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.
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
-
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Stupid. Take Hill/Upshaw/Glenn in the 2nd and Allen in the 3rd if that's your idea. Missed on some huge, huge value picks.Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Like many of you, I don't quite know what to make out of this draft. It really caught me off guard with picks 3 and 4. Most of the analysts think that they've picked very well so far and that centering on Andrew Luck is the right call for now.
Pros:
+ We can now run very solid dual TE sets
+ Luck will hopefully be more comfortable coming to Indy with his best receiving target from college. Chemistry is already there.
+ For the first time in forever we have someone that can return punts/kicks effectively
+ We have a valid deep threat/slot guy.
Cons:
- No secondary what so ever (We are going to be playing catch up all season)
- Nose tackle?
- O-line still has some kinks.
O-line is simply going to have to wait till next year's draft. Hopefully we grab some CBs. As for the huge nose tackle we need for 3-4? Alemada? He could easily go in the 4th. We'll see what happens. It will be fun to watch the offensive unit develop next year. It will be painful though to watch the defense struggle as usual...Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Nic Jean Baptiste for NT plsCounting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
I don't really follow college ball so I'm not familiar at all with Hilton, but reading some other teams' and nuetral message boards everyone else seems to love the Hilton pick.
A lot of fans seem to be upset their team didn't pick him up, and even more upset that he is going to be paired with Luck.Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Our offense will improve and our defense will suck again but that's mean we
Can draft the best defensive player next yearComment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Our offense will improve and our defense will suck again but that's mean we
Can draft the best defensive player next year
Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
My guess is the front office knows they aren't going to be very good next year. They wanted to show how deeply committed they are to getting Luck weapons, so he and the offense can hopefully score some points. It wouldn't shock me if next year we elected to receive kickoffs and aggressively tried to score early so we could "play from ahead." The defense sucks but we still have Freeney and Mathis, and they can still get to the quarterback, system be damned. The system will be more of a hybrid this first year anyway. If we can get early leads (again, probably a long shot, but not totally out there), we can sick Freeney and Mathis on the opposing QB when he drops back and make life hell on them. Same thing we did with Peyton. We have one veteran QB in our division (Schaub). Gabbert sucks and Locker is unproven. We can eek out some wins there. I haven't perused the rest of our schedule, but we finished in last place so we will play a lot of bad/mediocre teams. The front office has a blueprint of what they want to do for this year and in the future. You can nitpick the draft choices but I like the direction they are taking this thing.Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
I also think the front office knows they won't be terribly good. Plus, they probably want another year of high picks to really help set up the team long term.
I'm still hoping they grab a large receiver though. Marvin Jones/Greg Childs. Someone else that offers a deep threat to compliment our 2 TEs and Wayne, but also gives us another threat in the red zone. That will make us very deadly. A tall fast reciever, 2 really good TEs and Wayne. Not to mention our slot receivers.
Almost there with the offensive weapons. O-Line help would still be nice.
Defense needs a S, CB, LB, NT....just so many holes. I guess we can only hope that Thomas and Rucker step up. I still think Rucker should be moved to SS. I think he'd excel there.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
The o-line was addressed in the draft last year with Castonzo and Ijalana. Grigson made several moves to acquire additional lineman in Satele, McGlynn, and Justice. He clearly doesn't think the line is an area that needs to be addressed in the draft, at least not in the first three rounds.Originally posted by Jessen View PostComment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Also, why would the Colts trade up for TY, when they just signed FA Donnie Avery, who's essentially the same player. A super fast, but undersized WR.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Those FA are piecework. Not much of an upgrade at all to what we had last year. I'd feel infinitely more comfortable creating an O-Line that's sure to protect Luck for years to come. Hope all those guys step up and improve over last season.Originally posted by hoosierguy View PostFirst time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
Isn't Avery pretty injury prone? I think he is just a short term patch anyway.Originally posted by Sparhawk View PostComment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
That will be a key and perhaps more free agents will be brought in. Some improvement could come from just getting healthy. It would be a waste to make all of these moves and getting Luck and have him at risk behind a make shift OL. I like this draft. Some will complain about taking two TE but that was definitely a need and we got the best two in the draft and didn't have to reach to take them. This is going to be a long slow process to get back to being competitive and one draft won't fill all of the holes. It will take years and I wonder how many fans will be that patient. They were not that patient with the Pacers and they never dropped to the depths the Colts have.......Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
Comment
-
Re: 2012 NFL Draft Discussion Thread
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft...ons-rounds-2-3
Mel Kiper seemed to like our second day choices:
Three I liked
Baltimore Ravens
The picks: OLB Courtney Upshaw at No. 35, G Kelechi Osemele at No. 60, RB Bernard Pierce at No. 84
Summary: The Ravens moved out of the first round but still managed to get a first-round player at No. 35 overall. Upshaw will seal the edge as a 3-4 outside linebacker in this system, and can immediately step in and fill the role vacated by Jarret Johnson, himself a former member of the Crimson Tide. Osemele isn't a remarkable value by any means, but he can move inside to guard after playing tackle in college, and guard is a big need. The Ravens also could use help at running back to take some heat off Ray Rice. They get pieces like they didn't skip the first round. Solid day.
