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

An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

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

  • #16
    Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

    Originally posted by Hicks
    I think we're modestly screwed.
    I did not copy the rest of your post, but it was outstanding.
    Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

      Originally posted by Hicks
      I think we're modestly screwed. We need two big changes to right the ship, IMO. I think whomever we get for Ron will help immediately in some ways, but not enough to turn straw into gold. But I think what it will do is prime us to be another move away from being in a good position again. This team needs a makeover, not open-heart surgery.

      Let's look at our PGs.

      I'm ready for Anthony Johnson to leave. Rick is clinging to him at Jasikevicius' expense and that is unacceptable. Sarunas should start and Tinsley should be backing him up, even though individually Tinsley is better. Let Tinsley score more with the second unit, and give what's usually a weak offensive bench some scoring power with those bullet passes, while Runi get the starters all involved to start the game, not to mention he's back where he should: With the ball in his hands. He's smart enough to get people involved, take opportunity shots, and to drive. Yes he does make mistakes, but it's not like there's a perfect PG out there, and as a rookie he's already made large strides in his game.

      With that said, it's not going to happen. Tinsley's too "proud" to play backup, and Rick clings to AJ like he did Michael Curry. That being the case, Tinsley or AJ has to go. Preferably AJ, because I can live with Sarunas being the backup to Tinsley a lot more than I can AJ still being here backup up Runi.

      Time for SGs.

      This is a mess. Sarunas Jasikevicius should never play shooting guard. It ruins him. It's like playing Jalen Rose at PG. No, no, no. Fred Jones is what he is. And undersized SG who Rick plays for his defense, only his defense just isn't that great. It's fine, but not good enough to be earning him special privilages (playing extended minutes). His jumper is hit and miss, he's never been a serious threat on the drive, he can't dribble, and his passing is merely OK. You can do worse for a backup 2, but he's just not special. We don't have a starting SG right now.

      Moving on to SF.

      Stephen Jackson has really sunk in my eyes. I was high on him last Fall pre-11/19, and I thought he was pretty good after he came back. But this year his attitude seems worse, his defense has disappeared, and his shot selection (and the ability to make them) is as bad as ever. That with his battle to rival Artest as worst headcase means I think he should go. Behind him we have Danny Granger, who really belongs at PF as much as SF in this discussion because of where Rick plays him. I truly believe Danny will be our next star SF. He just has the talent, the right head on his shoulders, and the effort is there too. It's only a matter of time, but I'm very uneasy about Rick Carlisle being his coach at this stage in his career. I'm afraid we're seeing Tayshaun Prince Part II, and that bothers me considerably.

      Next we have PF.

      Jermaine O'Neal has been as good as he ever has been. He's blocking shots, he's putting forth as much effort as he ever has, he's always been an offensive monster, and though of late it's been waning, he's rebounding has been very good as well. He's even making an obvious effort to pass more often out of the block, and all that combined with him taking over the leader reigns makes me do nothing but applaud him. After him, depending on how you look at it, we have Granger, or Croshere. I'll leave what I said about Granger alone other than to say that I'm OK with him at 4, but I really believe the sooner we lock him into SF, the sooner he'll become something truly special for us. Croshere has been as good as ever, and once again he's getting screwed over by a coach who prefers to be submissive to his opponent night in and night out with matchups and strategies, rather than forcing his own to dominate.

      Finally we have the C position.

      Foster is deadweight right now. He's always been an offensive liability, but right now he's not healthy and/or in shape enough to even bring his trademark hustle, defense, and rebounding to the table enough to make him worthy of playing time. He should be in street clothes right now, spending his free time working out hard to get back in game shape. Scot Pollard looked good last night, but he's being used even less than before by Rick because of his infatuation with playing small ball. He is what he is, and I don't have an issue with him really. David Harrison is a tease, I think. He looks like he'll be better than he really is. Bad rebounder, so-so defender, a limited offensive game, but I do love the space he takes up on the floor when he's in there. But when that's your biggest strength, simply "being big", and you've also shown signs of being yet another headcase on a team that collects them, you don't play, nor should you unless it's absolutely necessary.

      I'm also going to comment on coaching.

