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

Was it injuries?

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

  • Was it injuries?

    O'Neal was out a lot, Tinsley even more, and several other players missed games. The Pacers used more than 30 different starting line-ups during the season. We all know that.

    So, the question: To what extent did injuries contribute to the Pacers poor season? To what extent can we use injuries as a justification or excuse?

    Some contributors to Pacers Digest are willing to excuse the season simply because there were injuries. That view implies that the same players and coaches would have had a better season if there had simply been fewer DNPs. These folks tend to defend Carlisle for doing a great job of dealing with the ever shifting lineup. Whether they say this or not, they seem to believe that the same players and coaches could come back in 06-07 and win 50-60 games.


    My view is:

    A. The team was supposed to be deep enough to deal with injuries and it wasn't, which is a failure of management,
    B. The "chemistry" issue did more harm than injuries,
    C. Players playing out of position or not knowing how to play did more harm than injuries,
    D. The best interval of the season was when JO was sitting, and the worst when almost everyone was playing,
    E. Several players didn't perform well even when they were healthy, and,
    F. Staying healthy is fundamental to the game, so injuries can never be accepted as an excuse for failure.

    A year earlier, they had more suspensions/injuries than this year. They won more games and they went farther in the playoffs. Was this year different, or are we just getting better at making excuses?

    These questions have been mentioned in other threads, but I'd like to see a discussion specifically on the topic.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: Was it injuries?

    I tend to agree with your assessment. I don't like the injury explanation despite the fact that it was the 2nd consecutive year with pretty unprecedented incidence of them.

    As far as team chemistry or psyche, the one thing I can accept to an extent is the severe depressing/destabilizing influence of having to deal with an Artest fiasco for a 2nd year in a row.

    Even if the players and coaches could read the writing on the wall that it was inevitable and even if blame can be heaped on TPTB for holding on to Ron-Ron too long, the destruction of high expectations yet again is hard to overcome.

    As others have pointed out, though, the chemistry part did not improve consistnently or all that much overall after removing that "cancer".

    So I'd say I look at the big picture as excuses. Bottom line is this team does not appear to have the character, talent level, and talent fit to be a contender IMO. Some of the remaining core guys (JO, Foster, Tins) must be seriously scrutinized, not just the obvious problems (Jack).

    Your point about some of the best play (including some of the most cohesive playing) happening in JO's absence is particularly relevant to an honest assessment of the team. How can this be explained?
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Was it injuries?

      Easy - when they were shorthanded (minus JO), everybody from the coach on down really empahsized the "team" approach as the only way they could win without him.

      Once he returned, everybody (from the coach on down) just expected that JO would be able to carry the team 'as a superstar should'.

      Of course, JO's surrounding cast doesn't really compliment his low-post skills. He needs capable passers to get him the ball in an optimal position. He needs the other four guys to *at least* be a threat to score so that he's not constantly double-teamed. Specfically, he needs consistent (not streaky) spot-up shooters that are content to wait for the ball to come back to them to spread the defense and he needs the player on the weak side (Foster) to be competent offensively. And on the defensive end, he needs to play with a bruiser that can guard the other team's post player so he's not worn down or in foul trouble.

      JO is not a perimeter-oriented superstar, with the ball in his hands making plays. He's an interior (post playing) superstar, and its foolish to think he can carry *this* team "on his own". He needs players that compliment his skills, not players that minimize his skills/ effectiveness.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Was it injuries?

        It is extremely hard to say what would have happened without all the injuries. IMO the chemistry issue can not be separated from them.

        What's certain is that this year (added to the one before) has left its mark on the players and the coaching staff, so changes must be done.

        Besides, were the hot discussions we had about nose sinuses that bad?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Was it injuries?

          If you hadn't had the injuries you might have finished 4th or 5th in the Conf which could have drawn you Cleveland or Washington.

          IOW, you might've gotten to the 2nd round before being eliminated - I'd give the Pacers the edge vs the Wizards and a tossup with Cleveland.

          But you'd have been blown away by Detroit in the 2nd rd.

          The team played pretty well vs NJ - but the team just was never as good as Detroit or NJ, and probably not as good as the Heat (though you did well during the season vs them).
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Was it injuries?

            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
            Easy - when they were shorthanded (minus JO), everybody from the coach on down really empahsized the "team" approach as the only way they could win without him.

            Once he returned, everybody (from the coach on down) just expected that JO would be able to carry the team 'as a superstar should'.

