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

Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

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

  • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

    If you're going to use a high octane offense then you better have a defense that can stop the run to some degree or else the other teams will figure out the trick is to keep you off the field and take advantage of the fact you can't stop the run and simply demoralize you by taking advantage of that. During the Manning era the team was so bad at stopping the run that it became the team's Achilles heel. The team sold out so much to the idea that other teams would be playing from behind and throwing the ball that they effectively funneled teams right into playing the perfect offense to beat us. We didn't have the horses (pardon the pun) to adjust to a grind it out game. And we couldn't always play the perfect offensive game (bad throws, drops, bad reads, bad routes, bad calls, good defensive play) to sustain drives or score enough points on limited opportunities. A recipe that was really tough come playoff time and with tougher matchups.

    So it looks like we've worked to correct that flaw... but thrown a wet blanket on the offense. So we've still not exactly gotten a handle on balancing things and taking advantage of our assets.
    Last edited by Bball; 09-19-2014, 01:20 PM.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      I'd say it is at least better than average. The only bad period we had was the first 1.5 quarters against Denver. Again... against Denver. In Denver. First game of the season, prime time. It's not all that hard to realize what we had going against us.

      If you honestly feel that our defense under pagano isn't largely better than the decade before that, I don't know what else to tell ya. It's better, quite a bit. People just gotta *****.

      I'm telling you all... this is a pretty good team. We've had a helluva hard start to the season. Our only true problem areas are o line and our coordinator.

      Yeah the defense under Pagano is largely better than what we had for most of the previous decade, but that's like shopping for a new car and using a 1988 Ford Taurus as the benchmark for quality. I want to compare a new car to the 2014 models, not an old beat up junker.

      The defense under Pagano has been "OK" at best. In 2013, it was 20th in total yards. 13th in passing yards. 26th in rushing yards. 9th in points.

      Overall, those stats weren't that good, especially when you consider that we played six games against a laughably putrid division AND had the best defensive player in the AFC. Points and passing yards were OK, but total yards and rushing sucked. We had our moments against San Francisco and a good chunk of the Broncos game, but then we had multiple moments where we were downright awful, such as Arizona, @ Houston, and that KC playoff game where we allowed Alex Smith to look like a Drew Brees/Michael Vick hybrid beast.

      This season? We were good in the second half against Denver, but that was after allowing the Broncos to shred us for 24 first half points which put us behind the 8 ball. Tough to win when you're in that sort of hole. Against the Eagles, we allowed just 4 less points than Jacksonville did against them, and that was with a missed FG and several botched passing plays. We've had elite corner play and have looked better than expected against the run, but the middle of our defense has been a major weakness so far.

      And if Pep is a bad OC, then that is a Pagano problem too. Pep serves at the pleasure of Pagano. If Pagano isn't telling him to shape up, then that's a head coaching failure.

      If we're going to have a head coach who wants to drive an Indy car quarterback 100 MPH down the straightaways, then the payoff should at least be a defense than is in the upper echelon of the NFL. That's what Pagano was hired for. I'm just not seeing it yet. It's been OK, but it should be better than OK considering the offensive shortcomings that Pagano brings to the table.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-19-2014, 01:41 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Yeah the defense under Pagano is largely better than what we had for most of the previous decade, but that's like shopping for a new car and using a 1988 Ford Taurus as the benchmark for quality. I want to compare a new car to the 2014 models, not an old beat up junker.

        The defense under Pagano has been "OK" at best. In 2013, it was 20th in total yards. 13th in passing yards. 26th in rushing yards. 9th in points.

        Overall, those stats weren't that good, especially when you consider that we played six games against a laughably putrid division AND had the best defensive player in the AFC. Points and passing yards were OK, but total yards and rushing sucked. We had our moments against San Francisco and a good chunk of the Broncos game, but then we had multiple moments where we were downright awful, such as Arizona, @ Houston, and that KC playoff game where we allowed Alex Smith to look like a Drew Brees/Michael Vick hybrid beast.

        This season? We were good in the second half against Denver, but that was after allowing the Broncos to shred us for 24 first half points which put us behind the 8 ball. Tough to win when you're in that sort of hole. Against the Eagles, we allowed just 4 less points than Jacksonville did against them, and that was with a missed FG and several botched passing plays. We've had elite corner play and have looked better than expected against the run, but the middle of our defense has been a major weakness so far.

        And if Pep is a bad OC, then that is a Pagano problem too. Pep serves at the pleasure of Pagano. If Pagano isn't telling him to shape up, then that's a head coaching failure.

        If we're going to have a head coach who wants to drive an Indy car quarterback 100 MPH down the straightaways, then the payoff should at least be a defense than is in the upper echelon of the NFL. That's what Pagano was hired for. I'm just not seeing it yet. It's been OK, but it should be better than OK considering the offensive shortcomings that Pagano brings to the table.
        Getting awful picky and demanding lol.

        Ill say it again --- get this line in shape and get Pep to develop a Tom Moore philosophy (get out of the quarterbacks way) and we'll be just fine.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Getting awful picky and demanding lol.
          Using basic defensive stats is "picky and demanding"?
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-19-2014, 01:57 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Using basic defensive stats is "picky and demanding"?
            9th in points is more important than all the others and is more than average. Focus on the offense man.

