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

Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

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

  • Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

    I constantly read over and over again in this forum that the Pacers are a team that doesn't have a lot of good defensive players. Most of you evidently believe the team is filled with a lot of poor defenders. I've even heard Mark Boyle say it many times.

    But rarely does anyone name names. So that is what I'm asking for - some names.

    This current Pacers team has better defensive players than the 2000 Pacers team.

    Let me start going down the list of the Pacers top 11 players. Keep in mind team defense counts IMO as much as one-on-one defense.

    Let me break the players into 3 categories. (well really a 4th because of some incompletes) These aren't in order within categories.

    1) Very good defensive players.

    Jermaine O'Neal - Takes charges and blocks shots - great weakside defender - whenever he misses games, JO's weakside and lane defense is what the team misses most - much more so than the offensive stuff.

    Jeff Foster - His one-on-one defense against quick centers and most power forwards is excellent. He's also a very smart team defender - but not a shot blocker

    Danny Granger - He doesn't have the smarts or instincts, but he has natural physical abilities that allow him to be a guy capable of defending, Carter, James, Kobe....

    Marguis Daniels - He has great and yes I mean that great defensive instincts. He lacks some of the quickness necessary to defend certain players, but his instincts in the team dept is just off the charts. Excellent playing the passing lanes and getting deflections

    Shawne Williams - If Dick Harter thinks he's the second best defender on the team that is good enough for me. We'll see more this season.

    2) Average defenders.

    Mike Dunleavy - trust me when I say this, I almost put him in the above category. His defensive IQ, his defensive instincts are excellent. He's long, and he just knows how to play. His team defense is as good as anyone on the Pacers team. He'll take charges, he's always in the right position and he'll play the team concept as well as anyone. But he does lack the lateral quickness, so I'll put him in the average category - but he's at the top of the category.



    3) Poor defenders.

    Tinsley - Believe me, I almost put him in the average category and many of you will. He has the best hands on the team, so if he learns to play better position defense he can get a ton of steals and deflections without gambling so much. I'm hopeful he can move up a category

    Ike - I'm putting him here because he seems lost half the time defensively in the team concepts. My hope is with this system he can be an average defender.

    Murphy - he just isn't much of a presense defensively - my hope is that he can play within the system well enough not to be a huge liability.


    4) I don't know enough to judge yet

    Diener Yes he's short, but he has good enough quickness to be an average defender. Plus he plays so hard, that I hope by midseason I can put him in the average category

    Rush - he has a reputation for being a poor defender - we'll see.




    OK there is my breakdown of the top 11 players. Seems like at worst an average NBA defensive team. Put them together into a great system, with great coaching and I expect the pacers to be in the top 6 or 7 in the NBA in defensive FG% and right at the top in deflections. IMO those are the two most important stats.

    Tell me where I'm wrong and please tell me who are all the bad defenders - because I just don't see too many at all.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-27-2007, 10:55 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

    I agree with you...I love having Danny and JO on D...because a big block can happen at any moment.
    The eyes of the Granger are upon you.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

      I am so well known as a Tinsley fan I almost hate to post in his defense any more. But I am going to anyway. Yes Jamaal is not a good defender when it comes to traditional defense.

      However as you pointed out he has quick hands and always seems to get this BIG steal. We have seen it over and over again when there was a two point game and Jamaal got the steal that ended the game.
      Its why Rick had to play him at the ends of games even though he would rather not.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

        Good post and I agree with every assessment basically.

        Although, I have been more impressed defensively with what Murphy has been able to do, he can hold his ground now. I've seen him just in a very limited fashion though.

        My questions are with stopping dribble penetration. I always think about the 2000 team too and what Harter was able to do with that. The Pacers get their first test the first game with Arenas. I just wish they had a Travis Best type guy who could give you 20 mins of staunch defense against the Tony Parkers or heck even the Jameer Nelsons of the world. I am woefully tired of watching the Pacers making quick guys look so much better than they are.

        I feel the same way about the 2 spot with Dunleavy and I would put him in the GOOD category if it was solely TEAM defense we are looking at, but again stopping dribble penetration... This could specifically be a sore spot if Daniels misses much time.

        I guess overall, I'm saying if you allow dribble penetration it completely disrupts the team concept and puts so much pressure on the Bigs to make plays at the rim. Thats what I hope they can overcome.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

          Unclebuck I pretty much agree with you. I think as a team we'll be fine defensively as the season goes on.

