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

The Official Trent Richardson Thread

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

  • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

    I'm not tossing out his good games. I'm simply looking at the games he's started... at the games that he's played that #1 back role. You do grasp what I'm saying about the role, right? About a set list of ill-fated plays that Back #1 always runs?

    I'm not blaming Boom... I'm blaming the system. I feel like a stuck record-player...
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-15-2015, 12:26 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


    • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      I'm not tossing out his good games. I'm simply looking at the games he's started... at the games that he's played that #1 back role. You do grasp what I'm saying about the role, right? About a set list of plays that Back #1 always runs?
      I understand you are using the games he has started in, I disagree you are using the games where he played the #1 role though. Boom has played the #1 role in games where he hasn't started is my point. Is there a source that says the starter and back-up get different play calls and don't run similar plays?

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

        BCC........ man..... disregard all that. The last four games, Boom has had almost all of the carries. It does not matter one iota what Trent did during that time --- he basically didn't play. There was no role separation between the two. Boom was the undisputed #1 back during the last four games -- and he had 3.02 YPC. That is all you need to focus on to grasp my point. Boom moved into that #1 role indisputedly... there is no question. And his YPC dropped. Are we there yet?

        And see my reply to cdash above about a source. The real question for me is why you guys think that in a 2-back complimentary system, they would run the exact same plays for both backs. Nothing like making it easier for a defense to game plan for you by cutting the playbook in half.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-15-2015, 12:37 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


        • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          BCC........ man..... disregard all that. The last four games, Boom has had almost all of the carries. It does not matter one iota what Trent did during that time --- he basically didn't play. There was no role separation between the two. Boom was the undisputed #1 back during the last four games -- and he had 3.02 YPC. That is all you need to focus on to grasp my point. Boom moved into that #1 role indisputedly... there is no question. And his YPC dropped. Are we there yet?

          And see my reply to cdash above about a source. The real question for me is why you guys think that in a 2-back complimentary system, they would run the exact same plays for both backs.
          Yes I understand he was the #1 guy the last few games and has a 3.0 YPC average, what I'm saying though is he had played a #1 role earlier in the season and has put up good numbers too. I'm saying you need to look at more than just the last few games. This all comes down to we disagree on what a #1 role is.

          And obviously I didn't expect them to both run the exact same plays, but I would expect them to both run typical runs. I.e. Stretches, powers, Sweeps, Etc.
          Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 01-15-2015, 12:40 AM. Reason: B to

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

            I'm headin to bed y'all, we'll put the gloves back on in the morning whenever I get out of my meetings. Been fun.
            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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              I'm headin to bed y'all, we'll put the gloves back on in the morning whenever I get out of my meetings. Been fun.
              Lol i need to do the same

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                Yes I understand he was the #1 guy the last few games and has a 3.0 YPC average, what I'm saying though is he had played a #1 role earlier in the season and has put up good numbers too. I'm saying you need to look at more than just the last few games. This all comes down to we disagree on what a #1 role is.

                And obviously I didn't expect them to both run the exact same plays, but I would expect them to both run typical runs. I.e. Stretches, powers, Sweeps, Etc.
                Don't forget, Boom hardly even touched the field prior to Ahmad's injury, and when he did get injured, they surely wouldn't have put the unproven Boom in the #1 role above Trent. He had 22 total carries on the season heading into Week 12. Boom's ascent has been pretty steep. People might have forgotten that.

                So no, I'd say it's safe to assume that Boom's stints as the #1 back are basically the five games we've established. I even dispute the Jax game... Trent still had more carries that game, so I'm not entirely sure they had put Boom in the #1 role that game. That might've just been going with more offspeed plays because of the situation.

                Alright, goin to bed for real, now.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  I've seen one too many of these from Trent to ever believe he has good enough vision to be successful at the NFL level






                  https://twitter.com/PriscoCBS/status...690560/photo/1
                  Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/Hookjaw_Rox

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                    Right, let's link gifs from a year ago and a month after he had been traded mid-season as proof that all he does is make the wrong read. He definitely made the wrong read there; I don't see him doing that to near the degree you are indicating here. Every back will make wrong reads.
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-15-2015, 09:15 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


                    • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Don't forget, Boom hardly even touched the field prior to Ahmad's injury, and when he did get injured, they surely wouldn't have put the unproven Boom in the #1 role above Trent. He had 22 total carries on the season heading into Week 12. Boom's ascent has been pretty steep. People might have forgotten that.

                      So no, I'd say it's safe to assume that Boom's stints as the #1 back are basically the five games we've established. I even dispute the Jax game... Trent still had more carries that game, so I'm not entirely sure they had put Boom in the #1 role that game. That might've just been going with more offspeed plays because of the situation.

