd hate if we draft Solder because it'd basically be a first round pick that won't show up for 2 or 3 years.

                    We'd be better of with Sherrod at LT because he's as sold a LT as they get, and he could come in right away this season and do a great job, as well as let Charlie Johnson move back to G which he is actually good at.
                    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                      I will cry if this is how the draft goes.

                      Fairley to Tennessee and Kerrigan to New England, and Solder to us.

                      I will weep uncontrollably for hours.
                      It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                        Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                        I will cry if this is how the draft goes.

                        Fairley to Tennessee and Kerrigan to New England, and Solder to us.

                        I will weep uncontrollably for hours.
                        I agree.

                        2 good players to division rivals while we'd be stuck with a kid who's not even NFL ready, and isn't a natural left tackle (See Charlie Johnson...)

                        UGH, Polian better get us Castonzo, Carimi, or Sherrod, or at least get us a DT like Phil Taylor, Jurrell Casey, or Corey Liuget.

                        Basically, anybody but Solder.
                        Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                          I'm pretty sure I saw McShay had us picking Solder on SportsCenter yesterday. I didn't pay any attention to college football this year, and hence have paid no attention to the draft either. A good OT would be nice, but has Polian ever picked somebody that was mocked for us, besides Peyton of course?
                          Rob Morris...
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                            I would love to trade back, to a team needing and acquire two more picks. Jerry Hughes was a terrible pick last year. If we draft with our first round pick I would love to get Mark Ingram. I just hope the Colts are smart enough to resign Melvin "Silver" Bullett immediately.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Peter King's NFL Mock Draft

                              1st I would say look at the internet for the most up-to-date mocks.

                              2nd I thing LT and DT are the positions that everyone feels the Colts will take, with that being said they never take what everyone feels they should take.

                              I actually could see them taking Mark Ingram and letting Addai go, and using Rhodes or Brown for 3rd down plays.

                              Finally figure out what the key to being a good running back in the league is, some analysis said it and out of all the other things I have heard this one made the most sense.

                              BEING ABLE TO MAKE A GUY MISS IN A SMALL SPACE.

                              If you look at all the great backs they have it, Payton, Saunders, Emmitt... that is something I think our backs lack, Rhodes has a little of it.

                              Of course there are those bruising backs that did good as well but for most of the smaller backs that was the key to their success and Ingram def has that...

                              But from what I am hearing all of those smoke screens were false and he will probably go fairly high, top 15.

                              I don't think Jerry Hughes is a bust just yet from last year. But I could also see us grabbing a DE, or moving back and drafting a Safety, Aaron Williams or Guy from UCLA. I wonder if Jimmy Smith could play S as well.

                              So excited for Thursday.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X