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-Broncos

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 62
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 9 49 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 template Next
  • #871
    Re: Colts-Broncos

    https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...bonus-edition/

    The signs were there from the first play of the game. Trent Richardson took the handoff, aimed at Samson Satele’s left hip and then saw the wham block ahead of him blown up and the formidable bulk of DT Kevin Vickerson forcing his way across his path right at the point of attack. Richardson had taken only three steps and the play was already dead, forcing him to cut and improvise. As it happens he made an impressive jump-cut to his left around Vickerson and what was left of the pulling guard he just beat, scampering for 4 yards before being brought down by Rahim Moore the safety.

    This play looks completely unremarkable on the stat sheet, just a standard 4-yard run, leading people that look at those things to question if Richardson is really running with any purpose, or if he is just another back, capable of getting only what the line gives him and nothing more. Well in this instance he gained 4 yards more than the line gave him, because the line gave him nothing, forcing him to make it happen on his own. He may not have been able to break it open completely, but he wasn’t far from doing so (Moore only just took him down by the ankles as he burst toward daylight), and he turned a dead play into a positive one on first down.

    The truth about Richardson is that his career in the NFL is only 22 games old and features injuries and some truly ugly blocking. We really haven’t seen enough to accurately determine what he is or isn’t yet, but it’s certainly too early to be writing him off as a player that can’t get it done running the ball. After this game there was another round of people looking at the stats and the fact that he wasn’t able to get much going and blaming him for it, rather than taking a look at the blocking that was supposed to be opening up holes for him.

    Of his 14 carries, Richardson arrived at the intended point of attack to find it still viable just four times. That means that on 71.4% of his carries by the time he arrived at the hole he was supposed to hit it was already blown up! He was forced to make a cut in the backfield 10 times by defenders beating his blocking almost immediately, quickly enough that the average point at which he was forced to cut away from the intended point of attack was -2.1 yards. 2.1 yards deep in the backfield. Even counting the plays that weren’t destroyed before Richardson made it to the hole, the average point at which he was hit by a defender was just 0.8 yards down field.

    The point I’m making? Richardson could be the hybrid lovechild of Adrian Peterson and Barry Sanders and he would struggle behind the blocking he saw against the Broncos.

    There were occasions though when we saw flashes of what he is capable of. On one of the four occasions the hole didn’t collapse around him he was able to break off an 8-yard run up the middle. That may not sound like much, but it was a fantastic example of the skill set that Richardson brings to the table and why two teams have now spent a first-round pick in acquiring his services.

    When Richardson heads toward the line of scrimmage there appears to be a pretty sizeable hole opening up to the left of center, and you might wonder why he doesn’t just head straight for it, but he can see that on either side there are Denver defenders squeezing it closed. Instead of heading straight to the space and finding himself taken down by one of them, he pushes the run up behind his guard before breaking to the space at the last moment, ensuring that both defenders have the maximum amount of distance to cover to get to him.

    When he makes his first cut he burst through the closing gap like Will Smith exiting the mother ship in Independence Day as it slams shut behind him, only to find himself heading right for SS Duke Ihenacho who has read the play well and closed in to take him down for a minimal gain.

    ANBonus01

    He then breaks out a move that most don’t believe he possesses in his arsenal, cutting off one leg he springs back to the inside away from the would-be tackler, lifting himself just high enough to leave Ihenacho grasping at air instead of what he was sure would be Richardson’s standing leg just moments ago.

    As nice as those first two moves were, Richardson now runs unavoidably into contact as one of his linemen has lost control of his block at the second level. Rather than looking for another finesse move to get away from the inevitable tackle, Richardson lowers his head and goes into full-on power-back mode, dragging a pair of Denver players for additional yardage.

    This was a gain of just 8 yards, but it represents everything that is good about Richardson’s running at the moment — good that exists in spite of the ugly statistics that he and the Colts are putting up on the ground.

    That run was a rarity in a game in which Richardson tallied just 37 yards on 14 carries. What he saw far more often was his way blocked by bodies, both blue and white, as soon as he was handed the ball. Far too often Richardson looked up to see situations like this:

    ANBonus3

    or this:

    ANBonus04



    That isn’t to say that Richardson is entirely blameless, or that he couldn’t have squeezed out a little more from the game. Every running back leaves something on the table at some stage in a game. Adrian Peterson will go through tape of a game in which he topped 200 yards and pick his play to pieces, pointing out cuts he could have made here, moves he could have broken out there, as if he’d been held without a significant gain all day. On Richardson’s fumble, for example, he was a little too quick to abandon the intended point of attack — perhaps simply used to bailing on it by that point in the game given what had happened to him so far — and instead of delaying a beat to let his blocking develop, elected to bounce it outside where he was gang-tackled and ultimately stripped of the football.