      Rick is frustrating me. I like him. I have liked him before, but his style is wearing thin. I can't stand the idea of always playing to our opponent's strengths, rather than forcing our own style. We don't even have a style aside from ultra-conservative offense, and good team defense. Beyond that, we play as small as the other team wants, rather than using what we have to our advantage. I'd rather decide what I like best, and play that and the other team be damned. Extreme situations call for big adjustments, but Rick just conceded immediately to the whim of the other coach. Always, always, always worried more about the defensive mismatch than the offensive mismatch, to the detriment of an already poor offense. This is the reason he plays AJ instead of Sarunas at the PG, but I'll say right here and now that it's better to give up defense from playing Sarunas at the 1 than it is to give up his offense by playing him at the 2. Absolutely. What he'd doing now is taking 1 step forward, 2 steps backwards.

      I also wish he'd throw Danny out there at the 3 and let him learn. We are not contenders. We are not going to be contenders. When that is the case, you let your rookie who has a boat load of talent learn as much as possible as quickly as possibly against the best competition he can face. Especially when the kid is already capable of guarding whomever he's matched up with, and brings intangibles to the floor.

      Excellent post & I agree with most of it.

      I've highlighted a part though that I want to focus on for a min. & say this. Exchange the name Danny & insert the name David & see if you don't still agree with what you've typed.

      I do. We will never know what Harrison is actually capable of doing with the way that Carlisle is playing him.


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

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

        Originally posted by Peck
        Please please please explain to me why haveing a powerfull small foward allows you to have a weak center?

        Sorry I'm not UB, but my thoughts, speaking purely from an offensive perspective...

        I think to spread the defense you need the threat of scoring in the low post by ideally two guys and also two perimeter threats IMO, with one or two of them being able to get dribble penetration.

        Most teams don't have a small forward who can seal off defenders and demand a double team in the post. The Pacers did. Because of this, in the we didn't miss the fact that Foster brings no offense. The fact that his opponent always left him to double on Ron or Jermaine made him an effective offensive rebounder (not blocked out). He could set picks, just react to the ball, and be somewhat effective without ever having a semblance of an offensive move.

        Now only Jermaine has any desire or ability to post up anybody at all. I have a pipe dream that DH might someday be the second post-up threat, but that seems mighty iffy.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

          Originally posted by Peck
          Excellent post & I agree with most of it.

          I've highlighted a part though that I want to focus on for a min. & say this. Exchange the name Danny & insert the name David & see if you don't still agree with what you've typed.

          I do. We will never know what Harrison is actually capable of doing with the way that Carlisle is playing him.
          So far DH has looked bad, but I think he needs to be on the floor anyway. Primoz was given an opportunity and look what he has done. IMO DH has shown more than Primoz at this stage of his career.
          Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

            I don't buy for a second that Rick is holding DH back, DH is doing it to himself. That is enough about him. I hope he's traded along with Ron, Jax and Tinsley as I said 12/13.


            Hicks your post makes a lot of very good points, but I dont agree that Rick is holding DG back. He has played him at crunch time at on the road in two recent games. At NY and at Cleveland. Why doesn't he just start DG. Let's see what happens Friday night, I expect a change in the lineup and I'll be interested to see what changes are made.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

              I think there has been a bit of a perfect storm of mistakes and unfortunate circumstances...

              1) Trading Harrington for Jax was the first domino in my opinion. We thought were were getting a backup 2 - a guy who would be able to hit teh 3 and be a good SHOOTING guard - he is a scoring guard, not a good shooting guard. Choosing him as Reggie's successor was a mistake because not only did he not have Reggie's shot (no one does) but he does not have Reggie's head - he is a fraction of a player that Reggie was. We thought he was a viable replacement. And we thought we were getting a better piece to the puzzle than Al was... we were wrong. And you know what - we should have just told Al to suck it up, we are not trading you - you will be a free agent in 2 years... tough it out.

              2) Signing AJ 2 years ago still confounds me - if he has talent, I do not see it.

              3) Then we had the brawl and a few good games by Freddie made us think he was MUCH better than he really is. And we are relying on him now to be something he is not - a shooter.

