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

2006 off-season evaluation part 4

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    2006 off-season evaluation part 4

    The Power forwards...

    On Paper this is one of the, if not the, strongest positions on the Pacers. We have an all-star caliber player in Jermaine O'Neal & we have three players who can back him up who all bring something differant to the table.

    Jermaine O'Neal.

    The Good: Can be a dangerous player in the low post in fact he can be one of the best players in the NBA in the post because he has a rare ability that few have. He can use either hand around the rim. He is a strong face up shooter up 20'. He has become a decent passer & has begun to find the cutters, when we bother to have them. He is one of the best weak side shot blockers in the NBA. He grabs a lot of rebounds.

    The downside: A lot of Jermaine's problems, IMO, are mental. He can be easily taken off of his game when a team plays him physical because I think he sees this as a sign of disrespect. In fact any player who played with him when he was in Portland almost downright owns him because for whatever reason he just cannot over come the mental side of that. He has a tendancy to take fadeaways a little to often & frankly even though he grabs a good share of boards he is not that great of a rebounder because he rarely uses fundamental skills to get his boards. He is slow to make decisions in the double team, although he is getting better. Increased mass has only produced a slower Jermaine that is more injury prone, not the bruising player we had all hoped for. He has stated he is going to correct that though so this should become less of an issue in the future. Injurys are also a concern but some of thes injurys have come because of the increase in weight IMO.

    The outlook: Here is the part where I hate to talk about things. Money. I don't care what a player makes but when it impacts the entire team you have to take this into consideration. Jermaine O'Neal is being paid top 10 player money & right now he's not even close to being a top 10 player. The reason this is so important is because we have so much of our salary cap tied into him that we cannot sign other free agents or easily move other players. The simple over riding fact for me about Jermaine is one thing, he does not make players around him better. In fact look at all of the talk about finding players who compliment him. He has to have an outside shooter he has to have a rugged defender. Now in truth every team needs both of those things but in J.O.'s case you have to wonder why a guy who is tagged a franchise player cannot elevate those around him to a higher level.

    Also not to belabor this point but to me he seems a very old 27. Maybe it's the injurys, maybe it's the physcal structure or maybe it's just his attitude but he seems a lot older than 27 to me.

    I see very little room for the Pacers to move him. I'm not sure they should but sadly I don't think I would be to upset if they did move him on. Which isn't saying much for a guy who is the face of the franchise.

    Austin Croshere.

    The Good: Simply a good soldier. On this team that is not only a blessing but it's an F'ng miracle. He attempts to be a leader both on the floor & in the locker room but I just don't think he has the credibilty to do it. He is a good solid basketball player. He doesn't do anything stupid & very rarely hurts the team when he is on the floor. He can hit from mid-range & long distance. If he has a clearing he can drive. He is a premier freethrow shooter. He is a good passer. He is an underrated defender & rebounder. He is a willing pick/screen setter.

    The downside: Frankly falls in love with the three point shot to much. Now a caveat to that is this, this may be the fault of coaching. Carlisle wants spacing & Austin certainly can do that & on occasion he can break a game open. However you never want to count on that. He has no post up game & whenever he does drive the lane it is either going to be a layup or him dribbling it off of his own leg out of bounds. Consistancy has been an issue with him as well. He has had games where he is off & on but like Bird said, he is a backup for a reason. His contract is obscene & always has been.

    The outlook: Hard to say in all honsety. I could see him staying here this season & the Pacers using the savings next season off of the cap. But then I could also see him packaged with either Jamaal or Jax to a team that wanted his expiring contract. All I know is that early in this season when the team was falling apart he was the only person who night in & night out laid it on the line.

    Danny Granger:

    The good: The man rebounds. He not only rebounds but he fights for rebounds. I've seen talk of him being used at the two & all I can do is shudder in fear of that. I want him at three & three only but if not that then going with him as a four when you go small is not a bad thing. He can score, he can rebound, he can defend. I don't think he is a starting caliber 4 but he can play there for a few min. a game.

    The bad: Well, honestly nothing other than size & my fear that by not giving him a defined role that suites him he will become a jack of all trades master of none. However this is not Bender we are talking about, his basketball I.Q. is very very very high.

    The outlook: I see him playing a lot of min. at the four unfortunately. Rick loves to go small & Danny fits right into what he wants.

    Jeff Foster:

    The good: Great rebounder from the four spot in particular when he comes off of the bench. Above average defender of face up player. Good lateral foot speed, used to be great but injurys have taken thier toll.