    There were plays too where he perhaps didn’t find the ideal spot to cut towards once the initial play had broken down. I’m not saying Richardson has been incredible or anything, but when the biggest issues come from not being able to fix other people’s mistakes, perhaps you need to think about those mistakes being made so consistently, rather than his inability to turn lead into gold.

    This is why separating a runner from his blocking is so difficult to do. On that play Richardson was a little too quick to bail on the play and try to bounce it outside, but was this because he didn’t see it? Was his clock simply reset by the caliber of the blocking on that day and he had become conditioned to having to try to make things happen on his own? Even on something we can identify as a mistake from Richardson we can’t accurately determine the cause of that mistake.

    The bottom line is the Colts have been an awful run blocking unit this season. People point to the numbers put up by Ahmad Bradshaw and Donald Brown behind the same line, but for a couple of reasons those comparisons aren’t necessarily fair. Firstly, the line hasn’t been the same all the way along. The Colts have been dealing with injuries and re-shuffling, and did so several times in the course of this game alone. Secondly, the sample size is so small that one half-decent run by any of the three runners instantly swings their average YPC wildly up or down. Bradshaw may have a much healthier looking average, but based on just 41 attempts.

    Lastly, those numbers don’t take into account the situations or formations in which the three are being used. Richardson is being used more than Brown in heavy sets, when teams are expecting the run, only magnifying the problems on the O-line.

    Where am I going with all of this?

    He may never live up to the draft picks that have already been spent on him, but it would be a mistake to write Trent Richardson off as just another guy running the football, a plodding power back with little else to his game. The Colts are giving him little to no chance at the moment, but the tape shows a guy who is making explosive moves with the ball in his hands. Only Marshawn Lynch has more than the 34 forced missed tackles Richardson has tallied this season, and there is no back in football with a significant number of carries who is making people miss at a better rate than Richardson. This is a guy who is doing his best to make things happen, but so far hasn’t been able to overcome the plays crashing down around him.

    If the Colts can’t improve their O-line it may never happen, but I don’t think we can pin the blame on Richardson right now, whatever the average yards per carry is.

    Comment

    • #872
      Re: Colts-Broncos

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      I mean you guys have to see that if we were anything other than Colts fans, this would seem like a shitload of excuse making, right? Seriously, you can play this game with virtually every running back in the league. Throw out a name and I'll give you the defense.
      Shitload? No, because it's the same reason over and over again. So instead of actually taking rational reasoning that is backed up by tangible numbers, you simply dismiss them and keep to your personal opinion, just like Vnzla.

      Could your made up scenarios be just excuses? Could be. Could they also be legimate reasons? Could be. I like to judge each one based on the validity of the arugment, as opposed to applying a generic "well that's a ******** excuse" wet blanket to every situation.
      Last edited by Since86; 10-23-2013, 12:51 PM.
      “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment

      • #873
        Re: Colts-Broncos

        I don't think anyone's said yeah Trent is doing amazing!

        All we're saying is there's clearly more at play here than just Trent. When he's got great holes in front of him every time and he's not getting met by a DL or LB in the hole every time, then we will really see.

        The guy was 8th in the NFL last year in yards after contact for RBs. That is actually a really good sign.

        The holes in our offensive line close up pretty quick, part of this is by design, part of it is our cut back approach. Donald Brown kind of skips point B (the cut back) and slams through Point A (the original hole) because of his speed. Trent doesn't have that speed, but he does break a lot of tackles.


        Comment

        • #874
          Re: Colts-Broncos

          I just loved seeing Edgerrin and Marvin in the box watching that game. Both of those two guys have had a great relationship with the Colt since leaving. Remember when Marvin announced the Coby Fleener pick in 2012? Our organization has done a great job of keeping these two guys close. For all of the ripping of Irsay, it seems as though he runs a great organization that treats its current and former players like family. I've rarely heard any of our former players ever say a negative thing about the franchise. There's a reason that most guys are sad when they leave. Irsay treats his players and coaches very very well. Just look at the genuine emotion in Pagano's eyes when he handed Irsay the game ball.

