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 express an interest in Eric Decker

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

  • #31
    Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Guys, WR is absolutely a weakness going forward. Reggie's 35 and coming off the ACL. The only surefire NFL player moving forward we have at WR is Hilton and he's just too small to be a real #1. I don't want to chase Decker because he'll probably get overpaid (FAs worth a crap almost always do, which is why free agency sucks as a way to build a team), but we 100% need to acquire a Reggie replacement ASAP, it's part of why I hated the TRich trade so much, I'd have had no problem going WR in the 1st this year, still wouldn't mind it in the 2nd. There's a chance Da'Rick's that guy, but I'm not gonna jump to any sorta conclusions off of one good game, definitely need to have him getting a big amount of snaps next year though.

    OL certainly sucks, but I don't really care that much, get just a league average OL (which we're well below right now) and that's more than good enough to win. Thomas and Thornton get healthy, dump Satele's bum ***, play McGlynn at C or hope Holmes shows something, that's good enough for me. Getting a linebacker not named Freeman worth a damn is priority 1, then safety and WR are 2 depending on the draft/market. A rush end's up there too but hopefully Werner'll be that, gotta at least give him a chance.
    That's the thing, Rogers to me looked like a great option. He was thought of as a 2nd round pick going into the draft last year so I'm confident what I saw wasn't a fluke. He joined the team mid season and did pretty well, so I'd like to see us give him a chance to have an off season program working with Reggie and the coaches and use this year to build up the defense instead. Maybe we try to find a diamond in the rough or a low level FA signing that could be an asset, but we still have some pretty descent receivers and a great group of TE's, and I don't think you need anymore than that. If we get our running game going that will do wonders for the guys we already have. You don't need a high powered offense necessarily, you just need a capable one. And I think with Ty, Rogers and Fleener we don't really have a shortage of weapons going forward.

    I personally like the TRich trade and think he'll easily wind up being our best back since Edge, he just needs some time and a better online.

    I am not a fan of Decker personally but he would be a big upgrade. I'm just hoping for a more balanced approach over the Manning era.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      I disagree with this. If you look at last years signings, all those guys were paid as solid/good starters, those weren't huge deals with a bunch of guaranteed money. None of them got huge deals and just about all of them did exactly what they were expected to do. Landry and Toler got hurt midseason but up until then, our secondary looked very good. Donald Thomas also looked good up until he got hurt. RJF was probably the most disappointing but I would still consider him an upgrade over what we had before. And that's all Grigson was trying to do. We can cut all of those guys right now except Landry and save money, and even cutting Landry would only cost 500k in dead money this year. To me, overpaying usually means throwing a big bonus at a guy who flops, like Mike Wallace in Miami.

      I viewed most of those signings as stop gaps, not long term solutions. And I felt like his draft picks showed that as well. He drafted Thornton to play behind Thomas, Werner to play behind Walden, and Montori Hughes to play behind RJF. I think those guys were brought in to groom the rookies and be solid contributors, and for the most part they were.

      I think Grigs liked this years FA crop much better and decided to not invest long term in anybody last year. There is a reason he was so willing to trade this years draft picks, and I expect a few more high profile signings this year.
      Over paying means paying someone more than what they are worth, it does not mean they have to get huge contracts, and Grigson definitely over paid. Your numbers are off as far as saving money if we cut guys, all besides I think maybe one still has guaranteed money that would take away from the cap, but what Grigson did was make is so that we could cut those guys and wouldn't have to pay out big bucks to if they did not workout which was smart. But I would like to add they did not do what they were expected to do, no one brings in a player and says hey here is some money and we expect you to get hurt half way through the season, or we expect you not to fit our system. When you sign free agents you expect them to come in and contribute and fit into your team.

      Also the reason the contracts were bad is because as you said he paid pretty much good starter type money to a bunch of guys who really have never been good starters, many who never played a full year as a starter, and the worst thing about it is by signing all these guys with question marks we now have a bunch of guys people are ready to cut one year after. We could have targeted more quality guys that fit our system so that in year two they could really mesh with the rest of the team but now we might have to start over with some of the positions because ALL we signed was guys with questions marks.

      Also if you want me to direct you in a direction for the cost cutting savings I can.

