Tweet
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Redding must have been brought by Pagano.
Redding must have been brought by Pagano.
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.
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
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Jerrell Freeman was my choice, but man it's though to pick. Ballard, Allen and TY are all great picks. Bringing in Redding has been very good.
It's hard to criticize any of his moves to harshly, jury is still out on Richardson, but I've not given up hope till I see a few holes for him to run through."Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Well he had a hell of a draft last year, and I think TY, Allen, Fleener, Ballard are all great players...but I gotta go with taking the risk and trading for Vontae...guy is a hell of a football player. He plays great every single week and IMO he's a top ten CB. After that I'd go with finding Freeman in the CFL, he's the most important player in our D. We seen what we looked like without him in the chargers game. Then signing Redding has been HUGE. And I think Richardson will be a good pickup in the future...he's running behind a not so good line and he's only been here a couple weeks and hasn't had much of a chance as far as carries.Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...arnwell-week-7Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
Just to stir the pot.As much as the Colts like to talk about the importance of their running game and how meaningful it is for them to get Trent Richardson involved, the truth is that it's mostly lip service. Running the ball does create the occasional shot downfield, but teams aren't afraid of Indianapolis's running game and don't commit serious resources to stopping it. Donald Brown at least produces the occasional big play, but Richardson has been DOA since arriving in Indy. He finished with another typical day on Sunday, producing 37 yards on 14 carries. Richardson averaged 3.5 yards per carry and 62.1 rushing yards per game during his time in Cleveland; since coming to town, he has averaged 3.0 yards per carry and a mere 45.6 rushing yards per game. He also lost a key fumble in the fourth quarter that allowed Denver back into the game, giving the Broncos the ball on Indy's 23-yard line. Forget not being worth the first-round pick that the Colts dealt for him earlier this year; Richardson is actively detracting from the Colts right now.Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
When you see all of these moves listed together, you realize just how damn good of a GM Grigs has been in a very short amount of time. I love the Grigs-Pags tandem.
People rip Irsay, but the guy has ROUTINELY brought in top notch people to run his organization (Polian, Dungy, Grigson, Pagano). He fumbled the Caldwell transition, but it seems to have taught him a valuable lesson. The best coaching candidates are usually guys from the outside (Dungy, Pagano). He did the Pagano hire the right way.Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-23-2013, 09:30 AM.Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Andrew Luck draft pick?Smothered Chicken!Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...rth-1strounder
A great running back, in general, is wasted on a mediocre offensive line.The takeaway:
1) Richardson, who hasn't magically improved with the Colts, remains far from great. He's rushed for 228 yards on 75 carries for a 3.0 yards per carry.
2) Indy's O-line is mediocre (they rank 14th in run-blocking, according to PFF).
ProFootballFocus.com's Sam Monson has an explanation for Richardson's poor showing in Sunday night's win over the Broncos.
"[Other than a lost fumble] Richardson was dealt the blocking equivalent of the Dead Man's Hand, meeting players in the backfield on seemingly every carry, and barely getting an opportunity all day to run the ball without having to make a cut in the backfield as the play had been blown to hell. Richardson forced five missed tackles, and gained 25 of his 37 yards after contact. That means that on 14 carries his blocking generated him just 12 yards before he was hit."
Then Monson added, "The same [was] true for [Donald] Brown, who gained 12 of his 23 yards after contact."
Which only reinforces what we wrote earlier: Great running backs typically don't overcome average offensive lines.Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
Organizational move with Irsay having the final say. Everyone agreed on Luck, so it was a moot point, but Grigs would not have been allowed to draft RGIII if Irsay wanted Luck. Owners want the final say on franchise altering moves (drafting Manning, releasing Manning, drafting Luck).Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...bonus-edition/
Good article on Trent. Don't write him off yet."Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
I am stealing this from Coltfreaks bye week thread but this is a good summary of all of Grigsons moves in stat form.
