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

Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

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

  • #46
    Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I didn't like my first response, sorry.

    Comparing the tiers should be around what production they will have in the league, not comparing them to a pre-draft expected production of a player already in the league and actually producing.

    I don't care what tier Oden was predicted to fall in, I care what tier he's actually in NOW.

    That's how you compare players, and their projected impacts in the league, by actually comparing them to something tangible. Instead, he's just comparing them to nothing.

    Why in the world do I care that BRush was predicted as a tier 4 player, before the draft, if he turned out to be a tier 6 player?

    Telling me Brush was a tier 4 prospect and then saying Jimmer is a tier 4 prospect makes me think that Jimmer will perform like Brandon has been producing, and doesn't make me think of what he was projected as to be.
    Not just him, this is a lead wide thing, it just basically deals with the expectations of the players that are in the draft... They set it up this way so that when it gets to their pick they look at their highest teir and select between the players that are available...

    In reference to previous years it is just showing how this year and previous years compared when ranking tier 4 talent.... as you can see some panned out and others didn't at all.. nothing is the end all be all but as far as selection this is the way that most teams work...
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

      I know what it's SUPPOSED to do, but it's not good at what it's doing.

      If I tell you that Jimmer Ferdette and Brandon Rush are both in the same tier, do you think that Jimmer will turn out like Brandon or like how Brandon was supposed to turnout?

      I picture him turning into the Brandon Rush that we know, not the Brandon Rush that he was supposed to be.

      Once a player is drafted, and starts producing on the court, they should be moved into the tiers based on play and not projection. He's not comparing them to anything tangible.

      When you think of Brandon Rush, you think of what he is rather than what he was supposed to be.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

        I moved this to it's own thread

        *I based the needs off of who the Pacers have been bringing in for workouts and we all know we need a PF and a scorer*

        So based on Pacers needs (PF, SG, PG, C, SF in that order), then the Pacers tiers would look like this:

        Tier 1
        None

        Tier 2
        Derrick Williams (PF)
        Kyrie Irving (PG)


        Tier 3
        Enes Kanter (PF/C)
        Jan Vesely (PF)
        Brandon Knight (PG)
        Kemba Walker (PG)
        Jonas Valanciunas (C)
        Kawhi Leonard (SF)


        Tier 4
        Tristan Thompson (PF)
        Bismack Biyombo (PF)
        Alec Burks (SG)
        Jimmer Fredette (SG/PG)
        Marshon Brooks (SG) (moved to tier 4 based on Pacers interest of him)
        Klay Thompson (SG)
        Marcus Morris (SF)
        Chris Singleton (SF)


        Tier 5
        Kenneth Faried (PF)
        Markieff Morris (PF)
        Donatas Motiejunas (PF)
        Reggie Jackson (PG)
        Darius Morris (PG)
        Josh Selby (PG)
        Nikola Vucevic (C)
        Jordan Hamilton (SF)
        Tobias Harris (SF)
        Davis Bertans (SF)
        Tyler Honeycutt (SF)
        Nikola Mirotic (SF)

        So essentially we could just go down the list and mark people off and whoever is the highest left would be our pick....interesting.
        Last edited by The Sleeze; 06-16-2011, 01:30 PM.
        I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

          Originally posted by The Sleeze View Post
          So essentially we could just go down the list and mark people off and whoever is the highest left would be our pick....interesting.
          That's the simple part of it. Draft boards usually rate players higher if they're in a position of need. But if you're basing it off of BPA then that's how it works.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

            James (Indy)

            Any idea on what the Pacers plan on doing with their pick at 15?

            Chad Ford (1:33 PM)

            I think they'll try to fill one of three needs. They need a long, athletic big man who can block shots and rebound. They want to add a bigger point guard to pair with Darren Collison. And they really need a player who can create his own shot off the dribble in the backcourt. Fredette fills two of those needs which is why he's projected to go here. If he's off the board, Tristan Thompson or Markieff Morris are the two likely suspects.
            Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I know what it's SUPPOSED to do, but it's not good at what it's doing.

              If I tell you that Jimmer Ferdette and Brandon Rush are both in the same tier, do you think that Jimmer will turn out like Brandon or like how Brandon was supposed to turnout?

              I picture him turning into the Brandon Rush that we know, not the Brandon Rush that he was supposed to be.

