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 6

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

    2006 off-season evaluation part 6

    The shooting guard spot. Right now we have one player who can play the position under contract one backup who can play the position who is a free agent at the moment & three players that are actually other positions on the floor but we use them at the two or are thinking about it.

    On paper, this spot also looks to be in need of help.

    Stephen Jackson.

    The good: The man can score from anywhere on the floor. He can go deep or he can drive. He is the most consistant Pacer about being able to creat his own shot. He is a solid defender & actually when it comes to some players he guards them better than almost anyone else (Rip Hamilton comes to mind). He is a solid passer & when allowed to he is a better than average rebounder.

    The bad: With Jax it is all emotional. In truth as a basketball player there are very few, if any, things he does poorly. If he has one downside it is that he tends to dominate the ball more than he should but again I don't know if that is him or Rick's coaching. But there are things he does that are not always basketball related that tend to send our fans over the edge. You all know them but I'll recite them again for fun. He argues with the ref on almost every play, often times while the ball is in play going the other way. He yell's at Rick whenever he is taken out of the game & does not know how to hide any kind of dissapointment, anger or bitterness. Did I mention that he argues with the refs. a lot? Made the huge mistake of criticizing a beloved rookie this year after the playoff loss. Depending on which tv station you watched he either came across as a wild eyed loon who didn't care if he was ever here again (WTHR) or a mild mannered well spoken veteran leader who stated that with all of the turmoil the team just needed to have some time together to get the ship righted (WISH).

    The outlook: The fans of Indiana hate Jackson. I thought about that very strongly before I said it but I'll say it again, the fans of Indiana hate Jackson. I have never in my life seen a player that fans so sink their teeth into & thier bile on. The sad thing is that Jackson knows this as well.

    I'll be honest, I think the fans blame him for to much. Whenever the guy misses a shot he gets boo'ed, hell he is boo'ed in the opening lineup almost every game. I think he just reminds to many people of the brawl & a lot of people, wrongly IMO, blame him more than they do the others. However the fans have it right about the entire talking with the refs. & coach's. That is despicable when he does it. When A.J. said the culture had to change I assume that Jacksons face was in his brain when he said it. I think he has to go & this is going to be one of the very rare times that a player in Indiana is going to be gone because the fans really demand it.

    Fred Jones

    The good: He can drive to the basket. He can, on occasion, hit an outside shot. He is a physical defender & he is a decent passer. He also is very athletic.

    The bad: He is short. He has a very tough time with long lanky shooting guards cause they just shoot over him & on the other end they can change his shot. He has a maddening ability to jump into the air with the ball & not know what he is going to do with it thus often times causing stupid turnovers. Everybody in the free world knows that if he can't go right he can't go.

    The outlook: I just don't think the team is going to sink much money into him. I think he has a limited upside at this point in his career & what you see it what you get. He is a good person, God knows on this team that's almost as good as being a good player, & thus the team might want to keep him around just because he doesn't cause problems. Injuries are also a concern with Fred, he seems to every season come down with some form of nagging injury. I could see them signing him or I could see them trying to pull off a sign & trade. Either way I would be ok.

    Saras, Danny & Peja. They are going to try & play all three there next season if they are still here. All I can say is, NO. Danny should never be anything but a three & if they feel they have to give him min. somewhere else than powerforward it is. Peja might be able to do a few min. here but I just don't see him being able to guard the Hamiltons & Bryants of the world. I know a lot of you want Saras at the 2 or at nothing at all, well then nothing at all is probably what it shoul be then. When he plays the two guard spot he seems like a fish out of water to me.

    Overall:

    If we all agree that Jackson needs to go that means we have no shooting guard at all. This obviously would need to be addressed in either a trade or free agency or something. We need a fresh start at the two spot IMO.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

    Yep, Jackson has to go.

    If the Pacers were to address the PG slot and not be able to address SG, I'd be okay until the trading deadline (using Cro's contract) by using other players to cover the position. 1. Peja 2. Freddie 3. Danny (only if absolutely necessary)

    Folks keep talking about Peja's inability to guard the quicker SGs. But, let's face it, he wouldn't be guarding them. Danny would. But I would agree that Danny wouldn't be able to stop them either; but he would have better luck containing them than Peja.

    It's going to be an interesting summer. And most certainly the SG position, along with PG will be addressed.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

      I would really like to see us land Mike James over the summer for our SG role.

      Yes, he is only 6'3, but in my opinion, he is a guy who plays larger than his size at the guard position, and also has great lateral quickness. I'm not sure how many recall when Detroit knocked off LA in the finals, but he and Lindsay Hunter came in off the bench and harassed both Kobe and Fisher to death on defense, while knocking down 3's keeping LA from sagging on defense. He is a guy that in my opinion can guard anyone from Iverson to Kobe or Vince, even though he is only 6'2-6'3. Dumars guarded Jordan better than anyone else in the league at 6'3...and unlike Freddie, I think James has the quicks to stay with someone like Iverson on the defensive end as well. AJ guards bigger point guards like Billups and Kidd really well, but we need someone who can neutralize guys like AI, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, TJ Ford and those types of penetrating PGs as well.

      I've never seen him play without passion, no matter who he was playing for or what game it was. I like Mike James for the role, especially with the direction the NBA is heading where pentration is what makes it all happen, and I think he is very signable. Toronto has widely acknowledged wanting to trade out of their draft spot. James and that draft pick could be packaged together with Eric Williams or Mo' Pete should we wish to do a S&T with Peja to give Danny the full control of the 3.
      Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

      Comment

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

        I think Peja's length will help him at defending SGs, too.

