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 of the week...

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

  • Question of the week...

    Ok, I've always called them the Q.O.D. but I'm going to see if we can't draw this one out a little more.

    For my first Q.O.W. I am going to tackle a huge subject.

    What is the plan?

    Now let me give some guidlines here.

    I don't care what each of us think the plan should be or would hope it to be at first.

    I want to know what each of you honestly think the plan that TPTB have in mind for this franchise. Also talk about how long you think they thought it would be to get there.

    Then I want you to list out what the plan should be & how long should it take to get there in your opinion

    Right now I have no idea.

    They have a coach who by their own admission lost the team last year but was rewarded with an extension.

    They went out & brought in players who were built to move into a free flowing motion offense, yet they kept the core of the team intact that does just ok at that but is far more suited to play half court offense.

    They have a franchise player who they continue to try year after year after year to make the center to fail every time & then have to revert to a center who while good is an absolute abomination on the offensive end.

    They have young players that have shown some form of talent yet they only get garbage min. or a few min. here or there.

    IMO, the biggest problem with this team right now is lack of commitment. No not from the players, they know who they are. I'm talking about IMO the team lacks commitment at the top to make any real headway.

    We want to be a running team, we want to be a half court defensive team, we want to be physical, we want to play small, it goes on & on.

    Are we committed to chasing a title or are we looking to the future or worse yet are we on a steep treadmill to nowhere.

    Ok, I'm vioating my own rules here aren't I?

    What do you think the actual plan is that TPTB have in mind?


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Question of the week...

    The plan is business as usual. They change a little bit and see what they have then change a bit more.

    That's not exactly working right now because this team because is up one game and down another. Deciding why they are inconsistent is the problem, and Walsh has admitted to being frustrated by them.

    I think Tinsley will be gone before the deadline for another point guard. Why? Because they won't keep this team together unless it shows progress and right now it's not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Question of the week...

      ok, here's my take. first, on rick carlisle. why did he get an extension? well, there aren't that many coaches who can coach at a high level. if you fire rick, who do you replace him with? there's no obvious answer to that. so perhaps tptb locked him up just to ensure that the franchise will have a competent coach. not a very strong theory maybe, but not implausible.

      here's an alternate theory that's a bit more out there. remember that rick also got an extra title along with his extension (vp for bball ops? something like that). the explanation given was that it gives rick more authority with the players, but how often do teams actually do that? the extension alone should already give rick all the authority he needs. my belief is that rick is actually being groomed for a front office position, what with walsh retiring. perhaps bird needs backup, perhaps he really is more of a figurehead than anything else - this is just speculation on my part, understand, but it does sort of make sense.

      next, on becoming an up tempo team. i believe tptb are sincere in wanting to play up tempo, but as peck rightly points out, the core of the team is not suited for it. note though that all of the new additions - shawne, baston, daniels, greene, marshall, powell - are all above average athletes. these guys are not getting core minutes, but the material for an up tempo team is there.

      the trouble is, these guys are frankly not very good right now. a team that features these guys mainly is not going to get many wins. that's why the veteran halfcourt guys (harrington, jackson, tinsley, foster) are getting the minutes, to deliver the wins and make the playoffs.

      the expectation is that by next year, we'll have a better idea of which of the new guys are reliable, and we can then proceed to swap out the veterans for better-fitting pieces. a 2-year transition, as ub likes to point out, and like anything in the midst of transforming itself, it is not pretty to look at.

      yes, i guess this could be interpreted as lack of commitment on management's part - basically they're trying to manage the transition in 2 steps instead of overhauling the team in one go and risk missing the playoffs. in some circles this is regarded as prudent business management (not necessarily for sports teams though, i do understand that)

      so, to summarize, i believe the plan is to have a fully revamped, up tempo team by next season, with possibly a new coach and new gm (carlisle). the reason why nothing seems to make sense now is that some of the parts have changed but the others haven't yet.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Question of the week...

        Part one:
        The plan....
        I think that Birds wants a more free flowing Euro style game (formerly known as American basketball). I think Walsh wants to make the playoffs. So Bird's not going to be able to get wholesale changes toward that even if he wanted to because it would risk the playoffs (to make major changes all at once).

        Meanwhile, I think TPTB ordered or compromised with Carlisle to play Tinsley and give him a chance. Live with his deficits and see if that changes his attitude for the better and allows him to come around and be Good Jamaal more than Bad Jamaal. IOW... they want to see what they really have before making the decision to drop back and punt. I'd say they are leaning towards 'punt' right now.

