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-Broncos

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

  • Re: Colts-Broncos

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    I'm not going to play that game, because it's stupid, and I have better things to do, lol. I don't need anyone to tell me what I know I'm looking at. You're trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip, though, if you expect any RB in this league to produce behind our sieve of a line.
    You have better things to do? You just posted a 1,000 word retort in a post and I am asking you to give me one name of a crappy running back and I will tell you why he isn't as crappy as you think. Also, you don't need anyone to tell you what you are looking at...what makes you think I (or anyone else) does? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of discussion?

    Comment


    • Re: Colts-Broncos

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I've answered this from the very beginning. Donald Brown. He cannot be trusted as a main back, for blocking purposes. I bet they want to address their line problems through FA, as opposed to the draft. Using those two simple assumptions, it's pretty easy to come up with why.

      So it's Trent's lack of vision that causes him to get hit behind the line of scrimmage? Seriously?
      No, that's honestly the first time I've seen you answer that. So we traded a first round pick for better blocking out of our running back position? Does that explain why Donald Brown played more snaps than Trent during the Denver game, even on passing downs?

      Comment


      • Re: Colts-Broncos

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        You have better things to do? You just posted a 1,000 word retort in a post and I am asking you to give me one name of a crappy running back and I will tell you why he isn't as crappy as you think. Also, you don't need anyone to tell you what you are looking at...what makes you think I (or anyone else) does? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of discussion?
        Uh huh. That's right. I don't have time to sit here and go back and forth with you in a million posts saying "uhhhhhh David Wilson" and you can fire back some stuff. I don't care, lol.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts-Broncos

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          I'm not going to play that game, because it's stupid, and I have better things to do, lol. I don't need anyone to tell me what I know I'm looking at. You're trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip, though, if you expect any RB in this league to produce behind our sieve of a line.
          Doug Martin is a perfect example. Guy ran all over the league last year, gets behind a new offensive line this year, and can't produce. Maybe his vision got worse over the offseason, and he lost a step at the ripe ol age of 24.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts-Broncos

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            So it's Trent's lack of vision that causes him to get hit behind the line of scrimmage? Seriously? Most of the running plays, that I see, are straight forward runs because they're trying to run inbetween the guard and the tackle. They're designed runs into a specific hole, so I'm not sure why his lack of speed or vision is what is causing the hole to get shut down.
            Not saying that. The crappy offensive line is why he is gets hit behind the line of scrimmage more often than not. I'm just saying him lack of vision and not hitting the holes quick enough certainly don't do him any favors.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts-Broncos

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I honestly think part of the reason for that is that he a) Lacks great vision and b) He dances around in the backfield and doesn't hit the holes fast enough when they are there. The blocking for him sucks, I grant you that, but he seems to be very indecisive when he gets the ball a lot of the time. Is that because there isn't a hole and he is trying to process where to take the ball? I don't know, I'm sure that plays a role. I think he lacks the speed to become a big play threat, which I realize isn't why we got him but with a first round price tag, it would be nice to see a guy be able to churn out some big plays now and again. Which is a point I would now like you to address: If our offensive line is the main culprit here, then why trade a first round pick for a running back when you can get amazingly similar production for a guy you could sign off the waiver wire?
              I disagree whole-heartedly that he's hesitant and lacks vision.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts-Broncos

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Doug Martin is a perfect example. Guy ran all over the league last year, gets behind a new offensive line this year, and can't produce. Maybe his vision got worse over the offseason, and he lost a step at the ripe ol age of 24.


                Alright, I'll leave this alone. I hope you guys are right and Trent becomes an All-Pro. I'd love to see the Colts have a true running game for the first time since the Edge days. Here's to hoping the gamble pays off in the end.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts-Broncos

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  Not saying that. The crappy offensive line is why he is gets hit behind the line of scrimmage more often than not. I'm just saying him lack of vision and not hitting the holes quick enough certainly don't do him any favors.
                  Based on what? There are no holes for him to hit. How can you assess completely his lack of vision if he doesn't have an offensive line? You can make your argument if he DOES have a line and can't hit the holes. Then yes, he's not good at that point. But he has not had a good line in the 1.5 years he's been in the league. Until he does, the jury is out. I'm not saying he'll be great, or even worth a first round pick. But the point is that you can't judge him until he's given an opportunity to show what he can do with a real line. Nobody, AP, Arian Foster, whomever, would run well behind this line.
                  Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts-Broncos

