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

Luck vs. RG3

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

  • Luck vs. RG3

    Didn't see a current thread for this specific topic, and since it's obviously the main Colts topic leading up to the draft, figured I'd get one rolling.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

  • #2
    Re: Luck vs. RG3

    My take --- I'm a Luck guy. Obviously my only contact, being a joe schmoe from Indiana, is watching video footage and reading expert/scout analysis. I've done a ton of both for RG3 and Luck, and I'm strongly in the Luck camp.

    The big buzz after RG3's pro day was how awesome it was. I watched it. It wasn't bad at all. Luck had a lot to live up to the next day. But by most measures, Luck's performance on pro day surpassed RG3's. RG3 won the combine; Luck won pro day. Thing about the combine is... it's only measuring athleticism. While Luck is very athletic, RG3 is a freak in this regard. But we're not a track-and-field team. We're a football team. When taken in that context, Luck fits the billl better.

    Luck also comes from an NFL pedigree and has had football in his blood and in his home since he was in the womb. He had so much attention on him yesterday, and so many expectations, and he didn't seem fazed whatsoever. They waited almost 2 hours before letting Luck throw and the anticipation had built up quite a bit. It seemed like everyone watching was nervous except for Luck himself.

    Those are some intangible reasons why I push for Luck. Getting down to football, I'm going to say that their stats are basically a push. College stats don't go terribly far in the NFL... there are guys who were superstars in college and who won the Heisman who were outplayed by guys drafted below them with lesser college credentials. Manning, himself, was a Heisman runner-up. When looking at stats, there's nothing really that separates the two except rushing TDs. RG3 is a faster guy, so he's going to be more of a running threat.

    One side note, though, is that Luck produced his comparable numbers in 1 less year than RG3, and Luck's utilization was generally less than RG3s (Baylor was a spread offense, and also passed the ball a lot more). Luck's was the pro-style and they ran it a lot. So RG3s numbers can be inflated a lot more than Luck's.

    Neither QB has any major flaws. I might nitpick RG3 a little more than Luck, but I think both are going to be fantastic prospects. I can't remember 2 more complete QBs coming out of college, and these guys are in the same draft.

    The turning points for me are in watching their stance and throwing motion and decision-making.

    RG3 has a fairly mechanical/scripted stance/throwing motion. It's a more aggressive, violent action/motion. It's like he has to put more on it to match Luck's velocity.

    Luck's stance and throwing motion are beautifully natural and smooth and comfortable. There's nothing about his motion that indicates he's straining. He's got tremendous bounce in his stance. It doesn't look like he's throwing it hard, but the ball comes rocketing out. It's a very fluid, efficient, compact motion. He comes over the shoulder beautifully.

    Luck has a fantastic, football build and stature --- very sturdy. RG3 has an awesome physique... but this is football, not modelling.

    Luck's ability to make throws from a non-standard platform are tremendous. His anticipation of pressure and ability to escape and then ability deliver a sharp pass on the money is just uncanny.

    I feel like Luck's ball placement, leading of a receiver into a successful position, and accuracy are higher than RG3s. I feel like Luck can thread the needle better than RG3.

    Again, it's not that RG3 isn't bad at these things... just that Luck does it better.

    I know the big topic lately has been arm strength. I personally felt this was funny.... anyone who watched Luck throw a 50-yard bomb from his knees while falling down vs. ASU should not doubt his arm strength. I never did. Yesterday at pro day, it was obvious even scouts wanted some confirmation from Luck that he had a cannon. So he steps back and delivers a perfect 75-yard pass in the air. Not many people can do that. I'm not sure RG3 can do that. What was perceived as a weakness for Luck and strength for RG3 might have been reversed at pro day yesterday.

    RG3 conducted his pro day in a closed facility; Luck had his outside on a very windy day --- and *elected* to throw against the wind! This is crucial on a number of aspects. 1) It shows a toughness to Luck that you have to have, the acceptance that you will have to play in bad conditions, and 2) he executed brilliantly against it. He completed 47 of 50 passes and 2 of those were receiver drops. So in less than ideal throwing conditions, Luck misfires on only 1 pass. Incredible. This is a guy you want running your offense.

    In looking at both QB's last bowl game performances, RG3 was backseat to his own teammate and even to the opposing QB, whereas Luck completely dominated his Bowl Game and only lost it because Stanford's kicker had the worst kicking game in recent memory.

    RG3 is a better QB prospect than 97% of the prospects that have come out in the past 5-10 years. But Luck is better than every prospect in that time frame, and likely even farther back. In fact, I agree with the old schoolers who say you gotta go back to Elway in '83 to find a better prospect, and even then I don't know if I'd place Elway that much higher! I even think Luck looks better than Manning did at this point in their careers --- as good as Peyton was coming out of college, there were some question marks around his game --- arm strength, can't win big games, happy feet, etc... It's why Leaf, even with his flaws (especially regarding mental/maturity aspects), was able to close the gap leading up to the draft. RG3 is a stronger than Leaf, in my opinion, so Luck's competition is stronger. I look at Luck and think, "Lord, there's nothing glaring that he needs obvious improvement in... he's extremely good at everything."

    This article had some nice tidbits after yesterday's pro day:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...ew-luck-looked


    More on how Andrew Luck looked

    March, 23, 2012

    By Paul Kuharsky

    Some thoughts that came out of Andrew Luck's pro day Thursday at Stanford.


