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 Since86 View Post
    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.
    They won a Super Bowl. They played in another. According to Kid Minneapolis, they did have decent RBs during at least part of that time you just referenced.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      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.
      He was a rookie last year. How many guys are flawless in their rookie seasons? Plus, as has been mentioned, the box was consistently stacked against him.

      It's not like we traded a first rounder for a fourth year player. We are essentially using next year's first round pick to draft Richardson, but are getting his services right now. That's the way I look at it.

      I just can't buy that running backs aren't important after watching the final years of Manning's career here when we had such an unimpressive running attack. I remember a certain playoff game in San Diego five years ago where we failed to convert on a third and two that would have put the game away. Our running attack was so bad that we decided to throw it instead (and failed to convert).

      In playoff games, you need a running game to pick up crucial yards.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        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.
        Well, let's use context here for my position. Without actually doing the research and just glancing at the top listed RBs for each team, I'll grant you that over half of them were former first or second round picks. The numbers back that up. Let's take a deeper dive now. How many of those guys are playing for the team that originally drafted them? Again, a quick glance and without googling each player, here's the list I came up with: Peterson, Spiller, Rice, Jones-Drew, Chris Johnson, Moreno, McFadden, Mathews, Forte (?), DeAngelo Williams, Gore. There's 11. It's possible I'm missing a few. How many of them lived up to their draft position? How long did they sustain their high level of play? You all blasted the guy that said the shelf life for a good running back is about 5 years, and while I don't necessarily agree with that, they do have a shorter period of time where they are at their peak. How many of them are workhorse backs?

        You guys can disagree with it all you want, and that's fine. I realize my opinion on the matter is not a popular one.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          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.
          Do you realize how much money we spent on the line in this off season? We have 2 starters missing and one is done for the season. We have also spent 2 picks last year on upgrading it one of which has played signfiicant minutes at guard and done well.

          For all the moaning about our line we are 4th in yards per attempt.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            Well, let's use context here for my position. Without actually doing the research and just glancing at the top listed RBs for each team, I'll grant you that over half of them were former first or second round picks. The numbers back that up. Let's take a deeper dive now. How many of those guys are playing for the team that originally drafted them? Again, a quick glance and without googling each player, here's the list I came up with: Peterson, Spiller, Rice, Jones-Drew, Chris Johnson, Moreno, McFadden, Mathews, Forte (?), DeAngelo Williams, Gore. There's 11. It's possible I'm missing a few. How many of them lived up to their draft position? How long did they sustain their high level of play? You all blasted the guy that said the shelf life for a good running back is about 5 years, and while I don't necessarily agree with that, they do have a shorter period of time where they are at their peak. How many of them are workhorse backs?

            You guys can disagree with it all you want, and that's fine. I realize my opinion on the matter is not a popular one.
            I believe the actual number is 15 and McCoy would be on that list as well as David Wilson. Is the point you are making that its hit or miss with RB's different from anyother position drafted in the first 2 rounds? I would imagine its the same as any position.

            The hard work has already been done for you. Very few teams get a workhorse back in the late rounds and even guys like Foster who fall not due to talent but on charachter issues that teams shy away from him so he goes undrafted.

            Again the ADP shows that its a myth you just can't let go of.

            As far as what is Trent really good in I would say 2 out the 3 things he needs to be good in. Pass catching, pass blocking and he is average right now for running but the caveat is that he is an above average goal line running back.
            Last edited by Gamble1; 10-01-2013, 03:17 PM.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              He was a rookie last year. How many guys are flawless in their rookie seasons? Plus, as has been mentioned, the box was consistently stacked against him.

              It's not like we traded a first rounder for a fourth year player. We are essentially using next year's first round pick to draft Richardson, but are getting his services right now. That's the way I look at it.

              I just can't buy that running backs aren't important after watching the final years of Manning's career here when we had such an unimpressive running attack. I remember a certain playoff game in San Diego five years ago where we failed to convert on a third and two that would have put the game away. Our running attack was so bad that we decided to throw it instead (and failed to convert).

              In playoff games, you need a running game to pick up crucial yards.
              You mean like how Dom should have been the Colts MVP for that Super Bowl.
              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                For all the moaning about our line we are 4th in yards per attempt.
                So why is Richardson still only averaging 3 yards per carry if our offensive line isn't that bad?

                Comment


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

                  Any one of us on this board could have run through the hole the offensive line gave Brown for his big run on Sunday....against Jacksonville.


                  Trent needs to learn timing, cut backs, etc. At the very least, the dude obviously finishes runs, I believe his biggest impact will arguably be how much he wears defenses downs. He hits defenders back when he runs and that will help the other guys getting carries and Luck.


                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    I believe the actual number is 15 and McCoy would be on that list as well as David Wilson. Is the point you are making that its hit or miss with RB's different from anyother position drafted in the first 2 rounds? I would imagine its the same as any position.

