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

Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

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

  • Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

    The more I think about it the more I feel as if this team could make the transition to a 3-4 scheme relatively easily.

    Lets start with the linebackers.

    I see Angerer and Brackett as 2 very good ILB options. I don't see an issue with starting those 2, and then bring Kavell Connor and Philip Wheeler as solid depth.

    On the outside things get more interesting. I personally think that Mathis and Freeney could both play OLB in a 3-4. They have the speed and awareness to make the transition. I think that if they spend the offseason focusing on learning the coverage aspect of being a LB, the move could work out quite nicely. Also Jerry Hughes, Kavell Connor and Philip Wheeler all would be able to play OLB, allowing for real flexibility in certain situations.

    Now lets talk about the DLine because thats where the real issues are.

    To be honest I don't see this transition to be nearly as bad as people seem to think. Our DTs are undersized by 4-3 standards, but I could see (some of) them working out as 3-4 DEs as we transition.

    The player I think would benefit the most from this would be Jamaal Anderson. I think Anderson could thrive as a DE in a 3-4 scheme. He has the size to stay on the line with the new scheme, and has gotten much better at using his hands to work his way through and around blockers.

    I also think that both Drake Nevis and Fili Moala could hold down the spot of DE in the new scheme until we found a real difference maker to take over. Even though they were drafted as undersized 4-3 DTs I think that they are quick enough to fill the void at DE. I am not saying that this would be a position of strength, but definitely would be manageable.

    The key to this transition is drafting a NT, and there are definitely a few serious options here. Assuming that Dontari Poe will be gone before we draft in the 2nd round, Alameda Ta'amu, Josh Chapman, Hebron Fangupo, and Nicolas Jean-Baptiste are all real NT options that will be available later in the draft. If we were to reach a bit for Ta'amu in the 2nd (he is projected as a mid-late 2nd rounder) or take Fangupo, Chapman or Jean-Baptiste in the 3rd then we get a serious space eater to anchor the defense. Also, with 2 slightly oversized DEs winging our NT, there is less pressure put on the NT then there normally would be.

    While this rookie is adjusting to the NFL Antonio Johnson is big enough, and has the experience, to play the NT position.

    Obviously this is not going to be an elite defense (we won't even talk about the secondary) by any stretch of the imagination, but I definitely see this is a reasonable stopgap for Pagano to get his own people in place. I would be excited to see what Freeney and Mathis would do as OLBs. I think that throwing 2 big guys with average mobility in at DE would be balanced out by Freeney's and Mathis' explosiveness off the edge.

    Anyway this is just something that I have been contemplating recently and I was curious what others thought. Is the transition actually such a difficult one?

  • #2
    Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

    I have to agree that I don't think the transition to a 3-4 would not be as harsh as people have been saying. I really like Nevis as an option for NT if he could gain some more weight and improve his strength. I think the players that would benefit the most from this transition would be Mathis and Angerer. One player I kind of question if he could be as effective in the 3-4 would be Brackett just because of his lack of size. If we could get a nice young DT in the draft in the 2nd round I would be happy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

      I do not see how you can see Brackett transitioning to a 3-4 ILB so well. One of his biggest problems that has always plagued him is his inability to shed blocks once an offensive lineman has engaged him.

      Ideally yes our NT and DEs should be taking up most of the blocks leaving the ILB free to attack the gaps, but we have nobody on the roster who is remotely ready to be 3-4 NT. I think Nevis could make a good 3-4 DE, but I just have not been impressed with Moala.

      I think we have pieces here and there like Angerer and Nevis, but I think we need to his this draft hard to upgrade spots.

      The key is how Freeney and Mathis do when converting to a 3-4 OLB. If they struggle this could be a disaster.

      I think we need to look at the following in the draft and or free agency:

      1) OLB
      2) ILB
      3) DE
      4) SS
      5) CB

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

        The problem is that we do not have a nose tackle and our ends pass rush every play. They would have to make tackles in a 3-4. Bracket is not going to be back and if they take Luck and let Manning go, it would be silly to bring back Mathis, Wayne, Clark, Garcon and probably more. They won't be seeing the playoffs for years and Luck will be fortunate if he lasts the first season behind the offensive line.......

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

          I think we should put Angerer and Brackett in as ILB.. Put Connor as an OLB (hes too good to bench anymore) and Mathis at the other one. Then trade Freeney (dont want to, but have no place for him).. Draft a big NT, put Nevis as a DE and whoever else at the other DE.

          It should work really well.