        Our three SGs, SJax, Fred and Saras, need to find new addresses before next season begins.
        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

        • #5
          Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

          5-10 years ago we b*tched and moaned that we needed a slasher. Reggie couldn't drive to the basket, couldn't create on his own without a DD screen, didn't play much D, never rebounded, and complained to the refs too much. Now he's retired and on deck for sainthood.

          Now we have that guy, but he's a knucklehead. Go figure.
          Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

          Comment

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

            This is our biggest need on the floor. Jax doesn't remind me of the brawl nearly as much as he reminds me of Jalen Rose.

            With Fred, there is just nothing that makes me think he is somebody we would miss all that much. A common theme with this team is injured and inconsistent, and you can throw Fred in that ring. We can have some of these guys, just not a team chocked full of them.

            Anybody else we play at the 2 is not a natural 2, and we should have at least one on the floor. It would seem that the 2 should be a relatively easy position to replace. Not everybody is Reggie Miller, but why we can find so many SF's and so little SG's is a bit of a mystery to me.
            “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

            • #7
              Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

              Have we done the Center position yet? Did I miss that?
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

                I really like Jack as a player and I don't think we can get equal value talent-wise. In addition to that, when Peja and JO are both playing, he gets many open looks and he really thrives in the thirs scorer position, just like TPTB thought he would two years ago. The problem however is that unless he goes, the fan base can't be rebuilt and this "culture change" will not be allowed to occur, all because he has become the scapegoat. Especially if Carlisle stays.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

                  Jackson has to go. Our backcourt isn't working for us on or off the court and the fact that he gets booed at home...well I really don't want to see a guy kept here who gets booed at home. It would be best for everyone.

                  As for Freddie, say thank you and let him walk. I think that we need to revamp our backcourt so let Freddie walk unless you can get something for him in a sign and trade of course.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

                    Everyone keeps talking of sign and trades, but historically how many S&T's have we been involved in (particularly when the Pacers are the ones 'signing' a player only to trade him)?

                    -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 6

                      Other than Brad Miller & James Jones I can't think of any.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

                        Originally posted by jcouts
                        I would really like to see us land Mike James over the summer for our SG role....

                        ...Toronto has widely acknowledged wanting to trade out of their draft spot. James and that draft pick could be packaged together with Eric Williams or Mo' Pete should we wish to do a S&T with Peja to give Danny the full control of the 3.
                        Mike James is probably at the top of my list, too. He would be a great defensive addition to the backcourt, he can create his own shot, he can slash to the basket and he can hit the perimeter shot.

                        The only reason the Pacers would not be re-signing Peja would be if Peja wants more dollars that the Pacers are willing to spend. Under those circumstances, I could see the Pacers trying to do a sign-and-trade using Peja with Toronto.

                        But I have a hunch that if the Pacers wouldn't want to match his dollars, then Toronto probably wouldn't want to spend that much, either. And one other factor... a sign-and-trade would require the cooperation of the player being traded. I don't see Peja as willingly wanting to go to Toronto.

                        So we are back to using other players to get Mike James, players currently under contract that will have no say in where they are going. And that probably goes back to some combination of Jackson, Tinsley and Jones.

                        Also, a sign-and-trade with Toronto probably won't net much more than James. I think you are over-valuing our assets if you think we could get James, MP and a draft pick for Peja.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

                          Originally posted by rexnom
                          I really like Jack as a player and I don't think we can get equal value talent-wise. In addition to that, when Peja and JO are both playing, he gets many open looks and he really thrives in the thirs scorer position, just like TPTB thought he would two years ago. The problem however is that unless he goes, the fan base can't be rebuilt and this "culture change" will not be allowed to occur, all because he has become the scapegoat. Especially if Carlisle stays.
                          I think part of the problem is that Jackson is not really accepting of the third scorer's role, primarily due to the fact that our injury situation has never really made him any lower than option 2.

                          And, I really don't view Jackson as the "injured party" or the scapegoat. I believe Brichard hit the nail on the head when he stated...

                          "Jax doesn't remind me of the brawl nearly as much as he reminds me of Jalen Rose".

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

                            Originally posted by Knucklehead Warrior
                            5-10 years ago we b*tched and moaned that we needed a slasher. Reggie couldn't drive to the basket, couldn't create on his own without a DD screen, didn't play much D, never rebounded, and complained to the refs too much. Now he's retired and on deck for sainthood.

                            Now we have that guy, but he's a knucklehead. Go figure.
                            There is no question that without Jackson, and possibly Jones as well, that the Pacers will be in desperate need of another slasher.

                            And, you are right about what we wanted TEN years ago. But, the primary difference between Jackson and Reggie is that Larry Brown came along and was able to show Reggie the errors of his ways.

                            Under Brown, Reggie's defense improved significantly. I believe most of his fellow players would probably say that from that time on, although Reggie wasn't "great" defensively, that he played better than average defense. I think that Reggie's defense, following Brown's influence, has always been underestimated by his detractors.

                            Also, after his first several years in the league, Reggie began picking his battles with the referees, rather than verbalizing his frustrations every single trip up and down the floor. And, as he was bantering with the officials, he was not allowing it to effect his play... he was getting back on defense.

                            The point is that Reggie had someone point out to him that his defensive weakness was hurting the team and he dedicated himself to improving it. It was probably also pointed out to Reggie that his constant lip service toward the refs was hurting himself and his team, and he toned it down.

                            Jackson wears his emotions on his sleeves; he admits that much himself. Says thats the way he is and "that's just him". He has no intention of ever changing that. You accept him the way he is or you can basically go screw yourself.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 6

                              Originally posted by beast23
                              I think you are over-valuing our assets if you think we could get James, MP and a draft pick for Peja.
                              Over-valuing is too kind.

                              Anyway, I doubt the Raps really want Peja; small forward is not especially a position of need for them.

                              Comment

                              Previous template Next
                              Working...
                              X