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

Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

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

  • Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

    Although this topic has ( in some way ) been discussed, I wanted to explore it more in depth given the possiblility that Murphy could be traded to the Cavs. In today's more "athletic" and "mobile" NBA.....does it make sense to play Granger at the PF spot either as a Starter or a regular Backup?

    Defensively ( at least for our current makeup until we get a more solid PF Low-Post defender ), a lineup that include Inferno/BRush/Granger/Hibbert is fairly solid. Clearly, our lineup would be way more athletic then before.

    When looking at the makeup of the NBA as a whole.....it would seem that although there are still some traditional Low-Post scoring Big Men ( think ZBo, Aldridge, Brand, etc. ) ...is the trend in the NBA moving more towards having more athletic and quicker Big Men that can score in the post while venturing outside the paint ( think Anthony Randolph, Josh Smith, Dirk, Bosh )?

    I guess the reason I bring this up is because of JO'Bs concern on matchups. Although it mainly pertains to Hibbert.....having a more mobile player at the PF spot that can score inside and out ( like Granger ) would be helpful.

    I don't really want to turn this into a "Why Murphy isn't a consistent defender at the PF spot" or ( Seth's favorite topic ) a "Why McRoberts...doesn't play more minutes is a crime" debate.....I just want to discuss whether Granger could be a short term option at the PF spot ( either as a Starter or key backup ) for the next 1.5 seasons or not. Unless something drastically changes or Bird drafts a PF like Patterson ( as Seth suggests ), I don't think that we'd be able to acquire that type of PF that we all hope would fill our needs anytime soon.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

  • #2
    Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

    he could but it seems danny's not as well built to bang and i dont think its in his nature to be that physical or that aggressive. you have to have a want, drive, desire, and the body to go out there and bang and bump every other night. remember danny had to be coached into driving the ball more. he's a lil more laid back.
    I'm not perfect and neither are you.

    Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
    Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

      From an offensive standpoint it creates a big time mismatch because most PFs are going to have a really hard time guarding granger, even the really good ones. On the other end, Granger has proven to be fairly effective gaurding guys like Bosh and Garnett. The big, strong, banging low post PFs will give him trouble, but overall I think it has been a net positive for the team.

      With a guy like Roy in the middle, who is starting to turn into enough of a low post threat to consistently draw a double team, surrounding him with 4 perimeter players and spacing the floor has shown to be a good strategy. It has worked pretty well for the Magic. Granger is as much of a PF as Rashard Lewis, and a better overall player to boot.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

        I love the idea. Yes, Danny can handle the PF position against 75% of the NBA with no problem at all. In fact, he was the PF during the historic 5 game winning streak.

        What happens when you place Danny at PF is amazing. He improves the defense by being in a position to more fully utilize his abilities to block shots and rebound. For instance, he had 16 boards against GS while playing PF. He is quick and athletic for a PF and helps Hibbert in so many ways it makes me almost cry that he's not playing the position full time.

        On offense, he is a mismatch nightmare for the opposition. It's worse than the matchup nightmares Amare Stoudemire causes. Danny can shoot it from 30 feet or drive right to the rim. He will force some teams to play small...and maybe not their best talent. It will help this team win if he plays that position.

        As for head to head matchups with Pau Gasol, I think he lacks the height. Against Tim Duncan and Zach Randolph he lacks the strength and length a bit. Yes, some PF's will require a bigger Pacer. But that's only about 20% of the games. By far most games he's a big positive at that position...and for a team hovering in the .300's, it would be huge improvement.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          I love the idea. Yes, Danny can handle the PF position against 75% of the NBA with no problem at all. In fact, he was the PF during the historic 5 game winning streak.

          What happens when you place Danny at PF is amazing. He improves the defense by being in a position to more fully utilize his abilities to block shots and rebound. For instance, he had 16 boards against GS while playing PF. He is quick and athletic for a PF and helps Hibbert in so many ways it makes me almost cry that he's not playing the position full time.

          On offense, he is a mismatch nightmare for the opposition. It's worse than the matchup nightmares Amare Stoudemire causes. Danny can shoot it from 30 feet or drive right to the rim. He will force some teams to play small...and maybe not their best talent. It will help this team win if he plays that position.

          As for head to head matchups with Pau Gasol, I think he lacks the height. Against Tim Duncan and Zach Randolph he lacks the strength and length a bit. Yes, some PF's will require a bigger Pacer. But that's only about 20% of the games. By far most games he's a big positive at that position...and for a team hovering in the .300's, it would be huge improvement.
          Hold on now! This is hilarious. ON one side of your mouth you say that stretch PFs are not what you need to win in the playoffs and out of the other side you think Danny would be a great PF. Which is it? I thought you wanted only the Dale Davis type players at the PF spot. Now I get it, you want any player that doesn't go by the name Murphy at that spot. Hate is not good for your health BG.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

            He's the best PF on the team. Whether he should be playing out of position or not is a question.

