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 idioteque View Post
    Haven't watched Trent Richardson in the NFL since that game he played against the Colts last year where he had eight total rushing yards (his career low I think). I don't know about this trade. I remember chuckling when the Browns drafted Richardson, thinking only lesser evolved franchises like the Browns would be dumb enough to burn a top 3 pick on a running back in 2012. Well the Colts just did essentially the same thing. The Grigson regime worries me. I have watched the Washington Redskins trade draft picks (especially for overrated skill players) like hot cakes for years, and it still affects their quite poor depth to this day. Now I hope Grigson leads the Colts the promised land as much as anyone, but I'm a bit worried. I liked the Polian model of building through the draft a lot better. Now, once Polian forgot how to draft or let his idiot soon draft that went to ****, but for a few years it really worked.

    I think Bill Simmons is a charlatan who somehow gets paid for writing unintelligible stuff at times, but he has a good point here:



    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/.../game-changers

    So it really is a fallacy that drafting a RB in the NFL "lottery" means there is a very good chance that guy will be elite. In fact the opposite is true.
    Except the Colts pick won't be anything near a top 3 pick. It probably won't even be a top 20 pick.

    The only thing about this trade that would concern me is how long will Trent last? Everyone knows what type of back he is. He is a physical downhill runner. How long can he play like that at a high level?

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
      Of course, Trent isn't really going to get better blocking here honestly. What he will get however is a competent QB which will allow Trent to not run against 7 or 8 in the box
      The Colts are the #1 run blocking team in the NFL right now. They are #26 in pass blocking though. I would say that Richardson is going to get better blocking here.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by presto123 View Post
        The Colts are the #1 run blocking team in the NFL right now. They are #26 in pass blocking though. I would say that Richardson is going to get better blocking here.
        Here's the thing. I believe his run blocking will be the same BUT the perimeter talent has to be accounted for here and the QB is a deep threat EVERY PLAY. Richardson may not have a great game this week (it is San Francisco after a loss and he probably hasnt learned all the verbiage yet

        Comment


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

          Of course he's likely to struggle tomorrow. He's been on the team for 2 days. New system, new teammates, on the road, at the best team in the league's house. I'd be surprised if he came out and rocked the place, not that I'd hope against 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 ilive4sports View Post
            Except the Colts pick won't be anything near a top 3 pick. It probably won't even be a top 20 pick.
            Look at the schedule. That pick will absolutely be in the top 20.

            Comment


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

              Trent averaged 3 ypc while seeing 8 men in the box roughly 17% of his carries(league average is 23%). The reason he had so many yards after contact is because his vision is so poor he would miss huge tunnels and barrel into contact at the line of scrimmage and bounce into the closing lane. He has a long way to go before he's a good back, but he has the tools to see that happen.

              Nobody got fleeced in this deal. Late 1sts in the NFL are far better value than late 1sts in the NBA. Your not picking up "bench depth" until the 4th or 5th round in the NFL. You gave up a starting caliber draft pick for a known quantity that isn't the 3rd overall pick he was selected at.

              I'd also advise you to give a read on Scott Fujita's take on Trent. He's blunt, but he's honest and the last time he publicly dressed down a former Browns RB he was spot-on about the attitude problems(Hillis being a diva).

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                The Colts are the #1 run blocking team in the NFL right now. They are #26 in pass blocking though. I would say that Richardson is going to get better blocking here.
                The thing is the blocking won't really matter. He's gotta hit the holes they give him.

                http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/b...medium=twitter

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Of course he's likely to struggle tomorrow. He's been on the team for 2 days. New system, new teammates, on the road, at the best team in the league's house. I'd be surprised if he came out and rocked the place, not that I'd hope against that.
                  And the sad part is, we'll have fans claiming it was a bad trade based on that one game, just like the knuckleheads who wanted Manning back after Luck's first game.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                    Trent averaged 3 ypc while seeing 8 men in the box roughly 17% of his carries(league average is 23%). The reason he had so many yards after contact is because his vision is so poor he would miss huge tunnels and barrel into contact at the line of scrimmage and bounce into the closing lane. He has a long way to go before he's a good back, but he has the tools to see that happen.