            Of course, JO's surrounding cast doesn't really compliment his low-post skills. He needs capable passers to get him the ball in an optimal position. He needs the other four guys to *at least* be a threat to score so that he's not constantly double-teamed. Specfically, he needs consistent (not streaky) spot-up shooters that are content to wait for the ball to come back to them to spread the defense and he needs the player on the weak side (Foster) to be competent offensively. And on the defensive end, he needs to play with a bruiser that can guard the other team's post player so he's not worn down or in foul trouble.

            JO is not a perimeter-oriented superstar, with the ball in his hands making plays. He's an interior (post playing) superstar, and its foolish to think he can carry *this* team "on his own". He needs players that compliment his skills, not players that minimize his skills/ effectiveness.
            Solid premise here. I will reiterate however my disagreement with the term superstar for JO. Or at least you are hinting at a hierarchy in which perimeter superstars are more "super" than interior ones b/c they can more easily influence/impact play.

            Personally, I'd just prefer the term superstar be stricken from the lingo all together b/c it emphasizes too much indivduality as if any player could singlehandedly carry a team.

            I think star would be sufficient although arguing semantics is always the proverbial slippery slope.

            I will also reiterate my perspective (and surely that of others) that, in looking at the teams remaining in the post season, the bump and grind, slogging, low post, offensive presence is no longer crucial to a highly successful team.

            I would even say Detroit fits that description. Yes they have good bigs that defend but none of them is an extreme case of on the box only scorers.

            Duncan is similar to this, of course. Shaq I suppose, but he's really far from the dominant player on that team now IMO.

            This, of course, extends to RC's philosophy, as well. For this reason, I'd be happy to see his offensive approach scrapped and/or his departure.

            Next question, about JO having to guard the other team's bruiser. So add us a bruiser, who does that mean JO guards when we play Detroit? Ben or Sheed? I see issues either way.

            Against SA does he go Nazr or Tim? I see issues either way. The one w/ Nazr being he's still on the team's bruiser.

            NJ? Collins or Krstic? Collins, still the bruiser. Krstic, can he cover him? So I'm just not convinced this argument holds water in absolute terms.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Was it injuries?

              The schedule was extremely favorable over the Feb. time frame when JO was out, and I think it played a major role in our success at that time as well. March and April were really tough months as far as frequency of games, lack of practice time, and that may explain part of the trouble when JO returned. We didn't have the practice time to work JO back into the new offense, it was done during games to some extent.

              I also agree that the mental strain of having to deal with major issues (Artest going bonkers and so many injuries to key players) for the 2nd year in a row was perhaps too much to overcome. We also lost Reggie's influence in the locker room and his leadership and clutch shooting on the court. This year is a tribute in ways to all Reggie really did mean to this franchise, seeing what happened to this team after he left.

              The chemistry problems go very deep, remember the times when we were all pointing out how guys wouldn't pass to Saras for a time, there was some deep seeded issues going on which I don't think we as fans even know the tip of. I think some of those things also may have tied coach's hands in how he handled some players. Jax may have deserved a harder hand from coach, but for a good portion of the season Jax was the best player available to play. I think he is a volitale person who had to be handled very carefully. We don't know what goes on in the locker room or in the front office, we see only a very small portion of what happens with the team, the public portion.

              Injuries are not an excuse, but they are a reality, and we have to factor in the part they played in our season. I find it unexplainable really, how we could have two years of such serious injuries to most of our core players. I am sure it was hard for the guys to show up and play undermanned so often, and hard for the coaching staff to show up and prepare a game plan night after night without knowing who would be out there to play. Even the fans are mentally worn out from it all.

              This entire franchise needs to have some good fortune fall to its lot, in order to get back the confidence and swagger we had two years ago. Granger is a bright spot, AJ's great late season play may be a ray of hope (or fools gold, I'm not sure which), everything else is just tainted with a question about if guys can stay healthy, if guys can be mentally tough enough to play through bad calls, tough breaks, etc. JO,Tins, Jeff, Cro, Pollard, Hulk, Peja, Freddie, and Jax (even though Jax is the one guy who played through his injuries) all have had serious injuries the past two years. Saras has yet to prove he can be a difference maker in this league, I haven't given up on him, but I'm also not ready to hand him minutes either. There are so many questions and it falls on TPTB at this point to assess it all and figure out how to put this team back together again. This is no easy task.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Was it injuries?

                Originally posted by Indyfan
                There are so many questions and it falls on TPTB at this point to assess it all and figure out how to put this team back together again. This is no easy task.
                Precisely! It is not at all EASY. To say anything regarding the prospect of improving this team following this year is EASY is, IMO, to grossly oversimplify an extremely complex and unstable situation.

                In fact, it might result in deceiving ourselves into an even more perplexing and frustrating state.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Was it injuries?

