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

2015 NFL Draft Thread

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

  • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

    I forgot to make my intended point...

    The Bill Polian Era fell and it fell hard HARD. His last few years in terms of the draft were brutal. But it happens. Look what Donnie Walsh did in his prime... then look at what he did in his later years. It happens.

    Comment


    • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

      Just read this on USA Today. The Bucs gm says the Eagles tried to trade up to #1. There were rumors about them wanting to trade up but should he be confirming that? Seems like bad form to me.

      Philadelphia Eagles coach/czar Chip Kelly tried to get all the way up from No. 20 in last week's draft to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' No. 1 pick to grab Marcus Mariota. But the Bucs never wavered on Jameis Winston as their guy.

      "There was communication with them,'' Bucs general manager Jason Licht told USA TODAY Sports on Saturday. "We definitely didn't think twice about it.''
      ...
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...ston/27052859/

      Comment


      • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

        Originally posted by dgranger17 View Post

        To be honest I've only read about 9 posts on this thread with the majority of those being from Heisenberg, but I'll assume some or most don't like the Dorsett pick. This pick is another reason I love the evolution of Grigson. He knows we won't be able to pay TY when his contract is up. It's simple economics. We're about to pay Luck $1 billion. We can't afford a big time WR. We have to build through the draft in order to maintain balance because Luck, one or two offensive lineman, and maybe three defensive players are all this team needs in terms of big money guys. Luck can make any WR average at worst. If we can grab a WR in the first round of the draft, we have him for four years on a relatively cheap deal with a team option for a fifth year. We're set this year. Who gives a **** about this year. As long as Luck doesn't Paul George his leg, this team is in the Super Bowl. We need to worry about next year and beyond. That's what Griggy has done.

        In Larry and Ryan I Trust.
        The problem is that Hilton is at worst the Colt's 4th best/most important player (Luck, Davis, Castanzo). If you look at the next 2-3 years, what other player on the Colts roster is going to be worth paying big money to? They don't have anybody else. You don't lose impact talent unless it's to keep other impact talent. The Colts don't have it, and they don't have anybody coming down the pipeline. And when you select a wide receiver in the first, that also makes it more likely that it will take you even longer to find a big money guy at another position.

        I do agree that the Colts will have to build through the draft primarily. And I do agree that WR isn't necessarily the first place you want to have your impact talents when you have a great QB. The Colts can't be choosy right now, their top talents are too scarce. And you can keep at least 4-6 impact players on your roster even when your QB is taking up tons of cap room. The Colts should be primarily drafting defensively to replace some of their overpaid players on that side of the ball while keeping their few young impact players they have. If Dorsett is an impact player, they should keep Hilton anyway and decide what to do in 3-4 years when they get a couple others to pay.

        Comment


        • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

          Originally posted by Strummer View Post
          Just read this on USA Today. The Bucs gm says the Eagles tried to trade up to #1. There were rumors about them wanting to trade up but should he be confirming that? Seems like bad form to me.


          http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...ston/27052859/
          I mean chip said they looked into it, 1 and 2, but never came close to doing it. I think the media really overplayed this one.

          Comment


          • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

            Originally posted by dgranger17 View Post
            I like a lot of what you've been saying over the last couple pages of this thread, but I'm going to focus on this one to start...

            Without question, the Polian era was huge. The Polian era (aka Peyton) damn near literally built the city. What pisses me off is how Peyton is getting yet another excuse made for him. Peyton was the team. He got all the love when we won (which was fairly often), but it was everybody else's fault when we lost. He throws a pick six in the Super Bowl, Hank Baskett lost the game. He throws approximately 11 interceptions against San Diego on either Sunday or Monday night (without looking, I'll guess Monday night), but Vinatieri misses a game winning field goal so it's the kickers fault. He "only" wins one Super Bowl, but it's Polian's fault. It's all ********.

            And we're already there with Luck. He has arguably the worst game of his career, given the circumstances it's easily the worst game of his young career, but it's the deflated footballs fault we got blown out. Excuses are constantly made for our franchise QB, but the fans can never put the blame on that QB. I get it, but it's still ridiculous. If he's the reason we win, he's also the reason we lose.


            To some of your other points, I do agree about Grigson's previous horrible free agency record. But what I like about Griggy is that he's learned from those mistakes. I was a nervous wreck prior to the opening of free agency because of his past. But that guy owned up to his mistakes and improved his decision making. He cut the guys he shouldn't have signed in the first place and he didn't make those same mistakes again this offseason. He signed legit veterans to reasonable contracts. I was incredibly relieved when it was all said and done. This team has a chance at three or five Super Bowls by the time the ball drops on 2026. I mean that too. The free agency period was a win now moment. This draft was a let's keep it going for another decade moment. As long as Luck stays upright, this team is going to be truly special. Enjoy the ride.

            To be honest I've only read about 9 posts on this thread with the majority of those being from Heisenberg, but I'll assume some or most don't like the Dorsett pick. This pick is another reason I love the evolution of Grigson. He knows we won't be able to pay TY when his contract is up. It's simple economics. We're about to pay Luck $1 billion. We can't afford a big time WR. We have to build through the draft in order to maintain balance because Luck, one or two offensive lineman, and maybe three defensive players are all this team needs in terms of big money guys. Luck can make any WR average at worst. If we can grab a WR in the first round of the draft, we have him for four years on a relatively cheap deal with a team option for a fifth year. We're set this year. Who gives a **** about this year. As long as Luck doesn't Paul George his leg, this team is in the Super Bowl. We need to worry about next year and beyond. That's what Griggy has done.

