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:
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

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

Jonathan Taylor opens Colts camp on physically unable to perform list

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jonathan Taylor opens Colts camp on physically unable to perform list

    New year... same stuff...
    I suppose we'll see if it's anything to get concerned over, but in the modern NFL it just seems like the RB position is just not worth investing loads of money in it. Even if you draft a great one, the shelf-life is way too short except in rare cases. At least in the modern NFL. Sure, there are outliers... but you just need a RB that doesn't suck (looking at you TRich) and concentrate on other areas more. And I won't say RB's are a dime a dozen, but they aren't exactly hard to come by either. Especially if you're looking at a short window and then moving on.
    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

  • #2
    It’s been apparent for a long time that having an elite rusher is not the formula for winning a Super Bowl or being a top team. Look no further than the Colts - they lost one of the best ever in Edge and won the Super Bowl the next year. Yes they had Manning and the elite passing game, plus a defense that stepped up in the playoffs, but that’s the point - those things matter way more nowadays. You need a system where you can plug and chug running backs into an established foundation. The recent Super Bowl winners (Chiefs, Rams, Pats, etc) didn’t have elite rushers.

    Where did Dallas go after paying Zeke? By last year he wasn’t even the best back on his team anymore as Pollard clearly was the better player.

    I like watching Taylor, but the Colts are in the driver’s seat here. Everyone knows running backs can fall off a cliff immediately. Taylor had a truly elite season in 2021 but we didn’t even make the playoffs. That’s not meant to be a knock against him by any means as he was truly phenomenal that year, but the single elite rusher just isn’t how you build a top team. You need a system that revolves around a passing game and O-Line where you can plug decent RB’s in for good results. NE basically did this for almost 20 years. Belichick would have never broke the bank for a RB even if he had the top rusher in the league.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-27-2023, 08:37 AM.


    • #3
      It would suck to lose Taylor.

      I was listening to Ryen Russilo and he brought up a good point about the life span of a RB can be misleading. He said that most of the star RB's play longer than the average.

      I believe Taylor has a lot more in the tank.


      • #4
        Originally posted by BornIndy View Post
        It would suck to lose Taylor.

        I was listening to Ryen Russilo and he brought up a good point about the life span of a RB can be misleading. He said that most of the star RB's play longer than the average.

        I believe Taylor has a lot more in the tank.
        Yeah but isn’t the average career across the board only 3 years? Obviously a lot of players are done in the blink of an eye which skews it.

        The better discussion is to compare the average length of a running back’s prime to the average length of the prime at other positions (I.e. the top receivers tend to have longer primes than the top running backs).

        The other issue that hurts running backs is that generally a top team can replace a running back without too much of a drop off.

        Just look at the season leading yards rushers for Super Bowl winners. Most of them just aren’t even close to being big names.

        It would suck to lose Taylor…but what have we accomplished with Taylor? Not much of anything. That’s not meant to be a knock on him - it’s just that his position is completely replaceable in the modern NFL.


        • #5
          His agent is a clown. Has been a clown for years and will probably always be a clown. By extension, if JT doesn't issue any statement contradicting his agent, he's a clown as well.


          • #6
            If you have a good system, all you need at running back is a good value draft pick and a veteran. Get a young back with a smart draft pick who is young and fresh. Then get a veteran who can come in for change of pace, some third downs, goal lines, and who can do valuable things like pass block. This is what the Chiefs do. Pacheco was a 7th round pick and McKinnon has been around a long time. You would never in a million years see them break the bank on a back.

            Everyone saw what happened with Zeke. Sure he was still good, but by last year Pollard was better. It’s just not smart to pay a back big money in this day in age.

            This has been obvious for a while and we saw it first hand when we lost Edge and won the Super Bowl. The difference now is that appears like the entire league has finally realized it. You’re not going to see guys get a contract like Zeke got several years ago.


            • #7
              Florio The Pius over at PatsFootballTalk is taking a lot of shots at the Colts and saying that Taylor should have held out.

              His smug bias against the Colts is evident because he’s going all the way back to Edge’s contract situation to imply that the Colts don’t treat running backs well. He of course didn’t mention that Edge had a major injury during his Colts tenure, nor did he acknowledge the fact that the Colts won the Super Bowl the year after we lost Edge.

              Someone needs to educate him that the recent Super Bowl winners don’t have an individual 1000+ yard back on their team.

              I need to quit reading his PFT rag anyway. It’s extremely lame now since he decided to be super sensitive by disabling user comments. The comments were the most entertaining part of PFT.


              • #8


                • #9
                  Jonathon Taylor has met with Irsay and requested a trade.
                  Indystar is reporting.

                  So there's that to start the Colts season. Does JT have any trade value right now after last season and offseason surgery? I'm going to assume the PUP designation is BS to hide a holdout, since that would be how the Colts operate. But regardless, can they admit that now to improve his trade value (if that is the case anyway)?

                  I really have no issue moving on from JT. He was a non-factor last season, and I've already explained that RB's are plug in play in the modern NFL. Having a great RB, cheap, is probably great, especially on a balanced team. Having a bunch of money invested in the RB position OTOH is probably just hurting the team overall. Plus, the Colts are in a rebuilding phase anyway. Not like they need to be relying on a RB right now anyway.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Good. 1 less Colts player represented by Malki Kawa


                    • #11
                      Irsay is an embarrassment. I'm not saying whether RBs deserve to be paid or not, though I do think the market at this point is ludicrously low, but Irsay's public statements today were absolutely off the wall per usual. A guy with literally no real skills who fell *** backwards into Daddy's football team and had two great QB's back to back for basically 20 years and got 1 whole super bowl out of it. Pathetic honestly


                      • #12
                        Trade him anywhere but Miami or let him sit out and waste his career. Win win either way


                        • #13
                          Is there any team out there who would give the Colts what they want, PLUS be willing to give Taylor the money he’s going to want?

                          It would take a team who is “all-in” like the Rams a couple years ago, but even teams who are all-in aren’t going to break the bank for a RB.

                          Taylor and his agent couldn’t have picked a worse year to try this strategy. Irsay might be a clown with his comments, but no other organization out there would be caving to Taylor either.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-30-2023, 03:22 PM.


                          • #14
                            The amount of vitriol towards the Colts from some is astounding to me. Yes I understand that Irsay turns off a lot of people with his tweeting and comments, but I’m talking solely about the criticism towards the decision itself. The Colts are playing hardball with the running back position like every other team in the league. It’s one of the easiest decisions they’ve ever had to make because it would be nuts to cave to Taylor right now.

                            Let’s be completely honest about Taylor’s tenure too. He had a very good rookie year in 2020. He had a disappointing injury year in 2022. Sandwiched in between that was of course his 2021 season which was truly amazing, no doubt about it. But we didn’t make the playoffs that year. Not Taylor’s fault obviously, but it shows that in the modern NFL, a phenomenal RB simply isn’t enough.

                            The Colts were a terrible team last year. They have a new QB and HC. They need to see what they have in their team before they go break the bank on a RB largely because he had a great season two years ago.


                            • #15
                              Stephen Holder tweeted that the trade demand was made BEFORE Irsay or the agent tweeted anything.

                              Way too much of a sideshow for a RB. If any team actually is willing to make a good trade offer, they gotta take it and run.