            Personally, with the way JOB likes to play, I think small ball with Granger at the four works best.
            Last edited by Sookie; 01-18-2010, 07:17 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
              He's the best PF on the team. Whether he should be playing out of position or not is a question.
              Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                He's the best PF on the team. Whether he should be playing out of position or not is a question.
                thats what the thread is asking us...................
                I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                  Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                  Depends on what your definition of "is" is.
                  Do you have anything to contribute besides whining on behalf of Troy Murphy? Just curious.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                    Do you have anything to contribute besides whining on behalf of Troy Murphy? Just curious.
                    Thinking that Danny is the answer at PF is contributing?

                    Whining? I fail to see the logic in posters repeating the same old bs about Murphy and passing it on as fact. WTF is an empty stat, anyway?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                      Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                      Thinking that Danny is the answer at PF is contributing?

                      Whining? I fail to see the logic in posters repeating the same old bs about Murphy and passing it on as fact. WTF is an empty stat, anyway?
                      There is a word for posters that only harp on one topic incessantly and constantly derail threads. A Troll.

                      This topic is about Granger, not Murphy. The Murphy situation is simple, He is a terrible fit next to Hibbert. Hibbert is the future, Murphy is not. End of story.
                      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                      - ilive4sports

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                        Granger's mismatch as a PF isn't that he can shoot the 3, it's that he can drive the ball on any PF in the league. He's also far better than Troy, defensively.

                        Still, I don't like it. You may get some short-term success from it, but in the long term Danny's gonna take a beating and age prematurely. That's not what you want to do to your star. Put him in a position to succeed. Don't JO him.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                          Cable, as you know from following the prospect thread it seems like a lot of "PF" prospects lately are really more like SFish type players, so with that trend Danny does work.

                          But, let's say for a second that I'm coaching. Obviously I'm using McRoberts a lot. He's quick, good hops and strong. Luckily for Danny McBob doesn't work the low post on offense so he won't get killed there, but on the glass he's going to suffer and on over the top passes McBob has an advantage. Josh is quick enough to not be exploited on face up drives given Danny's handles.

                          Danny beats him with 3s, but then that's Troy's method and now you are giving up the DEF rebounds too.

                          The point being that Josh isn't even a top notch PF, just that he's far closer to a traditional one. Not every team is buying into the small method that's popular, though obviously some are, so you are going to see plenty of nights where Danny is facing a skilled PF. Picture a Duncan/Blair combo vs Roy/Danny. They get destroyed on the glass and have trouble denying post position too.

                          I think as the trends swing toward small you'll see teams coming back to find an advantage with a more traditional power guy at the 4. And as that happens Danny's in trouble, and also getting beat up.

                          I see that change potentially beginning a lot sooner than 1.5 years. You know that I like Patterson, but there are also guys like Lawal, Booker, Favors that aren't in love with the face up game. Love isn't, Blair isn't.

                          So there is actually a fairly noticeable influx of traditional PF caliber talent coming in that I think will end up seeing coaches use that for an advantage.



                          Now, ultimately I guess the question is what are we doing to get by "until", as in until the team can be "finished". From that standpoint it might be that we just have to keep waiting for 2 years and that Danny at the PF might be part of that crutch. I don't think it would go well in the long term, but if you are giving up getting a true PF in order to fix something else like PG (Wall instead of a PF for example) then you bite the bullet and accept the long nights to come.

                          I'd rather have Danny at PF with some DJones SF help, or even the height of Dun at PF to help with rebounds a bit, than to have more double PG stuff with 2 of Watson/Price/Head on the court together, especially if that also means Rush pushed down to SF.

                          Going a bit small at PF isn't so bad if you have some size at the 2-3 to help with.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                            it's that he can drive the ball on any PF in the league
                            No way Anthem. Not the quicker ones like Aldridge or Thomas, or even McBob. There are several slow footed guys, but not every PF that isn't a pure face up is too slow to stop Danny. His handles just aren't good enough.

                            Heck, we aren't that far removed from when he couldn't beat SFs with his dribble.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?

                              Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                              Hold on now! This is hilarious. ON one side of your mouth you say that stretch PFs are not what you need to win in the playoffs and out of the other side you think Danny would be a great PF. Which is it? I thought you wanted only the Dale Davis type players at the PF spot. Now I get it, you want any player that doesn't go by the name Murphy at that spot. Hate is not good for your health BG.
                              Jumping to conclusions again, huh?

                              In no way am I saying that Danny Granger is an ideal PF. However, unlike Troy, Danny can block shots and defend. Unlike Troy, Danny is mobile and athletic enough to help Hibbert protect the paint. Unlike Troy, Danny creates very difficult mismatch problems for the opponent. The fact he is far better than Troy in nearly every aspect of the game otherwise is only part of the reason he would be by far the best PF on this team.

                              On offense, Granger is much more than a stretch 4 because he is a major threat for driving to the bucket. Nobody is concerned about Troy going up in traffic and flushing it.

                              Seriously, try to think through this a little.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X