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

  • Re: Luck so far

    No way Luck should win the MVP, it is simple to me, if we didn't get down so bad in games we would not have to have all these comebacks, comebacks are good and all, but they really say your team was in good position to lose due to what they did in the first 3 quarters. If Luck were consistently half as efficient as he is in the 4th then maybe he would be in the conversation for MVP, but he still has a long way to go... way to many off target balls, both short and deep.
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • Re: Luck so far

      Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
      None of the voters have the stones to vote for Luck. He's probably made a bigger impact than any player in the league, but if anyone actually came out and said he deserved it they'd be laughed out of their job. It's sad, but that's just the world we live in.


      The MVP is awarded to the player with the best stats. It's Tom Brady's to lose.
      There has been people that said he is one of the top candidates... but yeah they should get laughed out of their seats... for a rookie he is doing a marvelous job, but the MVP does not care if you are a rookie or a seasoned vet...
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • Re: Luck so far

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        The MVP talk is heating up.

        I know this award will likely, and arguably, go to Manning, Brady, or AP. Strong cases for all of those.

        But the award is supposed to go to the player who is the "most valuable player in the league." Well, how is that defined? To the league in terms of marketing power? To an individual team in terms of impact?

        The romantic in me wants to believe it goes to the player who made the biggest impact to their team.

        That player, in my mind --- is Andrew Luck.

        He's not had a perfect statistical season. He's had a few bad games. But it all comes down to context:

        1) The Colts aren't good. There are a number of positions on this team that have been devastated by injuries, and they weren't deep in talent to begin with. The remaining positions have talent --- but they're young. Rookies... Second year players.... a lot of guys Grigson plucked off the wire or off other team's practice squads. This team is a hodgepodge of mediocre players.
        2) The offense they run. It's a vertical offense. It's not a safe... stat-boosting... game-management type of offense, like say, the West coast offense. Luck's offense is difficult. The throws you have to make are above and beyond typical throws, not many guys can even make them. It's more quick-strike than power and clock-eating. It also increases your interceptions and incompletions. But that also comes from point #1 --- the guys he's throwing to, who they themselves are making mistakes. Luck usually takes the blame, but it's often that a guy runs an incorrect route, makes an incorrect read. And then they just don't catch the ball, or they bat it up in the air whereas a seasoned veteran wouldn't be making that happen.
        3) Horrible offensive line. Doesn't give Luck enough time to actually set and make a throw. Which hurts Luck's passing stats and opportunities. And also leads to...
        4) Inconsistent run game. They tend to find their groove at opportunistic times, late in games... but for large stretches of games the run game just isn't producing and Luck is doing everything.
        5) All these bad parts of our team are coached by a pretty decent coaching staff, but a coaching staff that's missing the main guy because he's been battling cancer all year. Stripping out the emotional aspect of this, it hurts the team's nuts and bolts "X's and O's". When the guy who architected the entire damn team is not even present to execute the gameplan --- you're going to have setbacks from a pure football perspective.
        6) His stats aren't "bad", either. There are a few that are really damn impressive. Yardage... overall touchdowns (23). His numbers on "money downs". His execution in the 2-min, which doesn't show up on most traditional stats. His comeback wins. His total wins.

        That's just the non-emotional stuff. Throw in the fact that this time last year, Peyton Manning was still on this roster. The gut-wretching departure... the huge shadow that Luck plays under... the expectations he had to overcome to win over a snake-bitten fan base... the emotional aspect of the coach being diagnosed with cancer...

        I mean.................... all that is an absolute *mountain* for a rookie QB to overcome.

        And he's won 9 games. 6 comebacks. Broke the single-game record for yardage for a rookie. Is on pace to break the single-season yardage record for a rookie. Might even be on pace for the single-season TD record for a rookie. He's been unbelievable in 3rd down conversions. He's been unbelievable in 2-min drills.

