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

Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

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

  • Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

    I'm stealing this from one of Jay's posts and I thought it was worthy of its own thread. I don't know specifically what Jay is referring to, so instead of putting words in his mouth, I'll let him explain.

    But I ask all of you, have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they ever tried.

    I disagree with Jay's point and I think every move TPTB made since 2003 was to build the team around JO and Ron. Trading AL for Jax was clearly a move to get more perimeter scoring to help Ron and JO inside.

    The Pacers entire offense was geared towards JO and Ron, 90% of the play went through those two guys.

  • #2
    Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

    I think there's a huge difference between "building a team around JO and Ron" and "building a team around JO."

    I don't dispute your history. But I don't think Ron was a good compliment for JO on the court - the spacing was bad. We still don't have a team that creates good space for JO to operate without constant double- and triple- teams.

    I'd even agree with something bball has hinted at, that the team (at least on the court) was more built around complimenting Ron's skill set than JO's skill set. JO complimented Ron (better than Ron complimented JO) because when Ron would move from the perimeter to the paint (something he was very good at), the double-team couldn't come from JO so the opponents were generally sending a "small guy" for the double team. The spacing problems worked to Ron's benefit, and JO's detriment.

    Yes - that was the most successful version of the Pacers we've seen since 2000. If Ron were mentally stable and coachable, and JO wasn't already deemed the team's "franchise player" that would have been a good foundation.

    But we saw last year that when JO and Ron were out and DD was re-signed, that the team was indeed still built around Reggie's skill set. And when JO was out this season and Peja was playing in Reggie's role offensively was when the team appeared to be best playing to thier potential.

    If JO is the "franchise player" then TPTB need to commit themselves to building a team that compliments JO as a low post player. Frankly, I'd like to see a team built like the 94/95 Rockets were built around Hakeem - those types of complimentary players.

    Except we don't need a nutcase like Maxwell - been there; done that.

    Gotta run - I'll check back in here later.
    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


    • #3
      Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

      Originally posted by Jay@Section204

      If JO is the "franchise player" then TPTB need to commit themselves to building a team that compliments JO as a low post player. Frankly, I'd like to see a team built like the 94/95 Rockets were built around Hakeem - those types of complimentary players.
      Thing is, and I've said this in another post, addressed directly to a comparision to the Rockets with Hakeem, JO doesn't have nearly enough moves to warrant "building" a team around him that way.

      The Rocket's worked because Hakeem would be unstoppable. He just needed some spot up shooters to punish the D for collapsing on him.

      I think the Wolves tried to follow the same model, but didn't have quite the right personell.

      I'd build a team of complimetary players around a guy like Kobe, or LeBron, etc, not Jermaine.

      To me, Jermaine is Scottie Pippen. He needs a Jordan to play off. Not to say Ron is Jordan-like, but I think that's how this team was "built". I think it was built around a game changing guy who can freelance (Ron), and a guy who can play off his moves.

      Jermaine is not a guy you build around, any more than a Marcus Camby, Pau Gasol or Troy Murphy.

      What I think Jermaine needs is a Jason Richardson/Gilbert Arenas type dynamic players to break the setup of a low post D, which would open things up for JO.

      Matter of fact, I'll agree with you in the sense that we could build around Jermaine if we modeled ourselves on Hakeem paired with Drexler. But who could we get to play the role of Clyde......?
      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


      • #4
        Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

        Jay, with the new rules that allow teams to play different defenses, a team cannot be successfully built like the Rockets of 1994, 1995. it wouldn't be successful in todays NBA.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

          Explain.

          Great offense beats great defense. What does the defense do today that can't be overcome by a combination of a dominant post player, excellent outside shooting, and competent dribble penetration.

          + + + + + + + + +

          Skaut, I think JO is better than you give him credit for. Is he as good as Hakeem in the paint? Of course not. In particular, he's not a dominant post scorer at his current weight against a double or triple team. Maybe at ten pounds lighter he'll re-gain some quickness/ exlposiveness that he's sacrificed over the past two season.

          On the other hand, if the Pacers would construct a team in which opponents dreaded double-teaming JO, JO is very difficult to stop against single coverage.

          Sure, you can go to a zone (as UB implies) - that's why we need at least three or four good jumpshooters (and they don't necessarily have to stand at the three point line, Brad Miller's FT-line jumper is a fine example) and three or four guys capable of forcing the defense to collapse with dribble penetration. Then spread the floor and a zone defense will break down against that, too. Then you're back to JO facing single-coverage in the paint.
          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: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

            On second thought... just scratch the Rockets comment.

            That's not the direction this thread should go; there's plenty of other stuff to kick around and discuss in there with or without that comparison.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

              Without Brad what we've had are perimeter jumpshooters. What we have needed the last 2-3 years was a complementary player at center capable of consistently hitting a 10-12 foot shot.

