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 so far

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

  • #61
    Re: Luck so far

    1. I recently saw something on NFL network where they talked about the way the Redskins were designing plays that helped RGIII get easy completions. Since they are so good at running the ball, they are able to design plays that basically cuts the field in half and giving him 1-2 reads. Luck has the entire playbook open to him.
    2. Griffin is playing much more efficiently and with better poise than Luck. Yes Luck has looked good in 2-min drills, but he's looked pretty pedestrian in the past two 3rd qtrs. He routinely throws behind receivers, and yes some of his balls flutter. Griffin on the other hand has done a great job at limiting turnovers, and hitting receivers when they're open. Both have looked great on the run however.
    3. Luck has good arm strength. Maybe not elite arm strength, but he can fit throws into tight windows. No his deep ball isnt as impressive as Griffin's, but Griffin hasn't shown a consistent ability to zip the ball into tight coverage as much as Luck because he's normally throwing a screen, a short slant across the middle, or a deep bomb after play-action. When throwing the deep ball, protection has to be very good. Griffin has been allotted time to stand in the pocket and throw down field following play action. Aside from last weeks TD pass to Hilton, Luck hasn't had good enough protection to sit and look deep very often. The few times he has, he's made some good throws, and he's made some bad ones. But a lot like Brady, Manning, I don't think Luck is a deep down field passer as much as he's a "seam" thrower. A guy who will be able to dominate on passes in the 15-30 yard range. Griffin on the other hand is a home run threat every time he drops back, but can he squeeze a pass into tight windows, in front of the safety but over linebacker, is the question.

    So far Griffin has played a lot better than Luck, statistically. And maybe I'm a pessimist but I'm near as impressed with what he's done so far as a lot on this board. But I'm not stupid either lol. To say Luck is Chad Pennington 2.0 is kind of crazy (Esp because Chad NEVER threw anything longer than 30-40 yards) Once he gets more consistent on his short throws (surprisingly, he's less accurate on short throws than he is on his deep ones) these 300 yard games could quickly turn into 350 yard, monster games.

    As far as Griffin is concerned, I think a lot on here try to hate on the guy in an attempt to justify the Luck selection. Griffin has played very well, and seems to be on the fast track to stardom. Yes he has it a bit easier due to the offensive scheme, offensive line, and the threat of a running game. But the guy is still a rookie and has a triple digit QB rating. Give him some credit also.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Luck so far

      It's also kind of funny that the negativity about Luck from certain poster's didn't come until AFTER the week when he lead a game winning two minute drill. (Even though he almost did the same thing this past game against JAX)

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Luck so far

        Since when did Washington get a good running game?

        I keep hearing about this and our "good" offensive line, not sure where this myth started but it is false.

        For crying out loud we just signed Ryan Grant

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Luck so far

          not gonna lie, i love what we've seen from Luck so far, but RG3 is nice too. RG3 has something about him that makes him a superstar. If the Colts drafted him he would have made Indy at FA destination

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Luck so far

            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
            Since when did Washington get a good running game?

            I keep hearing about this and our "good" offensive line, not sure where this myth started but it is false.

            For crying out loud we just signed Ryan Grant
            You average 180.7 yards RUSHING a game! How is that not a good running game?

            And for a team to be able to average nearly 200 yarda a game on the ground, there has to be some pretty good blocking going on

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Luck so far

              Originally posted by RLeWorm View Post
              not gonna lie, i love what we've seen from Luck so far, but RG3 is nice too. RG3 has something about him that makes him a superstar. If the Colts drafted him he would have made Indy at FA destination

              I agree with you but I am not sure it was so obvious at draft time. He does have a great personality and he may rival Peyton in endorsements.....

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Luck so far

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                It's also kind of funny that the negativity about Luck from certain poster's didn't come until AFTER the week when he lead a game winning two minute drill. (Even though he almost did the same thing this past game against JAX)
                I was not able to be online to comment. If I had, you would have heard it.... The Colts got out coached that last game. There will be more of that too...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Luck so far

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  You average 180.7 yards RUSHING a game! How is that not a good running game?

