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
    Ummm.. we did. His name is Ahmad Bradshaw. He's injured. We're down two RBs right now. The blah attitude towards RBs in this day and age is crazy. Most SB winners don't have a lame-duck rotation at RB. You gotta have some talent at the position. Ravens = Rice. Giants = Bradshaw/Jacobs. Indy = Addai/Rhodes. You can't ignore the position.
    Those guys you just listed, outside of Ray Rice, are average-to-solid NFL running backs.

    Oh, and you can't just cherry pick the ones that support your side of the story. The Packers won a Super Bowl with almost no running game to speak of.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
      Well, give some names.
      I did.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
        Trent Richardson has had two 20+ yard rushes in 331 attempts. 14 10+ yd runs. 33 rushes for loss. The games he's having in Indy are the games he was having in Cleveland. Last year the Cleveland line was rated 5th in the league. He saw 8 men in the box 17% of his touches(league average is 23). You absolutely cannot blame Cleveland's o-line for anything.

        Question, if Dammit Donald isn't a starter(he isn't, that's a unanimous thought) then what does it mean when he's outperforming Trent?
        The Browns line was ranked 5th in the league last year due to pass blocking not run blocking. They were an average run blocking line and teams didn't have to worry about that passing attack at all. OVerall they were ranked 24th in offense last year so teams didn't have to make them one dimensional because they had no dimension to their offense, hence why they didn't have to load the box agaisnt any of the Browns RB's.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Then sign an older veteran or trade a late round pick for someone else's backup who can block. Problem solved, first round pick saved.
          Why sign someone just to block, when you can get someone that blocks and runs? Sure there are other options out there, but they're out of the league waiting on someone to pick them up for a reason. I don't really see the need for retreads, that you know aren't going to give you much. I'd much rather take somewhat of a gamble and try to get a back that can produce in a number of ways.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Why sign someone just to block, when you can get someone that blocks and runs? Sure there are other options out there, but they're out of the league waiting on someone to pick them up for a reason. I don't really see the need for retreads, that you know aren't going to give you much. I'd much rather take somewhat of a gamble and try to get a back that can produce in a number of ways.
            I'm being serious when I ask this, and this is directed at anyone who wants to answer: What have you seen out of Trent Richardson that makes you think he is this good? He was picked third overall in the draft, okay. He certainly looks the part, I'll grant you. He produced like hell at Alabama behind some of the best offensive lines of the past 20 years in college football. The book is out on these recent Bama running backs in the NFL. Mark Ingram won a Heisman Trophy and has been positively awful in the NFL. Richardson, by all stats and measures, has not produced at even an above average level yet. Eddie Lacy has played like two games so far and is injured, so I don't know that you can take anything off of that yet. The reasons people give for Richardson's pedestrian numbers just look like excuses to me.

            Comment


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

              It's been 2 games and our offensive line sucks. You do remember how awful they are?
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                It's been 2 games and our offensive line sucks. You do remember how awful they are?
                I'm fully aware of the pathetic nature of our offensive line, and if you read what I've posted, I'm willing to more or less throw out his two games in Indy. But his numbers are strikingly similar to what they were in Cleveland last year. Unfortunately for me, I live in a market where the Browns are the local team so I watch nearly all of their games, and did last year. I never saw anything out of Richardson that made me think he was anything special.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  Those guys you just listed, outside of Ray Rice, are average-to-solid NFL running backs.

                  Oh, and you can't just cherry pick the ones that support your side of the story. The Packers won a Super Bowl with almost no running game to speak of.
                  They had Aaron Frickin Rodgers.

                  You cherry-picked the one in recent history that needed very little, so I'd say the support behind my theory outweights the support for your theory. Most of those guys were first or second round picks, or at least very good RBs drafted late. Teams do use RBs, and they often are drafted pretty high. Or they snag one of the rare lower-round backs who just so happened to be really good. Either way, it's obvious that teams use good RBs. Most of your average late-round RBs don't make it very long.
                  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 Since86 View Post
                    Why sign someone just to block, when you can get someone that blocks and runs? Sure there are other options out there, but they're out of the league waiting on someone to pick them up for a reason. I don't really see the need for retreads, that you know aren't going to give you much. I'd much rather take somewhat of a gamble and try to get a back that can produce in a number of ways.
                    I didn't really answer this, so here goes: It's a value thing for me. First off, it's abundantly clear that I don't value running backs as much as the rest of you and I think it is one position where you can find a lot of value in the later rounds of the draft. There are examples of finding gems at every position in the scrap heap, but with the focus on the passing game in today's NFL, I just don't think it would cost us much (if anything) in terms of wins if we went for a retread or a backup. If we traded a third round pick for Richardson, I'd be fine with that. That's a risk I would be willing to take. A second round pick I wouldn't love, and a first round pick I really don't like. I'm not a huge advocate of trading first round picks in the NFL to begin with, but if we were going to deal a first rounder, I would want to plug up a hole along the offensive line.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Well, give some names.
                      Ted. Joe. Jack. Ezekiel.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I'm being serious when I ask this, and this is directed at anyone who wants to answer: What have you seen out of Trent Richardson that makes you think he is this good? He was picked third overall in the draft, okay. He certainly looks the part, I'll grant you. He produced like hell at Alabama behind some of the best offensive lines of the past 20 years in college football. The book is out on these recent Bama running backs in the NFL. Mark Ingram won a Heisman Trophy and has been positively awful in the NFL. Richardson, by all stats and measures, has not produced at even an above average level yet. Eddie Lacy has played like two games so far and is injured, so I don't know that you can take anything off of that yet. The reasons people give for Richardson's pedestrian numbers just look like excuses to me.
                        Where have I talked about how good Trent is? I don't know how good he is, to be honest. I think his numbers are down because he saw a stacked box in Cleveland, as no one fears their passing attack, and I know the Colts offensive line is bad. So given those two things, why would anyone expect runners to put up good numbers with them? I've always thought it was silly to evaluate a RB based off his ypc, as there are a lot of variables that go along with it. There's a reason why guys like Chris Johnson take their entire lines out for fancy dinners after the season is over, because they know how important the five guys up front are.

