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

Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

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

    Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

    This isn't about numbers and production. This really isn't about how good Harrington is, even though he isn't one of the league's top forwards in any respect, but that part of it should be considered too. This is pure and simple Econ 101, chapter on opportunity cost.

    Right up front, Harrington's signing did three things which I consider very bad for the Pacers. It moved Jeff Foster to the bench, took focus away from the Pacers actually addressing needs, and slows down the progression of Danny Granger.

    Foster is this team's hardest worker, and when you consider he has been productive on the glass as well as the defensive end of the floor, he needs to be on the floor as a starter, getting starter's minutes, against the other team's best big man. Throw into consideration he is not a player who requires anything to be run for him offensively, he is the perfect compliment to JO.

    (Think what you want about JO, if this turns into a topic of who I'd rather have between JO and Harrington, I'd take JO everytime.)

    This team needed to focus on its backcourt in the offseason. I like Marquis Daniels. His youth and athleticism was a good exchange for Croshere. However, this team has a dire need for a PG who knows how to lead a team and will work hard, and it has an equally dire need for someone who can shoot, especially someone who knows how to come off screens. The Pacers did nothing to address either of those issues in the offseason.

    I'm not suggesting fool's gold and thinking the Pacers would have been able to get anything great in deals involving Jackson and/or Tinsley, but with Croshere's expiring contract and a trade exception, I'd have to think a more patient effort address the team's needs would have produced more favorable results.

    To me, the third one is the worst part of this all, the progression of Danny Granger. He was a steal last year, and I would have been content with the Pacers struggling for a year pushing him this season as a starter at the SF spot. However, Harrington is too similar to Granger in terms of skillset.

    Harrington went through this on the opposite side as the Pacers struggled coming to grips with what to do with him, Bender, and Croshere, all of whom were backing up Jalen Rose then Ron Artest. It was a logjam, a logjam of 'tweener forwards.

    Granger too is a 'tweener forward, but he has the ability to do something Harrington doesn't do well at all, guard wings. From a team building and development standpoint, to have players who have a position is a big thing. You hear coaches all the time talk about just getting "players", but the only time that works is when you can guard the opposing team. And while it's not as though Harrington is old by any stretch, I feel he is who he will be for the remainder of his career, while Granger is still a developing talent.

    This starts to get more into Harrington's skillset, but he is a non-factor on defense. That keeps him from playing the SF spot in the starting lineup. Sure, there are rotations where he can get away with it in game, but against the wings in the league he has zero shot at guarding those guys.

    I would have really wanted the Pacers to work toward solving their shooting problem, moving Jackson to SF, which to me is his more natural position defensively. I was thinking at some point Granger would bump him from the startling line-up, and Jackson off the bench, whether he liked it or not, would be pretty versatile. He could even go crazy vs. the opposition's second group.


    Again, this isn't about not liking Harrington or necessarily commenting on what kind of a player he is. I just don't think he is a good fit on this team. There is no question Harrington is a better talent than Jeff Foster, but this is about putting together a team.

    Harrington is primarily a player who needs favorable match-ups to succeed. His best asset is the ability to post, primarily around the mid-post area, which is the same area of the floor that JO is best suited. Being a non-factor on defense, it puts more pressure on JO because he is now forced to guard the other team's best post player, as well as erase mistakes by others.

    The Pacers are getting killed on the boards, and a lineup that would appear to be built for speed really doesn't like to run much. Of course that's OK because you have to actually rebound to be able to run. Or you have to create turnovers in a position to run, and the Pacers don't that all too well either.

    If Harrington was a special player, a difference maker, OK...you take that kind of player. I'm a big believer when getting new players for a team you get a player who either makes you better or makes you different. Of course the assumption is that by "different" you're able to put the opposition in some pretty bad match-up situations. Harrington doesn't accomplish either of those two goals.

    I don't see him as a difference maker. The Hawks aren't exactly struggling without him, when they certainly did with him, and they drafted forwards three straight years, the last two years when there were other players available to fit what they needed. It's not a ringing endorsement. I'm afraid he's going to be that good forward on a bad team, kind of like Zach Randolph.

    I like Daniels, but he too is more of the same. I'm glad he is here given that no other moves were made to address needs, but this team has a different look if they could have parlayed Jackson and the trade exception for a shooter (i.e. a maker).
    Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

    Originally posted by Jim R View Post

    Right up front, Harrington's signing did three things which I consider very bad for the Pacers. It moved Jeff Foster to the bench, took focus away from the Pacers actually addressing needs, and slows down the progression of Danny Granger.
    I always want Jeff to play more and usually right after I say that, I'm scolded for thinking such a thing.

    Getting Al I don't believe impacted our attempts to get backcourt help. With the trade exception, we basically could only do one thing with it and that was to sign Al. The draft is another story, but I don't know how good Rondo or Williams are going to be yet.

    Maybe it does slow the progression of Granger a little - but I thought no one wanted him to play power forward, and even if we didn't get Al, DG would still be playing small forward - and that to me has turned him into a stand still jump shooter has hurt his rebounding and shot blocking.