                    Nobody got fleeced in this deal. Late 1sts in the NFL are far better value than late 1sts in the NBA. Your not picking up "bench depth" until the 4th or 5th round in the NFL. You gave up a starting caliber draft pick for a known quantity that isn't the 3rd overall pick he was selected at.

                    I'd also advise you to give a read on Scott Fujita's take on Trent. He's blunt, but he's honest and the last time he publicly dressed down a former Browns RB he was spot-on about the attitude problems(Hillis being a diva).
                    1) Au contrere, Trent is starting material, and that 20th pick has about a 20% chance to start for any serious amount of time.
                    2) So you found a negative article about a player on the internet? Well there ya have it; he must suck.
                    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
                      1) Au contrere, Trent is starting material, and that 20th pick has about a 20% chance to start for any serious amount of time.
                      2) So you found a negative article about a player on the internet? Well there ya have it; he must suck.
                      I didn't say he sucked. I said he isn't a 3rd overall selection talent. The article may have shown his weaknesses, but it was far more informative than a bash 'em you're making it out to be. Not to mention half the plays the article used were scoring position touches where he missed a walk-in score that lead to 3 instead of 6. So yeah, that's a huge problem for a 3rd overall pick to have, especially when Weeden is your QB.

                      If you're not drafting starting caliber players in the late 1st round, you're doing it way wrong. Either you're not really drafting positions of need, or you have no ability to seriously evaluate talent at the next level.

                      One way or the other, a RB shelf life is ~5 years. The Browns saw they had an asset that would be in his third year before the team really had a chance to see what he was worth, which is half his career. They saw an opportunity to build toward the future while dealing a guy who had great value, but a few flags as well.

                      Regardless, you argued two positions I don't(and didn't in my post) hold. I understand you're emotionally charged by getting last year's #3 overall for "just" a first rounder(which, again, is applying NBA draft position to the NFL), but you paid his appropriate value for him. No one lost this trade and no one came out way ahead.

                      Comment


                      • I like the player and the move, both on a player and fiscal level. I know what to look for; there's plenty of knowledgeable people who share the same view, and someone telling me I'm emotionally charged and that it was a lateral move is whatever. It shouldn't take a genius to realize that he's better than 20th pick material; that Cleveland gained very little from the move; and Cleveland has already eaten most of the financial cost of his contract. It was a ridiculously slick move by Grigson.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-21-2013, 08:15 PM.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          .............. and Cleveland has already eaten most of the financial cost of his contract. It was a ridiculously slick move by Grigson.
                          I think a lot of people over-look this point. The money the Colts will spend on Richardson over the next few years isn't like 1st round money. Here are the details:\

                          http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...son-trade.html

                          THAT'S a bargain for the Colts no matter how one tries to spin it. $2 million a season ?? For a starting RB ?? I can name 31 other teams in the league that would like to have a starting RB on that salary.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                            I didn't say he sucked. I said he isn't a 3rd overall selection talent. The article may have shown his weaknesses, but it was far more informative than a bash 'em you're making it out to be. Not to mention half the plays the article used were scoring position touches where he missed a walk-in score that lead to 3 instead of 6. So yeah, that's a huge problem for a 3rd overall pick to have, especially when Weeden is your QB.

                            If you're not drafting starting caliber players in the late 1st round, you're doing it way wrong. Either you're not really drafting positions of need, or you have no ability to seriously evaluate talent at the next level.

                            One way or the other, a RB shelf life is ~5 years. The Browns saw they had an asset that would be in his third year before the team really had a chance to see what he was worth, which is half his career. They saw an opportunity to build toward the future while dealing a guy who had great value, but a few flags as well.

                            Regardless, you argued two positions I don't(and didn't in my post) hold. I understand you're emotionally charged by getting last year's #3 overall for "just" a first rounder(which, again, is applying NBA draft position to the NFL), but you paid his appropriate value for him. No one lost this trade and no one came out way ahead.
                            Didn't he tie Jim Browns record for TDs though as a rookie? How bad can he be at the goal line runs?