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          I just wish they had a Travis Best type guy who could give you 20 mins of staunch defense against the Tony Parkers or heck even the Jameer Nelsons of the world. I am woefully tired of watching the Pacers making quick guys look so much better than they are.
          I believe Andre Owens can do that. I'd rather play Diener for his shooting and play-making, but if we're getting torched or on the verge of getting torched I'd put Andre in.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

            Saying JO is an above average defender is debatable. Yes he blocks many shots and yes he is a great weak side defender, but his one on one post D is average.
            STARBURY

            08 and Beyond

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

              1) Very good defensive players.

              Jermaine O'Neal
              Jeff Foster

              Shawne Williams - Ditto UB here, and IMO Shawne has outstanding awareness. I saw a few lapses last year but by rookie standards he was impressively on top of things at both ends.

              2) Average defenders.

              Danny Granger - I drop him due to awareness. Once he fixes that he goes back to "very good" and this could happen this year. I expect it to and I'd like to think that will be well before Jan 1.

              Marquis Daniels - He's good like McKey was a good offensive player, which means while he can have an impact he's not yet proven to be a dominate defender. He won't let you down but he isn't quite changing games at that end just yet. He could end up moving up with Danny, but I can't put him there yet.



              3) Poor defenders.

              Mike Dunleavy - knowing and being able to are not the same thing, and Dun gets put into isos and PnR for a reason. Long before he switches or covers guys are already a few steps into a move and driving past him. Maybe working in a different system will help him this year, but right now he is a target for the other team.

              Tinsley - Great hands and a knack for sneaking off his man to make a backside steal on an entry pass are great. The rest of the time though he's a target.

              Ike - I'm 6'11", I get to do whatever I want if Ike is on me. Nuff said. Great on offense, and perhaps his POV should be that the best defense is a good offense (see the Minny game vs Jefferson).

              Diener - could be too early to tell, but as Army proved last year there is hustle and then there is great defense. DA was a horrible defender that some fans raved about because of the 1 diving steal, ignoring the next 3 attempts he missed on that left his man going right to the rim and pulling a foul on a help defender. I think Diener is smarter than that and shows more than Saras, but like Mike he's still a target.

              4) Really poor defenders

              Murphy - Awful. Likeable guy, gives effort, but this just isn't his end of the court

              Rush - hard to say so far but up till now he's come across as having a one-way player mentality


              So I only see about 70 minutes of great defense going out there per night compared to maybe 120 of poor to very poor defenders. There are guys that might be about to prove that they deserve a higher ranking which I acknowledged, and of course you have 2 coaches on the staff that love defense, so I can see plenty of room to be wrong on this.

              Again, I know people hated the "cakewalk" thing, but I stand by it. I wish we'd seen this team going against legit threats at least a little bit so we could see the holes. I feel certain that the coaches would say the same thing behind closed doors.

              You take what you get and do what you can, but no one sees testing vs Minny or Memphis as the same as testing vs the Mavs, Suns, Celtics or even the Nets.

              The home opener game against Washington should be a nice measuring stick as they have a strong set of offensive players.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                Most people who talk about Indiana don't really know anything about the team anyways. That's why they keep bringing up the brawl. We'll be fine defensively
                R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                  1) Elite Defenders

                  Jermaine O'Neal

                  Jeff Foster

                  2) Above average

                  Marquis Daniels (like Jack, his D is stellar when he's giving it his all. But sometimes he's not in that "toe to toe" mentality. Can be worse or better depending on that mood.)

                  3) Slightly above average

                  Danny Granger (Still gets frustrated a lot, "tricked" by vets some and abused on occasion)

                  Shawne Williams (gonna need more than a couple of newspaper quotes. Didn't impress me either way last year)

                  4) Average defenders

                  Crickets

                  5) Poor defenders

                  Mike Dunleavy (Are you kidding UB? "Very good"? I too think he's smart, but how can you call someone who gets so abused physically so often "very good"? Let's ease up a little. He reminds me of Reggie once he "got it" on D a little. Has good IQ and makes plays, but still too physically weak and he'll never make a serious impact in hindering the guy he's guarding one-on-one. "Very good" is absurd.)

                  Tinsley (dude is a yo-yo effortwise and it's saying a lot that he pretty much peaks at "poor"

                  Ike (good shotblocker but has his feet in cement the rest of the time)

                  Diener (not sure...might be worse...might be better. His quickness should keep him at least in thie tier, but he's pretty weak and small.)

                  Harrison (won't be playing much anyway)

                  6) Defensive punchlines

                  Murphy (one of the worst defenders in the League.)