    He confirmed he’ll have a private session with Colts' officials at Stanford in early April, Mike Chappell of the Indianapolis Star reported. That explains why GM Ryan Grigson and coach Chuck Pagano didn’t feel they had to be there.
    •Colts quarterback coach Clyde Christensen told Chappell the workout looked like Luck’s game film, steady and solid. He also talked about Luck vs., Robert Griffin III: "I don't think you go wrong either way. You go back and forth and keep looking for something that you can put a little red mark, that they can't do this or can't do that, that maybe there's something (wrong) character-wise. And you can't find one on either kid.”
    •ESPN draft analyst Todd McShay said the session was “surgical,” and praised Luck’s consistent ball placement that gets receivers right where he wants them.
    •Steve Young praised the athleticism and, especially, his feet. With Luck, the whole playbook will be open, “guard rail to guard rail.”
    Trent Dilfer said Luck’s ability to make “off-platform throws” is unique.
    •RG3 had a great pro day too. Players are supposed to look great on their pro days. We’re entering the season where we will begin to hear a lot about why the conventional thinking that Luck is a better choice than Griffin is flawed. It makes for compelling TV and reading. But I like what Matt Williamson from Scouts Inc. is saying. He loves Griffin and he loves the Redskins' trade to the second slot in the draft. But he says the Baylor quarterback has reached his ceiling, and that ceiling is No. 2 in the draft.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-23-2012, 03:33 PM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Luck vs. RG3

      RG3's Pro Day did not impress me AT ALL. He did not take it seriously, whatsoever. Spent too much time jaw-jacking with teammates and friends, dancing to the loud-*** music blaring over the speakers, and going half-speed through his drills.


      That's not the mentality I want out of my Franchise Quarterback in any situation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Luck vs. RG3

        Luck is our guy..... if we draft RG3 for any reason i will be pissed

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Luck vs. RG3

          Originally posted by Day-V View Post
          RG3's Pro Day did not impress me AT ALL. He did not take it seriously, whatsoever. Spent too much time jaw-jacking with teammates and friends, dancing to the loud-*** music blaring over the speakers, and going half-speed through his drills.


          That's not the mentality I want out of my Franchise Quarterback in any situation.
          Lol what, he was enjoying himself, he was making the passes he showed he had a good relationship with the guys around him and that they are together as a team.

          He showed what he needed to show, his character, his leadership, his accuracy, his footwork, his arm-strength.

          He somewhat reminds me of Aaron Rodgers in the way he was joking around and having a good time. Also Peyton was/is one of the biggest Jokesters ever, I am sure that when you get RGIII in a serious situation he will be serious and get the job done, just like the rest of these guys.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Luck vs. RG3

            By the way I want us to grab Luck...
            Why so SERIOUS

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Luck vs. RG3

              Originally posted by Really? View Post
              Lol what, he was enjoying himself, he was making the passes he showed he had a good relationship with the guys around him and that they are together as a team.

              He showed what he needed to show, his character, his leadership, his accuracy, his footwork, his arm-strength.

              He somewhat reminds me of Aaron Rodgers in the way he was joking around and having a good time. Also Peyton was/is one of the biggest Jokesters ever, I am sure that when you get RGIII in a serious situation he will be serious and get the job done, just like the rest of these guys.
              I don't mind the "looseness" of RG3's pro day so much, although it was sort of a turn-off.... I just felt like Luck showed better stuff during his pro day. RG3 had a few miscues, passes didn't zip as well and that was indoors, to better receivers.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-23-2012, 03:37 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Luck vs. RG3

                lol @ a athlete having too much fun, not being 100% serious.

                Give me a break. Being distracted is one thing, but loose and just having fun is another

                I think Luck fits the Colts system better then RG3, and personally with the weak o-line is Washington I think RG3 fits the system here a little better.

                I would not be upset if we get RG3, nor would I be upset if the Colts take RG3 and we get Luck.

                I heard a announcer sat it last week, and I tend to agree. RG3 is a freak and a QB who would be number 1, but Luck is an amazing athlete who ran a pro system in college and is a number 1 of any draft in the past 5-10 years

                IMO neither team will be the "loser" of the two, though I do wonder if we will look back on this draft the same way we did the Manning/Leaf draft (though to be fair I think the wonderlick carried less weights back then, if it was even around)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Luck vs. RG3

                  If we draft RGIII I'm going to be pissed.
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Luck vs. RG3

                    Luck > Griffin, and it's not really even close.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Luck vs. RG3

                      Shade and LH,

                      Just curious, do you think Luck is leaps and bounds better then RG3?

                      Or do you like him better for other reasons?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Luck vs. RG3

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        Shade and LH,

                        Just curious, do you think Luck is leaps and bounds better then RG3?

                        Or do you like him better for other reasons?
                        Whatever you're hinting at here, I can assure you I prefer Luck for football reasons.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Luck vs. RG3

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Whatever you're hinting at here, I can assure you I prefer Luck for football reasons.


                          Not sure what you hinting at here, I am asking what those football reasons are (or if it is the system, etc).........................

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Luck vs. RG3

                            If we draft RG3, Irsay will by lynched within 4 hours.
                            Senior at the University of Louisville.
                            Greenfield ---> The Ville

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Luck vs. RG3

                              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                              Shade and LH,

                              Just curious, do you think Luck is leaps and bounds better then RG3?

                              Or do you like him better for other reasons?
                              I just like all the good things I have been hearing. The most NFL-ready QB since our own Peyton Manning.

                              Luck seems like a Manning-ish/Rodgers-ish kind of QB. It's what I've grown up watching and I don't want things to change, plus I think he's just going to be better.
                              Super Bowl XLI Champions
                              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X