                  And for a team to be able to average nearly 200 yarda a game on the ground, there has to be some pretty good blocking going on

                  Things started off good in week 1, but how many of those rushing yards were by RG3 (or because of RG3) running the GD MOTHER EFFING tripple option.

                  I think its fair to say the NFL has figured out our tripple option attack.....and it does not help we literally are running out of running backs.

                  When everyone is healthy I guess we have a decent O-line. However, that never happens, and RG3 was sacked...what.....4000 times last week.

                  I will give you our offense has finally showed up this year, but I still think our O-line has huge holes in it, and that is when everyone is healthy (which never happens in the NFL)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Luck so far

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    As far as Griffin is concerned, I think a lot on here try to hate on the guy in an attempt to justify the Luck selection. Griffin has played very well, and seems to be on the fast track to stardom. Yes he has it a bit easier due to the offensive scheme, offensive line, and the threat of a running game. But the guy is still a rookie and has a triple digit QB rating. Give him some credit also.
                    I don't think alot of people on here hate on the guy to justify the Luck selection personally. Maybe one or two but lets be honest here RG3 has gone against arguably the 3 worse defenses in the league right now and his team has lost 2 of those games. Now I don't blame those losses on him but his QB rating is a direct reflection of those defenses IMO. In the end I think everyone comes back down to having pretty good numbers overall but nothing like a passer rating of 103.5.

                    Griffen is a good player but this argument of him vs Luck always comes back to durability. Joe Theisman was on 1070 the fan today and he said he doesn't see Griffen making it past week 8 with how he is being used. Now personally I wouldn't put a time table on when he is going to get hurt but I think its question of when not if now.

                    As far as hating on my part its probably more about the stupid hype machine of Espn and the like that ticks me off. I have watched enough football to know that any conclusion in week 1-8 is pretty stupid.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Luck so far

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      I agree with you but I am not sure it was so obvious at draft time. He does have a great personality and he may rival Peyton in endorsements.....
                      You act like Luck won't. Heck I already saw Luck in a commercial for FIFA. You know only one of the most popular sports games on the planet.


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Luck so far

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Peyton statistically had one of the best rookie seasons for a QB ever.
                        Yes, he did but as you pointed out he gave up his share of interceptions or perhaps more. Luck has a low completion percentage but he is getting to chuck it 50 times per game. He should throw for a lot of yards until one of those pass rushers catches up with him in the act of throwing and he gets hurt for the season. That offensive line is miserable and it makes it hard to determine how good Luck actually is.... Compare RGIII's stats and QB rating to Luck and you will see some of that difference....

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Luck so far

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          Yes, he did but as you pointed out he gave up his share of interceptions or perhaps more. Luck has a low completion percentage but he is getting to chuck it 50 times per game.
                          I guess you've been paying attention to how many easy passes have been dropped too?
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Luck so far

                            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                            Things started off good in week 1, but how many of those rushing yards were by RG3 (or because of RG3) running the GD MOTHER EFFING tripple option.

                            I think its fair to say the NFL has figured out our tripple option attack.....and it does not help we literally are running out of running backs.

                            When everyone is healthy I guess we have a decent O-line. However, that never happens, and RG3 was sacked...what.....4000 times last week.

                            I will give you our offense has finally showed up this year, but I still think our O-line has huge holes in it, and that is when everyone is healthy (which never happens in the NFL)
                            I watched the game last week, and Griffin's sacks were because the Bengals blitzed and Griffin didn't get it out to the hot receiver. Also like I said earlier, since they cut the field in half, sometimes it's harder to protect the QB bc the defend knows they only need to cover one side of the field.

                            No your o line isn't perfect, but I'll trade you the Colts line in a second!! Honestly there are prob 5 teams with a great line from left to right. Every team has holes.

                            RgIII averages like 65 yards a game on be ground, that's still over 120 yards for the back! That's good man. Take it from fans that get excited about a 5 yard gain, your run game is great.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Luck so far

                              Luck has the better Total QBR. One of the best in the league.


                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Luck so far

                                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                                I think its fair to say the NFL has figured out our tripple option attack.....and it does not help we literally are running out of running backs.
                                Theisman said today that he foresees NFL teams just targeting RG3 even if he gives up the ball. Keep hitting him to knock him out of the game which makes sense.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X