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 bench Trent Richardson

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

  • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

    There was a lot of criticism towards Pep at Stanford for running too much and handcuffing Luck. I just see this as an extension of that.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

      Yea, Luck likely lost his Heisman because of the playcalling at Stanford. I had read that in his last year, the playcalls were like 60/40 in favor of the run. He still had a monster stat year, but then RG3 rolled in with the hype and stole it. Just like the RotY.
      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: Colts bench Trent Richardson

        So we have a consensus? Trent sucks just a little less than the OL. It would have been nice to see what Bradshaw could have done with this same OL. i doubt that losing our LG would have made that significant a difference.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

          Um no, Trent isn't near as bad as our line, which is playing at a much worse level than when Bradshaw was active. Our line dominated San Fran.
          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: Colts bench Trent Richardson

            ESPN NFL Scout Matt Williamson does a pretty good job of hitting on both sides of the argument and I think we all can agree there is a lot of truth in his breakdown of Trent so far:

            http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis...ely?src=mobile

            INDIANAPOLIS -- Indianapolis Colts running back Trent Richardson stood at his locker on Thursday afternoon and answered every question thrown his way about being benched and how the past week has been for him.


            Richardson
            He called the experience humbling because it was the first time since his sophomore year at the University of Alabama that he wasn’t his team’s starting running back. Richardson said Donald Brown deserves to be the starter and they'll continue to push each other.

            I caught up with ESPN.com NFL scout Matt Williamson on Thursday to talk about Richardson’s struggles this season:

            Williamson on the trade:
            “First of all, when the trade happened I thought the Colts made a great move. I liked him out of Alabama and what he did as a rookie with the Cleveland Browns. Every defense was keying on him and he was able to be productive, especially as a receiver. I thought he was going to be -- not Adrian Peterson -- but I thought he would be a Pro Bowl back and was worth what I expected to be a late first-round pick. Of course it hasn’t worked out. I think there have been a lot of reasons. Some of it is bad luck, some of it is coaching. But a lot of it is on him.”

            Williamson on why Richardson has struggled:
            “Just looking at him, I think he’s been tentative since he’s been here. I feel like he’s uncomfortable knowing when to hit the holes and what their scheme is. He’s lost mentally. It doesn’t mean he’s not smart. I think he’s not tuned in to exactly what they’re doing. It’s not natural for him, not knowing exactly where to go, thinking too much. That shouldn’t be a shock, though. He joined a new system in midseason. Running back is one of the hardest positions to learn. He hasn’t been through minicamp or training camp. He also deserves some blame, too. He isn’t running with that aggression. He doesn’t look like he has that burst that he had at Alabama or last year. He is tentative when there are holes there. He doesn’t attack them like he should.”

            Williamson on other reasons behind Richardson’s problems:
            “I don’t think most people realize how bad the interior of that line is for the Colts. Those guards [Mike McGlynn and Hugh Thornton] are terrible. The interior of that offensive line, I think is as bad as any in the league. That’s hard to overcome when you’re an interior rusher. That’s impacting Trent quite a bit. The Colts don’t utilize his pass-catching ability very well. He is a very good receiver and even in space he can run over safeties and cornerbacks. It shocks me because he had 50-something catches last year."
            So to recap: We see what the scout sees. Horrible offensive line. Tentative running from Richardson. Very suspect play calling. Not utilizing him in the passing game or in space. Pretty good assessment of the situation, I'd say.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

              Yea I had seen that, I concur. His main knock on Trent is tentativeness, to which I attribute mostly to his mid-season transition and his terrible line. That's why I think it's a very fixable situation.
              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: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Yea I had seen that, I concur. His main knock on Trent is tentativeness, to which I attribute mostly to his mid-season transition and his terrible line. That's why I think it's a very fixable situation.
                I will say, I love the way Richardson has handled the demotion, at least publicly. He's saying the right things at least. None of us here are rooting against the guy. Like I said, I would love nothing more than for Trent to come out and go gangbusters and make me look like an ***. Let's hope he turns things around. But my god whatever you do Grigson, you had better fix that ****ing line this offseason.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                  It is rather sad that if either or both of McGlynn and Satele start next season, I will not be surprised in the slightest.
                  Never forget

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                    Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                    It is rather sad that if either or both of McGlynn and Satele start next season, I will not be surprised in the slightest.
                    I believe both contracts are up so I can't imagine they are back. I could stomach McGynn at center but Satele just doesn't fit this scheme.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                      Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                      It is rather sad that if either or both of McGlynn and Satele start next season, I will not be surprised in the slightest.
                      I believe most people thought that the backup center who was traded in the preseason was better than Satele

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                        That was one move this off-season that I hated. Also the LB we gave to Dallas who looked great in the pre-season for us... Rayford.
                        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: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                          Mark Schlereth nails it for me, exactly what I've been sayin:

                          http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:10086035
                          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: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                            I think the most frustrating thing for me about this damn o line is what it's robbing us of. We have Andrew Friggin Luck and Trent Friggin Richardson, and this line is so terribad, even they can't do **** week-to-week. I just can't wait/imagine to get this line straightened so we can see what these two can do. I still believe Luck is the best QB prospect in decades, and Trent is at least one of the best RB prospects to come out in the last 5-7 years. And we're missing out on it right now...
                            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: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                              The line is certainly hideous and is going to be a major thorn in our side no matter what, but a skilled offensive coordinator should still be able to find ways to allow Luck to make plays. There's not much you can do to compensate for a bad line when it comes to the run game. However, you can do things to compensate for it in the passing game. The most obvious thing is throwing quick slants and screens to utilize our receivers' tremendous speed. Also, we should try rolling Luck out more. Instead, we consistently have Luck drop back in the pocket so that he can get drilled while throwing a ball that DHB or Hilton can't catch. Yeah it's frustrating as hell to see our line get owned like that and allow him to get hit, but our offensive coordinator should try mixing things up so that it doesn't happen so much.

                              I'll sadly concede that our running game is pretty much screwed because of the line, but a creative coordinator should still be able to find ways for this passing game to have more success.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-06-2013, 12:29 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                                Some of the scout's comments from cdash's article:

                                The Colts don’t utilize his pass-catching ability very well. He is a very good receiver and even in space he can run over safeties and cornerbacks. It shocks me because he had 50-something catches last year.

                                Exactly.

                                In his short time in the league, T-Rich has shown that he is a good threat in the passing game. But do we try to utilize that? Of course not. We stubbornly try to fit square pegs into a round hole. Right now, that is the Pagano-Pep Colts in a nutshell. Converse that with how New England uses Shane Vereen. Hoodie and his crew recognize that they have a highly skilled pass catching running back, so they find ways to utilize him in the passing game, which obviously succeeds. A coaching staff that adjusts based on the strengths of its players. What a novel and bizarre idea.

                                Our offensive line is terrible and it has obviously shaken Trent's confidence. It's no doubt a big reason for his hesitation. So we should utilize his pass catching ability and allow him to run in space, which he has shown he can successfully do. That would definitely build his confidence back up, and it would help the Colts on the field.

                                These ideas shouldn't be brought up by some guys on a message board. The Colts should have attempted stuff like this WEEKS AGO. But no, we are a power run team. We have to pound our chest about how we are a power run team, even though we don't succeed in doing it. Their stubborn ways are approaching a JOB level.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X