                  Rush (whatever)

                  *Tinsley (when he's in one of his funks)



                  Also...never seen Graham or Andre play...although I'm guessing they are a least middle of the pack or better on this roster. And Owens is supposedly good.

                  .
                  Last edited by JayRedd; 10-27-2007, 12:28 PM.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                    Murphy and Ike are the only one's I really worry about. And of course Harrison.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                      Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                      Saying JO is an above average defender is debatable.
                      Really?
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                        Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                        Saying JO is an above average defender is debatable. Yes he blocks many shots and yes he is a great weak side defender, but his one on one post D is average.
                        Strongly disaggree here. Besides if JO is average then nobody on the Wizards roster is even average... ok, we allready know that :P




                        I would rank JO like this: average in one-on-one D, maybe even a little bit better, but let's say average. Then count in his help-defense, blocking, rebounding, reading situations and he skyrockets to the small group of players that form the elite defenders at PF/C that are serving in the league currently IMO.

                        I would aggree most with JayRedd's list here. I think declaring Shawne a top-notch defender is a little too early and I think UB has a little manlove for Dun Dun (whom I like as a player too btw ) I would rank him a little lower on D too... poor though? I don't know yet. Would have to see how he plays in the first weeks of the regular to give a little judgement there.

                        Regards,

                        Mourning
                        Last edited by Mourning; 10-27-2007, 02:43 PM.
                        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                          This thread was posted the morning after the Pacers scored 140 points in a game.

                          UncleBuck, you really are a wonder!
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post

                            Mike Dunleavy (Are you kidding UB? "Very good"? I too think he's smart, but how can you call someone who gets so abused physically so often "very good"? Let's ease up a little. He reminds me of Reggie once he "got it" on D a little. Has good IQ and makes plays, but still too physically weak and he'll never make a serious impact in hindering the guy he's guarding one-on-one. "Very good" is absurd.)

                            Ike (good shotblocker but has his feet in cement the rest of the time)

                            Murphy (one of the worst defenders in the League.)

                            That's more or less correct when talking about the GS trio.

                            Dunleavy is a smart guy. He knows where to be. He's good at drawing charges. Actually, he's pretty damn good at it. But being smart often times doesn't compensate for just getting physically overwhelmed by a much stronger, quicker or athletic opponent. When a guy gets abused, he gets abused. There's no two ways about it. Doesn't matter if he's being smart while getting torched. There are no bonus points awarded for this.

                            I've seen Murphy play pretty good one on one defense in the post when he puts his mind into it. He's frustrated Zach Randolph on a few occasions. Problem is the effort is not always there. Then there's the subject of Murphy's help/weakside defense. It's better that we just not talk about that.

                            Ike can block the occasional shot with his long arms, but he's pretty much got to anticipate when the shooter's going to release the ball well ahead of time because he's not a very explosive leaper. He'll get lost on rotations when the team has to double, or do a lot of switching. The other problem is that a much taller opponent can just square up and shoot right over the top and Ike can't do much to defend the shot. And he needs to do a much better job of getting back on transition defense. He was pretty bad at this and I'm sure JOB will let him have it if he doesn't get it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Everyone is saying the Pacers roster is filled with poor defenders - OK please name names

                              Players that are clearly poor defenders are:
                              Tinsley
                              Harrison
                              Ike
                              Dunleavy
                              Murphy
                              ..and probably Rush and/or Diener

                              Now, if JO and Foster are our best defenders, we do not have any great defenders on the team. Fortunately we have a team concept.

                              As for JO, he is effective at help defense by taking charges and blocking shots from the weak side. However, against his own man, he is at best average. What is most telling about that is, he's still probably our most valuable defensive player.

                              Foster provides solid, consistent man-on-man defense...but he certainly doesn't shut anyone down, does not clog the lane and intimidate people driving the lane, and does not block many shots, so I don't consider it elite particularly for a center. As for bigger centers, they own him.

                              I guess my views are influenced by some of the great defenders we have had over the years who are long gone including Artest, McKey, Dale Davis, etc. Even players like Stephen Jackson, Fred Jones, Al Harrington and Travis Best would be near the top on defense on this team.

                              If we found a new starting PG who could play both ends of the court and we found a young Dale Davis and paired him with JO, we would have something going on D. Otherwise, we better keep pooring it on with offense.

                              Edit: On a more important point, defense wins championships. This fun style will be a nice change for awhile, but eventually the focus needs to return to D if we plan to contend.
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-27-2007, 04:39 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X