      But point being Grigson definitely overpaid guys last year.
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
        That's the thing, Rogers to me looked like a great option. He was thought of as a 2nd round pick going into the draft last year so I'm confident what I saw wasn't a fluke. He joined the team mid season and did pretty well, so I'd like to see us give him a chance to have an off season program working with Reggie and the coaches and use this year to build up the defense instead. Maybe we try to find a diamond in the rough or a low level FA signing that could be an asset, but we still have some pretty descent receivers and a great group of TE's, and I don't think you need anymore than that. If we get our running game going that will do wonders for the guys we already have. You don't need a high powered offense necessarily, you just need a capable one. And I think with Ty, Rogers and Fleener we don't really have a shortage of weapons going forward.

        I personally like the TRich trade and think he'll easily wind up being our best back since Edge, he just needs some time and a better online.

        I am not a fan of Decker personally but he would be a big upgrade. I'm just hoping for a more balanced approach over the Manning era.
        Yeah I think for this year we are okay without getting a "big named" WR, maybe a vet to come in incase Wayne takes a while to get back to for so that we won't have to fall solely on Rogers in some situations. I would like to add that we have a guy coming back that if healthy will be another weapon ind the passing game named Dwayne Allen, he can really help.

        I also like Richardson and hope he gets his stuff together I think his problem was confidence, he played like he did not trust his abilities, but in hindsight RB's are a dime a dozen and we probably shouldn't have made the trade but oh well we will see how it works out.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

          I liked most of the signings last year, but have to say quite a few ended up disappointing... that said, I was never under the impression that Grigs signed them to bad contracts. Seemed like he signed a bunch of smart contracts that gives the team options and didn't strap us going forward.
          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


          • #35
            Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

            Originally posted by Really? View Post
            I also like Richardson and hope he gets his stuff together I think his problem was confidence, he played like he did not trust his abilities, but in hindsight RB's are a dime a dozen and we probably shouldn't have made the trade but oh well we will see how it works out.
            I think it was more he didn't trust his line, and the playcalling. I agree that he might have suffered some confidence setbacks in his second month after 5-6 games of getting rocked by his line. The way I look at it is, he's a top-flight RB prospect, we got him for a late first-rounder, a draft position we historically haven't drafted well at. Looking at our recent first-round picks, it's not an impressive group, outside of the #1 pick, Luck. The book is still out on Costanzo. Donald Brown is in those ranks. I can't agree that TRich can't be at least as effective as DBrown. We gave up the 26th pick. Outside the top 5-10 picks, the talent pool really evens out. I think TRich is well above the value we would've drafted at 26. I know people get really bent out of shape about draft position, but in my opinion, the draft is a massive crap-shoot. You're as likely to draft a big contributor in round 5 or 6 as you are in rounds 2-3. I know people will disagree with this, and that's fine, but years of following drafts and who actually pans out is what shaped my opinion.
            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


            • #36
              Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              I think it was more he didn't trust his line, and the playcalling. I agree that he might have suffered some confidence setbacks in his second month after 5-6 games of getting rocked by his line. The way I look at it is, he's a top-flight RB prospect, we got him for a late first-rounder, a draft position we historically haven't drafted well at. Looking at our recent first-round picks, it's not an impressive group, outside of the #1 pick, Luck. The book is still out on Costanzo. Donald Brown is in those ranks. I can't agree that TRich can't be at least as effective as DBrown. We gave up the 26th pick. Outside the top 5-10 picks, the talent pool really evens out. I think TRich is well above the value we would've drafted at 26. I know people get really bent out of shape about draft position, but in my opinion, the draft is a massive crap-shoot. You're as likely to draft a big contributor in round 5 or 6 as you are in rounds 2-3. I know people will disagree with this, and that's fine, but years of following drafts and who actually pans out is what shaped my opinion.
              Maybe not trusting the line possibly, but more not knowing how to run off their blocks. Key word you said about Richardson is prospect, the problem is RB careers are so short that being a RB that is a prospect but also carrying the ball as much as he has is not a good combination. I think he has massive potential, saw him in the JW when he got traded here and told him we were excited to have him. I think as far as the value it is not far off, RB value has went down a bunch in the recent years so his actual draft position should have been closer to the late teens but that is all judgement.

