Tweet
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
Luck's completion percentage on 3rd down is awful though. Less than 50%.(47%)
Luck's completion percentage on 3rd down is awful though. Less than 50%.(47%)
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
-
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais. -
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
Anyone know of a site that tracks QB sacks, knockdowns, and hurries?“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
The last few weeks have kind of made me reassess the talent gap between Luck and RG3, in a positive sense for RG3, but not necessarily in a negative way for Luck. As expected, both have looked like crap without anything resembling a viable offensive line, running game, receiving corps, or defensive support. It will be interesting to see if RG3 bounces back if the Redskins ever learn to make competent front office decisions and if the Colts ditch the injury bug and improve their own personnel moves a bit.
Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
If anything you should be seeing the things coming out regarding RG3 and what his teammates and people in the media are saying about his leadership. And I'm not denying the 'Skins have more issues than RG3, but I still see holes in his game and the way he plays, even disregarding the off-field crap.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: Week 12: @ Cardinals
I think Pep is in some serious hot water. The issue comes from higher than TRich and Luck and Reggie Wayne. We have the pieces. They aren't being used correctly. These same guys all had better years last year... yes, even TRich. This offense has nose-dived. Across the board. Something has to be done. Who here doesn't believe that Bruce Arians couldn't walk in here tomorrow and fix our issues? I believe he could. He did much more with much less.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: Week 12: @ Cardinals
Amen. I didn't like the hire when it happened and I really don't like it now.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View PostComment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
I agree with this one. As much as I think TRich's issues are just as much on him as the offensive line I do agree that Pep does no favors for him. There are so many times I sit during games and call out it being a run. If most of us can predict when TRich is just going to run up the gut I am sure defensive coordinators know when it is coming.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
Our interior of the offensive line is atrocious so what does he do? He continues to have Luck sit in there and take pressure instead of try to roll him out from time to time. Why not run more quick screens and patterns that gets the ball out of Luck's hands quickly? Why not run the no huddle and uptempo offense from the beginning than when we are down 17 at the start of the third.
In this game we came out with no huddle and uptempo and it was the best our offensive looked all game long. I do not for the life of me understand why we do that more often.
I think Manusky needs to have some fire under him as well. At least Pep has the injuries to Allen, Wayne, Bradshaw, Ballard, and Thomas to deal with. Toller has been hurt a couple games, but this defense has fallen apart since the Denver game.
Towards the comments about TRich they are just jokes out of frustration. Nobody really believes that Herron would do better or that everything is TRich's fault. It is just jokes because there is nothing else you can say about how bad he and the offensive line has played since he got here.
Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
And yet there isn't a single joke that makes the OLine the butt, only Trent and those who talk about the Oline. If you were handing out jokes to everyone that is worthy of them, there wouldn't be any complaint. But that's not what is happening, and that's why there are complaints.Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
Well said.
A couple of things we should try doing:
- Run out of passing formations more. That could definitely help T-Rich and the running game. Pagano and Pep act as if they would lose their manhood if they don't run in the predictable power formations.
- Find f'ing ways to get the ball to T.Y. Get some quick screens that get the ball out of Luck's hands quickly and UTILIZE HILTON'S SPEED. We know that offenses are going to try to take T.Y. out of the game, so we can't do the same predictable things that we've done all season. We have to find new ways to adapt and get him the ball.
- Roll Luck out of the pocket more. Tired of seeing him get smothered.
- Don't sub in David Reed for Hilton or DHB ever again. He should be fired on the spot next time that happens.
There's no doubt in my mind that if Arians were here, T.Y.would easily be one of the top receivers in the league down the stretch of this season. Arians would figure out how to get his best playmaker the ball. We have a great quarterback in Luck and we have a talented receiver in T.Y. I don't care what the rest of the team looks like, there is simply no excuse for not getting T.Y. the ball when you are dealing with a QB-WR tandem like that. Any average NFL coordinator should easily be able to figure out ways to get T.Y. the ball in favorable situations.
