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

Defense Defense Defense

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

  • Defense Defense Defense

    I posted this in another thread in the Pacers section but I want it here in the Colts section as well...

    ---
    The current collection of Colts will N E V E R win the whole enchilada until their hierarchy reailzes that defense wins championships.

    It's easy to get caught up in the winning and start thinking "Maybe they can do it this way" but every damn year it is the same thing. They can't!

    They MUST put a defense on the field that can consistently stop people.

    Maybe from a business standpoint overloading the offense makes sense. From a championship point of view it is doomed to fail.



    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: Defense Defense Defense

    I'm an old school guy and yes I'll admit that building a team around an
    offense would not be my first choice. Still, conventions are made to be broken
    and this is one hell of an offense. I would also submit that the D more
    than held up its bargain in the first half. I believe that the ultimate blame
    here goes to the Colts O, which entered, and left, the game with a timid,
    passive, conservative outlook. Thats not how you take the rock out of the
    defending champs hands.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Defense Defense Defense

      and I'd like to repost what I typed too...

      "TEAMS win championships, not just offense or defense alone. The Pats are the best team period. Some say that it's mostly their defense but all three areas of their team collectively play well together and complement each other. Look at the Steelers, how do you think they won 15 straight games with a rookie? The are a great team all around and their style complements each other. The Colts don't have that at all. That was one of my fears when Dungy was hired on and it was "Dungy will fix the defense, and Moore will run the offense". Basically we have 2 seperate teams with an unspectacular special teams unit. That's why I am beginning to think we need to clean house in coaching department. Dungy took us to another level, don't get me wrong, but he needs a place that he can call all the shots (and no he didn't have that in Tampa either). Peyton is Peyton, but the team is poorly structured for a deep run in the playoffs."
      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Defense Defense Defense

        I'm not saying the Colts need to abandon their offense and focus entirely on defense. They simply need to rethink the balance.

        I'm in aggreement with what naturallystoned is saying.

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Defense Defense Defense

          Originally posted by Bball
          They simply need to rethink the balance.
          Yeah, I don't want to even get started with Irsay and Polian right now...
          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Defense Defense Defense

            Originally posted by naturallystoned
            Yeah, I don't want to even get started with Irsay and Polian right now...
            So, is it time to rethink this 'defense built for speed' and get some size in there? Is Dungy's system a bit outdated, or 'figured out'?

            I wonder if some of the Colts' injuries on defense this year had to do with being undersized?

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Defense Defense Defense

              Originally posted by Bball
              So, is it time to rethink this 'defense built for speed' and get some size in there? Is Dungy's system a bit outdated, or 'figured out'?

              I wonder if some of the Colts' injuries on defense this year had to do with being undersized?

              -Bball
              IMO there's nothing wrong with the system, but we still don't have the personnel to run it adequately. So far Polian has not gotten the big play Sapp like DT, for some reason he thought Josh Williams was that and paid him accordingly . I think we'll be set with Doss and Sanders at safety but those guys might never play a whole season together because they are somewhat injury plagued. The corners are iffy but will look a whole lot better if we get better line play, the problem is that we don't have a clear cut #1 CB or people that can stay healthy. The LB might get better with time but I am unsure to this point about any of them. We just a couple of experienced players here and there and a coordinator that will mix it up a little more with the play calling.
              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Defense Defense Defense

                naturallystoned,
                I don't know what we're fretting about. Polian probably already has the scouting papers opened up and will have his eyes on another tightend in no time

                -Bball
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Defense Defense Defense

                  The problem isn't the defense - or lack of it.

                  The problem is abandoning a game plan based on offense in favor of one based on defense when your defense isn't all that good.

                  There is no reason why the offense couldn't open things up yesterday. The weather wasn't bad, the field was solid - and even if the field wasn't solid, bad fields (as opposed to a howling wind) actually help offenses, not defenses. On a bad field defenses can't get a good pass rush and receivers know where they're going, the DB's don't.

                  Would I like to see a defense that didn't miss a ton of tackles? One that could stop a team on 3rd-and-11? Absolutely. But I'd rather see a team that approaches a game by giving their best game - not entering a game saying, in effect, "We don't think we're good enough to play our wide-open passing attack this game. We don't think we can throw the ball down the field today. Instead we'll run the ball and throw short passes to play ball-control even though our opponent is the best team in the league, except maybe Pittsburgh, at playing that type of game."
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Defense Defense Defense

                    I don't think we need to clean house with coaches.I think in the off-season maybe get some guys on D and I think I have already heard that during the draft we will draft all D.
                    Super Bowl XLI Champions
                    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Defense Defense Defense

                      YOu guys are going to think I'm carzy. (Maybe I am.)

