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
-
There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league. -
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
Exactly, except I wouldn't even call them mistakes. They are typical late 1st-round selections. People act like you land a bonafide superstar at that spot in the draft every time. You don't, you rarely get that. Most of the time, you're lucky to land a serviceable every-down contributor. I think TRich can and likely *will* be much more than a serviceable every down contributor, and therefore a good value. It's hard to see that now because of the context of last season... but when you look at the guy and see that he's succeeded being the focal point of an offense at both the college and NFL ranks (Cleveland), he has the physical tools, the mental tools, the drive to be good... there's no reason to believe that last year was his new "normal" and was more than likely an abberation. People seem to forget the things he did at Alabama and even at Cleveland. He is fundamentally sound in all the areas that matter --- he runs powerfully and shifty, has shown good vision (albeit last year was tough to tell because of the situation, new system, terrible line, a knock on his confidence), can block very well, and is a very good pass-catcher, with above-average open field running abilities --- he can turn this around.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
Now.... that said. If this next year we can visibly see large improvements in play-calling (he was terribly misused and under-utilized) and improved offensive line play, and TRich has no known injuries -- and he's still struggling... then by all means, I'll concede that the trade was not the value we hoped it would be. That is not my inclination however... I think if all that falls into place, you all will be very impressed with TRich. The big factors that I have doubts they will occur are the improvement in play-calling and line-play.Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-14-2014, 12:38 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: 2014 NFL offseason thread
I shutter to think of how we misused TRich last year from a passing game perspective. He's got good hands, and is arguably the best open-field runner on this team in terms of making people miss, being shifty, accelerating. We just never got him the ball. Part of it I think was to keep him back to pass protect because of our terrible line... but it felt like sometimes they just didn't playcall at all for it. It could be one of the most effective tools in our offense. Imagine an offense with Andrew Luck throwing the ball... Trent Richardson in the backfield... and they never connect the two, except to have Luck hand the ball off and slam Richardson into a wall of bodies for no gain, which isn't using either player to their potential.
That's what Indy's offense was last year. Just a gross misuse of talent. Those two guys could have absolutely lit up everyone. I know that they're trying to establish an identity... but I can't help but think that Arians couldn't have absolutely lit up the NFL last year with that much talent at his disposal and likely would've had a deeper playoff run. You get TRich some quick dumps in the flat and let him get a few 10-20 yard gainers, and those opposing defenses can no longer stuff the box, they gotta put someone back in the backfield to spy him, and then you start opening up the run game. You can balance that... and they just didn't do it at all.Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-14-2014, 12:36 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: 2014 NFL offseason thread
I was just using the terminolgy already used.Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
You've been around here 10years, KM, I'll have been here 10years this Dec, and I honestly can't remember another Colts first round pick that has drawn the ire that Trent has. In the last 7 years we've seen the Colts use their first round picks on Anthony Gonzalez, DBrown, Jerry Freaking Hughes, and Werner, and none of them have gotten the venom TRich has. We actually had posters defending DBrown this season, after doing nothing besides whiffing on blocks and standing on the sideline for the previous 3 years. Posters talked about how Trent didn't do anything his rookie year, which is completely wrong but whatever, but when you combine his rookie year and last year you get him carrying the ball 455 times for 1513yds, a 3.3ypc average. Brown's first two years? 207 carries for 778 yds, a 3.8ypc average. (Funny thing is, he had a long of 49 and 45 of those seasons. Subtract out those two runs, and his ypc average drops to.......3.3ypc)
Donald did manage to get into the endzone 5 times though, compared to, only, 14 TDs from Trent.
And that's not even comparing their receiving yards. Donald, once again, has a huge bump in his yards per catch from one catch of 72yards. Subtract that out, and Trent has had pretty much the same exact amount of receiving yards. Trent would have 2 more catches, instead of 3, and they both have 2 receiving TDs. That's 4 years worth of production from DBrown, compared to just two years of production from Trent.
Basically Trent>>>>Donald BrownLast edited by Since86; 05-14-2014, 01:09 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
As we saw with the Mewhort pick - the Colts probably wouldn't have drafted someone the fans would have liked anyway. Grigson has his own idea of what the team needs and was going to draft that type of player accordingly. As a general rule I try to give 2 years before I judge a draft, and in all seriousness it may need to be 3 years before you're able to FULLY capture how good a draft was.
Grigson's first draft was about as good as it gets in terms of who we got, and where we got them. Last year's draft has been..questionable thus far. Boyett isn't on the team anymore. Cunningham, Hughes, Holmes, and Werner haven't shown much of anything at all, and our 2nd round pick helped us get Vonta Davis. I hope at least one or two players from this years draft crop can provide some production this year, but I'm not expecting it (although Moncrief's got my attention)
We've got a team that's young in a few places, but we also have enough vet leadership and experience that we shouldn't have to rely on rookies anyway.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
The point isn't that there aren't other colossal mistakes but simply that up to now RTich is in that category. This is a straw man argument that we have to bash every other bad draft choice before we bash TRich. No we don't because most of us have moved past or could care less about some of these others. Trich has fallen from a much higher pedestal as a very high pick than the others.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
Can I say that George Bush was a terrible president and not have you say what about James Buchanan?Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
Yeah, because draft picks with 2 years between them is similiar to Presidents with 140yrs between them.Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
It would be like complaining that GWB spent too much, and then said nothing about Obama's spending. They're interconnected at the hip due to time relevancy, and the specific criticisms apply to both.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
You're missing my point that I exaggerated with reference to Buchanan which is simply that one can talk about TRich's performance without bringing up the performance of the entire NFL RB personnel, colts and all the other teams..Where does one stop? You can talk about GW without talking about any other president. I can certainly discuss GW's spending without discussing Obama's or Clinton's or Reagan's etc. It's not hypocritical to focus on TR, that's merely what most posters were doing. They were discussing the attributes of one player-period. There is no necessity of interconnection to any other player....Originally posted by Since86 View PostComment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
I'm not missing any point. You're just trying to justify the hypocriticism, instead of explaining why it isn't hypocricitism.
