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

Potential Draft Picks for the Indianapolis Colts in the 2018 NFL Draft

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

  • Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

    It isn't dumb if only two QBs are drafted in the top 5. And it could happen if the Giants go all in with Manning, which their free agency suggests this. The Broncos might not draft a QB because they build a contending team through defense and low risk high efficient offense. The Browns might trade the 4th pick, I can see that more than any other.
    Let's be real: At the very, very least 3 quarterbacks are going in the top 5. I think likely 4, but even still, that's not a trade Buffalo can make in advance of the draft. The risk of trading up to get a quarterback and none being left in the game of musical chairs would have them sitting there with blue balls and egg on their face.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cdash View Post

      Let's be real: At the very, very least 3 quarterbacks are going in the top 5. I think likely 4, but even still, that's not a trade Buffalo can make in advance of the draft. The risk of trading up to get a quarterback and none being left in the game of musical chairs would have them sitting there with blue balls and egg on their face.
      It will be real when the players are picked. To think that there will be 3 QBs in the top 5 isn't a guarantee.

      2017- One QB
      2016- two
      2015- two
      2014- one
      2013- none
      2012- two
      2011- one
      2010- one
      2009- two
      2008- one
      2007- One
      2006- One
      2005- One
      2004- two
      2003- one
      2002- two
      2001- one
      2000- none
      1999-three

      Lets be real now. If you think it is a guarantee I say look at history, because what you claim to be a certainty fights against history.

      Comment


      • I think we could see a feeding frenzy of QBs at the top this year. First time I've seen this setup in a draft. We have a bunch of QB-needy teams, and 4 top-flight QBs, with a few others that are near that vicinity.

        We also have a few teams at the top with picks that didn't need a QB... the Colts for one, and one of Cleveland's picks, and arguably the Giants.

        Cleveland likely goes QB at #1, I think the Giants should go QB or trade-down to a team that will also likely draft a QB, the Jets are definitely taking a QB, and I'm pretty sure someone could offer Cleveland a package for #4 that they would have to seriously consider. There's 4 potential QBs in the first 4 picks. If not, however, who knows what Denver will do, they could also go QB.

        Really Indy is the first team that definitely won't go QB, and who knows, if one of the top 4 is still available at #6, Indy might even get another package. It's crazy how things are lining up this year. If a frenzy happens, there's going to be a bunch of teams in the late lottery with some top-tier non-QB prospects landing in their laps.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-29-2018, 03:47 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


        • Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

          It will be real when the players are picked. To think that there will be 3 QBs in the top 5 isn't a guarantee.

          2017- One QB
          2016- two
          2015- two
          2014- one
          2013- none
          2012- two
          2011- one
          2010- one
          2009- two
          2008- one
          2007- One
          2006- One
          2005- One
          2004- two
          2003- one
          2002- two
          2001- one
          2000- none
          1999-three

          Lets be real now. If you think it is a guarantee I say look at history, because what you claim to be a certainty fights against history.
          Sig bet. Name your wager. I guarantee at least 3 qbs, and I'm inclined to think it will be 4. There are more top shelf options at qb in this draft than any of those drafts you just piled together. Darnold, Allen, and Rosen will be top five picks, guaranteed.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by cdash View Post

            Sig bet. Name your wager. I guarantee at least 3 qbs, and I'm inclined to think it will be 4. There are more top shelf options at qb in this draft than any of those drafts you just piled together. Darnold, Allen, and Rosen will be top five picks, guaranteed.
            Sure why not. I will bet against Mel Kiper predicting four qbs in the first five picks. Iím not impressed with Darnold as the number one pick. I think his struggle in the bowl game knocks him out in place of Allen.

            Do do you want to bet on 4?

            Comment


            • do people not realize Josh Allen sucks? the dude owes half his rookie deal to Wentz.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                do people not realize Josh Allen sucks? the dude owes half his rookie deal to Wentz.
                Allen has by far the highest ceiling of all of the QBs in this years draft. Kiper has had him as the number one pick for many weeks. I don't know that Cleveland will take him because of the risk but if I were drafting a QB this year, Allen is who I would pick.

                Comment


                • Mel Kiper thought Ricky Stanzi would have the best career of the 2011 class (the one w/ Cam Newton). Mel Kiper thought Ryan Leaf's attitude would be an advantage. Mel Kiper said JaMarcus Russell was the next John Elway. Mel Kiper said he'd retire in 8 years (in 2010) if Jimmy Clausen wasn't a successful NFL QB.

                  Josh Allen sucks almost as much as Mel Kiper.

                  Comment


                  • Just to be clear: I'm basing none of this off Mel Kiper's opinion, not really sure why he was brought into the mix. Him and McShay are fine for what they do--bicker with one another and post mostly similar mock drafts. Scouting is a notoriously inexact science so I'm not going to skewer him for being wrong about certain dudes over the course of 30 or whatever years he's been doing this. He's just the most high profile so he gets the bulk of the vitriol.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

                      Sure why not. I will bet against Mel Kiper predicting four qbs in the first five picks. Iím not impressed with Darnold as the number one pick. I think his struggle in the bowl game knocks him out in place of Allen.

                      Do do you want to bet on 4?
                      No I'm only guaranteeing three. I think it will be four, but three is the number I feel very safe with.