              Once a player is drafted, and starts producing on the court, they should be moved into the tiers based on play and not projection. He's not comparing them to anything tangible.

              When you think of Brandon Rush, you think of what he is rather than what he was supposed to be.
              Umm so yes I am thinking about him turning out to a player with similar success to what Brandon was supposed to have, and that is the point... I don't get what u are trying to get at...

              This is only talking about pre-draft potential, that is all... what would you like teams to make their decisions off of post draft potentials which they won't know for years.

              And reference to the players from the past just show how accurate these have been..

              I think the thing is that you are interpreting this who thing wrong, if they tell you that these tiers are supposed to show pre-draft potential of players then why would you making the assumption that Jimmer will turnout to be as productive as Rush... but somewhere between the range of previous tier 4 draft picks, you are looking at one specific case.

              How about this if you want other tier 4 players that were successful then here u go, Paul George... just compare those two maybe that will make u happier.

              When looking at the list of previous tier 4 players and seeing what they have did the expectations often do pretty well...

              Tier 4 (non all-star role players):

              Darrell Arthur, Donte Greene, DeAndre Jordan, Kosta Koufos, Brandon Rush, DeJuan Blair, Earl Clark, Austin Daye, Tyler Hansbrough, Gerald Henderson, Brandon Jennings, James Johnson, Ty Lawson, Eric Maynor, B.J. Mullens, DaJuan Summers, Jeff Teague, Terrence Williams, Sam Young, Cole Aldrich, Luke Babbitt, Eric Bledsoe, Avery Bradley, Gordon Hayward, Xavier Henry, Paul George, Patrick Patterson, Ekpe Udoh


              Not too many of these players have All-Star potential from when they got into the league, only a select few have showed that type of talent. So looking at the overall trend, that is most likely what the group from this year will turnout to be, most likely somewhere between a tier 5 and tier 3 player...

              If you want to interpret this more you can take away that these tier 4 players have a very ultra small possibility of ever showing tier 2 or tier 1 success...

              Again this is just pre-draft potential aka where do you think their ceiling is.
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                Originally posted by The Sleeze View Post
                I moved this to it's own thread

                *I based the needs off of who the Pacers have been bringing in for workouts and we all know we need a PF and a scorer*

                So based on Pacers needs (PF, SG, PG, C, SF in that order), then the Pacers tiers would look like this:

                Tier 1
                None

                Tier 2
                Derrick Williams (PF)
                Kyrie Irving (PG)


                Tier 3
                Enes Kanter (PF/C)
                Jan Vesely (PF)
                Brandon Knight (PG)
                Kemba Walker (PG)
                Jonas Valanciunas (C)
                Kawhi Leonard (SF)


                Tier 4
                Tristan Thompson (PF)
                Bismack Biyombo (PF)
                Alec Burks (SG)
                Jimmer Fredette (SG/PG)
                Marshon Brooks (SG) (moved to tier 4 based on Pacers interest of him)
                Klay Thompson (SG)
                Marcus Morris (SF)
                Chris Singleton (SF)


                Tier 5
                Kenneth Faried (PF)
                Markieff Morris (PF)
                Donatas Motiejunas (PF)
                Reggie Jackson (PG)
                Darius Morris (PG)
                Josh Selby (PG)
                Nikola Vucevic (C)
                Jordan Hamilton (SF)
                Tobias Harris (SF)
                Davis Bertans (SF)
                Tyler Honeycutt (SF)
                Nikola Mirotic (SF)

                So essentially we could just go down the list and mark people off and whoever is the highest left would be our pick....interesting.
                Yup and one thing to keep in mind is that all teams have different tier boards, some teams might have darius Morris as a tier 4 player so when they draft him earlier it isn't really like they are going out side of their tier system.

                Also one thing to keep in mind is that the tier system is just made up of counting numbers, so occasionally if there is a person that is a high tier 5 player compared to a low tier 4 player then maybe go with the tier 5 player if they are a better match for your team.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  Also one thing to keep in mind is that the tier system is just made up of counting numbers, so occasionally if there is a person that is a high tier 5 player compared to a low tier 4 player then maybe go with the tier 5 player if they are a better match for your team.
                  That's how I would do it but according to Chad you never take someone from Tier 5 if someone from Tier 4 is still available, that's why you put them on Tier 4 because you think they are that much better than Tier 5.