          We might not bring Brackett back, which would be sad, but he isn't the best fit for the new system either. We should bring Mathis back though, I really think he would make a good LB. We can sign a FA or two to take up the DE/DT or ILB spot if there isn't someone good enough coming out of the draft for us.
          Last edited by Ownagedood; 03-01-2012, 02:15 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

            With the 3-4 defense your MLB have to be stronger and not just run around and make plays, but shed blocks and get after the run, our guys don't fit that mode as well, Brackett would have a tough time doing this especially if we do not find a good NT.

            OLB Conner can not cover, not sure about any of the other guys as well, Mathis and Freeney are so far into their career and are so dominate at the positions that they play that we would be better of trading them to a 4-3 team in return getting a 3/4 outside LB type player.

            I am with you with the assessment of our DT's though move them out to the ends and they should be perfectly fine, but we will need to get a solid NT and I think Ta'amu could be the guy if he does not get drafted before we get to him, we could also look in free agency.

            Secondary is another issue, I think some of our guys will be able especially with the help of Pagano but we won't know a lot of this until practice begins. we are still weak at the SS position and will need to address that. I think we have enough of a unqualified team to say that this will be a big transition and that we will have to find the parts that will work for us.

            P.S. I doubt Mathis will sign with us unless we overpay him a ton, I think Freeney will get traded also.
            Why so SERIOUS

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              The problem is that we do not have a nose tackle and our ends pass rush every play. They would have to make tackles in a 3-4. Bracket is not going to be back and if they take Luck and let Manning go, it would be silly to bring back Mathis, Wayne, Clark, Garcon and probably more. They won't be seeing the playoffs for years and Luck will be fortunate if he lasts the first season behind the offensive line.......
              We need to bring back Wayne, to justify this point all you need to do is look at that Panthers and what Steve Smith did for Cam last year...
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

                We were 2-16 with a 4-3 defense and couldn't stop the run or get a team off the field. ...How much worse can we be and for how long if we transition away to a 3-4?
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

                  I think you guys are wrong about the role of an ILB here. Yes they need to be able to blitz, but the key to the ILB is being able to drop back in coverage while the OLBs and the Dline deal with the run. If our Dline is overall above average size (assuming we draft a full sized NT) then I don't see any issues in Brackett converting.

                  And what about Freeney and Mathis at OLB, you don't think they could make the transition? I think both of them are quick enough and have good enough awareness to make the move. If Freeney and Mathis successfully fit the scheme then I think everything else just kinda falls into place as it has over the years. If Freeney and Mathis can make it work then the rest of it will work as well.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    They won't be seeing the playoffs for years and Luck will be fortunate if he lasts the first season behind the offensive line.......
                    Good thing Luck is more athletic than Peyton and able to move around. Plus the offense will change to more of a running game and a lot of passing to the TE.
                    Last edited by RWB; 03-01-2012, 03:59 PM.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

                      Originally posted by Jrod Jones View Post
                      I think you guys are wrong about the role of an ILB here. Yes they need to be able to blitz, but the key to the ILB is being able to drop back in coverage while the OLBs and the Dline deal with the run. If our Dline is overall above average size (assuming we draft a full sized NT) then I don't see any issues in Brackett converting.

                      And what about Freeney and Mathis at OLB, you don't think they could make the transition? I think both of them are quick enough and have good enough awareness to make the move. If Freeney and Mathis successfully fit the scheme then I think everything else just kinda falls into place as it has over the years. If Freeney and Mathis can make it work then the rest of it will work as well.
                      ILB do not drop back in coverage on run plays, what happens typically is that one of the guards and or full back gets up filed and try to take out the middle LB on inside runs specifically. We would get ate up with Bracket on run plays.

                      Freeney and Mathis could make the switch but I think Mathis is the only one of the two that would be even close to as efficient in that new role, with freeney I think you would get more value out of him trading him than switching him to a 3-4 OLB, he is so effective with his hand in the ground.
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

                        I always thought of ILBs in a 3-4 as faster guys who were good in coverage, and then could hit holes fast on run plays.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Transitioning to a 3-4... Are we really so unqualified?

                          Originally posted by Jrod Jones View Post
                          I always thought of ILBs in a 3-4 as faster guys who were good in coverage, and then could hit holes fast on run plays.
                          Yeah they need to do that as well, find the hole, hit it, shed the blocker and make the tackle, be able to drop back on pass plays.

                          The shedding block thing is big though, with 3 guys on the line spread between the tackles that leaves a blocker or a FB to tee off on the MLB, he has to be able to shed that block and get to the ball carrier.

                          I am just hoping the best for the Colts in this transition, I am super excited to see what they do with this Manning situation and on draft day.
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X