        More and more I am thinking they went out and got Al not only as a fan pacifier but because they don't see JO here next season. If he's really got an opt out then they probably think he's taking it this summer. They might even encourage it. Even if there is no option, JO said they had an agreement that if things didn't work out this season then they'd look at parting this summer. On a side note- Besides all that, Donnie Walsh (IMHO) doesn't like being told what to do. IMHO the 'heated' discussion didn't help JO's long term cause here. I think management would love to have a Mark Jackson or Brad Miller situation where they don't want to re-sign a player but can play it off like his leaving has everything to do with them and nothing that TPTB can do about it.

        Al's going to be a PF. Foster will probably the starting C. Granger will be starting SF.

        Sjax. I have no idea.

        Harrison. I have no idea.

        Either one of those guys could be gone with the right offer and I think Carlisle would ship Harrison off. Sjax... sometimes I wonder if Carlisle really does like Sjax, warts and all. I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear his thoughts on Sjax when he thinks he's in safe company.

        I'd say the backcourt will be overhauled before next season if not by the trade deadline. I'm doubftul of a trade deadline deal unless the playoffs are in jeopardy or if fans start staying away in monster numbers. ..Unless we just get an offer we can't refuse. I do not think Walsh will be burning up the phone lines, not because he doesn't want to make a trade but because I don't believe he operates that way. No fire sales.

        Carlisle and Sarunas aren't a good match. Doesn't Sarunas have an opt out himself? I can't imagine him not taking it.

        I can see the bench slowly getting some looks. Particularly as the season wears on. And those looks will be for our own info for the future plus a little game film for trade considerations/showcasing. It won't be necessarily for this season as much as just to have a better idea of where they might fit in the future.

        Barring a turnaround I think the core is in real danger of being broken up before next season. This season was a bit of a chance as well as management being patient. Maybe patient to a fault.

        I think Bird's desire to see a more free flowing offense will come to pass...eventually... but not in a quick process. Walsh doesn't move that fast and this team is showing it isn't going to happen with them as constructed. I think Carlisle will be fine with a different offense when he's got the players for it. And I think he'll get the players for it... eventually.

        -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


        • #5
          Re: Question of the week...

          The plan that was hatched 3 years ago when LB started working for the franchise has been revised several times imo, but in large lines is still in tact.

          There was a time when they had to look ahead, way in to the future, a future where the Simons' and Donnie Walsh no longer would be.

          Now selling the franchise outright has several snags most likely also related to Conseco agreements, so that is not an option, but bare in mind that one of the Simons' has already stated publically that there is no Pacers without DW, so they have not only tought about it, but (considering the monetary value of the franchise) most likely also planned for it.

          Whilst I sincerely hope I am wrong, I feel that the likelyhood of DW ending his tenure after this season is rather large, his answer to the question about his pending retirement was something in the sense of "we have not discussed it yet, we will talk at the end of the year I suppose" can only be utter nonsense, this is a several hundred million dollar worth operation, you do not discuss the change or lack of change of a CEO in a week or two, nor can you enter the new season (which starts the moment the old one finishes) without a clear plan, so something is amiss there.

          In comes the "theory" that LB got a share option when he joined PS&E and a "guarantee" that he would be the next CEO of PS&E.
          Now I assume in this theory that there are "safeguards" in the agreement for both parties, change of heart, mind or whatever can happen so there have to be.

          Larry and friends would take over the franchise, and take it forwards (or so). This explains the extension Rick got, the title he got, and yes considering the title there's a two way exit build in his extension, voluntary move to office or "forced" move to office, in both cases there is a way to "work with the contract" whilst if he had a sole extension then there is no way to replace him.
          Considering he's Larry's buddie, he has to be held "safe" and that is done, I can see no way LB was going to "kick" his friend's backside to the curb, this prevents that.

          I think that most of us will agree that the last 2 years at least have been "untyipcal" DW years, outside of the trading tricks and patience in the Artest matter, DW is usually less "charmed" of "unknowns" such as Sara and Maceo and the "drop" of White is very uncharacteristic for DW.

          This can be explained if this is a "transition" period, or a "test" period and I can not see any other way to explain it, to many risks have been taken that are simply not of the signature DW.