                  Chad Forde: "The rules are pretty simple. A team always drafts its highest-ranked player in a given tier. Also, a team never takes a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So, for example, the Bucks are drafting No. 10 (Tier 4 territory); if Kawhi Leonard (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of positional need. If the Bucks have Klay Thompson ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Leonard, even though shooting guard is a more pressing need."
                  Last edited by The Sleeze; 06-16-2011, 02:07 PM.
                  I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                    Originally posted by Really? View Post
                    Umm so yes I am thinking about him turning out to a player with similar success to what Brandon was supposed to have, and that is the point... I don't get what u are trying to get at...

                    This is only talking about pre-draft potential, that is all... what would you like teams to make their decisions off of post draft potentials which they won't know for years.
                    I can't say it any other way. Maybe I'm just failing at putting it down into words, but I'll try again.

                    The idea behind the tiers are correct. I understand the difference between a tier 1 player, and a tier 4 player.

                    But it doesn't matter what tier a player was in, in a draft from 3 years ago. When we think of a player, we don't think of what we thought he would be, we think of what he IS.

                    So when you see Jimmer in the 4th tier, and then he uses Brandon Rush as an example of a 4th tier, you start thinking that Jimmer will have similiar production to what Brandon has been producing, rather than what he was projected as producing.

                    Once a player establishes himself into the league, you don't really think too much about what the expectations were for them. Rather, you think of what they are.

                    It just makes it a little confusing, because you then have to think of how the compared player was supposed to turn out, rather than how they actually did turn out.

                    Can you remember who BRush was compared too when he was just a prospect? I can't. But I can tell you his value, as it is today.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                      Originally posted by The Sleeze View Post
                      That's how I would do it but according to Chad you never take someone from Tier 5 if someone from Tier 4 is still available, that's why you put them on Tier 4 because you think they are that much better than Tier 5.

                      Chad Forde: "The rules are pretty simple. A team always drafts its highest-ranked player in a given tier. Also, a team never takes a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So, for example, the Bucks are drafting No. 10 (Tier 4 territory); if Kawhi Leonard (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of positional need. If the Bucks have Klay Thompson ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Leonard, even though shooting guard is a more pressing need."
                      Yeah that part doesn't make as much sense to me then.. I know one them that definitively goes by that standard, lol the T'wolves... I guess this can work out really bad, especially if the players don't turnout to be anywhere near successful.


                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I can't say it any other way. Maybe I'm just failing at putting it down into words, but I'll try again.

                      The idea behind the tiers are correct. I understand the difference between a tier 1 player, and a tier 4 player.

                      But it doesn't matter what tier a player was in, in a draft from 3 years ago. When we think of a player, we don't think of what we thought he would be, we think of what he IS.

                      So when you see Jimmer in the 4th tier, and then he uses Brandon Rush as an example of a 4th tier, you start thinking that Jimmer will have similiar production to what Brandon has been producing, rather than what he was projected as producing.

                      Once a player establishes himself into the league, you don't really think too much about what the expectations were for them. Rather, you think of what they are.

                      It just makes it a little confusing, because you then have to think of how the compared player was supposed to turn out, rather than how they actually did turn out.

                      Can you remember who BRush was compared too when he was just a prospect? I can't. But I can tell you his value, as it is today.
                      Ok, gotcha... Thanks man..
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                        Jonathan Givony's Yahoo mock has us being interested in getting Minnesota's #20

                        http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...ug=ycn-8648301

                        It’s difficult to see Minnesota adding another rookie, considering that they already have two slated to join their roster in Ricky Rubio and the No. 2 overall pick. This could be a prime location for a team to swoop in and take a talented player who is dropping down the board. At 18 years old, Tobias Harris isn’t ready to play big minutes for an NBA team right away, but has plenty of upside. Golden State, Indiana and other teams are reportedly among those looking the hardest at acquiring this pick.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                          I know we're mentioned as wanting to go up and/or down, but if I had to guess, we're just aggressively trying to compile as many different options as possible, so when the time comes, they can hopefully have a few different options they like (up, down, or out), and then decide which they like best. I don't think it's necessarily them being fixated on one particular kind of move.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X