          Here's a cool video in which Marvin Harrison talks about the Luck-Fleener combo. It's rare to see 88 give an interview:

          http://news.yahoo.com/video/marvin-h...023000055.html

          Comment

          • #875
            Re: Colts-Broncos

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Shitload? No, because it's the same reason over and over again. So instead of actually taking rational reasoning that is backed up by tangible numbers, you simply dismiss them and keep to your personal opinion, just like Vnzla.

            Could your made up scenarios be just excuses? Could be. Could they also be legimate reasons? Could be. I like to judge each one based on the validity of the arugment, as opposed to applying a generic "well that's a ******** excuse" wet blanket to every situation.
            Tangible numbers? The tangible numbers are the biggest argument against Richardson. We can rehash his yards per carry and the fumble all day, but we will argue ourselves into the same circles we've already explored. I have my opinion, you guys have yours. I will reiterate one more time: It's not Trent Richardson I dislike so much as trading a first round pick to get him. Although I must say the ill-timed fumble ("but he was just trying to fight for extra yardage" is a load of crap and a prime example of excuse making) really pissed me off.

            Comment

            • #876
              Re: Colts-Broncos

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              I don't think anyone's said yeah Trent is doing amazing!

              All we're saying is there's clearly more at play here than just Trent. When he's got great holes in front of him every time and he's not getting met by a DL or LB in the hole every time, then we will really see.

              The guy was 8th in the NFL last year in yards after contact for RBs. That is actually a really good sign.

              The holes in our offensive line close up pretty quick, part of this is by design, part of it is our cut back approach. Donald Brown kind of skips point B (the cut back) and slams through Point A (the original hole) because of his speed. Trent doesn't have that speed, but he does break a lot of tackles.
              Again, I truly understand that our offensive line is a steaming pile of dog ****. I would have been much happier spending a first round pick on solving that riddle. I hate the trade because of the price. I am not tossing Richardson aside and saying he is what he is and he will never be any good, but the early returns have me deeply concerned (I'm including his Cleveland days, for those of you ready to toss out the 5 game sample size at me).

              Comment

              • #877
                Re: Colts-Broncos

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                Tangible numbers? The tangible numbers are the biggest argument against Richardson. We can rehash his yards per carry and the fumble all day, but we will argue ourselves into the same circles we've already explored. I have my opinion, you guys have yours. I will reiterate one more time: It's not Trent Richardson I dislike so much as trading a first round pick to get him. Although I must say the ill-timed fumble ("but he was just trying to fight for extra yardage" is a load of crap and a prime example of excuse making) really pissed me off.
                I see right after me posting yards after contact still can't be brought into the numbers you look at, which is my exact point. Instead of focusing on just yards per carry, how about taking a deeper look into the stats? You might actually see a trend.
                “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment

                • #878
                  Re: Colts-Broncos

                  cdash.... respect ya.... but you are classically looking at things superficially. You watch a play unfold, you see a back get stuffed for 1 yard loss. You look at stats and see a back is averaging 3 ypc, and 40 yds a game. This is what a lot of people do. They then look at his last stop, and see his stats were similar. Our run game is 8th in the league in yardage. Without diving into it, a conclusion is drawn --- this dude sucks. We lost the trade.

                  The articles linked in the last few pages are proving *exactly* what I've been saying. You have to look at the context. I see Rich get stuffed, I see his stats be low, and so I start scrutinizing what's actually happening. I'm LOOKING at everything --- the execution of the line, the defensive formation, the post-snap actions, TRich himself.

                  It became obvious *quickly* that TRich is doing surprisingly well with what he's been given, which is literally, damn near nothing. Our line is getting owned.... repeatedly. And it's to be expected --- we had a bad line last year, and we've lost multiple lineman this year. Just makes sense that our line is the weak link.

                  I'd be way more concerned if I looked at the unfolding plays, saw there were plenty of holes and opportunities, and Rich just wasn't making the right decisions... he was taking the wrong cuts, making the wrong reads. But he's not. The line is allowing defenders through almost immediately. The holes that are "supposed" to be there, aren't. The down-field blocks he's supposed to be getting --- blown up. He's getting hit generally before the line of scrimmage, by multiple defenders. Someone said he goes down immediately ---- wrong. He generally drags multiple defenders his way another yard or two despite being all of 5'9". Someone said his vision is bad. Not correct. He's just not getting the opportunity to display it because he receives the hand-off and immediately has to drag a defender. The rare opportunities where we give him an inch of breathing room, he's actually making incredible reads, and seeing things very well, and making some ridiculous cuts. He has an unbelievable side-jump. He makes guys miss in the tightest of spaces. He's also picking up his blocks on pass plays. He's a truly special runner... our line just isn't allowing anyone to see it.