                    The hard work has already been done for you. Very few teams get a workhorse back in the late rounds and even guys like Foster who fall not due to talent but on charachter issues that teams shy away from him so he goes undrafted.

                    Again the ADP shows that its a myth you just can't let go of.

                    As far as what is Trent really good in I would say 2 out the 3 things he needs to be good in. Pass catching, pass blocking and he is average right now for running but the caveat is that he is an above average goal line running back.
                    Good lord David Wilson was a first round pick? Holy christ that's the revelation of the thread so far.

                    Maybe explaining it like this will be better, because you are hung up on this average draft position, which I think you can poke holes in, much like you can with Richardson's average yards per carry numbers.

                    http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...cedented-trade

                    Bill Barnwell touched on some of my concerns in his breakdown of the trade and since he is good at writing, knows more about football than I do, and explains his position better, I'll just post some of his thoughts:

                    • Running back is a fungible position. To be quite blunt, the Browns could have signed just about any college free agent off the street and gotten the 3.5 yards per carry Richardson's produced so far as a pro. Even if Richardson raises his game a bit in Indianapolis, there's been nothing about his level of play that the Browns couldn't get from a cheap platoon of backs. They're already bringing in Willis McGahee for a physical on Thursday; McGahee isn't a star, but he's a player who can produce reliably as a running back without making a lot of money. The Browns would probably pay McGahee about what Richardson will make this year without any long-term commitment, and they get the added bonus of acquiring an extremely valuable first-round pick in what could be a stacked draft.
                    That is very much a point I have been trying to convey. Richardson's production, to this point, has been replacement level. He goes on:

                    For one, the Colts are giving up an enormous asset — their first-round pick in a stacked draft — for a player at the league's most fungible position. It's entirely possible that Indy could have dipped into the free-agent pool for McGahee and gotten similar (if not superior) production without giving away a pick at all, or they could have dealt a lower pick in the draft for a player like Maurice Jones-Drew, who could have been dragged away from the Jaguars for something like a third-rounder. (MJD is admittedly a little injured at the moment.)
                    To be fair, Barnwell wasn't nearly as sour on the trade as I apparently am. Some of the concerns he raises don't particularly concern me (he mentions possible character concerns, work ethic issues, or an injury we don't know about--I don't really put much stock into that). His final opinion is tilted towards the Browns, but more neutral than my own:

                    I think it's more likely that the Browns are happy about this trade five years from now than the Colts are, although I don't think it's a slam dunk in either direction. It tells us interesting things about where each organization is going over the next several seasons, provides a perhaps-needed change of scenery for a football player who was expected to be dominant, and it gives us a trade situation that we've never seen before. Not bad for a Wednesday night, Mr. Irsay.
                    Last edited by cdash; 10-01-2013, 04:17 PM.

                    Comment


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

                      The thing I love most about the NBA and the NFL is that every year the NFL draft is stacked and every year the NBA draft isn't. OK media dudez


                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        The thing I love most about the NBA and the NFL is that every year the NFL draft is stacked and every year the NBA draft isn't. OK media dudez
                        Yeah, I don't really agree with that NFL draft being stacked comment he makes either. Although to be fair, next year's NBA draft is getting the "stacked" label and already has teams doing some nice summer tanking.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          They won a Super Bowl. They played in another. According to Kid Minneapolis, they did have decent RBs during at least part of that time you just referenced.
                          Wasn't bad. We had Edge for awhile, and then the platoon of Rhodes/Addai. Got the job done. Addai and Edge were 1st rounders, Rhodes was deep, but Rhodes was a dawg.
                          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
                            Wasn't bad. We had Edge for awhile, and then the platoon of Rhodes/Addai. Got the job done. Addai and Edge were 1st rounders, Rhodes was deep, but Rhodes was a dawg.
                            Addai was solid. Good at pass protection. I actually liked Rhodes more than most--thought he was pretty decent for the most part. But Since was using those 10 years of our running back situation as some sort of reason why we "didn't meet expectations" which I don't necessarily agree with.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Addai was solid. Good at pass protection. I actually liked Rhodes more than most--thought he was pretty decent for the most part. But Since was using those 10 years of our running back situation as some sort of reason
                              why we "didn't meet expectations" which I don't necessarily agree with.
                              I wasn't talking about the running back situation as in personnel, I was talking about offensive philosophy and how we use the running backs. Grigson/Pagano clearly put more importance on the RB position, than Irsay/Caldwell/Dungy did.
                              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
                                I wasn't talking about the running back situation as in personnel, I was talking about offensive philosophy and how we use the running backs. Grigson/Pagano clearly put more importance on the RB position, than Irsay/Caldwell/Dungy did.
                                Ahh, I gotcha. Misinterpreted that.

                                I don't really have a problem with their philosophy. I like that they know what kind of team they want to be, and I have to admire the aggressiveness they are displaying to achieve it. This particular move I am just not wild about.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X