                      Alright, goin to bed for real, now.
                      Trent was playing above Boom because management had yet to give up on Trent, even though it was obvious in the pre-season that Boom was better. Benching Trent meant that Grigson failed on that trade, which is kind of embarrassing. Colt continued to play Trent as long as possible, just to see if he would produce. Trent did start the year well, but gradually got worse and worse. Finally, the Colts had no choice but to finally give up on the Trent Richardson experiment.
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Right, let's link gifs from a year ago and a month after he had been traded mid-season as proof that all he does is make the wrong read. He definitely made the wrong read there; I don't see him doing that to near the degree you are indicating here. Every back will make wrong reads.
                        The first one is against the Redskins this season.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          So gifs are proof of how bad Trent's vision is, will gifs prove just how awful the OLine is? I've got a whole lot of gifs lined up, but I'm not going to waste my time if more double standards are going to be applied.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                            If we have a poll on which back should get the majority of carries please mark me down for Boom Herron please.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So gifs are proof of how bad Trent's vision is, will gifs prove just how awful the OLine is? I've got a whole lot of gifs lined up, but I'm not going to waste my time if more double standards are going to be applied.
                              Nobody is arguing the O-line couldn't be better. The argument is that TRich is the only RB that consistently fails to produce at all behind it. Don't give me YPC... look at it on a run by run basis. There's no comparison to the number of times anybody but Trent has a decent run. Look at Trent when he runs and watch the lack of burst and slow (and bad) decisions. That explains why Trent is always our worst running option. I don't know why that stuff exists, I just know it does. But that also means the line isn't the root of the problem. If we improved the line, Trent's flaws will still be there and the door should be open to anybody but Trent to take a larger advantage of it. In fact, some of the lines' problems should theoretically improve if we improve the consistency of the RBs... which does seem to be improving after we took Trent out of the equation.

                              We shouldn't have to have the best line in the league just so our RB can look mediocre. Which seems to be Trent's ceiling right now when you watch him run.
                              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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                So I was thinking about all this and I realize that perhaps I'm talking about concepts that people don't understand... So I thought I'd try to articulate these. Please read thoroughly what I'm about to say, I think it will help people understand.

                                -----------
                                There's the depth chart. It's a ranking of backs on the team. I don't think there's much confusion about how the depth chart works, so I won't continue here.

                                -----------
                                Now, it's become apparent to me that a lot of you think of the RB position as one role, and that we simply rotate in RBs on a basis of keeping them fresh. And hence, these RBs all run the exact same plays. So as Back #1 gets fatigued, they then sub him out for Back #2, etc, so forth and so on. The offense doesn't change; they are running the same plays, just a different back.

                                Using this logic, it's very easy for someone to just do a direct comparison of the RBs and say "Alright, RB#1 had X.XX YPC, and RB #2 had X.XX YPC.... RB #2 is clearly the better RB, because all things are equal and he's doing better in the exact same system. It's also easy to assume that because one back got more carries than another, that he was the "main back" for that game.

                                I'm not saying that teams don't utilize such a system... but there's a few reasons that would lend one to think that it would be non-ideal for a team at this level to do so. #1, it's cutting your playbook in half, and therefore giving you offensive inflexibility. Right? Your playbook is smaller, and therefore gives you less options to counter defensive looks. #2, it makes it easier for defenses to gameplan against your offense, because they know that you're only running so many plays and changing the back doesn't impact your playcalls.

                                Now, a team could get away with doing a simplified run play book *If* they had the right things in place --- namely a studly offensive line. Having one of those allows you to dictate where you run the ball. A well-executed offensive line that wins every snap cana run the ball wherever they want, and therefore, they don't need a complicated run playbook. This year, the Dallas Cowboys were an example of this. Their O line was amazing, and DeMarco Murray is a beast. Defenses know exactly where Dallas is going to run, and they can do nothing to stop it. They were in the same run base most of the time.

                                The Colts are not the Cowboys. The Colts have had huge O line issues. This system is not an option for Indy.
                                --------------

                                There are other systems. The one I believe the Colts use is a 2-back complimentary system. It's based on the concept of roles. There is the #1 back.. and the #2 back. These guys get the bulk of the carries. Any backs further down the depth chart are literally backups.

                                In a role-based run offense, the coordinator defines roles.

                                In the Colts offense, the role of the #1 back has a set of plays. The role of #2 has another set of plays. It's entirely possible that the roles have some overlapping plays. But there will also be unique plays to each role. It's also possible that a certain role gets called upon in certain situations, and the other role gets called upon in other situations, based on whatever look the defense is giving them.

