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

Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

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

  • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Okay, .

    I don't care where DHB was drafted. I don't care what he did for the worst offense in recent history. All I care about is his skillset, his build, his work ethic, and what he's done for this franchise. That's all you should look at too.

    I recognize that in four games, he was fairly reliable, if somewhat seldom-targeted. And then he has 1 stinker of a game (against one of the best secondaries in the league), and cdash is saying he sucks. That is the DEFINITION of an over-reaction. Just like proclaiming TRich a waste of a pick after a week and a half.
    The question is, what has DHB done for the Colts so far? He hasn't been a deep threat. His average catch has gone for 10.4 yards, which is 93rd in the league and 4th on the Colts. He hasn't been a TD scorer, as he has none of Luck's 7 TD's so far. He hasn't been the possession guy picking up lots of 1st downs, because he only has 13 catches on the season. And as you've mentioned, his catch rate on his targets was only average before he had his bad game in week 5 that will drop his season stats to below average. The Colts say he's a good blocker on running plays, so I'll take their word on that and give him credit for that. And he might have picked up his share of pass interference calls as well.

    He hasn't been a disaster, but he's been incredibly replaceable so far. He's shown he's an average 3rd/4th receiver, and there are lots of those around the NFL. His Oakland days suggest that he'll catch a few more deep balls for TD's over the course of the year, but that's likely about it.

    Comment


    • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Okay, .

      I don't care where DHB was drafted. I don't care what he did for the worst offense in recent history. All I care about is his skillset, his build, his work ethic, and what he's done for this franchise. That's all you should look at too.

      I recognize that in four games, he was fairly reliable, if somewhat seldom-targeted. And then he has 1 stinker of a game (against one of the best secondaries in the league), and cdash is saying he sucks. That is the DEFINITION of an over-reaction. Just like proclaiming TRich a waste of a pick after a week and a half.
      So you want me to ignore everything a guy has done everywhere else in his career before he comes to the Colts? These guys are NFL players. They are elite athletes. Almost every single one of them is going to have a good skillset and build or else they probably wouldn't be in the NFL. Work ethic is a huge difference maker, I agree wholeheartedly there.

      It's not an overreaction because I didn't change my opinion of him after last game. If you had asked me anytime in the past few years, and certainly in weeks 1-4, I would have said that he sucked. But I don't hate the pickup of DHB for a few reasons: 1) He came cheap. 2) He does have one elite skill--his speed. 3) I think good quarterback play is something he's never seen before and I think Luck might be able to coax something out of him. But man it drives me crazy when he tries to catch the ball by trapping it against his body.

      I have to assume he will have a few pretty good games for us playing across from Reggie Wayne and with the dynamic (and scary as hell) TY Hilton in the slot, and I further assume every time he makes a decent play from now on I shall hear about it from you.

      Comment


      • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

        Darius Heyward-Bey has been an extremely good blocker, a poor pass catcher, and has used his speed to draw a few penalties. Overall he's basically been exactly average. Which is just what we hoped Donnie Avery would be last year. In this case, average is an improvement.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          Darius Heyward-Bey has been an extremely good blocker, a poor pass catcher, and has used his speed to draw a few penalties. Overall he's basically been exactly average. Which is just what we hoped Donnie Avery would be last year. In this case, average is an improvement.
          I still view him as a stop gap that needs to be replaced by a guy in the draft or in the 2014 FA's. I have my eyes on Golden Tate, Jacoby Jones or Eric Decker.

          Comment


          • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            I still view him as a stop gap that needs to be replaced by a guy in the draft or in the 2014 FA's. I have my eyes on Golden Tate, Jacoby Jones or Eric Decker.
            Yeah I think that's how the FA views him as well. And I'm fine with that, that's what you expect out of a guy like that. I wish Jacksonville was stupid enough to deal Justin Blackmon for a couple of third round picks or something. I really like him.

            Comment


            • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

              Justin Blackmon is an idiot. I want no part of that.
              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: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Justin Blackmon is an idiot. I want no part of that.
                That he is

                That's kind of why I was hoping to be able to get him for a low price. I think he's really talented, and maybe in a locker room like ours where we have good leadership and won't tolerate **** like that he would get his act together. I wouldn't trade anything of high value for him (ie, no pick higher than a third rounder), but if the Jags wanted to rid themselves of his idiocy, then I'd be interested at the right price.

                Comment


                • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                  Heyward-Bey's DVOA has been almost exactly 0. He is pretty much the definition of average.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/99...g-indy-problem

                    Presented without commentary:

                    Just over a month ago, the sky was supposedly falling in Cleveland.

                    That's because the Browns had traded running back Trent Richardson, the third overall selection in the 2012 NFL draft, to the Indianapolis Colts in a move that many deemed sheer lunacy. The belief at the time was that Cleveland was giving up its best offensive weapon, a player who should be the bedrock of the franchise.

                    Now the only criticisms that can be heard are coming from Indianapolis, where Richardson remains the disappointing talent the Browns had the good sense to deal.

                    It's not that Richardson is a bad player. It's just that he's not an exceptional one.

                    He has yet to gain more than 60 yards in any of his five games with the Colts. He's had 75 carries during that time and produced all of 228 yards, which is a worse yards-per-attempt average than he generated in his first two games with Cleveland this season (3.04 compared to 3.39). Richardson scored the first two touchdowns of his season while in Indianapolis, but more people likely recall his critical fumble late in the Colts' upset win over Denver on Oct. 20.

                    As much as optimists in Indianapolis preach the importance of patience when faced with these facts, it's becoming hard to see the upside in a player who was supposed to be special and cost the Colts a first-round pick.