              4) Reggie retires (I think because he was sick of the team more than anything at this point)

              5) Then signing Saras was a really good move - but that signing should have been accompanied by an AJ trade - just to force the rotation. BUT Sara can't hit the NBA 3 - maybe someday, but he can't do it now. So we are left with a team with no real threats to stretch the defense and open up the middle for all of are post and slashing players.

              6) And this offseason while we could have gone out and signed a vet shooter - we were too busy worrying about cost-cutting and letting people that could shoot (James Jones) go for nothing.

              7) Then we - for some unknown reason STILL had hope that Bender would contribute.

              8) Ron asks for trade

              So let's recap... we lost Al, Reggie, Bender, and Ron (I won't even count Brad
              Miller here)

              And gained Saras, Jax, and TBD in the past year and a half (our draft picks are nothing more than bit players right now - any person thinking other wise is kidding themself)

              Our other players have not progressed - in the least. Some have regressed.

              This team misses Ron because he could hit the outside shot more than anything. He was also our most consistent player outside of JO. But he wasn't enough from an outside shooting standpoint. Without him, we are left with role players playing the wrong roles because of the holes that Donnie-do-nothing/old buggeyes has allowed.

              I am quite pessimistic about this year as I think Donnie will make a trade that will disappoint even those of you who would take a bag of jock straps for Ron. Maybe he will prove me wrong - but if any trade is made that does not upgrade our shooting, you have to ask yourself - has Donnie lost his curveball... assuming (I am not) that he ever had one.
              Heywoode says... work hard man.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                I don't buy for a second that Rick is holding DH back, DH is doing it to himself. That is enough about him. I hope he's traded along with Ron, Jax and Tinsley as I said 12/13.


                Hicks your post makes a lot of very good points, but I dont agree that Rick is holding DG back. He has played him at crunch time at on the road in two recent games. At NY and at Cleveland. Why doesn't he just start DG. Let's see what happens Friday night, I expect a change in the lineup and I'll be interested to see what changes are made.
                Once again I find myself in the UB camp.

                Impact rookies - young players who will make an impact - make an impact right away - a consistent impact. Even DD had 10 plus rebounds a game his rookie year. Our rookies are just not that good.
                Heywoode says... work hard man.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                  I posted this in the "Rosen" thread, but I might as well copy it here and elaborate a bit, as I suspect this thread is going to "take off":

                  Start playing people at their natural positions and give them time to jell. That's probably hard to do considering the immenent roster changes.

                  PG: Tinsely - backed up by Saras
                  SG: Jackson - backed up by Fred
                  SF: Granger - backed up by Jax
                  PF: Austin - backed up by Foster
                  C: JO - backed up by David

                  Alternatively, start JO at PF and David at C. Backed up by Austin at PF and Foster at C.

                  And stick with it.

                  And while we're at it, get more freakin' movement on offense. I don't care if JO's got the ball in the post, if you're standing around, you'll be sitting down.

                  And rebound, dammit. Send at least one more guy to the boards.


                  I think a lot of that has already been said at least once. We've got both player problems and coaching problems. I think, though, that the best thing we can do right now is set a rotation, set positions, and execute. Work on playing "the right way". (I'm beginning to hate that phrase.) We'll lose some games, but we'll win some too and get better in the process.

                  I dunno, maybe Rick knows he's going to have to rethink everything after "the trade" and doesn't want to expend a lot of energy right now changing things only to have to change them again.
                  You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                  All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                  - Jimmy Buffett

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    Well if I haven't convinced you yet, I likely won't be able to now.

                    Let's look at offense first. Ron likes to dominate the ball and so does Tinsley, so the last thing we need is a center or power forward who even wants to touch the ball. Reggie fit well, because he worked without the ball. But you add Jax into the mix and we had what we had to begin the season. So Ron and Jeff just fit together. They did win 61 games together, two years ago.

                    On defense: They are great one-on-one defenders, J.O is a great help side defenders, so the frontline made an excellent (second only to the Pistons defensive front line. That is not just me saying this. Many experts where saying the Pacers were the 2nd best defensive frontline in the NBA after the 2004 season.

                    OK, maybe I haven't addressed your real question Peck. "how does having a strong small forward allow a weak center" that is your question. A team has to fit together, if you have a poor shooting small forward then you need a good shooting guard. If you have a shooting guard who is a horrible ball handler, then you better have a point guard who can really handle the ball.

