Tweet
So now that the lockout seems to be coming to a end, who do you think the Colts should target out of the undrafted FA class. I know that the Colts are typically big in this market.
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.
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
-
Why so SERIOUS 
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
I hope Darren Evans gets picked up by a good team. It is a shame how his college career had to turn out at the end due to injures. -
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
Yup, thought Colts would give him a chance... still might but when they grabbed Carter I think that really hurt the chances of that happening...Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post Why so SERIOUS Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
I am not sure myself, but Polian seems to pick up a few guys each year that provide some sort of an impact on the season. I am personally hoping he gets a large DT and an athletic as all get out LB.Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
Depending on who they resign they need to go try hard to get:Originally posted by Really? View Post
DeAndre McDaniel - SS Clemson
Cedric Thornton - DT
Jeremiha Hunter - OLB Iowa
I have a feeling that we resign Addai, Vinny, Charlie Johnson, and they let go of Session, Muir and possibly Bullit even though I think the Colts try hard to resign him.
This Vet FA class is going to get overpaid due to teams that have to spend to meet the minimum team salary limit. THe Colts are going to lose some pretty good players and hopefully they can plug the holes with cheap options once again.Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
Yeah SS is going to be a position that we have to lock up... It would be interesting to see if we sign Addai back... with the supply of RB's that we have and seeing that the Colts going off last years salary are already over the new proposed salary cap it will be interesting to see what we do.
We should know by tomorrow, that is when they are proposing to allow for the singing of undrafted free agents I believe.
I am ready for some football
Why so SERIOUS Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
A couple cool people that I would be interested in...
S Will Hill... very high recruit coming out of hs... tons of potential, and I believe the veteran leadership on the Colts could help him out.
Also I like Ian Williams as a potential DT sub
WR Terrence Tolliver would be an interesting prospect at wr.
CB Kendric Burney would probably fit in our defensive scheme.. especially if we don't bring back Hayden..
and I have heard good things about this Joe Legeged guy at safety...
Here is a list of some of the top group from an espn analyst...
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story...ed-free-agents Why so SERIOUS Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story...ed-free-agents
Undrafted free agents were among the biggest casualties of the NFL lockout, unable to have contact with teams or sign contracts while owners and players worked out a new collective bargaining agreement.
However, with free agency set to begin this week, that state of limbo is ending and undrafted players will finally know where they're headed.
Here's a look at the top 40 undrafted free agents in Scouts Inc.'s 2011 prospect rankings and what they have to offer the teams that will come calling.
1. Joe Lefeged, S, Rutgers (Scouts Inc. grade: 73)
Lefeged possesses a nice combination of size and straight-line speed, and the range, discipline and toughness to contribute as a sub-package safety and special-teams player early in his career. He also has the skills and potential to develop into a starting strong safety in time.
2. Kendric Burney, CB, North Carolina (68)
Burney's lack of size (5-foot-9⅜, 186 pounds) and top-end speed (4.74 in the 40) are likely the reasons he went undrafted, but he has the instincts, short-area quickness and ball skills to add depth and eventually compete for a starting job in a Cover 2-heavy scheme.
3. Cedric Thornton, DT, Southern Arkansas (64)
Thornton has enough size and short-area power to develop into an adequate reserve as a one-gap lineman for a base 4-3 team.
4. Darvin Adams, WR, Auburn (62)
Adams lacks top-end speed and suddenness in his routes, but he is a smooth athlete with the body control, hands and toughness to develop into a No. 4 or No. 5 receiver at the next level.
5. DeAndre McDaniel, S, Clemson (61)
McDaniel has limitations in terms of fluidity and top-end speed, but he has the size, strength and instincts to become an effective in-the-box safety and also flashes above-average ball skills.
6. Jeron Johnson, S, Boise State (60)
Johnson is still developing in terms of instincts and discipline in coverage, but has the quickness and agility to contribute in sub packages.
7. Ian Williams, DT, Notre Dame (58)
Williams is a limited athlete with a squatty build but it provides him with natural leverage to anchor in the middle and bolster a team's interior run defense. He also has the versatility to line up in three- or four-man fronts.
8. Mark Herzlich, OLB, Boston College (58)
We ranked Herzlich as the No. 1 overall defensive prospect in the nation following the 2008 season, but he missed the entire 2009 season while battling cancer and was not the same player when he returned to the field in 2010. He lacks elite athleticism, especially when asked to play in space, but Herzlich has the frame, smarts, toughness and intangibles to develop into an effective strongside linebacker if he returns to 100 percent.
9. Derrick Locke, RB, Kentucky (58)
Locke's size (5-8¼, 188) and lack of power limit his potential as an every-down player, but he has the instincts, lateral quickness, body control, hands and toughness to make an impact as a third-down back and special-teams contributor.
10. Nick Bellore, ILB, Central Michigan (56)
Bellore is limited in coverage and as a pass-rusher but has the size, smarts, motor and toughness to develop into an effective two-down run-stopper and contributor on special teams.
11. Zach Hurd, G, Connecticut (56)
Hurd has good size (6-6¾, 316), strength and long arms, plus the natural ability and toughness to develop into a quality backup guard in the NFL.
12. Ricardo Lockette, WR, Fort Valley State (56)
Lockette is a well-traveled, unpolished prospect with limited football experience, but he has the size and raw talent to become a solid fourth or fifth receiver, given enough time and coaching.
13. Scott Lutrus, OLB, Connecticut (54)
Lutrus comes with durability concerns but he showed well at the NFL combine and has the speed, toughness and smarts to provide depth on the strong side for a base 4-3 defense.
14. Dane Sanzenbacher, WR, Ohio State (54)
Sanzenbacher is undersized (5-11⅜, 182) and lacks the speed to threaten vertically in the NFL, but he shows the quickness, hand-eye coordination and competitiveness to contribute as a sub-package slot receiver and help on special teams.