Bringing up the other 1st rd picks illustrates the value of 1st rd picks, which clearly isn't much considering the Colts recent track record with them. If 1st rd picks were so valuable, as is the claim, then there would be more outrage over all the Colts whiffs. The fact that there is not, and just outrage over Trent, shows it's not really about the pick but rather Trent in general.
So let's continue the whinefest over losing a first round pick, while not a peep is said about all the other wasted 1st round draft picks.
EDIT: I should be saying late 1st rd picks, not just 1st rd picks in general.Last edited by Since86; 05-15-2014, 04:54 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
There was a ton of outrage over the Colts' recent first round picks. That's the whole reason that people wanted Polian gone, and it's ultimately why he was fired. Beginning in 2007, the drafting immediately went downhill. I personally believe that this was the point that Polian handed more of the operations over to his son Fredo. Once he won a Super Bowl, Polian had accomplished everything and this was the point where he probably began to step back a bit. Regardless, go back to 2010 and 2011 and you'll see plenty of threads shredding our 2007-11 drafts. I've mentioned before that we took Brown over McCoy.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
But one can't complain about sunk costs from the Polian years forever, especially when he is out of the picture. T-Rich was criticized because it is what's occurring in the present. Up until last week, that draft pick hadn't been used and people wondered what the Colts could have come up with had they been drafting. If T-Rich can ever even play like an average running back here, then people will back off. But make no mistake, there was PLENTY of criticism about our late 2000's drafts, both on this forum and elsewhere. Bad drafting is why by 2011, most on this forum wanted Polian gone.Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-16-2014, 08:14 AM.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
The WHOLE reason people wanted Polian fired was because of his draft picks? That's not my memory at all, and not why I wanted him gone either, so I'd say that probably isn't true.
And besides, that's kind of proving my point. Who are you saying is the one who got criticized for crappy picks? The GM. Who is now getting criticized for a crappy trade/pick? The player. Another large difference. I've been asking that since this whole conversation started, why is Grigson not getting the venom and instead Trent is? I know cdash hasn't been shy about tossing bombs Grigson's way, but he's hardly mentioned. Remember my post where I went back and counted the number of times he was mentioned? I do.Last edited by Since86; 05-16-2014, 09:10 AM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
Originally posted by Since86 View Post
Maybe "whole" wasn't the correct word, but yes, I do think that the bad drafts were the main reason. The 2011 collapse without Manning was the cherry on top of a crappy five year sundae of relatively bad roster management. The 07-11 drafts were heavily scrutinized around here.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...hurchill-downs
Churchill wants Welker back in '15
Welker's Derby Day Windfall Questioned
Darren Rovell discusses Churchill Downs' claim that a tote error resulted in Wes Welker being overpaid on a wager at its race track.
Earlier this month, Denver Broncos wide receiver Wes Welker was seen at the Kentucky Derby carrying a huge stack of cash after winning a bet, even handing out $100 bills to random people.
Now Churchill Downs, which puts on the event, says that money might not have been rightfully his.
“
Welker You name the bet, I pretty much had it. I had a wad of tickets, and almost every single one won.
”
-- Wes Welker
"An individual believed to be a member of Wes Welker's group on Kentucky Derby day was the beneficiary of an overpayment north of $14,000 on a wager due to a tote malfunction," Churchill Downs spokesman Darren Rogers said in a statement. "In turn, a letter has been sent to that individual in an attempt to resolve the error."
TMZ reported that Welker sent a friend to collect the winnings. That person was supposed to receive $42,295.35 but instead was given $57,193.90.
According to Kentucky administrative regulations, if there is an overpayment as a result of the calculation of a payout, the track is responsible and the patron holding the ticket does not have to refund the money. The regulations are not clear whether their overpayment is the result of an error in the operation of the tote machine.
Although Churchill Downs sent the letter to Welker's acquaintance offering ways to pay back the difference, Rogers told ESPN.com on Friday afternoon that the track does not expect to be paid back.
"It is our mistake and we are not worried about the recovery of the money," Rogers said. "We hope they come back to Churchill Downs and wager that $14,000 next year."
Rogers said the individual malfunction that led to the overpayment happens about once every three years at Churchill Downs.
Welker, who owns race horses, told "The Dan Patrick Show" on Friday that he never calculated how much he and his friends were due and that Churchill Downs could have underpaid them and they wouldn't have known.
He and his friends made the bulk of their money by boxing Commanding Curve, a 37-1 long shot that finished second in the Derby. A $2 exacta bet, for example, with winner California Chrome and Commanding Curve paid out $340 that day.
When pressed by Patrick to reveal how much he won, Welker hedged in his response.
"Enough," he said. "Enough to where my wife didn't hate me when I got home. Why do we have to go into numbers here? It was a good time."
As for all those $100 bills?
"People wanted autographs and pictures coming down, so I was like, 'Hey, wouldn't $100 be nicer?'" Welker said. "And they were like, 'Yes.' I was like, 'Perfect. So, here you go.'"Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
I think Grigson's awful, to be frank and to get it on record. I hope he's not controlling our roster leading up to the next draft. Honeymoon's long over.Comment
-
Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread
Okay.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
Tweet
Comment