Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Colts 2021 Season thread

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

  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post

    Because having the option, having to MAKE that choice in a variety of different circumstances and distances, adds a greater layer of strategy. There's no reason to remove the option of the FG at any particular point, having the choice isn't in any way hurting the game, slowing things down etc. I am not sure how disagreeing with Reichs philosophy on it translates to the needing to be a rule change?

    Same with the punt, it's technically a choice and therefore a source of strategic complexity that can be utilized. The recent-ish change to make touchbacks result in a 25 yd line start instead of 20 was an intelligent adjustment. Wouldn't mind seeing that changed to the 30 to emphasize the importance of accuracy and skill.

    I like the idea of a PAT change but again, adding options not reducing them down to 1 in which you lose the excitement and intrigue surrounding the choice. Give an option to go for it from one distance for 2pts, a further distance to get 4. The unusual number also breaks up the math a bit ie being down 10 is no longer clearly a 2 possession game.

    Options are good, not bad, so long as the existence of the options don't impact the flow and balance of the game overly much. If you don't care for the coach's handling of those options well that's an issue with the coaching.
    Well, I agree...
    I just don't agree with the amount of times Reich uses the option to go for it.
    Analytics are great, IF and WHEN they take into account the full dataset in a given situation. I'm not sure the "go for it/don't go for it" sheet takes those into account... or that Reich takes those into account. He's just too inclined to want to go for it. Like a 15 year old kid and his Madden game.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    ^^ Yeah, with Henry done for the season, Taylor will likely lead the league.

    And he's just fun to watch. He runs into the line and somehow - often comes out on the other side for another 7-10 yards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    It’s certainly fun to watch Taylor and know that we legit have one of the best offensive players in the league.

    Some big time backs have come through Indy since the Colts moved here and it looks like he will be added to that list.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneMoreYear
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    If going for it is so good for the game then just remove the FG from the game. Require teams to go for it or punt. Or only allow FG's when teams are outside of 20 yards from the goal... or whatever number the analytics prefer. Heck, do away with the punt. Isn't there a HS team that refuses to punt and has some insane winning percentage? I'm sure that's the reason. Let's implement that in the NFL.

    Let's do away with the PAT kick and just require teams to go for two as well. That will help eliminate OT games since it's pretty likely teams will have varying rates of success going for two.
    Because having the option, having to MAKE that choice in a variety of different circumstances and distances, adds a greater layer of strategy. There's no reason to remove the option of the FG at any particular point, having the choice isn't in any way hurting the game, slowing things down etc. I am not sure how disagreeing with Reichs philosophy on it translates to the needing to be a rule change?

    Same with the punt, it's technically a choice and therefore a source of strategic complexity that can be utilized. The recent-ish change to make touchbacks result in a 25 yd line start instead of 20 was an intelligent adjustment. Wouldn't mind seeing that changed to the 30 to emphasize the importance of accuracy and skill.

    I like the idea of a PAT change but again, adding options not reducing them down to 1 in which you lose the excitement and intrigue surrounding the choice. Give an option to go for it from one distance for 2pts, a further distance to get 4. The unusual number also breaks up the math a bit ie being down 10 is no longer clearly a 2 possession game.

    Options are good, not bad, so long as the existence of the options don't impact the flow and balance of the game overly much. If you don't care for the coach's handling of those options well that's an issue with the coaching.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    If going for it is so good for the game then just remove the FG from the game. Require teams to go for it or punt. Or only allow FG's when teams are outside of 20 yards from the goal... or whatever number the analytics prefer. Heck, do away with the punt. Isn't there a HS team that refuses to punt and has some insane winning percentage? I'm sure that's the reason. Let's implement that in the NFL.

    Let's do away with the PAT kick and just require teams to go for two as well. That will help eliminate OT games since it's pretty likely teams will have varying rates of success going for two.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    I'm never going to agree with going for it as much as the Colts do. You put the points on the board that are there for the taking. If you're down like 24-0, then maybe you do go for it. But in almost all other cases, you kick the FG. You don't end a drive on zero points.
    The caveat would be if you're on the 1" line. Or IOW, unless a QB sneak is a viable option (whether that is the play or not) then just kick the f'n FG.

    And the Colts should've punted last Sunday rather than giftwrapping field position to the Titans.

    Basically, there's a time to be aggressive and there's a time to play it traditionally. It's not a game of Madden, and the Colts aren't good enough to impose their will on the opponent on both sides of the ball. Leaving points on the field leaves no guarantee they'll get them back. And it risks the swing of momentum and giving the opponent life... The opposing offense can get new life by the Colts being stupid with the amount they go for it on 4th down.

    From the beginning of the Reich era when he risked what at best was likely a tie, to gift the opposition the ball with just enough time to get in FG range and win, by stupidly going for it where anyone else would've punted... these bad decisions are part of his DNA.

    How many wins has this stuff cost the Colts?

    Leave a comment:


  • OneMoreYear
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    4th down... with a chance to take a 21 point lead with the FG. Or go for it...
    What does Frank do? Go for it...

