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

The Dunleavy Dilemma

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    The Dunleavy Dilemma

    Saw this posted on Hoopsworld, and didn't see it posted so here ya go.

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=12932

    When the Indiana Pacers traded away Jermaine O'Neal last summer they were expecting Mike Dunleavy, Jr. to be the primary building block of the team's next phase. What they didn't expect was that Dunleavy would suffer a knee injury and only appear in 18 games during 2008-09. The good news for Pacers fans, the news that kept the team in the playoff chase right down to the wire, was that Danny Granger was more than prepared to step up for his team.

    "Danny had a terrific year," Pacers GM David Morway tells HOOPSWORLD. "Larry (Bird) and I were pleased to be able to sign him to an extension at the beginning of the year, and we felt strongly that Danny had the potential to be a good leader and to develop into a sensational basketball player, otherwise we wouldn't have offered the kind of contract that we did. He's been just terrific, on and off the basketball court. He's growing as a leader, he understands his role with this team, and he works . . .he has a terrific work ethic and an unbelievable competitive spirit. He's the kind of guy you want as the spirit of the franchise if you plan on challenging for a championship. Offensively he had a great year; defensively, we've talked about it, we think he could be a premier defender and we think he needs to concentrate on that. He knows it, and that's his gameplan. In terms of where he's come from . . .when we drafted him we felt he had a chance to be an outstanding player, but where he's come from since that day is remarkable. It all has to do with Danny, the work he's put in, the type of person he is, and the type of competitive internal desire that he has to be great."

    Granger's 28.5 points per game earned him Most Improve Player honors, as well as the respect and trust of his entire team. It also helped that rookie Brandon Rush put things together over the second half of the season. Rush played so well that the Pacers have already decided he'll be starting at the two when the 2009-2010 season gets underway.

    "Danny's starting at small forward and Brandon Rush will be starting at the two-guard. Brandon had a great final six weeks of the season, a very good six weeks. He's already working on his game and we're excited about the work he's already put in and his commitment. He's a terrific kid, good young man, and he wants to be a really good basketball player and he has good skills. He's very long, he's an excellent defender already, and obviously he can shoot the basketball. Now his next step is to be able to take the ball off the dribble and get where he wants to go on the court. In terms of his development, though, he's where we want him to be. He's hoping and expecting him to start, and then we'll see what happens. Whether Mike starts or comes off the bench doesn't really matter; what matters is that we're going to have three very, very strong wings and that's a good place to start when you're building a franchise."

    That's right Pacers fans, Mike Dunleavy is expected to be back on the court, perhaps even playing a significant role for the team next season.

    "His career's not in jeopardy," says Morway. "When we went into the process, we didn't know; it might have been. The surgery went better than any of us could have expected. He did have a large, significant bone spur in the knee and it appeared that it had displaced some of his patellar tendon, which, had it forced them to graft the patellar tendon, could have been career-threatening. Dr. Stedman felt that there was a lot of patellar tendon hidden beneath the bone spur because the spur was so big and you couldn't see it on any of the scans they did. He was right. When he got in there, a large majority of the tendon was hidden under there, so he was able to reattach it now Mike's in the rehab phase and doing great. The feeling is, we're going to take our time with it. It's not like there's ever been a bone spur this size taken out of a knee before, so we don't have a specific period of time that the rehab's going to take. We're going to be very careful with it. I think we're all very optimistic now that not only will he come back, but that he'll be radically better now that the spur isn't in his knee. I can't tell you when he's going to play, but we feel really optimistic that he's going to be back on the basketball court at some point this season. He's back walking with no limp, he's on the court, he's in the pool, strengthening it - we're really pleased. We just don't have a timetable at this point."

    It seems pretty clear that if Granger and Rush continue to play as well as they did this past season, there won't be a lot of room for Dunleavy. Granger has emerged as one of the best small forwards in the NBA and Rush averaged 15.9 points when called upon to start. In April he averaged 16.3 points and 4.6 rebounds while shooting 53% from the field, 50% from three, and 83% from the line. If Dunleavy can get even close to where he was before the knee injury - averaging better than 19 points per game - he'll likely be a better trading piece than actual asset for the Pacers, but that's a problem they look forward to having. Too many healthy bodies would be a strange dilemma for the Pacers to have to address . . .and a welcome one.

    As for the immediate future, the Pacers are pleased with their draft position and feel they can get someone who will help them improve right away.

    "We like the position that we're in at 13," says Morway. "We think there are a number of players there that we'll be able to look at who can help our basketball team. We're in a position of rebuilding the franchise and we're going to take the best available player. We're not in a position to be able to target a specific position on the court. We feel comfortable where we are, as far as where we are in the draft, and we feel we'll be able to get a player who's going to help us as we move forward."