                      I also find your criticism of Darnold a little curious--you knock him down a peg for struggling in a New Year's Five bowl game, and raise Allen up, while Allen was awful pretty much the entire year against middling competition. I agree with Heisenberg to some extent--the success of Carson Wentz has boosted Allen's profile tremendously.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by cdash View Post

                        No I'm only guaranteeing three. I think it will be four, but three is the number I feel very safe with.

                        I also find your criticism of Darnold a little curious--you knock him down a peg for struggling in a New Year's Five bowl game, and raise Allen up, while Allen was awful pretty much the entire year against middling competition. I agree with Heisenberg to some extent--the success of Carson Wentz has boosted Allen's profile tremendously.
                        Oh I'm not impressed with Allen either. And I agree that the Wentz effect will cause a team with a history of bad moves to make another. We are talking about the Browns. I personally don't think this QB is as great as people think. Their stock rose at the same time as other years.

                        With the Cardinals, Bills, and Miami wanting a quarterback I could see a trade in the top 5. In fact I think the Browns might trade down with the 4th pick. So I'll pass on it as well.

                        How about a top 5 wager.

                        1. Allen
                        2. Chubb
                        3. Darnold
                        4. Barkley
                        5. Nelson

                        You pick yours. +5 for every right pick and negative how much they slide or rose. So if it happens like this:

                        1. Darold (-2)
                        2. Allen (-1)
                        3. Rosen
                        4. Barkley(+5)
                        5. Mayfield
                        6. Chubb (-4)
                        7. Nelson (-1)

                        I would have a score of -3.

                        The winner has choses the sig for the other....or the avatar....or both. Sig and/or avatar stays until opening kickoff for the NFL. Picks have to be in by April 9th. In case of a tie (which there won't be) we can go with the correct number of picks as the tie breaker.

                        What say you?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          I think we could see a feeding frenzy of QBs at the top this year. First time I've seen this setup in a draft. We have a bunch of QB-needy teams, and 4 top-flight QBs, with a few others that are near that vicinity.

                          We also have a few teams at the top with picks that didn't need a QB... the Colts for one, and one of Cleveland's picks, and arguably the Giants.

                          Cleveland likely goes QB at #1, I think the Giants should go QB or trade-down to a team that will also likely draft a QB, the Jets are definitely taking a QB, and I'm pretty sure someone could offer Cleveland a package for #4 that they would have to seriously consider. There's 4 potential QBs in the first 4 picks. If not, however, who knows what Denver will do, they could also go QB.

                          Really Indy is the first team that definitely won't go QB, and who knows, if one of the top 4 is still available at #6, Indy might even get another package. It's crazy how things are lining up this year. If a frenzy happens, there's going to be a bunch of teams in the late lottery with some top-tier non-QB prospects landing in their laps.
                          I think Miami and Phoenix call balk at the idea of trading up. Lamar Jackson's pro-day hasn't happened yet and I think he could go ahead of Mayfield. The overplay of quarterbacks could cause teams to hesitate and think that one to three quarterbacks could fall to them. Rosen, Mayfield, and Jackson might be available at the 6th pick, then you could see an additional frenzy for them.

                          Comment


                          • A lot of mocks have us trading back out of 6. I'm not so sure. If the short list is indeed Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson then I'm not sure if they are going to want to risk missing one of them. We have needs at a lot of positions, but what we really need is talent. Only way they trade down, IMO, is if they still think they can get an outstanding talent there even if it is not one of those three or even at a different position - CB, LB, etc.

                            You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                            All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                            - Jimmy Buffett

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

                              Oh I'm not impressed with Allen either. And I agree that the Wentz effect will cause a team with a history of bad moves to make another. We are talking about the Browns. I personally don't think this QB is as great as people think. Their stock rose at the same time as other years.

                              With the Cardinals, Bills, and Miami wanting a quarterback I could see a trade in the top 5. In fact I think the Browns might trade down with the 4th pick. So I'll pass on it as well.

                              How about a top 5 wager.

                              1. Allen
                              2. Chubb
                              3. Darnold
                              4. Barkley
                              5. Nelson

                              You pick yours. +5 for every right pick and negative how much they slide or rose. So if it happens like this:

                              1. Darold (-2)
                              2. Allen (-1)
                              3. Rosen
                              4. Barkley(+5)
                              5. Mayfield
                              6. Chubb (-4)
                              7. Nelson (-1)

                              I would have a score of -3.

                              The winner has choses the sig for the other....or the avatar....or both. Sig and/or avatar stays until opening kickoff for the NFL. Picks have to be in by April 9th. In case of a tie (which there won't be) we can go with the correct number of picks as the tie breaker.

                              What say you?
                              That is needlessly complicated lol. My stance is simple: At least three quarterbacks in the top five.

                              Comment


                              • the guys I want at 6 are Chubb, Fitzpatrick, then a decent sized gap, and Nelson. if we'd have still been at 3 I'd have wanted Rosen or Darnold, see where we're actually at with Luck, then trade em if Luck's good to go.

                                I recognize our need for OL but it's such a crapshoot position especially on the interior. Chubb and Fitzpatrick are as close to can't miss guys as it gets in this draft.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X