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

  • #91
    Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

    Very skeptical of the move. O-line, D-line, pass rusher...all bigger needs. Hope he turns out to be as good as most here seem to project him.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

      Also since the start of 2012, Richardson is 8th in yards after contact. Almost 500 yards after contact.


      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

        I'm warming up to the trade a little but still question the deal when thinking about how little it appears our free agent activity helped shore up the Colts defencies in the trenches. A 1st was a lot of value for an RB with questions running behind an O-line with even more questions.

        For those who think Richardson has a low yards per attempt average because he spent all last year running against a stacked front see the link below.

        https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...ht-in-the-box/

        Ultimately I think the Colts win this deal but mostly because the Browns have already paid 2/3's of the money owed and Richardson still has his likely three most productive years (whatever that may be) left under this contract.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Here are some stats about Trent at the browns (I am just putting this franchise on lower case status to further notice, what a joke they are)

          He is 5th in running back receptions since 2012, at 58. He has caught more yards that Bradshaw and Brown combined.

          Perhaps most importantly, when Trent was on the field, the browns qbs were sacked on 4.8% of dropbacks. When he was off the field, the percentage nearly doubled to 9.4%.

          Luck will help Trent. Trent will help Luck. I bet Trent saw as many 8 man boxes last year as any running back not named AP. That won't happen with Luck at QB and Hilton, Wayne, DHB, and Fleener out wide.
          Pretty please give me the link to the sack percentage stat.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

            Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
            I'm warming up to the trade a little but still question the deal when thinking about how little it appears our free agent activity helped shore up the Colts defencies in the trenches. A 1st was a lot of value for an RB with questions running behind an O-line with even more questions.

            For those who think Richardson has a low yards per attempt average because he spent all last year running against a stacked front see the link below.

            https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...ht-in-the-box/

            Ultimately I think the Colts win this deal but mostly because the Browns have already paid 2/3's of the money owed and Richardson still has his likely three most productive years (whatever that may be) left under this contract.
            I wouldn't put too much emphasis on stack fronts but cheating safties are another thing.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

              I guess I am the only one who didn't like this trade. I like Richardson, I think he's good, but first round picks in the NFL have a ton of value. Plus, I don't think the Colts are very good this year. I think we are staring a 6-10 season in the face, so that pick could be pretty high. You can find good running backs late in the draft. If we were getting a top flight OT, I'd be more than happy to give up a first rounder.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                I guess I am the only one who didn't like this trade.
                Nope. But our reasons are similar.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  I guess I am the only one who didn't like this trade. I like Richardson, I think he's good, but first round picks in the NFL have a ton of value. Plus, I don't think the Colts are very good this year. I think we are staring a 6-10 season in the face, so that pick could be pretty high. You can find good running backs late in the draft. If we were getting a top flight OT, I'd be more than happy to give up a first rounder.

                  How many good running backs have we found late in the draft in recent years? I can't think of many. Vick Ballard is solid, but he's out for the year. Heck, our first round running back, Donald Brown, is in his fifth year here and has never really awed. Good running backs don't just grow on trees. There are incredibly varying degrees of skill to this position, and the Colts haven't been at the high end of that for a while.

                  I've been completely unimpressed with our running backs since the second half of the 2007 season when Addai started to lose that fire he had at the very beginning of his career. I remember in the playoff game in San Diego five years ago when we couldn't even get a short first down to put the game away. I'm sick and tired of uninspiring running attacks from the Colts and I feel that the end of Manning's career was squandered in part by a poor running game. Everyone says that it's a "passing league", but we had one of the greatest passers of all time and were still hurt by not being able to run the ball in the later years of his career. This is the most exciting running back that we've had since Edge. I know that much of the success of the running game hinges on the O-Line, but a talented running back can compensate for a poor O-Line and vice-versa.

                  I'm not worried about Richardson's YPC in Cleveland because defenses knew that Cleveland was going to run the ball a lot. In Indy, opposing defenses will have to respect the Colts passing attack, which will give Richardson more opportunities to succeed. Remember the nasty play actions we used to run back in the day with Edge? I can't wait to see some of that.

                  The odds of our first rounder being a better player than Richardson are low. We have the third pick of the 2012 draft at what's essentially the beginning of his career. It's a steep price, but it's worth it.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-19-2013, 11:09 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                    Love the move. Dude is gonna have a great career. Idc about the first round pick...top ten running backs that are in their second season don't grow on trees. Absolutely love this.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      How many good running backs have we found late in the draft in recent years? I can't think of many. Vick Ballard is solid, but he's out for the year. Heck, our first round running back, Donald Brown, is in his fifth year here and has never really awed. Good running backs don't just grow on trees. There are incredibly varying degrees of skill to this position, and the Colts haven't been at the high end of that for a while.

                      I've been completely unimpressed with our running backs since the second half of the 2007 season when Addai started to lose that fire he had at the very beginning of his career. I remember in the playoff game in San Diego five years ago when we couldn't even get a short first down to put the game away. I'm sick and tired of uninspiring running attacks from the Colts and I feel that the end of Manning's career was squandered in part by a poor running game. Everyone says that it's a "passing league", but we had one of the greatest passers of all time and were still hurt by not being able to run the ball in the later years of his career. This is the most exciting running back that we've had since Edge. I know that much of the success of the running game hinges on the O-Line, but a talented running back can compensate for a poor O-Line and vice-versa.