            In Larry and Ryan I Trust.
            While I agree with a lot of this post, I disagree that the QB wins and loses the game for a team. While the QB is a big part of winning and losing, we've seen so many times that a well balanced team with good coaching will always defeat a team that is totally dependent on their QB.

            Comment


            • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              Relative?
              Yes, relative.

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              Its distance/time. Easily measured and viewed on tape. Certainly multiple software packages carry this for video footage. Why bring up Carter? He was there bc he had character issues. To me certain physical and mental aspects are not hard to figure out in the cfl. Just like you can easily see Steph Curry had an amazing jump shot in a terrible conference. Certain things are very translatable is my point.
              Yep, time is a variable that changes due to the talent/athleticism of the players involved, thus relative. No one questioned Curry's jumpshot, but they did question his ability to get his shot off with NBA defenders.

              Prior to announcing his return to Davidson for his junior year, one scouting report from DraftExpress.com praised Curry's shooting ability but projected him as a career backup guard in large part because he was too small to be a shooting guard and nobody knew if he could play point guard:
              "He can be prone to having his shot blocked, which is due to his size just as much as it’s due to him having to take so many closely contested shots every game ... There are many question marks surrounding his game at the next level, ranging from his size to his position to how his skills will translate in general, but his talent, clutch ability, and the intangibles he brings to the table are undeniable. It’s tough to project his role at the next level at this stage of his development, but even without dramatic improvement, a Jannero Pargo or Juan Carlos Navarro type role is not very much of a stretch. If he improves on his point guard skills or grows another inch or two while adding some strength, full-fledged careers at either the PG or SG position are not out of the picture."


              Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/steph...#ixzz3Zq0Ljtw4
              Last edited by Since86; 05-11-2015, 09:50 AM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Yes, relative.



                Yep, time is a variable that changes due to the talent/athleticism of the players involved, thus relative. No one questioned Curry's jumpshot, but they did question his ability to get his shot off with NBA defenders.
                Actually with Curry it was whether he could guard on defense more than his ability to get his shot off. Everyone recognized his quick release and his great ability to play off the ball and run off of screens. Not sure why you would say that really.

                As for Freeman to me again you are saying that translational speed can't be measured accurately which is just false and I think you are hanging your hat on the competition level while not realizing that scouts just don't look at the end product of the play. Freemans 4-8 steps speed into his coverage hasn't changed. His raw speed is the same and that is what I am calling translational and that is why its not dependent on competition because it happens before the TE/RB even finishes the route.

                Comment


                • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                  You've not been talking about raw speed. You've been talking about recovery speed, and the like. Raw speed has one variable, the person running. Recovery speed has two variables, the person running and who they're trying to recover to. Raw speed is measureable, which is why they measure it. Not to mention a players ability to read the play. You can have the fastest player on the field, and their speed not account for much if they're lost.

                  Reality is simple, no one knew how Freeman was going to turn out until he stepped on to the field. Raw speed is the deciding factor on whether or not a NFL player makes it, or the Colts wouldn't keep cutting Jeff Demps.

                  Freeman was an unknown. Regardless of whether or not you think it would translate, it still was an unknown. All I'm saying, without going back and forth over raw speed vs recovery speed, is that I'd like to see the Colts go after knowns.
                  Last edited by Since86; 05-11-2015, 11:00 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    You've not been talking about raw speed. You've been talking about recovery speed, and the like. Raw speed has one variable, the person running. Recovery speed has two variables, the person running and who they're trying to recover to. Raw speed is measureable, which is why they measure it. Not to mention a players ability to read the play. You can have the fastest player on the field, and their speed not account for much if they're lost.

                    Reality is simple, no one knew how Freeman was going to turn out until he stepped on to the field. Raw speed is the deciding factor on whether or not a NFL player makes it, or the Colts wouldn't keep cutting Jeff Demps.

                    Freeman was an unknown. Regardless of whether or not you think it would translate, it still was an unknown. All I'm saying, without going back and forth over raw speed vs recovery speed, is that I'd like to see the Colts go after knowns.
                    Since86 I will be straight with you. I am growing tired of this conversation. I originally started out clearly stating that Freeman had the athleticism to play in the NFL. I gave you coverage analogies that may have confused you on that point but in all of this to me it doesn't matter. Freeman was signed in the NFL by the Titans but like many guys wasn't given much of a chance since he played college ball at a small school and didn't have great height or weight for his position. He switched positions in the CFL and added 20lbs. IF you think Grigson is just signing anyone with a NFL body as a UDFA or CFLer and having very little info on their skill sets then I am sorry I disagree. I think he uses like every team the mini camps and OTA's and training camps. He put Freeman against fast NFL TE's during these training camps and decided that he indeed had what it took and these are the reasons why guys like Freeman go from a 90 man roster in May to a 53 man roster in late August.

                    If you want known's then that would be DQ. A sure tackler who twice lead the AFC in tackles like I have already said.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                      Top pick signed.




                      Still 2 to go.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                        Stephen Holder says Clayton Geathers is impressing at OTAs.

                        http://www.indystar.com/story/colts-...hers/28061761/

                        and Mike Wells has a similar article.
                        http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis...-for-the-colts
                        Last edited by Strummer; 05-28-2015, 02:52 PM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X