                  As opposed to Addai, a guy who someone compared to TRich. Addai had better run-blocking in front of him... and routinely hesitated, danced around, didn't make the right read, didn't see the hole, couldn't drag any defenders, and ran north/south way too much. He also would then do the opposite and have a nice run. He was way too inconsistent. The difference between what I see in the skillsets of TRich and Addai is gulf-sized. TRich is 4X the player Addai was.

                  I also read TRich's individual make-up.... and he's aces across the board. I said the same thing about Luck almost two years ago and a lot of people thought I was being a tad overzealous. Trent may not be on Luck's level, but no one is, in my mind. Luck is the LeBron James of the NFL. But Trent Richardson is waaay up there in terms of overall football skills. He's got a lot of tremendous assets at his disposal. We're just not getting the opportunity to see it.

                  About the only thing he's not done as well as I expected is catch the ball. I still think that'll come, he's shown the ability to do it, I think it's just been such a rough going for him to start here in Indy that he's a little rattled. I do hope that, with the loss of RWayne, Luck works with TRich to give him more targets in the passing game... get TRich out in space and allow him to do what he does best. There's been surprisingly little of this thus far, and perhaps Wayne going down will bring more emphasis to this. We obviously need another target to catch the ball.

                  (I'm actually of the mind that we *should* be able to absorb the loss of Wayne... we have some assets still, unbelievably. TRich could be a part of that).
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-23-2013, 01:32 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

                  • #879
                    Re: Colts-Broncos

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I see right after me posting yards after contact still can't be brought into the numbers you look at, which is my exact point. Instead of focusing on just yards per carry, how about taking a deeper look into the stats? You might actually see a trend.
                    Your point is that I won't look at your numbers and accept them as the sole reason things are the way they are? There are a myriad of different reasons (some very legitimate, some not as much) why Richardson has struggled thus far in his NFL career. You seem to be ignoring my main, overarching point that I will continue to pound into the ground: My biggest problem with Trent Richardson is that he came with a first round price tag. If we have such a crappy offensive line (and I think we all agree that we do), then why not use that pick on upgrading the line? I realize we have had bad luck with injuries along the line but so have a lot of other teams in the league; it's part of the game. If our line can't block for any running back, why not go with our mediocre guys, save the incredibly valuable first round pick, and go from there?

                    Comment

                    • #880
                      Re: Colts-Broncos

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      Your point is that I won't look at your numbers and accept them as the sole reason things are the way they are?
                      I'd settle for you to give an well thought out explanation as to why you think he ought to be able to overcome getting hit in the back field on pretty much every single play. If you actually have reasons that it isn't that big of an impact, I'm all ears, but right now you don't even address them, you just call them excuses and march right along.
                      “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment

                      • #881
                        Re: Colts-Broncos

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        cdash.... respect ya.... but you are classically looking at things superficially. You watch a play unfold, you see a back get stuffed for 1 yard loss. You look at stats and see a back is averaging 3 ypc, and 40 yds a game. This is what a lot of people do. They then look at his last stop, and see his stats were similar. Our run game is 8th in the league in yardage. Without diving into it, a conclusion is drawn --- this dude sucks. We lost the trade.

                        The articles linked in the last few pages are proving *exactly* what I've been saying. You have to look at the context. I see Rich get stuffed, I see his stats be low, and so I start scrutinizing what's actually happening. I'm LOOKING at everything --- the execution of the line, the defensive formation, the post-snap actions, TRich himself.

                        It became obvious *quickly* that TRich is doing surprisingly well with what he's been given, which is literally, damn near nothing. Our line is getting owned.... repeatedly. And it's to be expected --- we had a bad line last year, and we've lost multiple lineman this year. Just makes sense that our line is the weak link.

                        I'd be way more concerned if I looked at the unfolding plays, saw there were plenty of holes and opportunities, and Rich just wasn't making the right decisions... he was taking the wrong cuts, making the wrong reads. But he's not. The line is allowing defenders through almost immediately. The holes that are "supposed" to be there, aren't. The down-field blocks he's supposed to be getting --- blown up. He's getting hit generally before the line of scrimmage, by multiple defenders. Someone said he goes down immediately ---- wrong. He generally drags multiple defenders his way another yard or two despite being all of 5'9". Someone said his vision is bad. Not correct. He's just not getting the opportunity to display it because he receives the hand-off and immediately has to drag a defender. The rare opportunities where we give him an inch of breathing room, he's actually making incredible reads, and seeing things very well, and making some ridiculous cuts. He has an unbelievable side-jump. He makes guys miss in the tightest of spaces. He's also picking up his blocks on pass plays. He's a truly special runner... our line just isn't allowing anyone to see it.