    That sh-t bites the Colts more than it helps. And it really can bite against good teams. Especially with a team like the Colts where you're never really sure the defense isn't going to suddenly fold up and any points you leave on the field could come back to bite you.
    Except that a) we're usually effective doing it and b) the fear you mentioned that the D is gonna collapse is actually reasonable justification for going on it on 4th & 1 on their what 4yd line. I mean... That's a play you call 99 times out of 100. O.o I have zero issue with going for it in that circumstance. Zero. If it turns out to be enough to cause you to lose... Then your team problems lie elsewhere (cough shi**y pass defense cough).

    VIrtually the ONLY plausible reason to not go for it in that situation--1yd to down, within their 5yd line--is if ending up with no points ends the game. You take a FG of and probably only if it gives you the lead with 1 minute or less remaining, then you take the lead and it's up to your D to make the last stand. Even then it's 50/50 which you choose, TBH, I'd go for the first and the TD against at least half the offenses in the league.
    Last edited by OneMoreYear; 11-05-2021, 01:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    4th down... with a chance to take a 21 point lead with the FG. Or go for it...
    What does Frank do? Go for it...

    That sh-t bites the Colts more than it helps. And it really can bite against good teams. Especially with a team like the Colts where you're never really sure the defense isn't going to suddenly fold up and any points you leave on the field could come back to bite you.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneMoreYear
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    There’s no doubt this team looks good against opponents who aren’t much. Good win, but I’m not believing until they beat an opponent worth something.
    I'm optimistic because of the body of work they put in against the Titans & Ravens. And even against other teams, you CAN see things they do very well that should translate against tougher opposition.

    IOW it's good seeing the execution is there, that means you are playing sound, well executed football until someone comes along that's good enough to outplay you. You have to start with that or won't get anywhere, and we have that.

    Example: despite losing to playoff level teams, we've put together the best turnover differential, the best points off turnovers, an elite running game, an upper tier run defense, and an upper tier passing offense. Those things came amidst the losses, which shows that although on the wrong side of the W/L column, the engine is firing and it's firing well.

    I AM disturbed by the trend of our pass defense going to pieces when teams go desperation mode against us. We are absolutely incapable of dealing with gunslingers. Even mediocre ones. When they air it out against us, be it recklessly, opposing offenses put up points lightning fast. We don't punish their big play attempts, and I don't like it because this defensive scheme is supposed to lock down deep throws. No lead is safe it seems, and there's no indication anything is being done to change that. If we have even a competent pass defense, one that can go into prevent and simply stop a few more plays, the ridiculous second half meltdowns we've seen end with us getting out alive...it's probable we'd be at 5-4, maybe even 6-3 with tie breaker over Titans.

    The epic meltdown against the Ravens for ex... We allowed him to complete NINETY percent of his second half passes, DESPITE them being something like 13yds/pass. That's insane, we're talking beyond Brady numbers and approaching zero resistance. If we are competent to even break up a handful of those downfield bombs, we win. It's all in place, this team and a lot of it is bordering elite, but that deep ball pass defense is essentially non-existent, capable only of playing off the receivers, reacting after the catch and tackling. There is zero prevention happening.

    The rest of the team is THAT good.
    Last edited by OneMoreYear; 11-05-2021, 12:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    There’s no doubt this team looks good against opponents who aren’t much. Good win, but I’m not believing until they beat an opponent worth something.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneMoreYear
    replied
    There should be something called the anti-dynasty...a dynasty of awfulness. The Jets would have a legendary anti-dynasty.

    Leave a comment:


  • graphic-er
    replied
    Frank Reich….let’s be cute and run some trick plays at the goal line.

    Jonathon Taylor….or you could let me run it.

    Colts in a nutshell.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneMoreYear
    replied
    I do not feel sorry for the Jets. Not one bit. They are embarrassment to the entire NFL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Banta
    replied
    Ball State

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

    Good point. I was ready to post same idea when I got to your post. The losses against TN and Ravens are very similar to the two you identify from last season. Picture perfect opportunities to get a win against a good team that will legitimately push you to another level. And you lay an egg despite the opponent leaving the door open time and again.

    So, we've changed QBs and purportedly upgraded personnel (to an extent), yet we're getting similar results. So what's holding us back? Coaching? QB play? Lack of talent? All of the above? What needs to be done to try and take the next step beyond that?

    While injuries have challenged certain position groups (particularly WR and DB), every team deals with them and (on paper) I think there's enough talent on the roster to expect it to win some of these signature game opportunities. The only possible exceptions I see are QB play and our now several-season's long inability (for whatever reason) not to generate some semblance of consistent pass rush from the front 4.

    P.S. - I suppose OL has underachieved somewhat this year. And injuries have hampered us somewhat. The pass protection particularly looks iffy at times. Even since some of our projected starters have returned. Not terribly bad in run game though.

    Good analysis. I think it’s a combo of everything. We just aren’t good enough across the board.

    I kept wanting to believe last year that we could be a true contender. I’ve kept wanting to believe this year that we could turn the corner and make a push. But at the end of the day these teams keep letting us down. I fully expect us to climb to 5-5 (we really suck if we can’t do that), but I’m determined to not allow myself to fall into the trap of believing in this team because they will quickly come back to Earth after the next two games.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X