    The next item on the agenda, of course, will be taking care of their restricted free agents. The team was very high on Jarrett Jack last season and Morway is confident he'll be back next season.

    "That would be our goal. You never know when you get into these situations, but out objective is to bring Jarrett back. Every time you get into this there are financial constraints, and you never quite know, but our objective is certainly to bring him back. Jarrett had a very good year for us, we liked the combination of TJ and Jarrett, so we're looking forward to having that again. He did a great job at the point, but also as a swing. We were able to go small at times and play TJ and Jarrett together. That really helped us at the two position, so we like his versatility. We definitely want to re-sign Jarrett, we just have to get to that phase of the offseason to see if we can do it."

    Unrestricted free agents will be a little trickier. The Pacers have an up-and-coming center in Roy Hibbert, who isn't ready to start, and Jeff Foster, who may not be the best option to start, either. That doesn't necessarily mean the Pacers will pursue Rasho Nesterovic, whom they acquired in the Jermaine O'Neal trade.

    "We like Roy a lot," says Morway."He had a very good rookie season. He has a lot of work to do, and he's doing it this offseason. He knows this is a process for him to develop, like it is for any big man in this league. Jeff has been a vital part of our franchise for ten years, and will continue to be, going forward. As far as (Rasho), I don't know. We'll have to see. We have two restricted free agents in Jarrett and Josh McRoberts, and we hope to sign both of them. As far as the unrestricted guys go, a lot of it will be based upon what the market will bear and what we do in the draft, or if we make a trade, what we bring back and how we use the available roster spots."

    Like all teams, the Pacers are trying to weigh the cost of their growth as a franchise with what the economic future of the NBA will hold.

    "We have a three-year gameplan here that started last year," says Morway. "We've spent a lot of time analyzing and debating where the financial side of this business is going, so all of our decisions are going to be decisions that are made by looking at the impact on this year, the next year, and even the third year. After the 2011 is potentially when the Collective Bargaining Agreement will run out, so we may have a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, so we're not only looking at this year, but also the potential for the cap and tax going down next year depending on the economy, and then we're also looking at the CBA. At the same time, we're looking to get better as a basketball team. We think we're going in the right direction. We have a gameplan that we implemented last year and we've got to execute it. Our goal is to try to continue to improve the team while working within the financial constraints that every team has. Hopefully we're going to get a few things done this summer. Besides the draft, where you know you're going to get a player, you have to either have another team that wants to work with you on a trade, or in the free agent market you have to have a player that determines he wants to play for you. We're looking at all options."

    The one thing the Pacers' executives know for sure is that if they don't aggressively look to get better the rest of the Eastern Conference will pass them by.

    "The East is very competitive, and the teams are all getting better. The Raptors, Charlotte, New Jersey has a lot of young talent that they're building around and Devin Harris is terrific . . Chicago made the playoffs, but they're a team that's in the development stage . . .Detroit's going to get themselves worked out quickly . . .Milwaukee's got a lot of talent, they have challenges, but a lot of talent. One thing I know is that if you're not getting better, you're falling behind, so we have a big challenge in front of us. The one thing we were able to accomplish last year, we were able to change the culture of our team and our locker room. We were fortunate to be able to bring in a bunch of high quality, terrific guys who have a strong work ethic, want to win, and believe in the system. We made that move (Jermaine O'Neal's contract), which is a difficult thing to move - it's like moving an aircraft carrier - it's an important thing to be able to do. We were able to that, our style of play has completely changed, and now our core guys all know we have to make a stronger commitment to the defensive end of the floor. They're committed to doing that. Then I think we have a chance to be a solid team."

    The first step for the Pacers will be to get healthy. Mike Dunleavy Jr.'s surgery was a success and he's expected to be back, which is excellent news for the squad. Whether that means he'll be a top sixth-man candidate, or become a key trade target, it certainly bodes well for a team that was a couple of wins away from being in the playoffs.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
    Saw this posted on Hoopsworld, and didn't see it posted so here ya go.

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=12932
    Two things stood out in this article to me:

    1. Is Dunleavy a primary building block?
    2. Granger averaged 25/game not 28
    Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

      It worries me that the brass really likes TJ and Jack together on the floor. I'd hoped that was just an Obie thing.