                        As opposed to Addai, a guy who someone compared to TRich. Addai had better run-blocking in front of him... and routinely hesitated, danced around, didn't make the right read, didn't see the hole, couldn't drag any defenders, and ran north/south way too much. He also would then do the opposite and have a nice run. He was way too inconsistent.

                        I also read his individual make-up.... and he's aces across the board. I said the same thing about Luck almost two years ago and a lot of people thought I was being a tad overzealous. Trent may not be on Luck's level, but no one is, in my mind. Luck is the LeBron James of the NFL. But Trent Richardson is waaay up there in terms of overall football skills. He's got a lot of tremendous assets at his disposal. We're just not getting the opportunity to see it.

                        About the only thing he's not done as well as I expected is catch the ball. I still think that'll come, he's shown the ability to do it, I think it's just been such a rough going for him to start here in Indy that he's a little rattled. I do hope that, with the loss of RWayne, Luck works with TRich to give him more targets in the passing game... get TRich out in space and allow him to do what he does best. There's been surprisingly little of this thus far, and perhaps Wayne going down will bring more emphasis to this. We obviously need another target to catch the ball.

                        (I'm actually of the mind that we *should* be able to absorb the loss of Wayne... we have some assets still, unbelievably. TRich could be a part of that).
                        I've watched that movie for a year and a half now. Different teams, different personnel, different excuses, exact same results. I was being 100% serious when I told you guys to toss out some names at me of running backs who you think suck, and I will counter with an argument as to why they are a victim of their circumstances.

                        Comment

                        • #882
                          Re: Colts-Broncos

                          Well, I understand this is the group-think in the NFL right now, about running backs being a dime a dozen, but I don't agree with it. He was worth what we paid for him... but our line needs to be rescued.
                          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

                          • #883
                            Re: Colts-Broncos

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            I've watched that movie for a year and a half now. Different teams, different personnel, different excuses, exact same results. I was being 100% serious when I told you guys to toss out some names at me of running backs who you think suck, and I will counter with an argument as to why they are a victim of their circumstances.
                            I'm not going to play that game, because it's stupid, and I have better things to do, lol. I don't need anyone to tell me what I know I'm looking at. You're trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip, though, if you expect any RB in this league to produce behind our sieve of a line.
                            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

                            • #884
                              Re: Colts-Broncos

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              I'd settle for you to give an well thought out explanation as to why you think he ought to be able to overcome getting hit in the back field on pretty much every single play. If you actually have reasons that it isn't that big of an impact, I'm all ears, but right now you don't even address them, you just call them excuses and march right along.
                              I honestly think part of the reason for that is that he a) Lacks great vision and b) He dances around in the backfield and doesn't hit the holes fast enough when they are there. The blocking for him sucks, I grant you that, but he seems to be very indecisive when he gets the ball a lot of the time. Is that because there isn't a hole and he is trying to process where to take the ball? I don't know, I'm sure that plays a role. I think he lacks the speed to become a big play threat, which I realize isn't why we got him but with a first round price tag, it would be nice to see a guy be able to churn out some big plays now and again. Which is a point I would now like you to address: If our offensive line is the main culprit here, then why trade a first round pick for a running back when you can get amazingly similar production for a guy you could sign off the waiver wire?

                              Comment

                              • #885
                                Re: Colts-Broncos

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                If our offensive line is the main culprit here, then why trade a first round pick for a running back when you can get amazingly similar production for a guy you could sign off the waiver wire?
                                I've answered this from the very beginning. Donald Brown. He cannot be trusted as a main back, for blocking purposes. I bet they want to address their line problems through FA, as opposed to the draft. Using those two simple assumptions, it's pretty easy to come up with why.

                                So it's Trent's lack of vision that causes him to get hit behind the line of scrimmage? Seriously? Most of the running plays, that I see, are straight forward runs because they're trying to run inbetween the guard and the tackle. They're designed runs into a specific hole, so I'm not sure why his lack of speed or vision is what is causing the hole to get shut down.
                                Last edited by Since86; 10-23-2013, 01:45 PM.
                                “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 9 49 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 template Next
                                Working...
                                X