                    If you have a weak rebounding power forward then you better have a center who can really rebound.

                    This all begs the question. Why must you choose to settle with having certain players who can't do certain things. Why can't you get a power forward and center who can rebound or a small forward and shooting guard who can really shoot. Well unless you have an allstar team you will always have players who have weaknesses, and therefore you must have players who help compensate for other players weaknsesses

                    So I guess my point is, sure I'd rather have Shaq then Jeff Foster, but having Ron at small forward helps offset the weaknesses that you see in Jeff or for that matter in J.O.

                    Hope that helps a little.
                    Actually believe it or not I agree with some of this & I'll address that in a min. but a couple of things firs.

                    1. Great defender & Jeff Foster do not go together. Servicable defender, mabye even good defender, but not great. Ben Wallace is great, P.J. Brown is great, yes (you knew this was coming) Dale Davis was great. Foster is not even in any of thier calibers.

                    2. While I understand that mixing parts work, I still don't see how a powerfull small forward stops a center? Forget Shaq, nobody can guard him, let's go for Eddy Curry. How does Ron Artest or some other powerfull small forward, stop Eddy Curry from beating Jeff Foster to death?

                    Now let's go to a mutal agreement. Mixing parts works.

                    We've seen this in the past. You wanna talk about Ron & Jeff & your magical 61 win season (BTW you often forget that Al played as many min. as Jeff did) & I will say I understand because Rik Smits & Dale Davis played for the NBA championship.

                    So this is where I wonder if you are not having some problems with either Walsh or Carlisle?

                    Let's put away both of our personnel feelings for Ron for a min. & admit one thing. There was always the possibility of something happening with him. Whether it was this or league suspension or something, there was always that possibility.

                    Why weren't we better prepared for it than this?

                    Now moving past that, why is Carlisle not mixing & matching players to fit each other a little better?

                    Why is Danny Granger playing out of position at the 4?

                    I understand & agree with you about Saras, Rick was defusing a controversy, but it's a failure & has been for awhile. So what about Fred Jones starting?

                    I guess I just don't understand why the Pacers actually ever thought this thing wouldn't blow up in their faces.


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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                      Originally posted by Peck
                      Excellent post & I agree with most of it.

                      I've highlighted a part though that I want to focus on for a min. & say this. Exchange the name Danny & insert the name David & see if you don't still agree with what you've typed.

                      I do. We will never know what Harrison is actually capable of doing with the way that Carlisle is playing him.
                      I don't know. I would have thought so more last year or early this year, but I'm suspecting he has an attitude problem, and beyond that I've only seen him use one post move. We all know about his rebounding and he still does tend to foul a lot. I agree that playing him more would let him sink or swim so we don't have to keep asking these questions again and again.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                        I think this thread is a good idea, but perhaps 2-3 weeks premature. Does the "patience will right the ship" choice mean that we should "T.O." Artest and get nothing for him? Does the "one good trade" option include the Artest trade or not? I apologize if I too dense to realize that this was explained.

                        On to my thoughts of the team:

                        Globally:

                        Every great team at it's core needs 3 players of "impact" and at least 4 other players that know exactly what their job is and know how to do the job without fail. The (minimum) 3 central players are like a tripod. It's stable and strong. Take one leg away, and it doesn't stand up.

                        The team was rotten at the center the day we traded for Ron Artest. That's hindsight talking. In 02-03 I thought he was a knucklehead. In 03-04 I came around to like him until the post season stories came out. Then it all went to hell and we've suffered a year and a half without the proper foundation on our house.

                        On the dark side:

                        Jermaine Oneal cannot be our only star. Not even Shaq, Garnett or Duncan can pull that off, let alone JO. We need a major complimentary star, and we need one badly. It disappointed me to read today that Donnie does not want to do a mega-trade that includes 3-4 Pacers. That told me that he isn't going to bring in a talent the likes of which we need.

                        On the bright side:

                        I still think this is a 50 win team. The majority of NBA fans out there are fans of teams that will not reach that mark. For that reason, we are very lucky.

