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

Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

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

  • #76
    Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I don't look at it really as defending Trent, but rather placing all the blame on a crappy offensive line. Truth be told, I'm a big Vick Ballard fan.
    I was beyond stoked for the Ballard/Bradshaw combo before the season. I still can't believe that neither of them got beyond Game 3 of the season.

    This is why I'm not getting overly upset about the loss to the Rams. This team has done of a hell of a job staying at the top of the division despite all of the injuries they've been through. Now I'll start to get a bit worried and upset if we lose bad in Tennessee on Thursday, but for now I'll try to forget about this Rams game.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

      If I'm a Titans fan, I'm ****** as **** that my team lost to the Jaguars when simply winning would have made Thursday night's game a battle for first in the division.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I was beyond stoked for the Ballard/Bradshaw combo before the season.
        Me too. I'm hoping the future is Ballard/Richardson. I like Brown, on occasions, but his lack of pass protection and his little frame just isn't a good fit IMHO. Bradshaw's injury history is just too much.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Me too. I'm hoping the future is Ballard/Richardson. I like Brown, on occasions, but his lack of pass protection and his little frame just isn't a good fit IMHO. Bradshaw's injury history is just too much.
          Yeah, I'm guessing Bradshaw's brief time in a Colts jersey is over.

          I actually think Donald Brown has been halfway decent this year. He's always been better suited as a change of pace back.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Me too. I'm hoping the future is Ballard/Richardson. I like Brown, on occasions, but his lack of pass protection and his little frame just isn't a good fit IMHO. Bradshaw's injury history is just too much.

            Yeah I was hoping we could just get one solid year out of Bradshaw. Even with his injury history, he still played in 14 games last year and got 1000 yards. It would have been nice to get one solid year because he's just the perfect type of pro to have on your team. I was hoping that the game winning Super Bowl touchdown at Lucas would be some nice karma for him as a Colt. But at this point, we have to go in another direction. The guy is clearly too risky to bring back. Shame he got hurt, because that performance against San Francisco was the best Colt rushing performance since Addai at the beginning of his career.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Me too. I'm hoping the future is Ballard/Richardson. I like Brown, on occasions, but his lack of pass protection and his little frame just isn't a good fit IMHO.
              Yeah but when used you're going to run cause you should know how bad he is at pass protection. In the case of Luck using an audible and switching to a pass play while Brown is in there, I 'd take a wasted timeout over him trying to protect Andrew

              Necessary video even though we have seen it thousand times




              On Bradshaw, I was royally pissed off even more than Ballard getting injured. Ahmad is a grinder and I firmly believe he would have been more of help than Richardson is now behind this line.
              Never forget

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                So, imo, there are workhorse backs and there are change-of-pace backs.

                We had 4 viable backs on this roster this season. Bradshaw and TRich, are what I consider workhorse backs. Ballard and DBrown are what I consider off-speed, or change-of-pace backs.

                3 of these backs I had durability questions about. Bradshaw is up there in age, and I loved the guy even before he came here, but I feared he wouldn't last the season. Ballard and Brown aren't the most "built" backs, and I questioned if they'd stand up to the punishment. Brown has a history of durability questions.

                So far, of those three, only Brown has survived. In his defense, Brown has looked his best this year than ever, and I applaud him for that

                He's still best suited as an off-speed back. The guy who stick in and surprise defenses with a quick-strike, big play. Because of that, he's going to have low usage and high yardage.

                TRich is the one guy that I consider to be a true workhorse back, and I don't have durability questions for him. I also look at the overall skillsets of each back, and there's no question to me that of all those backs, TRich has the best skillset.

                I think that he's a victim of circumstance. I think everyone considers his 24 yards a game and no touchdowns to be the norm for him, and it's not. We have to always keep in mind context. His 25/yards a game for us this year is NOT his norm. Last year he was damn near a 1000-yard back. He had 1300 yards of offense and 12 touchdowns. I think all of you have forgotten that. I think a lot of folks see his terrible production this year as his "norm".