Defense:
2012 Points Allowed per game average = 24.2 (487 for total season)
2013 Points Allowed per game average = 18.7 (projects to 299 for 16 games)
2012 Total Yards Allowed per game average = 374.2 (5,987 for total season)
2013 Total Yards Allowed per game average = 350.7 (projects to 5,611 for 16 games)
2012 Passing Yards Allowed per game average = 236.8 (3,788 for total season)
2013 Passing Yards Allowed per game average = 228.4 (projects to 3,655 for 16 games)
2012 Passing Attempts Allowed per game average = 33.4 (535 for total season)
2013 Passing Attempts Allowed per game average = 33.6 (projects to 537 for 16 games)
2012 Passing Yards per Attempt allowed = 7.08
2013 Passing Yards per Attempt allowed = 6.80
2012 QB Completion Percentage Allowed = 62.4% (334 / 535 for total season)
2013 QB Completion Percentage Allowed = 58.7% (projects to 315 / 537 for 16 games)
2012 QB Interception Rate Inflicted = 0.75 (intercepted 12 passes for total season)
2013 QB Interception Rate Inflicted = 1.14 (projected to intercept 18 passes for total season)
2012 QB TD Rate Allowed = 1.438 (allowed 23 TD passes for total season)
2013 QB TD Rate Allowed = 1.571 (projected to allow 25 TD passes for 16 games)
2012 Sack Rate = 2.00 (inflicted 32 sacks for total season)
2013 Sack Rate = 3.00 (projected to inflict 48 sacks for 16 games)
2012 QB Rating Allowed = 90.1
2013 QB Rating Allowed = 78.3
2012 Rushing Yards Allowed per game average = 137.5 (2,200 for total season)
2013 Rushing Yards Allowed per game average = 122.3 (projects to 1,956 yards for 16 games)
2012 Rushing Attempts Allowed per game average = 26.8 (428 for total season)
2013 Rushing Attempts Allowed per game average = 27.4 (projects to 439 for 16 games)
2012 Rushing Yards Allowed per attempt = 5.1
2013 Rushing Yards Allowed per attempt = 4.5
2012 Rushing TD Allowed Rate = 0.875 (14 allowed for total season)
2013 Rushing TD Allowed Rate = 0.714 (projected to allow 11 for 16 games)
2012 Allowed 3rd down success rate = 38.1% (75 / 197 for total season)
2013 Allowed 3rd down success rate = 34.8% (projects to 73 / 210 for 16 games)
Random Defensive Comments:
- I started with Defense because almost every single stat shows an improvement in 2013 over the 2012 performance. The Colts defense is allowing less points, less yards, a lower QB completion percentage, making more interceptions, getting more sacks, decreasing opponents yards per rush and allowing a lower successful completion rate on 3rd downs. I have no real comments on the Defense other than to say that they are statistically improved across the board. Well done, Mr. Manusky!
- I was even trying to come up with a non-stat “style” complaint that I have about the defense and I find that I really do not have one. I have wanted aggressive press coverage from our secondary and we have seen it this year. I want creative, unpredictable blitz packages and we have seen them this year. I want to be able to control the LOS and we have seen it this year. We don’t see any of it all the time but we see all these things here and there. I guess I would like to get gouged by the run in spurts a bit less often but overall, I have almost zero complaints about the defense this year.
Offense:
2012 Points scored per game average = 22.3 (357 points for total season)
2013 Points scored per game average = 26.7 (projected to 427 for 16 game season)
2012 Total Yards gained per game average = 362.4 (5,798 yards for total season)
2013 Total Yards gained per game average = 344.7 (projected to 5,515 yards for 16 game season)
2012 Passing Yards per game average = 258.0 (4,128 yards for total season)
2013 Passing Yards per game average = 215.4 (projected to 3,446 yards for 16 games)
2012 Passing Attempts per game average = 39.3 (628 attempts for total season)
2013 Passing Attempt per game average = 32.4 (projected to 518 attempts for 16 games)
2012 Passing Yards per Attempt = 6.57
2013 Passing Yards per Attempt = 6.64
2012 QB Completion Percentage = 54.0% (339 / 628 for total season)
2013 QB Completion Percentage = 60.8% (projected to 315 / 518 for 16 games)
2012 QB Interception Rate = 1.125 per game (18 for total season)
2013 QB Interception Rate = 0.429 per game (projected to 7 for 16 games)
2012 TD Thrown Rate = 1.438 per game (23 for total season)
2013 TD Thrown Rate = 1.429 per game (projected to 23 for 16 games)
2012 Sack Rate = 2.56 (41 for total season)
2013 Sack Rate = 2.14 (projects to 34 for 16 games)
2012 QB Rating = 76.4
2013 QB Rating = 91.5
2012 Rushing Yards per game average = 104.4 (1,671 yards for total season)
2013 Rushing Yards per game average = 129.3 (projected to 2,069 yards for 16 games)
2012 Rushing Attempts per game average = 27.5 (440 attempts for total season)
2013 Rushing Attempt s per game average = 28.4 (projected to 454 attempts for 16 games)
2012 Rushing Yards per Attempt = 3.8
2013 Rushing Yards per Attempt = 4.5
2012 Rushing TD rate = 0.688 (11 for total season)
2013 Rushing TD rate = 1.143 (projects to 18 for 16 games)
2012 3rd down success rate = 42.8% ( 98 / 229 for total season)
2013 3rd down success rate = 42.8% (projected to 87 / 203)
Random Offensive Comments:
- Again, the 2013 Colts have improved in points scored, QB completion percentage, rushing yards per game, rushing yards per attempt, rushing touchdowns scored, throwing less interceptions, and taking less sacks. What is not improved is the total yardage gained, passing yardage gained and 3rd down success rate.