          JO can opt out at the end of the year, but whether he does, playing Al @ PF is not a "winning" move IMO, so we would need a heck of a lot more player movement to even come close to being competitive and in all honesty, I feel that the Simons' are not that sure about LB and that such is the only reason we are wavering on DW retiring.
          If he doesn't then I expect LB to move on, buy in elsewhere or simply leave, and there is then a small chance RC takes his place, while we get a new coach, which might in turn placate the players we have and will get.

          Al as a move for the future I simply do not believe in, he nowhere near holds the value or attraction that JO holds, but he was very popular here before he left and still may be with some (baby Al) but his play in Atl has not improved his value (or salary, unless I am very mistaken he did not exactly "improve" his salary in the trade) and has not shown that much progress in "leadership" or "team-spirit".

          Until there is clarity in the front office and the coaching staff, there is no way of saying what the player situation will be, limbo is what we have and there are several plans but none has yet been decided upon.
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Question of the week...

            I am not sure if there is one, and if there is I think its clear that they are not all on the same page.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Question of the week...

              I believe part of the plan can be seen the way a great number of the contracts end at the same time. JO, Jackson and Tinsley one year later end at the same time. Some have posted they believe the Pacers will make moves before the trade deadline. I find this hard to believe because of the nature of the players and the lengths of their contracts. Would JO opt out next year?
              Why would he give up 3 more years on a contract that he will never see the likes of again? Highly unlikely in my opinion. So the bottom line is the plan is the usual DW mo. Steady and stay the course. Hope that the pieces start working and leads to modest success. Anything beyond that is gravy.

              The long, long term is impossible to comment on. Who will own the Pacers
              and what relationship will exist with Conseco?
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Question of the week...

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                More and more I am thinking they went out and got Al not only as a fan pacifier but because they don't see JO here next season. If he's really got an opt out then they probably think he's taking it this summer. They might even encourage it. Even if there is no option . . .
                -Bball
                JO has a player option for 08, thats the Summer after next.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Question of the week...

                  The Plan:

                  The original masterplan for this franchise blew up with Ron Artest. When healthy, the pre-brawl team was playing championship-level basketball. That infamous game with Detroit can even be used as a microcosm for that season/era for the Pacers. Remember what was happening before the cup hit Artest? The Pacers were beating the Pistons badly at home. Then there's the cup, and we all know the rest.

                  TPTB hoped that by supporting Artest when he came, they could resurrect that lost season. No luck there. Since then the team has been in recovery mode, eventually turning Artest and what will probably be a mid-first round draft pick into Al Harrington. They've made some other pick-ups along the way (Granger, Williams, Daniels, Marshall, Powell, Saras, etc.) that have brought us to the current roster.

                  Their are many problems with this roster, but it is a playoff level roster. TPTB know that they need to make the playoffs every year, so a Chicago-style rebuilding effort will never happen. I think the current plan is much like DW's plan when trading Artest: Stay the course. Offers will be listened to for almost any player on the roster, but TPTB will not move any of the current players just for the sake of moving them. They'll test the waters in exceptional circumstances (e.g. Allen Iverson), but for the most part they're looking toward the year when Jackson, Daniels, Harrington, and O'Neal are in the last year of their contracts. O'Neal may ask for a trade after this year, but he will not opt out. No one else will pay him $20 million.

                  The interesting thing to look at in the long-term is that of the 2 best players on the team (O'Neal, Harrington) and the 2 best prospects (Granger, Williams) only 2 of them can feasably be on the court at the same time. My guess would be that TPTB envision a future with Granger and Williams at the 3 and 4, and very few, if any, of the other players on the current roster still hanging around. Marquis Daniels would fit in well with the up-tempo style of such a team, but he needs to develop his skills and shooting. He'll be given the chance or he'll go the way of the rest of the roster. A combination of the expiring contracts and talent of Jackson, Harrington, O'neal should be able to land a very good PG or a high draft pick. Add a few bench players and a decent C along the way, and you could (if things go as planned) have a very good team.
                  "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                  - Salman Rushdie

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Question of the week...

                    I agree with mellifluous that before this summer the plan was to win with the JO/Artest led Pacers. Had Artest gotten his act together that team had everything it needed to be a dominant NBA team. In the brawl year they started the season playing like the best team in the NBA.