                It's not his norm. Not only that but the only other back we have right now has very similar (and poor) stats. That's when you have to start looking at other determinants. I mean I'll be the first to admit DBrown is running better right now than I can ever remember him doing --- and his stats still suck.

                Immediately, I look elsewhere to see what the problem is. First logical place is to observe the line. Yep --- there it is. These guys suck. It's why DBrown isn't getting the production he should be getting... it's why TRich is getting stuffed... it's why Luck is suffering in the pass.

                It's the line. That's my entire stance.

                This is what I"m basically reading from a lot of comments on here: "Yea, the line is bad, but at some point in time, it's just TRich's fault.", and then inexplicably praise DBrown's production while railing on TRich for putting up similar production in an impossible situation for either back.
                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


                • #83
                  Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  This is what I"m basically reading from a lot of comments on here: "Yea, the line is bad, but at some point in time, it's just TRich's fault.", and then inexplicably praise DBrown's production while railing on TRich for putting up similar production in an impossible situation for either back.
                  We knew Donald Brown wasn't lead back material. His production is to be expected. He's a sunk cost at this point. Richardson, we paid a high price for, so we expect something better out of him. And I don't think it's an impossible situation for running backs. I think the line is bad, but not nearly as catastrophic as you are making it out to be.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    So we traded what will likely be a ~25th pick for TRich, and everyone isn't okay with that. But drafting DBrown with the 27th pick makes sense. What hypocrisy is this? That's what these backs' values are to us, guys. One was a late 20s pick, and the other was the same.

                    Bradshaw did look good against San Fran -- because he had opportunities. This line *was* playing better at the beginning of the season and actually had a good game against the 9ers. We pushed them all over the place. We were actually living up to our "power game" label. Overall in the first few games, they weren't amazing, but they were a serviceable line on the up-and-up from last year, and Bradshaw simply took what they gave him, which was some holes. Since that game, it's been a *rapid* decline. The line went from so-so to absolutely terrible. I'm not the only one seeing it, it's finally getting mention in articles I've been reading and announcers have been slowly accepting it. The line went to **** over a month ago. It is what is going to be our downfall this year if it isn't addressed. If we *do* address it, we're back on track as a SB contender.

                    So to address the inevitable "why get a RB when your line sucks" comment --- when we acquired TRich, our line wasn't this big of an issue. You guys have to remember this. The line at the time had been doing alright. Besides... you need more help than 1 draft pick to fix this line. Even if we kept that pick, our line isn't fixed. Again... where is the logic in saying "let's not go get a really special back?" And he is a special back. It's been an outright travesty that this line hasn't been able to give him a single nice running opportunity yet. Absolutely unbelievable to think about. But he hasn't. Every play I've watched, he has absolutely nowhere to go. Not a single time did I see a play develop and think "Oh, here it is he's got a great hole, let's see what happens." Because there hasn't been a great hole. The only great hole I see is our offensive line. and let's not forget that TRich was acquired mid-season, which is almost unheard of. He had almost no time to get acclimated to this offense, which most of you have conveniently brushed off. He looks like he's making sense of it now, but it doesn't matter because our line has been so damn terrible, we can't even get 1 second into our play before the entire thing is blown up.

                    And I'll tell you this --- Luck didn't seem as "off" to me as he did "skittish". He's been looking more and more skittish the last few weeks. I hate to see this happen. But our line is starting to get in Luck's head. His throws were sailing and he's not stepping into it cleanly or releasing cleanly, and it appears to me that it's because he's thinking too much of the pocket and pressure. This line HAS to be addressed, or we're gonna have bigger issues on our hands than poor execution. He's getting hit like crazy. His throws are putting receivers in bad positions.