        The Colts are well-positioned for a playoff spot. That wasn't supposed to happen. But it did because of 1 guy. Andrew Luck. And he's really not being taken seriously as an MVP candidate. He's been bandied about as a potential, but it's mostly just wild posturing. I tend to think that stats and the fact he's a rookie are the only real thing standing between him and that award, but it shouldn't.
        Luck fan just like you, but some stats combined with actual game play take away from your argument, just look at the Lions game, I mean down big and trying to come back and he throws a key pick with less than 10 minutes down. He must learn better decision making, like when to leave the pocket, he has put himself in situations way too often to take big hits due to trying to wait for a receiver to get open when he should be taking the free yards by just tucking and running.

        I think he will get there eventually and he is having one of the best seasons by a QB this year, but he will need to perform better if he wants the MVP.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • Re: Luck so far

          I was curious about Andrew's road vs home production, so I tallied some stuff:

          Road
          153-284 - 54%
          2024 yards
          10 PASS TDs
          2 RUSH TDs
          13 INTs

          Home
          155-280 - 55%
          1954 yards
          10 PASS TDs
          3 RUSH TDs
          5 INTs

          So looking at this... he's damn near identical in completions, percentage, yardage, and touchdowns no matter if he's on the road or at home.

          The only and biggest difference is interceptions. He's scored 13 TDs at home and thrown 5 ints. He's scored 12 TDs on the road, and thrown 13 INTs.

          I actually take this as a good sign. He's consistent in his ability to move the ball and the offense no matter where he plays. Where he slips is the INTs, which suggests that he's being affected by the crowd noise, trying too much to force throws and gambling a little more, or some combination of both.

          I think he'll figure it out.
          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


          • Re: Luck so far

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            I was curious about Andrew's road vs home production, so I tallied some stuff:

            Road
            153-284 - 54%
            2024 yards
            10 PASS TDs
            2 RUSH TDs
            13 INTs

            Home
            155-280 - 55%
            1954 yards
            10 PASS TDs
            3 RUSH TDs
            5 INTs

            So looking at this... he's damn near identical in completions, percentage, yardage, and touchdowns no matter if he's on the road or at home.

            The only and biggest difference is interceptions. He's scored 13 TDs at home and thrown 5 ints. He's scored 12 TDs on the road, and thrown 13 INTs.

            I actually take this as a good sign. He's consistent in his ability to move the ball and the offense no matter where he plays. Where he slips is the INTs, which suggests that he's being affected by the crowd noise, trying too much to force throws and gambling a little more, or some combination of both.

            I think he'll figure it out.
            Yeah very similar, and I think he could have had a few more at home, he really throws some bad balls way too often, but like I said in the last post I think he will start to get this together next year.

            One thing that I noticed, and this will really hurt his chances at MVP and ROY, is that he has performed worst near the end of the season, you would rather see a guy who is improving throughout. I know that I am not one to go solely by stats but if you look at his last 5 games his completion percentage is floating around 49% and he has thrown 10 TD's and 9 picks, and that was helped a lot by the Houston game where he did not throw any picks on the road or it would have been 8 td's and 9 picks, that is not the way that a ROY or MVP candidate should be finishing out the year.

            With all that said, I think if he has 2 decent to strong games to finish out the season then he should definitely get the ROY, here is hoping for a good performance against KC next week to start that out on the right track.
            Why so SERIOUS

            Comment


            • Re: Luck so far

              I'm attributing that to the rookie wall. But, also.. our line seems to be regressing, and the Texans have a good D. That'll make you look like you're hitting a rookie wall.
              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


              • Re: Luck so far

                this line is so bad. I would argue that RG3 has taken some bad hits, Luck has been getting clobbered all season long. I actually want him to run the ball more. Watching him stand in there, though admirable, makes me sick seeing some of the hits he's taking. He's one tough son of a ***** thats for sure.

                This line needs upgraded badly and there's going to be some good ones in FA.

                Comment


                • Re: Luck so far

                  I will agree that when Luck stays in the pocket, he gets hit way more than RG3.