                    One thing that I think TPTB got used to was how much up and coming talent the Pacers had since 2001. To me that team was building to what was the 2004-2005 team. Since everything has fallen apart (to me the biggest disappointments being the Artest situation and just as big the Bender disaster) people in general including TPTB seem to have been under the delusion that the Pacers were still one of the most talented teams in the NBA. This was a huge miscalculation. Last year after Artest was gone, we were still very deep (not accounting for injuries), but being deep isn't the same as being talented. Today, our starting line-up is one of the least talented (or at least has some of the least potential for improvement) in the NBA.

                    I honestly think that Walsh and Bird want to transition to a more free flowing team, and I honestly think that Carlisle is a coach that can do that. What I think they probably mis-calculated was the elements that are really needed for that type of game. Athleticism isn't the entire answer. We don't have a great rebounding big man who is good at making a quick outlet pass which seems to me to be the first thing that we would need. We also don't have a backcourt that is going to force turn-overs. It's almost impossible to run in the NBA off a made basket.

                    So to answer the original question. I think that uptempo free flowing offense and pressure defense is what is expected for the future, and the biggest miscalculation has been actually evaluating our own players. While it's not the style of basketball that I would prefer to watch, I think that it will continue to be the direction the team will go. Ultimately, I think that it will play to JO's strengths.

                    As far as what I think the plan ought to be, the first thing is that I think either Harrington or JO needs to be moved at the trade deadline. I personally have no preference which. JO is obviously a much better player, but as such he could also bring more in return. I think that whatever style offense we play, we need to return to being a defense-first team. IMO that is impossible with our current roster. There is no player on the Pacers that I think should be untouchable in making moves to get to that point.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Question of the week...

                      Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                      Since then the team has been in recovery mode...,
                      Yes, very nicely put. I'll try to contribute more than a QFT. We're in a state of flux from the top down. It's obvious with Rick's extension that plans have been put into place to replace DW or possibly both DW/LB. On the players' end the current core is hanging on while the newcomers get adjusted and are of course brought along slowly. We may see some roster changes once Jax2's legal problems are resolved. Those changes will move some of the newbies into core if we opt for the big man jermO wants and needs.

                      In the meantime, we compete with what we've got and we do it however we can. So far, we don't suck too badly. We're obviously a playoff team that will gain experience for next year's run.

                      I'm a firm believer that the organization always has a future plan and is striving to get somewhere. It's not always clear where that is or how they're getting there, but remember they also have to plan for contingencies and cover their backsides, so sometimes striving for a goal can look sloppy and haphazard like it does now.

                      DW has always struck me as someone who keeps his options open. If we cannot play uptempo effectively yet, then we'll do whatever we have to in order to win games and survive in the meantime. I think that's what's happening now and what we're building for.
                      Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Question of the week...

                        I think Bird is struggling a little bit in terms of GM-based leadership. Good intentions don't replace experience.

                        I think Donnie was right to try and make Ron work, and honestly before he asked for the trade he was playing well (remember the Thanksgiving game vs CLE) and the choice to be a good, supportive environment looked smart.

                        Actually I still think it is, I just think that they bought in on a player that turned out to be way out there. Sacto proves that Indy wasn't the only ones to do so, and we know that the Clips were talking Magette for him at probably more than one point too.


                        So okay, that goes really foul, and your MVP caliber star has 2 years with significant injuries. Tinsley stumbles through his own set of "injuries" and you are no longer in business as usual/grow the business mode. Now you are in disaster recovery mode, and just like a biz in New Orleans would have to alter their goals, methods and standards I think the Pacers have had to as well.

                        Problem is that it's not a normal situation to have to deal with. How well did the Spree choking go for Golden St? How well did the Grant Hill injury go in Orlando? And so on. In fact just consider the Spurs when Robinson went down...there's a reason they ended up with Duncan, and its sure as F wasn't a "plan". Even losing all those games didn't ensure them of getting Tim, in fact the odds were greatly against them doing so.


                        So you try to keep operating (getting to the playoffs, which they did) while you clear the wreckage, straighten up and get back on your feet. I think that was a lot of last year and some of this summer.

                        But I also think that Bird jumped the gun and decided that the reason the biz failed was because it was the wrong menu or something, rather than realizing that it was just a natural disaster that probably couldn't be avoided (lots of players get hurt, Melo is suspended right now, Spree, hold outs like Vince or Baron...other teams go through all this kind of stuff).

                        So he went chasing a new paradigm as part of the rebuild when it probably wasn't quite needed. We see the team playing better ball through JO, just as the Spurs do with Tim, Minny does with KG, or LA does with Kobe. Those teams don't try to move the ball AWAY from their superstars to match the "new style".