15. Orie Lemon, ILB, Oklahoma State (52)
Lemon has a good combination of size (6-0¾, 242), strength and closing burst to fit nicely as a two-down strongside inside linebacker for a 3-4 defense.
16. Willie Smith, OT, East Carolina (52)
Smith has the frame (6-5⅜, 310) and athletic ability to develop into an effective reserve tackle, though he needs to get stronger and improve his technique under the direction of NFL coaching.
17. Will Hill, S, Florida (51)
Hill has upside because of his above-average athleticism, though his instincts still need developing and character concerns probably helped cause him to go undrafted.
18. Terrence Toliver, WR, LSU (51)
Toliver's size (6-3½, 212), deceiving top-end speed, body control and good hands give him the potential to develop into a No. 3 or 4 receiver at the next level, though he is a bit tight in his routes.
19. David Sims, S, Iowa State (49)
Sims is undersized and older than most prospects, but he shows good instincts, adequate range and coverage, and a willingness to mix it up against the run and on special teams.
20. Brandon Bair, DT, Oregon (49)
Bair lacks the anchor to line up inside, but his frame (6-5⅞, 276) gives him the length to contribute as a five-technique for a 3-4 team if he improves his fundamentals.
21. Kai Forbath, PK, UCLA (49)
Forbath has the leg strength and accuracy to eventually become an effective place-kicker at the next level.
22. Ryan Winterswyk, DE, Boise State (48)
Winterswyk is disciplined and plays with a consistent motor, and while he is a limited athlete he would fit well as a reserve five-technique in a 3-4 scheme.
23. Ryan Jones, CB, NW Missouri State (47)
Jones has above-average speed and athleticism and he plays the ball well in coverage, though his tackling in run support needs some work.
24. Martin Parker, DT, Richmond (47)
Parker has the size (6-2⅛, 303), athleticism and skill sets to develop into an adequate reserve three-technique for a team that runs a 4-3 defense.
25. Zack Pianalto, TE, North Carolina (47)
Durability issues kept Pianalto from being drafted, but he has good hands and the ability to get open against zone coverage, and is an effective downfield blocker.
26. Weslye Saunders, TE, South Carolina (46)
Major character concerns scared teams off on draft weekend, but Saunders has the frame (6-5⅛, 270), ball skills and enough speed to become a solid NFL tight end if he reaches his full potential.
27. Deunta Williams, S, North Carolina (45)
Williams' top-end speed is above-average and he moves well laterally, and he is at his best in zone coverage. He flashes good ball skills as well but lacks size/power and is timid at times in run support.
28. Garrett Chisolm, G, South Carolina (44)
Chisolm comes with durability concerns and needs developing in terms of footwork, but he is a high-character player with the frame and power to provide depth at guard.
29. Ryan Donahue, P, Iowa (44)
Donahue shows the leg strength and directional punting ability to become an effective punter in the NFL.
30. Graig Cooper, RB, Miami (Fla.) (44)
A major knee injury in 2009 robbed Cooper of explosiveness and lateral quickness, but he offers enough vision, short-area quickness and third-down ability to become a change-of-pace back at the next level.
31. Charlie Gantt, TE, Michigan State (44)
Gantt is not elite in any area but has the potential and overall skill set to develop into an effective No. 2 tight end at the next level.
32. Armon Binns, WR, Cincinnati (43)
Binns is limited as a route-runner and lacks explosiveness, but he shows good hands and body control to contribute as he develops.
33. Alex Linnenkohl, C, Oregon State (42)
Linnenkohl's athleticism is limited but he is a hard worker who flashes instincts as a pass blocker and could provide depth along the interior with proper development.
34. Mario Addison, OLB, Troy (42)
Addison plays with good pad level and appears strong enough to set the edge against the run, and he shows active hands as a pass-rusher.
35. Joe Torchia, TE, Virginia (42)
Torchia runs sharp routes, clearly works hard on the little things, shows good hands and runs hard after the catch.
36. Terrance Turner, WR, Indiana (42)
Turner runs good routes and has above-average ball skills, and if he can contribute on special teams he could become a solid No. 4 or 5 receiver in the NFL.
37. Ricky Henry, G, Nebraska (41)
Henry is a blue-collar player with excellent toughness and a mean streak, and he flashes above-average upper-body strength in the run game.
38. Tori Gurley, WR, South Carolina (41)
Gurley's size (6-4⅛, 216) and athleticism give him a chance to develop into a strong fourth or fifth receiver for an NFL team.
39. Pierre Allen, DE, Nebraska (40)
Allen has the size (6-3½, 273), upper-body strength and long arms to provide depth and possibly develop into a starting left end in a four-man front.
40. Mike Holmes, S, Syracuse (40)
Holmes is a tough, versatile defensive back who played both corner and safety in college, and his ability to contribute as a kick and punt returner could also be an asset for an NFL team. Why so SERIOUS Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
To keep up with pick-ups:
http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2011-...ed-free-agents
They are coming fast.Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
Colts pick ups so far:
Joe Lefged (S, Rutgers)
Jake Kirkpatrick (C, TCU)Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
Sorry, I knew you'd object. The signings in general are coming fast, not the Colts in particular, smartbutt.Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
Where was I being smart?Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
15 minutes after you posted the Colts have 2 signings, there are 2 more signings. That's fast! Lol
Just sucks its on a Pats site.Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
Oh ok, well I didn't think you actually meant it was fast haha.
I'm not sure why they are so quick, but I don't mind the Pats.Comment
-
Re: undrafted FA's - Lockout winding down...
I wanted the bears to pick him upOriginally posted by PurduePacer View PostComment
Comment