    The bad: His offense is offensive. He is often overwhelmed by stronger players & his lack of shot blocking makes him anything but a paint intimidator. Injurys are becoming a concern as well.

    Outlook: Like Croshere I really can't say. I could see him right back here & then I could also see his reasonable big man contract moved along with one of the knuckleheads to a team that would want him as a safety net in case one of the idiots fails them. If there were any justice he would be the first big man off of the bench & he would be fine in that role whether it was center or power forward.

    Overall I think we see that what on paper looks like a major advantage for us really may not be. It's not a weakness but I'm not sure it's the asset we had hoped for either & this is without me anaylizing the way that Carlsile uses J.O. on offense.

    One of our biggest problems in this spot is in the name itself. Out of the playears I've named we do not have one that fits the title "power" in power forward. A Reggie Evans or Michael Ruffin type player might go a long way in ending the drought of power players we have had in this role for several years, minus last season but Dale played Center anyay.

    As to my belief regarding Jermaine? Sadly, I think that since it is almost impossible to move him I think a new coach would do him a world of good. I hate saying that btw because I don't want people to think that I believe that Rick is to blame for all of the woes of the team & J.O. but I think it is a factor.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

    [QUOTE=Peck]As to my belief regarding Jermaine? Sadly, I think that since it is almost impossible to move him I think a new coach would do him a world of good. QUOTE]

    I sure don't understand why you think JO would be hard to move. Disagree completely!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

      [QUOTE=Will Galen]
      Originally posted by Peck
      As to my belief regarding Jermaine? Sadly, I think that since it is almost impossible to move him I think a new coach would do him a world of good. QUOTE]

      I sure don't understand why you think JO would be hard to move. Disagree completly!
      He'd be easy to move for a package of lesser players (not necessarily bad players - just lesser) and a draft pick or two. He'd be tough to move for equal value if you're talking about getting a franchise player in return.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

        Peck, I'm gonna ask you to re-consider the "JO thoughts".

        Read what Jay has to say (and I subscribe to that) in the Peja thread; "This team was never build around the franchise player"

        Making others better can only be a two way street, and most of the players in this current line-up are so far away from doing the things where they could be better with JO in the line-up that it is almost painfull.

        Can you name me a few players that are "suitable" to cut, shoot nad spread the floor so JO can be a threat inside instead of a tripple teamed monster?
        Help block out so he can go after a rebound?

        Tell me outside of Peja, who makes JO "the" player on the floor outside of JO?
        Tell me which player can get him the ball in "perfect" position in the post?
        Tel me which player cuts so he can pass out of the double-triple team?
        Tell me which player creates the space for him to do some rebounding?

        You can have the fastest computer in the world, but without access to it or a monitor, you can do nothing with it.
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

          Originally posted by Will Galen
          Originally posted by Peck
          As to my belief regarding Jermaine? Sadly, I think that since it is almost impossible to move him I think a new coach would do him a world of good.
          I sure don't understand why you think JO would be hard to move. Disagree completely!
          Sure, but why would you? Unless you're planning to blow the team up and start over?

          Has JO demanded a trade? He should only be traded for someone that makes us better. (I disagree with the masses that think KG is an upgrade to JO - an injury-hobbled JO still got the Pacers into the playoffs which is better than KG can say - If the knock on JO is that he doesn't make his teammates better then at least he's better at that than Garnett.) Would San Antonio trade us Duncan for JO and SJax? ( ). Of course not. The handful of elite players that would be an upgrade over JO are nearly untouchable right now.

          Unless you want to trade big for small and pursue somebody like DWade. I don't recommend trading big for small, though.
          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

          • #6
            Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

            Has anyone seen how much Brand's stock has improved this year? Is it because he improved or that he got some players around him?
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

              Originally posted by Arcadian
              Has anyone seen how much Brand's stock has improved this year? Is it because he improved or that he got some players around him?
              Both. Word around LA is that Brand simply raised his game to a whole new level over the summer.

              As for JO, I don't see why we are SO concerned about the cap. Sure, JO makes lots of money. Would you guys feel better if he made two million less each year? OK. Still, that wouldn't bring us closer to the cap. And even if it did, it won't give us enough space to sign someone significant (or at least more than the exceptions). Additionally, what FA could we sign that is better than JO. And if such a FA existed, then we would have to overpay him a lot more than what we are supposedly overpaying JO.