- These stats make me rethink greatly my “hate” for Pep Hamilton and his offensive scheme. By almost every metric, the offense is improved. Sure, we are not gaining as many yards (by a whole 40 yards per game) but our offensive play is so much more EFFICIENT in making yards per play, cutting down the mistakes in interceptions and sacks and having us be a more balanced offense. Overall, the stats show that Pep’s offense is being pretty darn efficient.
- However, the one stat that jumps out at me is the 3rd down success rate. If our offense was so much more efficient, you would expect that our success rate on converting 3rd downs would have improved but it is not. I am glad that it has not gotten worse but we are not doing well on 3rd downs and that kills drives and thus does not allow us to play “ball control” offense (as the below stated Time of Possession comparison shows as well).
- So, after thinking about this, I have decided that my “hate” for Pep Hamilton can be boiled down to two things. The first is his continued calling for the jumbo package on 1st down and 10 yards to go. I hate this because it typically telegraphs that we are running the ball for our 2 or 3 yards and basically wastes the down. In the NFL, you cannot telegraph and have success. Sure, we have now passed out of the formation a couple of times but I still think that it is pretty much a wasted down and would like it done away with.
- The second thing I hate about Pep’s play calling is his 3rd down play selection. Regardless of the yardage, it feels like Pep often calls the exact opposite of what I think we should be doing. 3rd and 1 and we go 4-wide and pass? Go 4-wide and run it, dude. 3rd and 4 and we set up in the power formation? I don’t know what Pep sees but we have to get better on 3rd down conversions for me to be happy with the offense.
Total Team:
2012 Turn Over Differential = - 12
2013 Turn Over Differential = Currently + 7
2012 Penalty Rate = 5.875 (94 for total season) for 50.0 yards average (801 yards for total season)
2013 Penalty Rate = 4.000 (projects to 64 for 16 games) for 32.4 yards average (projects to 518 yards for 16 games)
2012 Time of Possession average = 30:46
2013 Time of Possession average = 30:23
Random Total Team Comments:
- What does Pagano say? Cut down on the mistakes and you have a better chance to win games? We are creating turnovers better, giving up turnovers at a lesser rate and getting called for less penalties than last year. This team (minus the SD game) has some real swagger and appears to be truly bonding against some tough opponents. This is Pagano football and I think that if it continues, will go a long way in quieting those who question whether Pagano can be a real NFL head coach.
- While the loss of Wayne will require the Colts offense to adapt, I don’t believe that they are going to change what they plan on doing. I don’t think you will see a trade for a young stud WR which is the only real solution for a new WR1 or WR2 since there is no one capable of doing that left unsigned. We will promote from within with Hilton/DHB as the WR1 and WR2, Brazill as the WR3 and Whalen/Reed as WR4. We will probably see more 2TE sets with Fleener paired with Jones/Doyle but I don’t think we will see Pep go all “running, running every play” without Reggie.
- That said, I think we need to find another WR next year that can become a WR1 or WR2 and allow Wayne (if he returns) to become the WR3 and be killing it when opposing defenses choose to put a safety or LB on him. Hilton has the ability to be on the field every play but we need another one capable of doing that. Perhaps Brazill is that guy but he is unproven. I am pretty sure DHB is not that guy and is now a one year rental. I am pretty sure a 2nd round rookie will not be that guy either so I think it is now critical that the Colts go shopping in 2014 for a top notch free agent WR going forward.
- Otherwise, the only thing that the team needs to do is fix the O-Line interior (Donald Thomas is part of that solution in 2014; Hugh Thornton might be part of the solution as well) and get back Allen and Ballard along with T-Rich, Fleener and Hilton and we will be cooking on oil on offense. Add a few playmakers (DE, ILB, OLB which perhaps Werner is that guy) on defense and this team is ready to challenge for the championship.
I could say more but that is enough or now. Keep the faith, Colts fans.
Cheers,
Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Can you give me the link to Coltfreaks? The one I'm getting from google says it's dead.Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Imagine if Grigson somehow pulled in some good under-utilized vet receiver like..... Boldin... or Fitz... Imagine Luck throwin' to someone like that.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Quite a few of them on the market, according to John Clayton. Hakeem Nicks is supposedly available, among others. Not sure what the price tag is though.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View PostComment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
Sure. I know it's annoying and I am not sure why it's so hard to get to the site.Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
http://coltfreaks.com/phpbb/viewtopi...42597d595dd3a7Comment
-
Re: Best Grigson Move?
I voted for Freeman. I love what Vontae Davis brings, too, and think he's a top 10 corner in the league, but we knew he had that potential when we traded for him. Jarell Freeman was brought in out of nowhere and is a force on defense. I love both moves, but will give my vote for Freeman.Senior at the University of Louisville.
Greenfield ---> The VilleComment
Comment