                  Originally posted by D-BONE
                  Solid premise here. I will reiterate however my disagreement with the term superstar for JO. Or at least you are hinting at a hierarchy in which perimeter superstars are more "super" than interior ones b/c they can more easily influence/impact play.

                  Personally, I'd just prefer the term superstar be stricken from the lingo all together b/c it emphasizes too much indivduality as if any player could singlehandedly carry a team.

                  I think star would be sufficient although arguing semantics is always the proverbial slippery slope.
                  Fine counterpoints. Wilt couldn't really win on his own. Kareem needed Oscar or Magic.

                  The misconception is that a superstar can dominate a game on his own and win a championship by simply being the best player on the court. And really, that's just a by-product of the freakish Jordan era, where the best player in the game was a wing player and not a post player and actually *did* have the ball in his hands all the time. Just about all "superstars" still need a supporting cast. I'd still argue the low-post superstar is superior because, when used properly, he should be able to get the most high-percentage shots for his team and prevent the opponent from getting high-percentage shots. And that's exactly what Shaq could do in his prime.

                  I will also reiterate my perspective (and surely that of others) that, in looking at the teams remaining in the post season, the bump and grind, slogging, low post, offensive presence is no longer crucial to a highly successful team.

                  I would even say Detroit fits that description. Yes they have good bigs that defend but none of them is an extreme case of on the box only scorers.

                  Duncan is similar to this, of course. Shaq I suppose, but he's really far from the dominant player on that team now IMO.

                  This, of course, extends to RC's philosophy, as well. For this reason, I'd be happy to see his offensive approach scrapped and/or his departure.

                  Next question, about JO having to guard the other team's bruiser. So add us a bruiser, who does that mean JO guards when we play Detroit? Ben or Sheed? I see issues either way.
                  I generally agree, but I think it has more to do with the general lack of big man that want to play in the post. Everybody wants to be like KG and Dirk, and face the basket. I'd like to blame it on the European players like Dirk and Paul, but KG - for all his talent - has at times been one of the biggest prima donnas for avoiding post/ physical play in the league. My goodness, your 7'0" tall and strong, get down in the paint where you belong.

                  More specifically to your point, who does JO guard (Ben or Sheed)? Right now, he has to guard both. We were moderately successful last season when DD could help by guarding one of them. Sure, I see issues with him guarding either one of them, but fewer issues than when he has to guard both of them.

                  Against SA does he go Nazr or Tim? I see issues either way. The one w/ Nazr being he's still on the team's bruiser.

                  NJ? Collins or Krstic? Collins, still the bruiser. Krstic, can he cover him? So I'm just not convinced this argument holds water in absolute terms.
                  Regular season or playoffs? Because Foster is usually able to stay on the court during the regular season, and he's pretty good defensively against Krstic (although David is better). And Foster is surprisingly good against Duncan (until Duncan remembers to just take him into the paint and then he eats him alive.) Part of the problem you are describing is that Foster basically takes himself out of a playoff series with his inept offense.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Was it injuries?

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    ...JO is not a perimeter-oriented superstar, with the ball in his hands making plays. He's an interior (post playing) superstar, and its foolish to think he can carry *this* team "on his own". He needs players that compliment his skills, not players that minimize his skills/ effectiveness.
                    Jay, not to hijack the thread, but just a quick question.

                    Many of us, myself included, believe that Jermaine tends to "force" the action at times in his interior post-up position, trying to take advantage of things that just really aren't there.

                    Do you think that JO's impatience in forcing the action is a result of his trying to take advantage of whatever passes are made to him because he might believe that his perimeter players are not capable of making any better pass with the remaining time on the shot clock? Would you expect him to act differently, and perhaps be perceived as being "less selfish" if he had more capable players around him?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Was it injuries?

                      Originally posted by Putnam
                      Some contributors to Pacers Digest are willing to excuse the season simply because there were injuries.
                      Who has said that? Quotes please. I think most people here have a pretty realistic view of the impact of injuries on the season. You, on the other hand, seem to be minimalizing them to an unrealistic extent.

                      Originally posted by Putnam
                      That view implies that the same players and coaches would have had a better season if there had simply been fewer DNPs.
                      Um, well, with Peja in the lineup, the Pacers were 2-0 against NJ and 0-4 without him. I think it's safe to assume that we would have fared better with him. So yeah, the Pacers would have arguably had a better season without all the injuries.

                      Originally posted by Putnam
                      These folks tend to defend Carlisle for doing a great job of dealing with the ever shifting lineup.
                      Again, what folks?