                    And why Pep isn't having Luck roll out is beyond me. That would be the single most logical solution to a ****** line situation.... roll-out and let Luck do some magic on the run.
                    None of us are saying that Donald Brown was a great pick. But he was drafted almost 5 years ago and has been sunk cost for a long time. T-Rich OTOH was traded for a first rounder that hasn't been used yet, so people are naturally going to analyze him in that context. I agree that the line has gotten worse as the year has gone on, but it's not like T-Rich was particularly good at the beginning when the line wasn't quite as bad as it is now. I'm trying to maintain an open mind here and I understand that the book has yet to be written, but I just haven't seen any "making something out of nothing" skills out of him. I have a very very hard time believing that Bradshaw would have such terrible stats, but we'll never know.

                    Agree with you about Pep. Two things drove me nuts about Pep on Sunday:

                    1) Pulling TY Hilton for David Reed one too many times.

                    2) Not rolling Luck out.

                    Luck's definitely getting more skittish, I agree. The Wayne injury just makes things much much worse. Now he knows he doesn't have the old HOFer who can immediately bail him out of a sticky situation. We are all big on TY, but he just doesn't yet have the savvy ability to make those quick vet plays to get his QB out of a jam.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                      I would dispute that Brown's stats are bad. There are two runningbacks in the NFL that have at least 10 carries on the season who have a higher YPC than Brown. Vereen with 14 carries and a 7.2 average, and Ellington with 54 carries and a 7.2 average. That's it that's higher than Brown's 5.9. As I'll say later, that doesn't mean Brown has been an overall amazing RB because they have used him as a specialist, but a very good specialist is a useful RB.

                      Would Brown's average come down dramatically if he had more carries? Absolutely. But for him to match Richardson, his next 47 carries would have to produce 7 yards total.

                      That doesn't mean I'm putting all the blame on Richardson or saying that Brown is amazing. Neither is true. And you do bring up good points that they are different kinds of backs, Richardson will likely put up less YPC but more TD's, and Brown is in a role that will enhance his YPC a little bit. All of this is true. It just doesn't reconcile the vast gulf in their efficiency. That's especially true because the argument is not that Richardson is as good as Brown, the contention is that he is a special talent and is a lot better.

                      It's not like Brown got his advantage because of big plays either. Brown has 2 runs of 20+ yards all season. Take those out and he's still at 4.33 Y/G to Richardson's 3.0. Trent has 2 TD's rushing while Brown has 1 rushing, 1 receiving. Trent has fumbled once (actually twice, but the other one went out of bounds) while Brown hasn't fumbled. Brown has more catches, although Richardson has the larger yards per catch. Pass blocking has still been Richardson's, although Brown is no longer as bad as his reputation and Richardson is probably not as good as his. It's hard to say that Brown hasn't been the better back this year even accounting for usage.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                        Brown gets some of his runs out of shotgun formations or other passing down situations. During that Colts/Jags game Brown had a big run on 3rd and long, because the defense was expecting the pass and set up for it. Brown also gets plays called where he gets to run out on the edge.

                        Between Pep's playcalling and the lines inability to get any kind of push, it really handcuffs Trent. The plays he gets called for him seems like he's either running through gap A or B on left or gap A or B on the right. When your center/guard can't get a good push on the defensive tackle and one can't get free to go to the second level, it really shuts down any possibility of getting positive yards.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          We knew Donald Brown wasn't lead back material. His production is to be expected. He's a sunk cost at this point. Richardson, we paid a high price for, so we expect something better out of him. And I don't think it's an impossible situation for running backs. I think the line is bad, but not nearly as catastrophic as you are making it out to be.
                          The line is bad and close to catastrophic lately but let's not pretend we are the only one who face this problem.

                          BTW, Rich has been used out of passing formations lately starting from the Denver game IIRC.
                          Never forget

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                            Not as often, though.

                            And whether or not other teams have bad lines doesn't diminish the fact that we have a bad line. I'd also argue that I haven't seen another line in this league performing as badly as ours has in the past month.
                            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

                            Working...
                            X