              That way, JO would be able to not just look for perimeter guys, he could also dump the SHORT pass to the complementary player and make the opponent pay for double-teaming him.

              He has been able to do this on a few occassions with Jeff and David, but they just are not consistent enough. Peja has also gone into the paint to take the pass, but is a perimeter player. Pollard was thought to be this player, but unfortunately has not been healthy enough to fill the role.

              With the interior player, we would then have perimeter players capable of hitting shots, as well as an interior big man that can score as well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

                Beast, do we really have perimeter players right now that are capable of hitting shots (other than Peja, of course)?

                Perimeter players not named Peja:
                SJax - not consistently.
                Fred - I don't trust that shot of his, but it seems to be going in somewhat reguarly
                AJ - not really.
                Tinsley - I don't trust his shot and for good reason.
                Saras - we all know now that he's not a shooter.
                Granger - I like Danny's midrange game but I don't want him settling for many jumpers. He can get better shots.
                Foster -
                Croshere - Inconsistent/ who knows? But I don't like him settling for three's either.
                Gill -
                David - if he's ever shooting face-up jumpers I might strangle the coach.
                Pollard -
                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


                • #9
                  Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  Beast, do we really have perimeter players right now that are capable of hitting shots (other than Peja, of course)?
                  No. I totally agree with what you are saying. We've only had one true perimeter shooter at a time. Reggie, then Peja.

                  I would say that we need a minimum of two consistent perimeter shooters in the game with Jermaine. But I also believe that an interior partner that can hit the short to mid-range shot consistently is necessary if the offense is to be at its best.

                  There are many occassions when a double-teamed player just does not see the open perimeter player. But he does see the player across the lane whose man left him to form the double-team.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

                    Originally posted by beast23
                    No. I totally agree with what you are saying. We've only had one true perimeter shooter at a time. Reggie, then Peja.

                    I would say that we need a minimum of two consistent perimeter shooters in the game with Jermaine. But I also believe that an interior partner that can hit the short to mid-range shot consistently is necessary if the offense is to be at its best.

                    There are many occassions when a double-teamed player just does not see the open perimeter player. But he does see the player across the lane whose man left him to form the double-team.
                    I agree 100%. Just wanted to clarify because I thought you might've said that we did have the right perimeter players around JO.

                    As for the perimeter, I think you could survive with two spot up shooters and one guy that's equally good at a spot-up shot or dribble penetration. But by dribble penetration I don't mean a guy that only uses his left (off) hand two or three times per season.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                      I agree 100%. Just wanted to clarify because I thought you might've said that we did have the right perimeter players around JO.

                      As for the perimeter, I think you could survive with two spot up shooters and one guy that's equally good at a spot-up shot or dribble penetration. But by dribble penetration I don't mean a guy that only uses his left (off) hand two or three times per season.
                      If you are saying Freddie used his left hand 2, maybe 3 times, this season then wouldn't that be doubling or tripling his his attempts from last year?

                      Twice to three times as many times.... That sounds like progress! How much do you expect???



                      -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


                      • #12
                        Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

                        Sorry for the late post, but I will say I agree with this post.

                        Jay, I really dont think anyone is undervaluing JO. I do think he is a good player, but I would like to think that is we are to just build around "him".

                        I am not sure I like the "Pippen" like label for him, cause I do think he can be the main and number one option.

                        The real test is going to be if we can get a player that has no problem being 1B behind JO's 1A option. Of course, JO would have to agree with that.

                        I think we had that for a while with Ron and JO, where both had no problem defering to the other, and they were confident that the other would pick up the slack the other one left behind (see the Miami series where JO really opened things up for Ron) Granted, winning makes getting along easy.

                        Not sure if that made sense, Ill try to elaborate if anyone doesnt quite understand what I am trying to say.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

                          Building around Jermaine does not necessarily mean pounding the ball into him ever time, it just means surrounding him with complementary players that account for the style he prefers . For example, Dallas has a few scorers that can take some offensive pressure off of Nowitzki, cause he's not a full-time creator the way Kobe or T-Mac are; big long help-side defenders that can account for his poor perimeter defense; and big gaurds that can crash the boards, taking advantage of the mis-matches he creates.

                          I don't know exactly what would work with JO, but it doesn't necessarily have to involve four spot-up shooters that stand around watching him work his magic. It's just means he's the first option on offense, and we expect him to perform in crunch time.

                          Now, I don't think a team where JO is the primary scorer and go-to guy will ever win anything because I don't think he's that good. Some people will disagree, and it's up to TPTB to determine if they think he is. I agree that the team has never really been built around JO, and that may be a result of TPTB agreeing with me, or maybe they just haven't had the chance.
                          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried

                            They gave him a max contract, but never built around him.

                            Hard to reach any conclusions about what TPTB think of JO, with a confusing "vision statement" like that one.
                            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

                            Working...
                            X