            Also since you like to point out Denver's first half, don't conveniently forget how fast our offense was getting off the field and putting Peyton in great scoring opportunities. We couldn't get anywhere on offense... first four possessions were punt, INT, punt, punt, average of 3 plays per possession, we had 130 yards of offense in the first half. The offense was taking a minute and a half off the clock before giving the ball back. Defense was getting no breaks in that mile-high air. Once our offense got into a flow and gave our D a breather, the D did just fine.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-19-2014, 02:02 PM.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              9th in points is more important than all the others and is more than average. Focus on the offense man.

              Also since you like to point out Denver's first half, don't conveniently forget how fast our offense was getting off the field and putting Peyton in great scoring opportunities. We couldn't get anywhere on offense... first four possessions were punt, INT, punt, punt, average of 3 plays per possession, we had 130 yards of offense in the first half. The offense was taking a minute and a half off the clock before giving the ball back. Defense was getting no breaks in that mile-high air. Once our offense got into a flow and gave our D a breather, the D did just fine.
              I think focusing on points (at least over a full season) is fine as a first rough indicator, but of course if we apply that across the board saying these defenses were better than the Manning Colts defenses doesn't work. Those defenses were 2nd in points allowed per game in 2005, 1st in 2007, 7th in 2008, 8th in 2009, etc.

              I would agree that the defense has not had a fair test yet. But there are worrying signs. Last year they were 15th in takeaways with 27. This year they have 1 through two games. They didn't get a single sack against Philadelphia's injured offensive line, and have a total of 1 through two games in that department as well. That could be because of the offenses they've faced (although those numbers are low even accounting for that) but it also lines up with what is seen as the main weakness of the defense.

              The concern about the defense is that it has such a low ceiling. It has no chance of being a top 5 unit because of the lack of pass rush. And if a couple of injuries happen and the run defense regresses to where it was last year, it has the potential to be quite bad. The offense is more of a slightly above league average unit with potential for quite a bit more.

              Comment


              • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                I think we are being a bit hard on the defense. Yes it is probably around a league average defense, but you can't really fault them if Foles leaves points on the field. I think we're still all a bit spoiled from the Peyton years — there are very few great NFL QBs and many starters miss some throws and leave points on the field every week.

                I did expect the defense to be better at those point in Pagano's tenure, but I am willing to give this regime another year to make it, say, consistently in the top third of the league in most indicators.

                Comment


                • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                  I think focusing on points (at least over a full season) is fine as a first rough indicator, but of course if we apply that across the board saying these defenses were better than the Manning Colts defenses doesn't work. Those defenses were 2nd in points allowed per game in 2005, 1st in 2007, 7th in 2008, 8th in 2009, etc.
                  Points allowed and points scored matter the most, by far. I've never heard anyone offer the opinion that they lost last weeks game 480 yards to 320 yards.

                  Yes, more often than not, the Manning era Colts had above average regular season defenses, often top 10 defenses, and in one case the #1 defense.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                    It's not helping that in Luck's first season he had Arians at the helm and let us all see what the potential could easily be.... Then Hamilton comes in and slaps a governor on the offense and doesn't seem to want to take advantage of the assets we have.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                      Does anyone else think that if we don't get the horse collar call on Landy that the outcome would be different? Had to be one of the worst calls I had seen since back in the 1990's and the Marino non-fumble.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                        Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                        Does anyone else think that if we don't get the horse collar call on Landy that the outcome would be different? Had to be one of the worst calls I had seen since back in the 1990's and the Marino non-fumble.
                        Hell ya I think that. We had 3-4 just terrible calls go against us in the late stages. Then all the talking heads are talking about Philly's "resolve" and huge comeback... was totally not possible without the refs.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                          We had chances after the refs ****ed us. We didn't take advantage of them, Philly did. Blaming the refs is weak.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            We had chances after the refs ****ed us. We didn't take advantage of them, Philly did. Blaming the refs is weak.
                            **** happens. Saying it had no impact on the game isn't correct. Sure we could've won still. Didnt though. And it sucks when a team loses a game when there were very questionable calls made against 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


                            • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              **** happens. Saying it had no impact on the game isn't correct. Sure we could've won still. Didnt though. And it sucks when a team loses a game when there were very questionable calls made against them.
                              Oh I'm not saying it didn't have an impact, but that **** happens every week in the NFL. It's part of the game. It sucks, but ultimately, the blame falls on the team and coaches.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 2: Colts vs Eagles

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                Points allowed and points scored matter the most, by far. I've never heard anyone offer the opinion that they lost last weeks game 480 yards to 320 yards.

                                Yes, more often than not, the Manning era Colts had above average regular season defenses, often top 10 defenses, and in one case the #1 defense.
                                You act as if the regular season matters come postseason. All that is thrown out the window come playoffs. The Colts had the worst run defense in NFL history for the regular season and won the SB that year.

                                So really those stats for above average regular season defenses are very skewed considering we played in a bad division much like your Pats played in.

                                That being said as far as this era's Colts yes our defense is bad but so is the offense I think people need to realize that this is the team with Grigson's guys and the last two years had some leftovers from the old regime like Bethea, Powers etc those guys are gone along with Mathis for an entire season and Wayne is also near the end as well. This is a glimpse of our future when this team has no depth and busts on picks.

                                The coaching doesn't help either but you need talent to coach as well.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X