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    As opposed to Addai, a guy who someone compared to TRich. Addai had better run-blocking in front of him... and routinely hesitated, danced around, didn't make the right read, didn't see the hole, couldn't drag any defenders, and ran north/south way too much. He also would then do the opposite and have a nice run. He was way too inconsistent. The difference between what I see in the skillsets of TRich and Addai is gulf-sized. TRich is 4X the player Addai was.
                    Wow, if you call this worse run blocking than what Addai had you rarely watched the Colts back then. There were two seasons where Addai had decent run blocking, and he averaged over 4.5 ypc each year. We then started to lose OLmen. The blocking went to ****, and the dancing Addai did was often the only reason he was able to get back to the line of scrimmage. That OL makes this OL look all-pro in comparison. Addai wasn't a power runner, no, but before his injury problems he was a good RB. Addai was an average runner, meaning his ability was mostly reliant on the OL in front of him. He had the agility and speed to make up for them a little, but not a lot. TRich so far has been exactly the same, mostly reliant on his OL. He can make up for them a little with his power, but not a lot. Donald Brown is the same way, except if Donald Brown was running behind a great OL he would be breaking 20+ yard plays left and right because of his speed.

                    I think it is very telling that Brown was in so much against Denver who has the best run defense we have faced yet, only giving up 3.3 ypc.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts-Broncos

                      Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                      Based on what? There are no holes for him to hit. How can you assess completely his lack of vision if he doesn't have an offensive line? You can make your argument if he DOES have a line and can't hit the holes. Then yes, he's not good at that point. But he has not had a good line in the 1.5 years he's been in the league. Until he does, the jury is out. I'm not saying he'll be great, or even worth a first round pick. But the point is that you can't judge him until he's given an opportunity to show what he can do with a real line. Nobody, AP, Arian Foster, whomever, would run well behind this line.
                      So based on this reasoning, and this isn't the first place I have seen it, we can't judge any running back who has played behind a bad line his entire career? So there are guys in the league (and presumably, out of the league) who never saw their potential because they played behind crappy lines? Sorry, I just can't buy that. You draft elite running backs (or in this case, trade for them) so that they can partially negate that weakness you have on your line. The only thing we can do is judge by what we have seen and take into account the circumstances of each player. Is it totally fair to judge Richardson to this point? No, but what else can we do? At what point does he start to shoulder some of the blame?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts-Broncos

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Wow, if you call this worse run blocking than what Addai had you rarely watched the Colts back then. There were two seasons where Addai had decent run blocking, and he averaged over 4.5 ypc each year. We then started to lose OLmen. The blocking went to ****, and the dancing Addai did was often the only reason he was able to get back to the line of scrimmage. That OL makes this OL look all-pro in comparison. Addai wasn't a power runner, no, but before his injury problems he was a good RB. Addai was an average runner, meaning his ability was mostly reliant on the OL in front of him. He had the agility and speed to make up for them a little, but not a lot. TRich so far has been exactly the same, mostly reliant on his OL. He can make up for them a little with his power, but not a lot. Donald Brown is the same way, except if Donald Brown was running behind a great OL he would be breaking 20+ yard plays left and right because of his speed.

                        I think it is very telling that Brown was in so much against Denver who has the best run defense we have faced yet, only giving up 3.3 ypc.
                        Brown wasn't in so much. He had less carries, for less YPC.

                        And yes, our line IS worse than it was back then, and that is saying a lot. And saying I rarely watch the Colts is absolutely hilarious. I haven't missed a game in.... 15 years? Been watching regularly since 1992, so ya, two decades.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-23-2013, 05:00 PM.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts-Broncos

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Brown wasn't in so much. He had less carries, for less YPC.
                          I actually looked this up because watching the game it felt like Brown was in more. I don't know if that's because I expected Richardson to play more or what. But this is what I found, courtesy of Football Outsiders:

                          http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/snapcounts

                          Brown played 53 total snaps to Richardson's 38. However, 17 of Brown's snaps came on special teams, so the total number of offensive snaps was: Brown (36) and Richardson (38). Very even distribution there. The week before? Each had 24 offensive snaps. In week 5, interestingly, Richardson had 48 offensive snaps to Brown's 17. Week 4 was much the same, with Richardson getting 55 offensive snaps to Brown's 13. Trent's first week Bradshaw played the lion's share of the snaps with Brown playing virtually none. What does that tell us? I'm not sure. Just interesting to look at.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts-Broncos