      Also, I'm feeling very vindicated on the Dunleavy thing. He's doing well, which is great, but the injury definitely had the potential to be career-threatening (which I got scoffed at for saying) and this particular injury is definitely a first in the NBA (which also got a fair bit of disagreement).
      This space for rent.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

        Originally posted by pianoman View Post
        Granger averaged 25/game not 28
        Yeah, I saw that and thought "Holy cow, I thought his average came down to the mid-20s! I had no idea he averaged that until the end of the season!"
        This space for rent.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

          This is something that I do like about the Bird/Morway braintrust.....they are more deliberate in their planning knowing where they want to be for the next 2 or 3 seasons. Although I think that part of this is due to lack of choice ( cuz TJ/Dunleavy/Murphy/Tinsley/Foster's contract does limit our Financial/SalaryCap options ), they have to ( essentially ) think 2 moves ahead to see what they do now so that moves now will not impact them in the long term.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

            With

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

              With the passing of time, many of us have forgotten how good Dun Jr was year before last. He had what, 6 games where he scored 35 points...and he consistently scored 20 or more. Morway said Mike should be radically better this coming year without the bone spur and his hip issues cleaned up. I can't imagine how much better he can be..... "radically better" puts him in the same class with Granger. If Rush is radically better as well, we are indeed set at the wing positions. If Jack has another year like he did the last half of this past season, and Murphy remains a double-double machine...that just leaves us one "power" big man away from being a serious contender in the east. Either move up in the draft to get Jordan Hill or pull off a slick trade to bring us a veteran starting power guy who can clog up the middle on defense. We had seven new faces last year, plus we lost Dunleavy, plus our starting pg Ford had to learn an entirely new way of playing basketball the JOB way. We're a lot closer to being very good than most people realize.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                Dun will make a great sixth man whenever he can return.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                  Originally posted by NashvilleKat View Post
                  With the passing of time, many of us have forgotten how good Dun Jr was year before last.
                  I haven't forgotten, but then I was calling for us to move him after that year. Putting him and Danny on the floor together tempts the coach to play Danny at PF, which is a bad thing. But Dun's not a 2, so what are you gonna do?
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Dun will make a great sixth man whenever he can return.
                    I agree. He could be great in that role.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Putting him and Danny on the floor together tempts the coach to play Danny at PF, which is a bad thing. But Dun's not a 2, so what are you gonna do?
                      I'm not sure the 1 thru 5 spots are that well defined in JOB's system. As long as they can figure out the defensive assignments (yeah, right), put the scorers on the floor and let them do their thing. Maybe it would force the other team to make adjustments.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                        I'm not sure the 1 thru 5 spots are that well defined in JOB's system.

                        True, and I like that about him. But even if you define the team as three kinds of players: point guard (1), swing men (2), and interior big men (2), Dunleavy is the third swing man.
                        Last edited by Putnam; 06-13-2009, 12:09 PM.
                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                          A few things here:

                          -- Granger averaged 25.8, not 28.5, so maybe he got the numbers transposed slightly

                          -- Should be interesting to see what happens with Dunleavy. He's a guy whom I think would be comfortable coming off the bench, if need be. He's very comfortable in Indy and likes playing and living here. With that said, I could see him being a 6th man and the Pacers playing with Rush, Granger and Dunleavy all on the floor at the same time. As we saw in 2007-2008, he is capable of putting up some numbers and can shoot the lights out. If he comes back healthy, I think he's an important part of the puzzle and provides leadership.

                          Worst case scenario is the Pacers have him on the books for this year and next and his injury is career threatening and forced to retire and they receive insurance relief. Otherwise, he's a free agent in 2 years and his salary comes off the books and can either be resigned for cheaper or go elsewhere.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            It worries me that the brass really likes TJ and Jack together on the floor. I'd hoped that was just an Obie thing.

                            Also, I'm feeling very vindicated on the Dunleavy thing. He's doing well, which is great, but the injury definitely had the potential to be career-threatening (which I got scoffed at for saying) and this particular injury is definitely a first in the NBA (which also got a fair bit of disagreement).
                            My take on that was that Morway was talking up Jack because he's a free agent.

                            I seriously doubt he would come out & say anything that could be viewed as being negative about a player that potentially could be traded.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: The Dunleavy Dilemma

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              I haven't forgotten, but then I was calling for us to move him after that year. Putting him and Danny on the floor together tempts the coach to play Danny at PF, which is a bad thing. But Dun's not a 2, so what are you gonna do?
                              I think we all know that he isn't a 2 but the year before last he played at the 2. Not only that he did farely well on the offensive end. I don't mind Dun at the 2 because what he substracts on the defensive end he more than makes up on the offensive end. If Dun slides over to the sf spot then again he makes up for it on the offensive end. Depending on the match up Danny can guard a perimeter 4 which I would prefer over Murphy any day.

                              Breaking it down. Big line up
                              Jack/Ford pg
                              Dun
                              Danny
                              Murphy
                              Hibbert

                              Small line up (Murphy spreads it out for everyone else)
                              Jack/Ford
                              Rush
                              Dun
                              Granger
                              Murphy/FOster

                              What I remember when Dun and Granger played together was that one player was guranteed 19 pnts with a good shooting percentage and the other one was not far behind. Combine that with Duns ability to post feed Hibbert and we got ourselves a playoff team.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X