              I just think that JO is better than what many people think AND that he is still improving. I seriously watched him improve as a passer and team player last year and that really impressed me. He can still become one of the elite. The man has yet to reach his peak.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                I have to agree with most of you guys on here.
                Elite PF's all need to have good players around them and in my opinion JO
                has had good players around him but not a complete team.
                In the case of Howard, Bosh, KG, and Yoa their teams are incomplete.
                However for Duncan, Brand, Shaq, Dirk and Stoudamire their teams are overall
                built better.

                We all know you pay more in the NBA and get less when it comes to
                your big men but in the case of the Nets you can see how not having a
                post up player really hurts your chances of getting out of the second
                round.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  I disagree with the masses that think KG is an upgrade to JO - an injury-hobbled JO still got the Pacers into the playoffs which is better than KG can say - If the knock on JO is that he doesn't make his teammates better then at least he's better at that than Garnett.).
                  Garnett has played and started in 47 playoff games, Jermaine has started in 50. I don't give him much props for the 20 more playoff games in Portland when he sat next to the trainer. If you blame KG for not leading his team to more playoff games, then JO should not escape the same scrutiny.

                  I can't honestly name anything other than shotblocking that Jermaine does better.

                  I really like Jermaine and would not want to trade him for anyone who isn't a top 10 player.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                    I've come to believe JO minimizes those around him. I have to wonder how much of that is coaching and trying to consistently pretend JO is something he's not and thrusting him into the wrong role... and how much of it is JO simply forcing things, not doing the little things, and not being enough of a team player?

                    IOW... you could have Jordan and Magic outside and if the team continually played "JO Ball" like we do now those guys would never excel on the Pacers.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                      Originally posted by Bball
                      I've come to believe JO minimizes those around him. I have to wonder how much of that is coaching and trying to consistently pretend JO is something he's not and thrusting him into the wrong role... and how much of it is JO simply forcing things, not doing the little things, and not being enough of a team player?
                      -Bball
                      Is that minimizes or minimalizes?

                      I believe its a combination of both, but primarily the first.

                      Without JO, the players were playing a motion game and great team ball, offensively. I thought Rick had orchestrated a great offensive for the players available to him... and it was pleasing to the eye for the fans.

                      Jump ahead to a few games prior to JO's return, and the Pacers began slowing down their offense, running more half-court sets, and more plays through the post. Once JO returned, the motion game, as well as the equal opportunity offense, became a thing of the past.

                      That is due to coaching, that was not by any choice that Jermaine made.

                      However, when the ball is passed into JO after he sets up near the paint, he has CHOICES as to what he will do with the ball. He can spin off his man and go strong to the rim much like he did in one of the last playoff games. Or, when tightly guarded and pushed away from the basket, he can elect to take a 14-15 foot turnaround jumpshot, instead of passing the ball back out to a perimeter player.

                      But the bottom line is, no matter how a coach chooses to play his player, the player always has choices himself regarding what constitutes a good shot to take and a potential bad shot to avoid.

                      An on-court leader will typically make the right choices the vast majority of the time. Jermaine just isn't there yet.

                      One could argue that the good and bad choices come down to the player. However, I think that coach can easily be faulted for continuously putting the player in the position where he is tempted by a poor choice in the first place.

                      So, it's a double edged sword. And it's nearly impossible to be certain in any attempt to lay blame.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                        I believe part of the problem is making JO something he is not. This was mentioned earlier. What he is not or should not be is the main scorer on the team. He is not Karl Malone who is a better scorer than JO. What did that
                        get Utah? No championhips. JO needs a perimeter/penetrating scorer
                        to take the burden off him. That person is not on the team currently.
                        That fits more with the way players are allowed to play in the NBA.
                        JO just is not a main scoring threat. He has poor shooting mechanics.

                        owl
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                          When you look at the amount of money invested at the PF between JO and Croshere alone, it almost takes your breath away. I'm not sure what percentage of our cap is dedicated to PF, but it has to be one heck of a lot.

                          And how many games have those 2 players been out the last couple of years. I think that is the other particular painful reality. Lots of dough spent on guys who have played with extensive injuries and also been forced to sit out with injuries.

                          I do think a better team can help any player, how could it not? But I totally agree with Peck's assertion that JO does not make his team better. He doesn't direct them, create synnergy with them, or do anything out of the ordinary in regards to developing those around him. Some of his comments, "We need another big guy" just shows that he doesn't believe in those around him. I think JO believes in JO, but I'm not sure who else gets that same treatment from him.

                          This team will be fine with JO if we get a better leader and if he willingly relinquishes the role.