                    "We were getting killed when we made that deal, but now people are seeing the same things we saw in him," one Browns source said. "There is a lot to like about Trent. He's solid, dependable, hard-working. The problem is that he's not explosive."

                    That final indictment is the biggest reason Colts fans should be concerned about their new franchise running back moving forward. Richardson has logged 373 carries in his two-year career. Only 20 of those rushing attempts have ended in a run longer than 10 yards, which ranks him 32nd among all running backs since the start of the 2012 season. Richardson also has failed to be the perfect counterpart to quarterback Andrew Luck on a team that was hoping to balance its offense with a dominant power-running component.

                    [+] EnlargeTrent Richardson
                    AP Photo/AJ Mast
                    Trent Richardson has failed to impress in five games with the Colts, averaging a paltry 3.04 yards per carry, with just two touchdowns.
                    The Colts had the idealistic notion that Luck -- who threw 627 passes last season as a rookie -- would make life easier for Richardson. All of those Browns fans who balked at the trade believed that Richardson wasn't becoming a star in Cleveland because the team had nothing else around him. They didn't see a running back who rushed for 950 yards last season because that was the best he could do. They viewed Richardson as a promising talent who had the misfortune of facing eight- and nine-man fronts every time he lined up for the Browns.

                    Well, Richardson isn't seeing too many stacked boxes in Indianapolis these days. He's also not the only player in this league who has to deal with defenses designed to stop him. Minnesota's Adrian Peterson has seen that throughout his seven-year career, and he ran for 2,097 yards in 2012, less than a year after he underwent reconstructive surgery for a torn ACL. Jacksonville's Maurice Jones-Drew hasn't had much of a supporting cast around him, either. He wound up leading the league in rushing in 2011 with a career-high 1,606 yards.

                    The issue with Richardson is that he's mostly effective in situations where his team needs tough yards. As the Browns source said: "I saw him score on a 1-yard touchdown in his first game there (a 27-7 win over San Francisco) and the announcer said that was why the Colts traded for him. And all I could think was that play was right in Trent's wheelhouse. He'll make those plays for you all day. But when you need seven yards, he'll still get you three."

                    There already have been several theories offered as to why Richardson has continued to struggle on a better team. Some have suggested that he's trying too hard to make something happen. Others suspect he's overthinking things or simply struggling to fit in with a new offensive line. Those people still think of Richardson as the same talent he was touted to be after leaving Alabama. They don't want to believe they possibly could be wrong.

                    In reality, it's hard to think Alabama didn't make Richardson look better than he really was. He played with three offensive linemen in college who were selected in this year's draft – including first-round picks D.J. Fluker and Chance Warmack – and it's not like he's the first Crimson Tide runner to disappoint in the NFL. Richardson split time with Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram at Alabama. That would be the same Mark Ingram who has 1,107 career rushing yards since the New Orleans Saints selected him with the 28th overall pick in the 2011 draft.

                    The only defense Ingram has at this stage of his career is opportunity. The Saints have enough talent in their backfield -- with Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles in the mix -- one could argue that a crowded depth chart has factored into Ingram's lack of production. On the other hand, another former Alabama runner, Green Bay rookie Eddie Lacy, has gained 446 yards this season and launched himself into the early conversation for offensive rookie of the year honors. He's already proven what some scouts thought about him when he entered the draft -- that he could be better than both Ingram and Richardson in the long run.

                    The big question the Colts now face is whether Richardson can elevate his game in the second half of this season. Indianapolis already lost one huge offensive weapon when Pro Bowl wide receiver Reggie Wayne tore his ACL against Denver, so it's fair to assume the Colts will need more from their running game. If Richardson really does have star potential, this is the time to start showing it. But if what we've seen so far is any indication, nobody in Indianapolis should be raising their hopes too high.

                    Comment


                    • All fine and dandy but the article pointed very little to the o line, except to admit he hadn't had a good one since alabama.

                      Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                      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: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        All fine and dandy but the article pointed very little to the o line, except to admit he hadn't had a good one since alabama.

                        Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                        I thought the stuff from the Browns sources was the most interesting part.

                        Comment


                        • They said he has no burst. No kidding, he's a shifty power back. When you don't have a line then it's an issue. We're basically trying to run a power offense with a power back --- and the exact opposite line. Until they get that line fixed, we're going to keep seeing these silly articles.

                          Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                          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: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                            We all know my stance so I'm not going to jump back into the circular argument game, but just thought that was interesting. FWIW, Wells tweeted that out.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                              Well, Wells was on that video of the article so it makes sense.

                              Yes he runs behind an average to bad OL. But by keep mentioning it, we basically admit he's not something exceptional. I'm not gonna mention his draft pick because that's not on him but on the team that scouted him and evaluated. I'm all for giving him time and judge him towards the end of this season and the next one but so far he has been "meh".

                              Also, take a look at this stat over here http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/OL

                              I found it interesting that the Colts' OL is ranked 3rd in Stuffed rank*. I'd tell you before seeing that stat that there were enough times that I thought T-Rich had nowhere to go almost from the get go of the snap.

                              *Stuffed: Percentage of runs where the running back is tackled at or behind the line of scrimmage. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).
                              Last edited by Johanvil; 10-31-2013, 07:17 PM.
                              Never forget

                              Comment


                              • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                                As I posted on the Colts board, it's time to use him in a different way. Especially with Reggie going down. Use him as a safety valve/possession receiver or even split him out wide. He should be getting 5 targets per game instead of 1.5 or something he has been getting. Get Trent in the open field and we will really see how dangerous he can be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X