                                You should now be seeing how there could be a fairly significant difference in context for each role. It might look like the same plays to you from a high-level, but us Joe schmoes on the couch likely don't know the looks, the tricks, the switches that all happen dynamically in real-time that the players and coaches are privy to on the field.

                                These roles are also tailored to the chess game that goes on throughout the course of the game. It all plays into what the defense is giving you, what you had just tried to run in previous possessions --- it's all about finding the advantage on each possession, even between plays... about setting up a defense and forcing them to move their pieces around. The roles also have advantages towards certain types of defenses. In this manner, it's entirely possible that the #2 back could get more snaps throughout a particular game. It's also possible that a #2 back could *start* the game. It doesn't mean he's running the plays of the #1 back... it just means that in this game, Pep decided to throw the defense a curveball and open the game with a different look to throw them off.

                                That previous paragraph was extremely important, so I hope folks followed me through that.
                                -------------

                                So that said, the team goes about finding backs that fit the roles that have been defined. In the Colts offense, the role of the #1 back, like I've been saying, isn't a fun one. There's a lot of pass protection... a lot of runs up the gut for little gain... it's Pep's idea of setting up the defense so that they can then have the defense draw guys into the box and out of the secondary so that Andrew can then go downfield. It's why Pep always came out trying to establish a run, and people complained about it when it didn't work (because our line has been so f'n bad).
                                It's also apparent to me that the role of the #2 back in this system is based more on quickness and getting out into space for surprise chunks. It's all also part of the chess match. After having drawn guys up into the box using the #1 back for a few snaps, it now frees up a little bit of space downfield and beyond the line of scrimmage. They can now attempt to throw the ball downfield or dump the ball off to the back in the flat. If they do this successfully, this now draws the defense out again to a different spot, which then opens up other areas of the field.

                                It's this back and forth chess match that is the key component of everything. The defense aligns in such a way; the offense tries to change it. Once the defense adjusts to compensate, the offense then goes elsewhere, forcing the defense to once again adjust. This can take place almost any time... from play-to-play... from possession-to-possession. And that is why Pep is always switching out the backs.

                                -------------
                                So with all that laid out, I think I can now start going into who's been in what role. I'm going to disregard last season and just focus on this one. It's my belief that since Week 1, Trent Richardson has occupied that #1 role on this team. Ahmad Bradshaw occupired the #2 up until Week 12, when he got injured. That's when Boom moved into Ahmad's role. It remained in this formation from Week 12 to Week 16, at which point, the team decided to go with Boom as the #1.

                                Now going back to what I said earlier in this post... in this system, the #2 back can most certainly have more carries than the #1. And we saw this in that month-long span. Trent would get the most carries one game, and Boom would get the most carries another. This is normal under this system. It didn't mean Boom was the #1 back. It meant that Pep felt the #2 role had an advantage in that game and therefore he rode that.

                                In this system, the #1 back has almost always been out-produced, average-wise, by the #2 back.

                                Using that line of logic, you can now see what I mean by all of this. Trent ran the #1 role for 12 weeks, and he averaged 3.3ish YPC. Boom came in in Week 12 and was the #2 back, and he had an expected better YPC of 4+ in that #2 role. Right? That falls right in line with what we're saying about the #1 and #2 roles on this team.

                                Trent was demoted in Week 16 and Boom promoted to #1, meaning he was now in a different set of play calls. At that point in time, Boom's production immediately dropped exactly to where I thought it would --- mid 3's.
                                ------------

                                The only back I've seen come into that #1 role and see decent production is Ahmad. But he can't stay healthy.
                                ------------

                                This is why myself and Since86 have been saying for so long that the problem is not the backs --- it's the system. It's why we got so frustrated when Trent was doing what we felt was actually alright in that God-forsaken #1 role which dooms that back to fail. It's also why we've seen Boom drop in production. What we're looking for is that #1 role to be fixed.

                                Now, that said, because this O line has dogged all season, the coaching staff is likely 1) taking heat from above, and 2) trying to change things up to fix what they perceive as a problem, 3) looking for a fall guy to try to put take some of the attention off of themselves. The problem is, unfortunately, their system..... and switching the backs won't achieve anything accept see Trent get moved elsewhere, which I think is probably what's going to happen.

                                This is entire premise. You guys think we're trying to prop Trent up irrationally... we're not. We're trying to say that Trent isn't doing as bad as you think, because he's been put into a position that fails. Boom now has that position and his production is actually below Trent's as a #1.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-15-2015, 10:27 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

                                Working...
                                X