                      I'm not worried about Richardson's YPC in Cleveland because defenses knew that Cleveland was going to run the ball a lot. In Indy, opposing defenses will have to respect the Colts passing attack, which will give Richardson more opportunities to succeed. Remember the nasty play actions we used to run back in the day with Edge? I can't wait to see some of that.

                      The odds of our first rounder being a better player than Richardson are low. We have the third pick of the 2012 draft at what's essentially the beginning of his career. It's a steep price, but it's worth it.
                      Agree to disagree.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        Agree to disagree.
                        About what? Late first round value? Allow me to show you the proof in the pudding:
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nd_draft_picks

                        Take a long tasty look at recent Colts picks in the 20+ range and tell me who on that list since Dallas Clark (a decade ago) was better than Trent Richardson? Don't even say Addai.

                        Late first round draft picks are a crapshoot. We traded our crapshoot for the #3 pick last year. If you "disagree" with the value in that, well you are certainly free to do so.

                        Draft picks are like playing the lottery: it's thrilling and fun to hope you hit it big, but most of the time you just lose your money.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-20-2013, 12:26 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

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          About what? Late first round value? Allow me to show you the proof in the pudding:
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nd_draft_picks

                          Take a long tasty look at recent Colts picks in the 20+ range and tell me who on that list since Dallas Clark (a decade ago) was better than Trent Richardson? Don't even say Addai.

                          Late first round draft picks are a crapshoot. We traded our crapshoot for the #3 pick last year. If you "disagree" with the value in that, well you are certainly free to do so.

                          Draft picks are like playing the lottery: it's thrilling and fun to hope you hit it big, but most of the time you just lose your money.
                          Exactly. Well said.

                          Also, let's say that worse comes to worse and we finish 6-10. Last year, the Titans and Jets each finished 6-10 and had the 9th and 10th picks. So let's say that everything that can go wrong this season does, and the pick that we give Cleveland is 10th. Would you be happy if you drafted at 10 and got Trent Richardon type production? Of course you would. And that's in a worse case scenario. Odds are that the pick will be lower than that.

                          It's not like we're trading this pick for a 30 year old player. Since Richardson is so young, we're essentially drafting an already proven player at a position we need help with . Yeah, give me that over Jerry Hughes or Donald Brown any day. Seems like a can't lose situation to me. We have the opportunity to have this guy for virtually his entire career if we want as he is only at the beginning.

                          If it's so easy to find good running backs in later rounds, then why haven't the Colts been getting any of these players? It's because that in reality, excellent running backs aren't some dime a dozen thing. The whole "the O-Line makes the running game" mentality has gotten so inflated that people act as if you can throw some bum off the street into the RB position as long as he's behind a good O-Line. The Colts obviously had an excellent O-Line back in the 2000's, but they also had freaking Edgerrin James in the backfield. Sorry, but it's rare to find Edge-type talents in the later rounds. The speed, cutting, and awareness don't grow on trees. Of course having a good O-Line is super crucial to the success of the running game, but the skill of the actual runner is just as important. A great running back can compensate for the weaknesses of the O-Line, and vice-versa.

                          The whole "it's a passing game" thing has also gotten so overblown to the point where people act as if you barely need a running back anymore. Sure, we can have great success throwing it a lot indoors throughout the regular season, but you still have to be able to run the ball throughout the season and especially in the playoffs. Remind me how we scored the game winning touchdown against New England in the AFCCG? We had one of the greatest passers in NFL history, yet I remember a playoff game five years ago where we didn't run on a third and two that could have put the game away. That's the Chargers game that we lost in OT.

                          With the Ballard injury, it looked as though this was going to be the sixth consecutive season of the Colts having an unimpressive running game. Enough is enough. At some point, you have to stop hoping Edgerrin James lite is going to fall into your lap in the fourth round. It was time to take matters into our own hands and finally get an exciting running back here. I like Bradshaw and am expecting him to make plays this season, but in no way can you count on that dude to be a heavy RB-1. He's just way too risky.

                          Great great trade.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-20-2013, 01:18 AM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Banta View Post
                            I'm really curious how this trade came about.

                            With the recent personnel losses, seems like OL would have been something the FO was shopping for but not an RB. Not that an RB upgrade doesn't make sense, but it seems like it would not have been the highest priority of the FO.

                            So, assuming they were not reaching out making calls for different RBs, I guess Cleveland was working the phones shopping Richardson? I am convinced this has to be the case, because I think there are several other RBs that probably would have come to mind before Richardson. Again, that is not a knock on Richardson at all. Merely my perspective that he would not be one of the first RBs the FO would have targeted.

                            Sure would like some inside scoop on this.
                            http://www.cleveland.com/browns/inde...iated_the.html
                            Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/Hookjaw_Rox

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              I wouldn't put too much emphasis on stack fronts but cheating safties are another thing.
                              If my math is correct isn't the cheating safety what gets the number to eight in the box? PFF does pretty good analysis and I doubt they had any trouble identifying situations where teams try to avoid the audible and disguise getting a safety up close to the LOS.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                                If my math is correct isn't the cheating safety what gets the number to eight in the box? PFF does pretty good analysis and I doubt they had any trouble identifying situations where teams try to avoid the audible and disguise getting a safety up close to the LOS.
                                No that's not what I meant. Safties get burned off the play action pass because they cheat and get out of position and it works against the run. Think BoB Sanders running 10 to 15 yards as hard as he can to hit a hole for a rb. That wouldn't be called 8 in a box. Also if Richardson didn't play a lot of 3rd downs something that i have heard Browns fans say then he wouldn't see as many 8 in the box.

                                It's just not something I would get too worried about.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X