                        I see dismissing logical reasons as to why numbers are down, as picking nits. I don't expect Trent to come in and be a 1000yd rusher. The line just isn't good enough. Trent's strength is power running, and fighting for the extra yards. With a crappy line, I think that's the best approach. I cannot imagine how awful the Colts running game would be, if Bradshaw went down for an extended amount of time and having to rely on Donald Brown. Between the OLine and his awful blocking, Luck would probaby have his sternum caved in.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          They had Aaron Frickin Rodgers.

                          You cherry-picked the one in recent history that needed very little, so I'd say the support behind my theory outweights the support for your theory. Most of those guys were first or second round picks, or at least very good RBs drafted late. Teams do use RBs, and they often are drafted pretty high. Or they snag one of the rare lower-round backs who just so happened to be really good. Either way, it's obvious that teams use good RBs. Most of your average late-round RBs don't make it very long.
                          We have Andrew Frickin' Luck. He will get there.

                          I didn't really cherry pick, I was just posting a retort to your post. You can win a Super Bowl getting virtually nothing from your running attack. Is it ideal? Of course not. But it can be done.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            We have Andrew Frickin' Luck. He will get there.

                            I didn't really cherry pick, I was just posting a retort to your post. You can win a Super Bowl getting virtually nothing from your running attack. Is it ideal? Of course not. But it can be done.
                            The Colts just tried that approach for the last 10+ years with arguably the best QB to ever play the game, and fell short of expectations. I don't think you'll find much support for going back down that path, just two years removed from going out and getting a coaching staff with a different approach.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              I didn't really answer this, so here goes: It's a value thing for me. First off, it's abundantly clear that I don't value running backs as much as the rest of you and I think it is one position where you can find a lot of value in the later rounds of the draft. There are examples of finding gems at every position in the scrap heap, but with the focus on the passing game in today's NFL, I just don't think it would cost us much (if anything) in terms of wins if we went for a retread or a backup. If we traded a third round pick for Richardson, I'd be fine with that. That's a risk I would be willing to take. A second round pick I wouldn't love, and a first round pick I really don't like. I'm not a huge advocate of trading first round picks in the NFL to begin with, but if we were going to deal a first rounder, I would want to plug up a hole along the offensive line.
                              I have already posted your assumptions aren't true when looking for starting RB's. IT would be similar to me saying you can get a starting left tackle in the later rounds and pretty much everyone would laugh at me for making that assumption.

                              I will post it again if you like. The average draft position in the NFL for a starting RB is 61 and the ADP for a left tackle is 49.5. So basically 11 spot difference from one of the least important positions to the NFL to one of the most important positions in the NFL.

                              Quite frankly your assumption is false and even more so its false for what Chuck and the front office want to be which is a power running team. Most teams in the NFL don't want to be that which is fine but the value of our FO will place on running backs is much higher than you so I would figure you might need to come to grips with that as long as Chuck is the head coach.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Where have I talked about how good Trent is? I don't know how good he is, to be honest. I think his numbers are down because he saw a stacked box in Cleveland, as no one fears their passing attack, and I know the Colts offensive line is bad. So given those two things, why would anyone expect runners to put up good numbers with them? I've always thought it was silly to evaluate a RB based off his ypc, as there are a lot of variables that go along with it. There's a reason why guys like Chris Johnson take their entire lines out for fancy dinners after the season is over, because they know how important the five guys up front are.

                                I see dismissing logical reasons as to why numbers are down, as picking nits. I don't expect Trent to come in and be a 1000yd rusher. The line just isn't good enough. Trent's strength is power running, and fighting for the extra yards. With a crappy line, I think that's the best approach. I cannot imagine how awful the Colts running game would be, if Bradshaw went down for an extended amount of time and having to rely on Donald Brown. Between the OLine and his awful blocking, Luck would probaby have his sternum caved in.
                                I'm not dismissing them outright--I'm sure having no passing attack to speak of in Cleveland and our atrocious offensive line absolutely affect Richardson's production. But this leads me back to another point I have consistently made: The real problem is the offensive line. Why not use that pick, if they were so intent on dealing it, to upgrade the O-line? To me that helps keep Andrew Luck in one piece and improves the running game regardless of who is back there. Is it possible they tried and were unsuccessful in doing so? Sure, and we have no way of knowing they weren't shopping around for top flight guards and tackles.
                                Last edited by cdash; 10-01-2013, 02:40 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X