    On the list of things that is causing the Pacers to not play well acquiring Al does not make my list. That was a good pickup. 4 -4 isn't good, but it is better than 2-6 and that is what we'd be without Al. Plus do we really want Jack taking more shots.



    I like Daniels, but he too is more of the same. I'm glad he is here given that no other moves were made to address needs, but this team has a different look if they could have parlayed Jackson and the trade exception for a shooter (i.e. a maker).
    More of the same? What do you mean.

    Do we have another player on the roster who can create his own shot, is a slasher and can make plays for others, oh and is a solid defender. I don't think so

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

      Al gives the Pacers more options long term.

      Either he or JO could be traded. It seems highly unlikely that the Pacers will want to stand pat with this team. We're woefully short of talent at the guard positions, both sides of the ball and shooting taken into consideration.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

        Buck,

        RE: Daniels -- more of the same is a reference to another player who doesn't really possess consistent 3pt range, and/or the kind of guy who is effective at scoring coming off of screens.

        The types of scorers you have matters just as much as how many you have. If all your wing scorers are guys who have to shape up or catch and hold guys, I'm just not sure how effecient the offense can be. There needs to be a player who can come off firing, obviously accurately, like a Michael Redd or a Rip Hamilton.

        Jackson, Granger, and Harrington all score the same way from the perimeter. It's usually just on kick outs and ball reversals. It's rarely based on something they do off the ball. Daniels is a little different in that he can create his own shot, but the Pacers need someone who can stretch the defense, which would make things easier on Daniels too.

        Peja would look nice as well, though more of a SF. Martell Webster for Portland has a chance to be that type of player.

        RE: Granger, Foster, and a starting lineup -- I would have envisioned coming into this year with a lineup of Granger, O'Neal, Foster, Jackson and Tinsley. It's a better lineup defensively and rebounding wise, and it gives Granger more opportunities in the offense, which is still very scripted.

        RE: Trade exception -- I know the Pacers are very good at keeping a tight lip on things, as Harrington's new agent was mucking up the works for a deal, I would have hoped the Pacers were looking for other avenues.

        I think the Croshere/ Daniels trade came before acquiring the trade exception. I don't remember, but the exception coupled with a player certainly have attracted teams looking to get more flexibility.

        If they could have paired it with Tinsley or Jackson, I think someone would have gone for it.


        I was OK with drafting Shawne Williams, but I thought meant the end of pursuing Harrington. I was OK with struggling this year if it meant developing guys like Granger and Williams. I do agree, I would have rather had Rondo or Marcus Williams. At some point it's OK to draft based on need.

        Draft a PG. Deal the Exception and Jackson for a SG who is more suited coming off screens -- to Portland for Webster and a bad contract. Croshere for Daniels Suddenly the Pacers still trend toward the more athletic vision they seem to have, and they bring in younger players with good upside.
        Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

          Originally posted by sixthman View Post
          Al gives the Pacers more options long term.

          Either he or JO could be traded. It seems highly unlikely that the Pacers will want to stand pat with this team. We're woefully short of talent at the guard positions, both sides of the ball and shooting taken into consideration.

          The whole issue with Harrington was there weren't that many teams in the mix for him. I'm not sure how a 'tweener forward who manages just 6.6 rpg becomes great trade bait. I don't see Harrington starting at forward on a team which competes for a championship, especially when he bumps the hardest worker out of the startling lineup, and moves JO to a position defensively he's not as well suited for.

          At $9M per year, I don't see Harrington adding much long term value in a trade.

          I think the Pacers had this vision of a lineup in mind, but so far it's a line up that doesn't defend very well and doesn't rebound very well. It also has zero leadership on the floor. The latter isn't Harrington's fault. None of that is actually. Harrington is what he is, a 'tweener who brings nothing on half of the floor.
          Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

            Jim,

            I think your premise is flawed.

            Your choices are essentially:

            1. re-sign Peja for too much money
            2. let Peja walk with no trade exception
            3. Use that trade exceptiopn on a player that wants to be here.

            I can't find any reason to say Al was a bad pickup for the Pacers. Unfortunately, it shouldn't have been the last move the Pacers made (they promised more moves, remember?)

            This team still needs a few more trades, but that's unrelated to picking up Al for basically nothing.

            I personally think you're really overrating outside/ three-point shooting. We need to convince our guys to take fewer 3FGAs, not find a guy to shoot more. You can still create spacing and good shots by taking advantage of higher percentage shots inside the threepoint line, something that Daniels, Harrington, and Granger can all do quite well in either a catch-and-shoot or creative situation.

            The most important aspect of spacing (spreading the floor/ defense) isn't even the distance between players - its forcing your opponent to not risk double-teaming away from any of your players. (Thus, Foster causes more offensive problems than he solves.)