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            So based on this reasoning, and this isn't the first place I have seen it, we can't judge any running back who has played behind a bad line his entire career? So there are guys in the league (and presumably, out of the league) who never saw their potential because they played behind crappy lines? Sorry, I just can't buy that. You draft elite running backs (or in this case, trade for them) so that they can partially negate that weakness you have on your line. The only thing we can do is judge by what we have seen and take into account the circumstances of each player. Is it totally fair to judge Richardson to this point? No, but what else can we do? At what point does he start to shoulder some of the blame?
                            I think he deserves some of the blame but guys like Richardson are easier to crap on since the style is less appealing to some people.

                            I think I have posted this before but I will again.

                            Since 1970, only 13 first round rookies have recorded 70% of all running back carries by their team. Two of those players were Richardson and Tampa Bay’s Doug Martin last year. Of that group, Richardson did post the lowest YPC average, but he was within 0.1 YPC of LaDainian Tomlinson. The next two lowest averages belong to Robert Edwards and Emmitt Smith; the former suffered a career-debilitating injury in a beach football game after his rookie season, while the latter ran for the most yards in NFL history.

                            Yeah, Richardson’s yards per carry average was well below average. But the universe of first round running backs who became workhorses right away as rookies and had a low YPC average consists of a HOF running back, a future HOF running back, and a player who suffered the flukiest of injuries. Richardson has something else in common with Emmitt Smith: after both of their rookie seasons, Norv Turner came on board as offensive coordinator.


                            But let’s say you don’t want to give Richardson any credit for his draft status. And you’re not in the mood to give him a pass just because he was a rookie. OK. Since 1990, 48 running backs have averaged fewer than 3.8 yards per carry while recording at least 70% of all running back carries for their team. Twenty-six of those players were at least 27 years old, and on the back half of their careers. Here are the other 22 running backs:

                            http://www.footballperspective.com/w...es-not-matter/
                            IF you click on that link and look at the 22 guys listed then one thing that stands out to me. Very few of those guys are speed guys and like it or not this offense calls for a guy like Richardson. The other thing that should stand out is that their are more than a few HOF type guys on that list.

                            Richardson's advance stats are actually better than they were last year.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 10-23-2013, 07:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts-Broncos

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Brown wasn't in so much. He had less carries, for less YPC.

                              And yes, our line IS worse than it was back then, and that is saying a lot. And saying I rarely watch the Colts is absolutely hilarious. I haven't missed a game in.... 15 years? Been watching regularly since 1992, so ya, two decades.
                              Yeah, I guess I was just imagined the multiple snaps a game where our RBs would either be tackled or would have to dodge a tackler immediately after receiving the ball. You may not have missed a game but you either weren't paying attention or have a terrible memory. I don't even know what to say, you just blew my mind.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts-Broncos

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                Yeah, I guess I was just imagined the multiple snaps a game where our RBs would either be tackled or would have to dodge a tackler immediately after receiving the ball. You may not have missed a game but you either weren't paying attention or have a terrible memory. I don't even know what to say, you just blew my mind.
                                Looking at the year 2007 Football Outsiders had the line rated as the 4th in run blocking. I will be the first to admit alot of that had to do with Peyton being the best at presnap adjustments but that was Addai's best year.

                                After 2008 though it pretty much was a turd sandwich ranking 23 in run blocking.
                                http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2008

                                So I guess what I am saying is you guys are both right but maybe you are remembering different years.

                                Those stats are also heavily skewed to not taking negative yards ie getting stuffed so this line maybe rated higher but thats not to say its opening holes. I really don't believe it is and part of the reason our best blocking is in between the guard and LT or RT which suggest that we are pulling alot to open up holes and using the FB but if he has no hole to go through to the second level then everything bunches up into a big pile of 2 yards and a cloud of dust. That is how I see Trent being used.

                                In addition to that the COlts worst holes to run through are off the center and guard which suggest the traps are just getting blown up and the FB doesn't have a chance to clear the LB.
                                Last edited by Gamble1; 10-23-2013, 07:38 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X