                            Lol. A running backs shelf life is hardly 5 years and if that was the case we shouldn't have signed Edge, Bradshaw or Eric Dickerson. The RB shelf life is shorter than most but it's hardly 5 years especially when most NFL teams use a 2 back system. A shelf life for a second or third string RB maybe 5 years but my guess is that you aren't looking at the facts when you consider actually starters. If what you said was true every HOf rb should have been traded in year four which is ridiculous to suggest.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 09-21-2013, 09:07 PM.

                            Comment


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

                              Like I've said... pretty much repeatedly....

                              1) He possesses a very nice, possibly elite, overall skillset. There aren't many holes in his game. About the ONLY part of his game that he's lacking is that he doesn't have *blazing* speed, but I don't care about that, because you don't need it, and his overall combination of other plusses easily puts him in great company. I like his style of running, which is an Emmitt Smith/Edge style of running. They're patient; run north-south; incredible balance, great vision. They could pass-protect. They could catch the ball. They were great in the open field. They could get yards after the initial hit. I've watched a lot of running backs; when he came out, I said to myself we haven't seen a running back like this come out since AP, and even if he *isn't* quite as good as AP, I'll take even 75% of AP. He played on the friggin Browns. It's a disaster franchise. He conducted himself admirably, considering the situation. He amassed 1300 yards of offense, despite his terrible offense and being injured, and he scored 13 touchdowns. How on earth anyone can take "he underwhelmed" from that is absolutely asinine. He had a very good year last year, all things considered, and we didn't see him at full strength. Imagine coming into a situation like Edge did in 1999 --- you got Peyton Manning, Tarik Glenn, Marvin Harrison, Dilger, a slew of offensive players.... Richardson came into ---- Cribbs? Weeden? I think that Richardson *COULD* have had an Edge like year last year had he came into a situation like what Edge debuted with. But he didn't. He came into the Browns. He still put up some stats. We haven't seen the best of him.
                              2) Indy KILLED Cleveland on this deal. Not just from a talent, draft position perspective... but from a financial perspective. Richardson is on his rook contract, and already has been paid. As I had already known, and like what PacerDude re-stated, according to that article: "The Colts get Richardson at $6,602,671 for practically three full seasons." Incredible. No one is really focusing on this at all. A starting-caliber RB, who has a chance to become in my opinion a top-5 back in the league, for 2.2mill/year for the next 3 seasons, no questions asked. Are you kidding me? Even if you completely remove that aspect, Indy won this deal on pure talent alone. In the past 10 years, Indy has drafted (and let's keep in mind Polian was considered a draft master, don't care what any of you guys have to say about his final years) the following players in the late part of the 1st round: Werner (who knows yet), Costanzo (not great...... not bad..... ), Jerry Hughes (gone), Donald Brown (sucks), Anthony Gonzalez (sucks and gone), Joseph Addai (a few good seasons, but mostly not impressive), Marlin Jackson (see Addai). No real major hits at all. That's about what we could've expected with our 1st pick this year. Not a single one of those players has 1) the actual production that Trent had in his rookie year, nor 2) near the potential that Trent has. It was a talent *win*. You aren't going to get Reggie Wayne at that spot very often, and he was drafted 11 years ago.
                              3) You watch. Luck + Richardson is going to be something else. The 2012 draft was one for the ages, and Trent completely belonged in the top of that draft. We have the best QB and the best RB from that draft, and both are arguably the best prospects at their respective positions to come out of college since Manning in '98 and AP in '07. They are going to be something else together. They will be even moreso next year once we further address our line this off-season. This is only year 2 folks. It's still being built. It cannot happen in a year. We've addressed some spots already pretty well. It took us 8 years with Manning to get that SB. We cant be upset that we're not SB-bound in Year 2 of Luck. Sit back and enjoy some fireworks and be ready for some frustration this year as our top players are also very young and will have some growing pains. That's just how it's going to be.
                              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-22-2013, 12:35 AM.
                              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

                                Doug Martin has already shown you that Richardson wasn't the best back in his draft class, and he didn't have to grow any to do it. Guess when he was drafted?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X