              As far as the 2nd-3rd compared to 5th-6th if you look at which rounds pro bowlers come from it is dominated by 1st rounders 2nd rounders are next 3rd and on I think typically it is hit and miss. But there is definitely a trend that as you get further and further into the draft the chances of players become a contributor is less and less, you can have a guy that turns out good but if you look at some of the stuff pff puts out then you will get a better idea of the trends I am talking about.
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                I liked most of the signings last year, but have to say quite a few ended up disappointing... that said, I was never under the impression that Grigs signed them to bad contracts. Seemed like he signed a bunch of smart contracts that gives the team options and didn't strap us going forward.
                The contracts don't strap us going forward if we cut them, but if we keep them it might be a problem 6 of those guys signed are in our top 10 contracts this season, other guys being Luck, Wayne, Richardson, and Mathis. That is a lot of money to give out to unproven guys. I thought the signings last year could pan out because of potential, but was not overly excited about them like I said building a team around a bunch of question marks is not a good recipe.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  Maybe not trusting the line possibly, but more not knowing how to run off their blocks.
                  Eh, I don't agree with that. You don't get to the NFL and be the #3 pick not knowing how to run off blocks. I think what happened is he was so over-scrutinized that when he did what *all* RBs do eventually (miss a lane), everyone jumped down his throat. If you listened to a lot of guys around here, you'd think he missed his lane every time he ran the ball, which couldn't be farther from the truth... while DBrown never missed a lane, which again couldn't be farther from the truth.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-04-2014, 11:02 AM.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Eh, I don't agree with that. You don't get to the NFL and be the #3 pick not knowing how to run off blocks. I think what happened is he was so over-scrutinized that when he did what *all* RBs do eventually (miss a lane), everyone jumped down his throat. If you listened to a lot of guys around here, you'd think he missed his lane every time he ran the ball, which couldn't be farther from the truth... while DBrown never missed a lane, which again couldn't be farther from the truth.
                    I mean he hesitated in the backfield a lot.... A LOT, my thinking is that maybe this goes along with what you said about trust, not knowing how to run off this group of lineman, can he trust that they will drive a guy back or open the hole correctly, but that comes with practice and getting used to the guys. But the thing is when you don't have that trust then you have to trust your abilities even more, if you look at the tape there are many times where he just didn't hit the hole or hesitated or ran into a group of guys while the hole was a few steps over.

                    Honestly Brown used to run just like that until the past 2 season, not sure what happened to him but he has gotten a lot better at it. Also I will say the way those two guys were used was totally different, a lot of Browns runs came from draw plays where the holes were more defined and easier to hit, but he also ran way harder that Richardson this year.

                    I still have hope in Richardson and think a offseason will be really good for him.
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                      Who would you have suggested he sign?

                      It's pretty easy to sit back and criticize without knowing who was a realistic possibility in the first place.

                      He paid what it cost to get the guys he did. I seriously doubt he threw money at them without negotiating and finding out what they were worth on the open market.

                      Again he didn't hurt our cap position going forward at all. So what's the gripe? The Colts paid Gary Brackett 5 million in dead money last year alone. That is overpaying for someone JMO

                      The only guy who would count dead money if we cut him this year is Laron Landry, and he would only count 500k in dead money.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        Guys, WR is absolutely a weakness going forward. Reggie's 35 and coming off the ACL. The only surefire NFL player moving forward we have at WR is Hilton and he's just too small to be a real #1. I don't want to chase Decker because he'll probably get overpaid (FAs worth a crap almost always do, which is why free agency sucks as a way to build a team), but we 100% need to acquire a Reggie replacement ASAP, it's part of why I hated the TRich trade so much, I'd have had no problem going WR in the 1st this year, still wouldn't mind it in the 2nd. There's a chance Da'Rick's that guy, but I'm not gonna jump to any sorta conclusions off of one good game, definitely need to have him getting a big amount of snaps next year though.

                        OL certainly sucks, but I don't really care that much, get just a league average OL (which we're well below right now) and that's more than good enough to win. Thomas and Thornton get healthy, dump Satele's bum ***, play McGlynn at C or hope Holmes shows something, that's good enough for me. Getting a linebacker not named Freeman worth a damn is priority 1, then safety and WR are 2 depending on the draft/market. A rush end's up there too but hopefully Werner'll be that, gotta at least give him a chance.
                        Except Hilton is already putting up #1 statistics. Steve Smith, is the same height as Hilton, and only 10lbs heavier. Harrison may have been taller, but his height was not much of a factor in how great he was. Sure height can help, but it is ignorant to say a player can't be a number 1 WR just because he is a few inches shorter. It took Harrison until his fourth season to put up more receptions and yards than Hilton did in his second season. It took Wayne until his 4th season for yards, and 5th season for receptions. Hilton is statistically ahead of the curve.