                      But even the objective observer - sportswriters from other cities, on-air announcers and commentators - acknowledges Rick has done an exceptional job the past two seasons under the circumstances. To minimalize the impact Ron and suspensions and injuries and the physical and emotional toll they have taken on this team is absurd.

                      Originally posted by Putnam
                      Whether they say this or not, they seem to believe that the same players and coaches could come back in 06-07 and win 50-60 games.
                      I haven't seen one person here suggest that we stand pat during the off-season and bring back the same players and personnel. Not one. Even the most sunshiney among us have expressed a desire for significant changes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Was it injuries?

                        Originally posted by bulletproof
                        Who has said that? Quotes please.
                        Seed said it. See the 8th entry in the current thread about Bird to meet with media. Uncle Buck asks why didn't the team improve after Artest left, and Seed answers, and I quote, "Injuries."


                        Originally posted by bulletproof

                        To minimalize the impact Ron and suspensions and injuries and the physical and emotional toll they have taken on this team is absurd.
                        It would be equally absurd to overstate the effect of injuries. I don't wish to do either. I asked others to comment on how significant injuries were in their opinion.

                        Finally, I'd like to point out to Bulletproof that the correct word is "minimize" not "minimalize."



                        Hey Seed, I just picked you out as the most recent example that fit the point. I don 't suppose one single answer encompasses all you have to say. There was and is no intention to dis you, or to identify you with any position except those you take for yourself.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Was it injuries?

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                          Easy - when they were shorthanded (minus JO), everybody from the coach on down really empahsized the "team" approach as the only way they could win without him.

                          Once he returned, everybody (from the coach on down) just expected that JO would be able to carry the team 'as a superstar should'.

                          Of course, JO's surrounding cast doesn't really compliment his low-post skills. He needs capable passers to get him the ball in an optimal position. He needs the other four guys to *at least* be a threat to score so that he's not constantly double-teamed. Specfically, he needs consistent (not streaky) spot-up shooters that are content to wait for the ball to come back to them to spread the defense and he needs the player on the weak side (Foster) to be competent offensively. And on the defensive end, he needs to play with a bruiser that can guard the other team's post player so he's not worn down or in foul trouble.

                          JO is not a perimeter-oriented superstar, with the ball in his hands making plays. He's an interior (post playing) superstar, and its foolish to think he can carry *this* team "on his own". He needs players that compliment his skills, not players that minimize his skills/ effectiveness.
                          Good analysis.....of the current roster....do you see any "spot-up" consistent shooterse that can compliment his skills?

                          I'm guessing that SJax isn't on the list....and Peja is?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Was it injuries?

                            Originally posted by beast23
                            Jay, not to hijack the thread, but just a quick question.

                            Many of us, myself included, believe that Jermaine tends to "force" the action at times in his interior post-up position, trying to take advantage of things that just really aren't there.

                            Do you think that JO's impatience in forcing the action is a result of his trying to take advantage of whatever passes are made to him because he might believe that his perimeter players are not capable of making any better pass with the remaining time on the shot clock? Would you expect him to act differently, and perhaps be perceived as being "less selfish" if he had more capable players around him?
                            Yes. and Yes. I agree that he forces the action too much. But I don't mind his quick-hitting, back to the basket moves. I don't like his face-the-basket, hold the ball then make a move moves.

                            And it isn't necessarily a "better" pass - we saw in the playoffs where JO would carve out great position but nobody could get the pass in there on time. I'm trying to get at the fact that the entry pass would come too late, and JO would lose his superior interior position or would have to step too far away from the basket to catch the ball (and then, turn and face the basket.)

                            I think, especially in the first month of the season, we saw JO's frustration as SJax, Ron, Tinsley and Fred seemed to be in a competitive race to see which player could jack up a bad jumpshot early in the shotclock without even attempting to pass into the paint.

                            And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that we only had two good post-passers on the roster in the first place (one has been traded and the other is always hurt).
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Was it injuries?

                              Originally posted by Putnam
                              It would be equally absurd to overstate the effect of injuries. I don't wish to do either. I asked others to comment on how significant injuries were in their opinion.
                              Someone made a good analogy recently. Our situation in the playoffs would be like Detroit playing without Billups, Prince and B. Wallace.


                              Originally posted by Putnam
                              Finally, I'd like to point out to Bulletproof that the correct word is "minimize" not "minimalize."
                              tr.v. min·i·mal··ized, min·i·mal··iz·ing, min·i·mal··iz·es

                              To make minimal.

                              It's a transitive verb. A verb that requires both a subject and one or more objects. Putnam (subect) minimalizes (transitive verb) injuries, suspensions, etc. (one or more objects).

                              Or..

                              Putnam tried to minimalize my post by wrongly calling me out on grammar.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X