                        What I would do:

                        I would trade for a mid-carreer star, preferably a 2-guard, but I'll take a point guard also. Pick one, but it has to be a name. I would pay any price but Granger, Harrison, JO and Sarunas. I would also trade for a very high draft pick. That's right - two major trades.

                        Those four men listed above should be starting (or at least they should be getting HEAVY minutes) along with our new star shooting guard. Croshere coming off the bench with 20-24 minutes at PF is not a bad idea. I think that this can all happen without dropping below 45 games won. Those guys could clobber the weaker teams and steal wins from upper-level teams.

                        Then, over the summer, I would trade Jermaine O'Neal while he's still young, healthy and desirable and really start over. He's one more shoulder dislocation from becoming the next Alan Houston with that contract, and I fear our future with him more than I fear our future without him.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                          Originally posted by pacertom
                          Sorry I'm not UB, but my thoughts, speaking purely from an offensive perspective...

                          I think to spread the defense you need the threat of scoring in the low post by ideally two guys and also two perimeter threats IMO, with one or two of them being able to get dribble penetration.

                          Most teams don't have a small forward who can seal off defenders and demand a double team in the post. The Pacers did. Because of this, in the we didn't miss the fact that Foster brings no offense. The fact that his opponent always left him to double on Ron or Jermaine made him an effective offensive rebounder (not blocked out). He could set picks, just react to the ball, and be somewhat effective without ever having a semblance of an offensive move.

                          Now only Jermaine has any desire or ability to post up anybody at all. I have a pipe dream that DH might someday be the second post-up threat, but that seems mighty iffy.
                          This is right on the money, and I will add one more think to what Tom and Buck have said abou this. Artest could usually guard the pf or center for the opponents for a possession here or there. As the defense had to rotate he gave us one more player that could body up with the power players on other teams. Obviously, this doesn't make Foster a better defender one on one, but it does limit the options the other team has for creating mismatches in their offense.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck
                            Hicks your post makes a lot of very good points, but I dont agree that Rick is holding DG back. He has played him at crunch time at on the road in two recent games. At NY and at Cleveland. Why doesn't he just start DG. Let's see what happens Friday night, I expect a change in the lineup and I'll be interested to see what changes are made.
                            I hope you're right that we do see a lineup change Friday, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll just be happy if we've gotten our new player(s) by then.

                            It's not that I feel he's holding DG back this second so much as I feel this is as far as Rick will go with Danny, and soon that won't be enough. I'm not happy with the idea that for the rest of this season he'll play 80% of his minutes at PF, and off the bench. Yes he can play there, but he'll be at his absolute best as a SF nightmare for everyone else, and he can play there just as well, but with more going in his favor. And I think for us to get the most out of him as quickly as possible, he needs the majority of his minutes at 3, and since we are not playing for a championship I'd rather he play those minutes against starters to up the learning curve I feel he's intelligent and mature enough to handle. Sure, he'll struggle, but he'll adjust as well as any high-prospect rookie has.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                              Originally posted by Doug in OH
                              Once again I find myself in the UB camp.

                              Impact rookies - young players who will make an impact - make an impact right away - a consistent impact. Even DD had 10 plus rebounds a game his rookie year. Our rookies are just not that good.
                              Woah, woah, woah. You think Danny Granger is "just not that good"? What games have you been watching? He's at least as good as any rookie we've had in a decade. If you gave him starters minutes he'd probably contend with JO being the leading rebounder. He already can guard just about anybody thrown at him, and he's finding the shooting touch he had in college (44% from 3 his senior year). Combine that with his high basketball IQ, and already decent passing, and this kid has the goods.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                                Originally posted by Hicks
                                Woah, woah, woah. You think Danny Granger is "just not that good"? What games have you been watching? He's at least as good as any rookie we've had in a decade. If you gave him starters minutes he'd probably contend with JO being the leading rebounder. He already can guard just about anybody thrown at him, and he's finding the shooting touch he had in college (44% from 3 his senior year). Combine that with his high basketball IQ, and already decent passing, and this kid has the goods.
                                Maybe my malaise with this team has tainted my view - I will take a step back from that comment - for now.

                                BUT saying he is our best rookie in a decade is not really saying that much
                                Heywoode says... work hard man.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X