Indianapolis Colts
The picks: TE Coby Fleener at No. 34, TE Dwayne Allen at No. 64, WR T.Y. Hilton at No. 92
Summary: Hey, I'm sure I'll make some comment along the way that this defense really needs some help. But give the Colts some credit -- they've made it clear the No. 1 priority of the organization is to make Andrew Luck comfortable, to give him a chance to succeed early. He loves to use tight ends. Well, the Colts now have the two best tight ends in the draft, two guys who offer different looks. The Colts lack explosiveness at wide receiver. Hilton could work in the slot and be a tough cover. Yep, they need defense, but they've made a commitment to Luck beyond simply handing him the keys, and you can't blame them.
St. Louis Rams
The picks: WR Brian Quick at No. 33, CB Janoris Jenkins at No. 39, Isaiah Pead at No. 50, CB Trumaine Johnson at No. 65
Summary: The Rams really needed to show something Friday. This is a team that once held the No. 2 pick in the draft, and as Jon Gruden noted, if you have the No. 2 pick and don't use it, you need to show something for not taking what you assume can be a star-level player. Well, I really like Quick and have been pushing his name for a while. Jenkins we know is a risk in some respects, but this is a top-10-level pick if it's talent alone we're talking about. If Pead had been the last pick in the first round, I wouldn't have been bothered at all. I like that pick. Johnson has a lot of talent to be there at No. 65. I like the haul for the Rams. And yes, having four picks helps.
Notables: Tampa Bay gets one of my favorite players in the draft with Lavonte David -- and at No. 57! Worry all you want about his size; that's a pretty great value in my opinion, and he's a need fit. Huge couple of days for the Bucs. They're drafting starters. ... I thought Ryan Broyles to Detroit might have been a slight luxury pick, but he could be a total steal for value, and it looked better when the Lions got Dwight Bentley in the third round. Bentley is a corner and fills a big need; like the value. ... The Chargers also locked in a ton of value getting Kendall Reyes and Brandon Taylor. That's D-line and safety help. ... The Eagles got a perfect fit for that team in Mychal Kendricks; he can step in next to DeMeco Ryans. With those two and Fletcher Cox around, you feel better about Philly up the middle. No surprise Andy Reid added another QB, either. Nick Foles has starter potential. ... Cordy Glenn at No. 41 is a really nice get for Buffalo, and the Bills added some depth at wide receiver later on. ... Green Bay has to feel better about its defense after two days. Jerel Worthy is a good value at No. 51 overall. ... I called LaMichael James an "accent piece" in San Francisco. The 49ers have given Alex Smith weapons. Now it's Smith's turn.
Three question marks
Seattle Seahawks
The picks: LB Bobby Wagner at No. 47, QB Russell Wilson at No. 75
Summary: I'm not questioning Seattle's instincts or plan for the players it is taking. And I know some don't like the whole value discussion, but in two days, the Seahawks have taken three players -- each of whom I had lower on my board. That doesn't mean these guys won't succeed (Wagner certainly fits); it means if the Seahawks could move around the board a little more, I think they could still get their guys and perhaps add one or two more picks. John Schneider and Pete Carroll know what they are doing, but I have to evaluate on where I have players ranked. The Seahawks now have three guys I believe they could have gotten lower.
New England Patriots
The picks: S Tavon Wilson at No. 48, DE Jake Bequette at No. 90
Summary: The Patriots actually filled some needs. And I think Bequette will be a solid player for them. His versatility is there, and I can see him as a stand-up pass-rusher. Wilson puzzles me a little on value. A month ago, when I released my draft guide, Wilson was the No. 26-ranked safety on my board. I know some coaches like him, but this is a player both I and colleague Todd McShay think could have been sitting there in the sixth round. These picks fit needs, but both are definite reaches to me.
Jacksonville Jaguars
The picks: DE Andre Branch at No. 38, P Bryan Anger at No. 70
Summary: I don't mind the pick of Branch, but what are the Jags doing drafting a punter so early? There are a lot of useful players available -- wide receivers to add depth, another pass-rusher, help on the offensive line or at cornerback (where the team was decimated last season). If Anger isn't some kind of superstar at punter (he is No. 1 among my punters), the value is just a little absurd for me.
Notables: Chicago got a wideout it can use in Alshon Jeffery, but I just don't have the faith in the Bears' offensive line they seem to, and in three rounds, they didn't get one piece up front. ... A little surprised Carolina hasn't taken a defensive tackle yet. ... The Jets added a receiver, but I think Stephen Hill has some serious developmental work to do. Can they wait on him?Comment
Tweet
Comment