                          I don't blame JO for not being a bruiser, because that is not what he was meant to be. Although his passing has improved, I'd like to see it get even better. I want to feel safe he'll make his FT's late in the game.

                          As Peck stated, most of it is between the ears. He certainly is one of the better athletes, scorers out there.

                          Croshere is a nice guy, but woefully inconsistent. I just don't know how many inconsistent guys you can have on your team. I can't help but like him, but I often wonder if a change of scenery would be good for him.

                          Granger is a stud and should stay a 3. His natural abilities, length and quickness, are better suited covering people at that spot on the floor.
                          “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                          motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                          Reggie Miller

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                            Originally posted by beast23
                            Is that minimizes or minimalizes?

                            I believe its a combination of both, but primarily the first.

                            Without JO, the players were playing a motion game and great team ball, offensively. I thought Rick had orchestrated a great offensive for the players available to him... and it was pleasing to the eye for the fans.

                            Jump ahead to a few games prior to JO's return, and the Pacers began slowing down their offense, running more half-court sets, and more plays through the post. Once JO returned, the motion game, as well as the equal opportunity offense, became a thing of the past.

                            That is due to coaching, that was not by any choice that Jermaine made.

                            However, when the ball is passed into JO after he sets up near the paint, he has CHOICES as to what he will do with the ball. He can spin off his man and go strong to the rim much like he did in one of the last playoff games. Or, when tightly guarded and pushed away from the basket, he can elect to take a 14-15 foot turnaround jumpshot, instead of passing the ball back out to a perimeter player.

                            But the bottom line is, no matter how a coach chooses to play his player, the player always has choices himself regarding what constitutes a good shot to take and a potential bad shot to avoid.

                            An on-court leader will typically make the right choices the vast majority of the time. Jermaine just isn't there yet.

                            One could argue that the good and bad choices come down to the player. However, I think that coach can easily be faulted for continuously putting the player in the position where he is tempted by a poor choice in the first place.

                            So, it's a double edged sword. And it's nearly impossible to be certain in any attempt to lay blame.
                            Beast, not to put the pressure on you, but you've been writing some kick *** posts.

                            I'll tell ya an comparision I tend to make with JO. It's with Barkley when the Suns went to the finals. The Suns ran the offense through Charles and despite his stature, I think what made him one of the all-time greats was his decision-making. My hope for JO is that he gets better. When we get in trouble is when he pounds and tries to decide. Barkley was pretty decisive and maybe that's part of his personality coming though.

                            In fact look at all of the talk about finding players who compliment him. He has to have an outside shooter he has to have a rugged defender. Now in truth every team needs both of those things but in J.O.'s case you have to wonder why a guy who is tagged a franchise player cannot elevate those around him to a higher level.
                            Ouch. And therein lies the crux of my problem with JO: A franchise player who can't carry the franchise. In my mind, Peja is part of the solution IF we can get a dynamic, young PG/SG to put the defense on it's heels. I'm thinking of a Parker/Ginobili/Duncan type situation. I don't think JO can or ever will be THE guy who's straw stirs the drink.

                            I like how brichard put it:

                            He doesn't direct them, create synnergy with them, or do anything out of the ordinary in regards to developing those around him. Some of his comments, "We need another big guy" just shows that he doesn't believe in those around him. I think JO believes in JO, but I'm not sure who else gets that same treatment from him
                            .

                            That being said, I like our PF situation, talentwise. Just give me another guy to be the focus of our offense.
                            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 4

                              Originally posted by brichard
                              When you look at the amount of money invested at the PF between JO and Croshere alone, it almost takes your breath away. I'm not sure what percentage of our cap is dedicated to PF, but it has to be one heck of a lot.


                              Here is the breakdown. numbers in parentheses are the number of players counted at that position:

                              Point guard (4) = $12.7m or 15.8%
                              Shooting guard (2) = $7.9m or 9.9%
                              Small forward (2) = $8.9m or 11.1%
                              Power forward (2) = $25.3m or 31.6%
                              Center (3) = $11.7m or 14.6%
                              non-players (3) = $13.5m or 16.8%

                              The non-players are Bender, Walker and Miller

                              If you consider only the salaries of the active players, then the power forward position captured 38% of all payroll.

                              Power forward captured a whopping share of the Pacers payroll. But more was paid to NON-PLAYERS than to any of the other four positions! That needs to change.


                              But to support your point, the team got much more productivity from the point guard and shooting guard spots than from the 4. The past season provides no justification for the salary imbalance.
                              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

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X