                  The knock on RG3 is most of his bad hits occur when he's out on the run. And I don't know if it's his relatively slight stature... or he just doesn't know how to defend himself... but he gets hit in the most explosive, spectacular ways possible. He's had 3-4 very, very ugly collisions, almost all of which weren't necessary.
                  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


                  • Re: Luck so far

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Luck vs. Manning through first 12 games:

                    Luck - 3596 yards passing, 17 passing touchdowns, 16 interceptions, 55% completion, 7.1 yards average, 5 rushing touchdowns, 183 yards rushing --- 3779 total yards, 22 total touchdowns.
                    Manning - 2800 yards passing, 19 passing touchdowns, 23 interceptions, 55% completion, 6.5 yards average, 0 rushing touchdowns, 56 yards rushing --- 2856 total yards, 19 total touchdowns.

                    I'd say Luck is "stacking up well".
                    I like Luck and I think he's the ROY, but these rookie comparisons, to be meaningful, also rely on Luck improving after his rookie year, working on his weaknesses, to the extent that Peyton Manning did.

                    As an example, Rick Mirer's rookie year was comparable to Peyton Manning's rookie year too. That didn't foretell anything.

                    Manning - 2800 yards passing, 19 passing touchdowns, 23 interceptions, 55% completion, 6.5 yards average, 0 rushing touchdowns, 56 yards rushing --- 2856 total yards, 19 total touchdowns.
                    Mirer- 2833 yards passing, 12 passing touchdowns, 17 interceptions, 56% completion, 5.8 yards average, 3 rushing touchdowns, 343 yards rushing --- 3146 total yards, 15 total touchdowns
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck so far

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      I like Luck and I think he's the ROY, but these rookie comparisons, to be meaningful, also rely on Luck improving after his rookie year, working on his weaknesses, to the extent that Peyton Manning did.

                      As an example, Rick Mirer's rookie year was comparable to Peyton Manning's rookie year too. That didn't foretell anything.

                      Manning - 2800 yards passing, 19 passing touchdowns, 23 interceptions, 55% completion, 6.5 yards average, 0 rushing touchdowns, 56 yards rushing --- 2856 total yards, 19 total touchdowns.
                      Mirer- 2833 yards passing, 12 passing touchdowns, 17 interceptions, 56% completion, 5.8 yards average, 3 rushing touchdowns, 343 yards rushing --- 3146 total yards, 15 total touchdowns
                      Slick, I think you have the wrong stats for Manning. Manning had 26 TDs, 28 picks, and 3739 yards in his rookie year.

                      http://www.pro-football-reference.co...M/MannPe00.htm

                      I agree with your overall point though. Luck having a similar rookie year to Manning doesn't mean that he will be throwing 49 touchdowns in year 6. Manning immediately cut his picks down in year two with a 26/15 TD/INT ratio. Also had a 90.7 passer rating as he led the Colts to a phenomenal 13-3 record. Luck obviously needs to improve some things next year and I think he will. Management needs to help him out too by adding some quality O-Lineman with that cap space we have. Manning was extremely fortunate to have Tarik Glenn protecting his blindside for his first 9 years. He also had Saturday.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck so far

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I'm attributing that to the rookie wall. But, also.. our line seems to be regressing, and the Texans have a good D. That'll make you look like you're hitting a rookie wall.
                        That is fine and all, but rookie wall or not it still is part of his play as a rookie, and that is why it is important when considering him as the ROY
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck so far

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Slick, I think you have the wrong stats for Manning.
                          yeah, I copied them from the earlier post without noticing they were for only 12 games... my bad
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck so far

                            I have to say that Luck reminds me of Peyton at year three with his playbook comprehension with more athleticism. He may not have the gun that Peyton has but he is good at getting the ball where it needs to go.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck so far

                              Do you think all he wants this Christmas is more time in the pocket? And a better OL?
                              Never forget

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck so far

                                Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                                I have to say that Luck reminds me of Peyton at year three with his playbook comprehension with more athleticism. He may not have the gun that Peyton has but he is good at getting the ball where it needs to go.
                                I love Luck's arm, but I hate how he throws the deep ball when he tries to put air under it, when he just throws it like a rocket though it always looks a lot better.
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X