Of course, one has to assume that Pep is simply running the sort of offense that Pagano wants. Pagano is obsessed with pounding his chest over the power run game. It sounds great in theory, but this isn't Baltimore. We don't have the O-Line that they had when he was there, and we don't have Ray Rice. Yet the team stubbornly clings to the ideology that you have to stick to the smash mouth approach or else you might as well just quit playing football. That starts with Pagano. Honestly, if Pep were replaced, I still don't think too much would change. An offensive coordinator is going to run what his head coach wants.Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-26-2013, 01:26 PM.Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
Seriously? Do you now count how many times Richardson and OL are ridiculed? Why does it matter anyway?Originally posted by Since86 View Post
People on here, on other Colts forums, blogs and other online platforms have gone out of their way to criticize the OL. That was happening from last season as well as it was glaring. The common thing you would see on other posts most of the time was " Offensive Line" and it was way before Richardson joined the club. We were here last off season cursing that McGlynn was still in the team's books and were wondering what the hell Grigson sees in him? We still do. Hell, I have read so many times the "McSuck and Sucktele" descriptions.
I don't think Richardson is being used as a scapegoat. The line's problems are well documented. It has been awful most of the time as Richardson has been himself.
PS: BTW, I honestly don't care what 40-yard dash he had. How that translates on the field matters to me and so far, one word describes that: Poorly.Last edited by Johanvil; 11-26-2013, 03:21 PM.Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
No they weren't. The line didn't get this bad until about 4-5 games ago. They may not have been world-beaters before then, they let Luck get hit, but it was at least serviceable. They've imploded. You aren't watching if you really think the line hasn't gotten any worse over the last month and a half.
Either way, you're admitting the line sucks, and you're expecting TRich to squeeze blood from a turnip. Just because you've heard it a million times doesn't mean it's a non-factor. You can't run behind a disaster of a line.Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-26-2013, 03:39 PM.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: Week 12: @ Cardinals
If people are going to try and claim that playcalling and the oline are criticized just as much as Trent, you betcha. The good thing about the internet, is we have the ability to go back and look at exactly what is said, and it doesn't need to be a "he said, she said" debate. We've got the record.Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
That's nice that others have, but this forum hasn't. Instead, this forum thinks pointing out how ****** they are is the beginning to a joke.Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
That's fine that you don't care about his 40 time, but when we're talking about things that can be backed up with cold hard numbers, I like to go with facts as opposed to people throwing crap against a wall and hoping it sticks.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
McGlynn and Satele have sucked from last season and they were the main culprits ruining the line. Many people were wondering, why Shipley was let go since we were not gonna bring a replacement and we had seen that Satele is not that good.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
The line was ever bad and got slightly better when Satele was injured and we moved McGlynn at Center. This worked around the SF game and the Jax one IIRC. Then Satele came back...
No. What I do is share the blame on both parts and exactly because the line hasn't been bad on every damn snap and some times there was a gap but Rich failed to take advantage, I won't blame the OL only and let Richardson off the hook like you do. I understand his line doesn't help him a lot but he hasn't showed pretty much anything for us to be hopeful of. If you are good enough and even running behind a bad OL, you'll show something, even a small glimpse of your talent. At least a couple of times. He hasn't.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View PostComment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
Goodness....Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
No one has ever said Trent doesn't have any blame, let's not go the route like on the Pacers forum and start building strawmen armies again. The complaint is that pretty much ALL the focus on the running game, goes towards Trent. That was the point in me counting how many posts criticized the line. Not one single poster brought up the oline problems, nor play calling when it comes to specifically running the ball, before Kid did. Not one. So it's pretty disingenuous to try and say that by putting blame on two other areas that deserve it, is really saying that they're the only ones that deserve it.Last edited by Since86; 11-26-2013, 04:32 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals
Can we just say everybody is sucking? Nobody is playing well (outside of Vinatieri and Mathis) and everybody has to get better. Trent, oline, Luck, whatever.
What's bothered me the most over the course of the past few weeks isn't the offense. We knew the line sucked and having lost our best WR, we knew we were going to struggle. The most infuriating thing about the last few weeks has been the defense. They have absolutely no excuse to be playing this poorly all of a sudden. Poor running teams are running all over us and ****** QBs are playing like Manning against us. If the defense was playing like a competent bunch, that would allow the offense time to get things going better. But we get no TOs or stops whatsoever unless the other team makes mistakes, which doesn't seem to happen when you don't get pressure and their WRs are running free all over the field. Disgusting.Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.Comment
Comment