                        The styles are dictated by the good teams that use them. If the Pacers win 60 back to back going defense and JO in the post, and then win titles to go with that, guess what the "new style" would be.


                        So that's where I think Bird misstepped, trying to solve an artificial problem. The only problem they really had was stability, health, some outside shooting and PG play.

                        Al wasn't part of this, he was the end of the clean up from Ron. Fix the image, get at least something for Ron (and they did get a decent return IMO, especially where Ron is now), and maybe boost the team morale.


                        But the rest of the changes seemed like tweeks toward a new style that probably doesn't compliment the majority of the team's talent. They are finding that out now.


                        I think the lesson has been learned and that Rick is back in charge of saying "look, let's get real about how this team has to play to actually win". I seriously doubt RC changed FOR JO. I think JO probably made some damn good points when he went into the office, and for all we know Rick was saying "I agree" in his head the entire time.

                        I mean if they had returned to JO in the low post more WITHOUT JO going into the office who seriously would have been surprised? The whole preseason was discussion about whether Rick could coach this way, as well as whether the team could really play that way too.


                        So now they find themselves with a serious PG problem that I think will now be addressed either this season or in the summer. Granger and Shawne look solid, Powell might have to sit behind Baston another year but he also looks decent. JO still has several high quality years left in him.

                        Al might end up being packaged away if they continue to have trouble making the pieces fit. Daniels and Jackson could both stay or go I think. Saras is probably done after next season but I doubt they give up his 3rd year cash for nothing.



                        Summary - I think they had some trouble finding a vision during the recovery, but this season has gotten them out into "clean air" where they can actually see some of the real on-court issues without having to sift through all the problems created by Ron/injuries.

                        So this is the middle step. This is the engine torn apart so you can actually see the problem and start fixing it. I don't think the damage is all that bad, as proven by their play against elite teams most of this season.

                        JO stays, some of the youth stays, some tweeks are made, but ultimately the team will be better next year than this and perhaps even a serious contender that quickly. I don't even buy into the idea that it won't improve over the next few months.


                        so a Chicago-style rebuilding effort will never happen.
                        Good, because it didn't work. In the end they had to cave-in and trade young talent (to the one chump who'd give them a great deal) and then spend a ton of cash on a 1-way playing big money free agent.

                        Chicago never did get good by tanking. If that had worked it wouldn't have taken 5-6 years, trades and signings and coaching changes. At some point that just becomes regular business rather than a particular plan.

                        What kind of plan is "miss the playoffs for 4-5 years just to get to the 6th seed maybe"?


                        I think I like the Dallas/SA/PHX plans A LOT MORE. IE, sign quality FAs to good deals and/or draft extemely well with later picks, bring in and retain a quality coach. They didn't "tank" just to get Dirk or Parker or Marion. Several teams passed on Dirk and Marion (could have been taken instead of Bender), and Parker went after Tinsley.

                        The two teams that most famously tried to clear tons of cap space to make a big move were Chicago and Orlando. CHI original got no one of value and Orlando got burned by Hill's injury. Orlando also went out to get T-Mac, which turned into Francis, and in both cases it turned into blah seasons at best.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Question of the week...

                          I absolutely agree the Artest Brawl set this franchise back big time. Recovery mode was a good definition. They were on the right road. Then Ron pulls another one.

                          I really believe management made the right moves - it just didn't work. As for the moves related to this year - I think it's going to take THIS year to see where it's headed. Not fun, but it is what it is.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Question of the week...

                            I think transitioning to become a more up-tempo team is a 2 season minimum task. I think this offseason just past that LB and DW did a good job with what opportunities they had to restructure the team. They made a pretty solid job of moving Artest + 1st rounder for Al, that could have turned out much worse for us. While it could have potentially turned out better if it they had taken a shot at Biedrins + Pietrus from GS, hindsight is always 20/20.

                            Tins or Jax, I believe one of them will be gone by the deadline. Restructuring our backcourt should be the primary task for the LB/DW going forward. We need perimeter defense and shooting from the PG spot.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Question of the week...

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              JO has a player option for 08, thats the Summer after next.
                              I was just going to post this very thing in this thread BUT with the caveat of saying I read it in another thread that was quoting an article (possibly the Sam Smith article)... so it may or may not be the final answer.

                              Did you have a different source for this info?

                              -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

                              Working...
                              X