                      But our Denfense didn't play that bad yesterday. You have to keep in mind several things.

                      We were playing a VERY good team. Holding the Pats to 20 points isn't as bad as St. Louis, or other teams.

                      The Defense was on the field for a VERY long time. If the offense could have done one less 3 and out, or the ball not been stripped, or... There were on the field for 37:43 of the 60 minutes. Colts Offense had the ball for 22:17, almost twice as long. And 2 of thoses drives we got "0" points.

                      Freeney got held on almost every play. I can't count the times that the announcers said the Patriots got away with holding.

                      I don't think the Pass Interference call would have been made if the crowd didn't start booing. I can't fault the croud, but the refs coud have called some the other way, again the announcers.

                      The defense is what kept up in the game in the first half. Kept them to FG's and not TD's!

                      So before we complain about the Defense keep all this in mind.

                      I would like to have 2 more players on D. A big guy to plug up the middle, and someone like Julius Peppers in the backfield.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Defense Defense Defense

                        Guys
                        D just isn't enough. Our current defense held the super bowl champs to only 20 points. Even if we had already beefed up our defense and somehow held them to 10 points and given our offense more time of possession, there's no guarantee we would have won that game. If the best ever offense in football can't score a single touchdown in 22 minutes, how is spending money on D going to save us?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Defense Defense Defense

                          The defense wasn't all that bad yesterday. They did their job, but the offense didn't follow through. I think we were simply outcoached. The Pats came in with a better gameplan. We never used our biggest weapon to throw downfield.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Defense Defense Defense

                            Originally posted by PacersRule05
                            The defense wasn't all that bad yesterday. They did their job, but the offense didn't follow through. I think we were simply outcoached. The Pats came in with a better gameplan. We never used our biggest weapon to throw downfield.
                            Peyton's the best at the 2 minute drill. We saw that at the end of the half. Then why didn't we pass more? We kept trying to establish the run, with James.

                            Even if we did pass more, the timing was just a little off between Peyton and the recievers. How many dropped balls did we have?

                            Pacers Rule05 is right. The Offense let us down.

                            We are still better than the Bengals!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Defense Defense Defense

                              I always like it when an article comes out expressing what I think. It's three pages - I'll just post the first: http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8107112

                              Judgements: Colts lack good horse sense
                              Jan. 17, 2005
                              By Clark Judge
                              SportsLine.com Senior Writer


                              The Indianapolis Colts cannot beat Bill Belichick in New England.

                              That's the inescapable conclusion after their latest pratfall, a 20-3 loss where they did virtually nothing to challenge a secondary held together by duct tape and baling wire.

                              If there were a game Indianapolis could steal, a game where they could change star quarterback Peyton Manning's winless record in Foxboro, this was it. New England was missing cornerback Ty Law. It was missing cornerback Tyrone Poole. It was missing defensive lineman Richard Seymour.

                              Yet the Colts lost, and it wasn't close.

                              Critics may want to charge Manning with the defeat, claiming he can't win big games, especially when the Patriots are involved. But Manning wasn't responsible for this collapse; a bizarre game plan he tried to implement was.

                              I'm not sure where to start, but I know what rankled me most: The Colts didn't provide the game's best quarterback with the ammunition to attack New England's weakness. That, of course, was a secondary so short of experience the Patriots were forced to sign two free agents last week.

                              Common sense called for the Colts to do whatever they could to keep emergency defensive back Troy Brown on the field, forcing him to cover Brandon Stokley in an obvious mismatch. Yet they opened with two tight ends, stayed with two tight ends and broke from tradition only when they went no-huddle late in the first half.

                              That's when Manning completed 12 of 14, and the Colts came this close to scoring a touchdown before settling for a field goal. But they exposed the Patriots' weakness, and they would attack it again and again in the second half.

                              Or so it seemed.

                              Yet Indianapolis returned to its two tight-end formation in the third quarter, ran Edgerrin James on two of its first three plays and settled into a deep sleep. They didn't attack. They didn't force Brown on to the field. They didn't even look at Marvin Harrison.

                              And they got what they deserved -- a thumping.

                              "We tried to get some things going," said coach Tony Dungy. "We didn't get our running game going as well as we would have liked. We just didn't convert our third downs."

                              Now, let's get something straight here: Tony Dungy is one of the game's sharpest and most successful coaches. But to talk about getting a running game going when the Patriots are trotting out a wide receiver to cover your third wide receiver makes no sense.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X