            As for the draft - you're right on. We've got a kid in street clothes who isn't close to being ready to play (and hopefully is on his way to the NBDL or he'll be out of the league soon), and a guy we passed on really hurt our backcourt last night.
            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: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

              Al was the best pickup of the summer. We have a guy that busts his a55 on both ends of the floor no matter what the score is, and brings fire and leadership late in the game, which is something we've sorely lacked in the past two years.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                Al was the best pickup of the summer. We have a guy that busts his a55 on both ends of the floor no matter what the score is, and brings fire and leadership late in the game, which is something we've sorely lacked in the past two years.
                I agree somewhat but I think that his rebounding has been inconsistent and that we expected him to be somewhat of a force on the inside but he seems to stay outside more than he should. I haven't watched games so I don't know much about his shot selection.

                It's been eight games: we don't know; he might be a bad pick but like Jay said, we really didn't have much choice. We had to get Al for Ron or sign some overpaid role player. I'm still optimistic because tinsley isn't out for the season.
                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

                  Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                  I agree somewhat but I think that his rebounding has been inconsistent and that we expected him to be somewhat of a force on the inside but he seems to stay outside more than he should. I haven't watched games so I don't know much about his shot selection.

                  It's been eight games: we don't know; he might be a bad pick but like Jay said, we really didn't have much choice. We had to get Al for Ron or sign some overpaid role player. I'm still optimistic because tinsley isn't out for the season.

                  Al's pulling down a more than respectable number of rebounds per game, considering where he is playing. He does what he can in his position. It doesn't look great because he's being compared to the best rebounder in the NBA (arguably). Al's ranked 44th out of 173 forwards, so he's around the upper 25% in that category.


                  There's no way he's a bad pickup. His positives outweigh his negatives by a huge longshot. He takes good shots, he's shooting .496 from the field and .467 from 3 pt. range, he's an excellent team defender, and he's good in transition both ways. He's the best thing the Pacers have right now, and he's the best we'll have all season.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

                    I think everyone just needs to take a step back and just breathe, we was told there'd be growing pains and that's what we have. Of course I was upset and vented alot of frustration after the Bulls loss but taking a step back and looking at it there were definite positives we could pull from that game. I don't think we can call the Boston game a part of the growing pains as much as it was just a collective lack of effort in conjunction with an off night which every team has(talking more about the off night than lack of effort). If we come back and win against the nets on friday and build on it these little bumps in the road won't even be remembered, we know we have the talent we just need to find our niche in this system of offense.

                    GO PACERS

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

                      simple Econ 101 huh?... rubbish. Al is the biggest reason we're 4-4 instead of 0-8. Gettin AL is just a piece to the puzzle but we still have a lot of moves to make and improvements to do. I can't believe you'll blame our woes on the player that's playing best for your team. I was hoping there was a great explanation behind such an audacious remark. Picking up Baston was a waste. That whole White thing was a waste. Heck picking Williams probably is a bad move too. But you know what, maybe the real bad pick up was Rick Carlisle's extension. Seriously, we proclaimed that we were trying to go uptempo, so far it's been non-existent. But cmon, handing RC an uptempo lineup is just like trying to ask Granny Goose to drive a ferrari or Flava Flav to sing a ballad; it ain't gonna work!!!

                      Our personnel in itself isn't that talented. We're at where our capabilies pretty much could take us. We don't have a consistent and reliable scorer so I won't even bother mention a go-to guy.

                      We don't have a rebounder that can help out JO underneath other than Feisty. But we need a tough Dale Davis type of dude though. Jeff is a pest but we need a beast... a banger. Hulk can bang, but I guess he was born to do banging in a different sport. He just doesn't seem to have the savvy and aptitude to play basketball.

                      Danny Granger is a fine player but it's quite obvious that he's not as good as a lot of people in Indy overrate him to be. Tinsley continues to be inconsistent. Jack though has shown a lot of progress from last season. But you know what, plain and simple we're just not that good a team right now. Us picking up 2 trash players that were just supposed to make numbers work whould've suggested that long ago. I'm not at all bothered by our play. I think the players are trying really hard. That's why I prefer watching this team compared to last year's. Maybe we all got spoiled even during the past 2 season when we got shagged. At elast we all thought we were "title contenders" when we eliminate the bad luck. But right now, we are just not that good a team straight up!!! LB and DW have a lot of work to do. Hopefully we can pull it together.
                      http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

                        I would move jax and granger to the bench, start foster and daniels and see what happens, also more low post from JO. As someone said Al is why were 4-4 and not 0-8. Al is 100% positive for this team.
                        "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                        Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

                          Those of you clamoring for Jack and Danny to be benched for Foster and Daniels...

                          1) Jack is the Reggie replacement. He did not come here to come off the bench, simple as that. Nor does he warrant being benched in favor of Marquis Daniels, who hasn't proven a whole lot yet (except for 1 nice game and an overall consistent lack of errors).

                          2) Granger is everyone's favorite around here, why is everyone jumping off the bandwagon? He provides essentially everything we need and should be the starter. It's only 8 games into his 2nd NBA season, in a new offensive scheme. We need to have quite a bit more patience.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Al Harrington was a bad pick up for the Pacers...

                            Al was an awesome pick up, the guy has been beasting it up out there.

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...
                            X