                        There is legitimate reasons to be concerned about Wayne's ability to come back. Hilton has been inconsistent so far, but that is not unexpected from a young WR. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be able to be a number one WR. He is statistically extremely close already. I can understand why some might question Brazill and Rogers, I'm not sure about Rogers myself, but I am hopeful. I made it a point to pay attention to how Brazill played when he got a chance, and he looked good more times than not. He didn't get a lot of throws his way, but that often had to do more with the OL and to a lesser degree Luck still learning to be patient.


                        Also offenses with great OLs tend to be a lot more consistent, and good, than offenses with great skill players and average OLs, especially in the playoffs. If you have a great OL and a great QB you usually can throw just about any group of half decent WRs in there and have a top passing offense.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                          I agree, Hilton is #1 material, but I still think that we need another consistent WR who defenses are forced to respect. Defenses succeeded in taking Hilton out of the game quite a few times last year, but thankfully we finally figured away around it. I just want to add one more WR who can grow up with Luck and Hilton. I hope Wayne has a great bounce back season, but he is in his twilight regardless of what happens this year.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                            I'm not necessarily in agreement that Hilton is supposed to be a #1. He's really good... not taking from him. He's a very good #2, who when put in as a #1, will put up numbers. I think your overall offense will work better with someone opposite Hilton. Wayne pre-injury was exactly that. Wayne could beat doubles and triples. I'm not as confident in Hilton to do that, unless he gets behind them.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              Who would you have suggested he sign?

                              It's pretty easy to sit back and criticize without knowing who was a realistic possibility in the first place.

                              He paid what it cost to get the guys he did. I seriously doubt he threw money at them without negotiating and finding out what they were worth on the open market.

                              Again he didn't hurt our cap position going forward at all. So what's the gripe? The Colts paid Gary Brackett 5 million in dead money last year alone. That is overpaying for someone JMO

                              The only guy who would count dead money if we cut him this year is Laron Landry, and he would only count 500k in dead money.
                              dude here you go, you're ridiculous:

                              http://www.coltsauthority.com/2014-a...ble-colts.html

                              All of them pretty much have a decent amount of dead money if we cut them... Landry however not only has dead money but it will actually cost us 500K extra on top of the dead money to cut him.

                              As far as the other point true not sure who we had a realistic chance in signing, but like I said you build the team around a bunch of guys who have done nothing and have question marks, dude RJF didn't even start and got a 4 year contract worth like 4 million a year... Cherlius had one really good year and you decide to make him the 2nd highest paid RT in the league that was ridiculous, to me atleast it seems like he made a lot of moves that were bad. Landry never looked like a good fit next to Bethea.

                              Also as far as Brackett he was not overpaid but paid for his production... he earned that contract and how the Colts worked is that they rewarded their players who played well and he was consistently good in our system for many years, but honestly he did not fit the new system and his game started to decline also, but still he was not overpaid he worked hard and earned his contract.

                              Please checkout the article it will help you with your facts.
                              Last edited by Really?; 03-05-2014, 02:54 PM.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                                Originally posted by Really? View Post
                                dude here you go, you're ridiculous:

                                http://www.coltsauthority.com/2014-a...ble-colts.html

                                All of them pretty much have a decent amount of dead money if we cut them... Landry however not only has dead money but it will actually cost us 500K extra on top of the dead money to cut him.

                                As far as the other point true not sure who we had a realistic chance in signing, but like I said you build the team around a bunch of guys who have done nothing and have question marks, dude RJF didn't even start and got a 4 year contract worth like 4 million a year... Cherlius had one really good year and you decide to make him the 2nd highest paid RT in the league that was ridiculous, to me atleast it seems like he made a lot of moves that were bad. Landry never looked like a good fit next to Bethea.

                                Also as far as Brackett he was not overpaid but paid for his production... he earned that contract and how the Colts worked is that they rewarded their players who played well and he was consistently good in our system for many years, but honestly he did not fit the new system and his game started to decline also, but still he was not overpaid he worked hard and earned his contract.

                                Please checkout the article it will help you with your facts.
                                I misused the term dead money maybe, but we would save money on the cap, except for Landry, that was my point. And it would only be one season. Brackett counted over 5 million last year.

                                We would SAVE 4 million by cutting Toler after 1 year.

                                We would SAVE 3.25 million by cutting RJF after 1 year.

                                We paid Gary Brackett over 5 last year, and he hasn't played for us since 2010-11.

                                We are not building around any of those guys.
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X