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

  • An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

    I was going to just mark this to Uncle Buck because he needs to purge his feelings. But I thought it would be best to get everybody's thoughts on this.

    Again I'm going back to Buck because of what he said in another post & to be honest he said the same thing last year as well when Artest was gone.

    The Pacers are not a good team right now, this is paraphrasing Uncle Buck btw, and we have only one player who would start for a championship team.

    Ok, if we believe this theory (I'm not sure I do but for argument sake let's agree with this) why were we not calling for changes over the last two seasons?

    Now if we just wanna say that he (& other Artesions) are just bitter & can't let go then I think we can all understand & just move on. But if he really believes this, as it sounds like many of you do, then why were we ok with just riding out the season with the same team?

    Yes, no one will dispute that Ron is a great player, but was he really so good that he will take a team from championship contender to a team (as U.B. put in another thread) that depending on what Walsh can bring in might be able to win a playoff round?

    I guess the question is this.

    Do you think this team is fundamentally flawed?

    If your answer is yes, then how flawed is it?

    a. Totally screwed, needs to start all over
    b. Just a little screwed, we need to make one good trade
    c. Not really screwed, time & patience will right the ship

    Now how would you improve this team.

    Would you build a team that Carlisle can use to his own devices or would you put together a team that you liked & force Carlisle to either change or get rid of him?

    There's more, but this is a good starting point.


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

  • #2
    Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

    Start Granger at the 3

    Realize that Sarunas is completely useless without the ball so play him as the backup pg.

    Trade Pollard and Ron to New York for Tony (only partially serious but we need a big rebounder/Enforcer in the middle)

    Let Rick coach as Rick pleases to an extent. If he over uses a bad player then trade the player so he cant wreck the team with his use of said bad player. Make him realize that the young sf that he refuses the start is the exact same mistake he made in Detroit.

    I dont think we need a top to bottom make over. I do wish we had a big C who can rebound pass and shoot but clearly the Pacers did not think they needed that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

      OK, I'll bite. This team is a totally screwed. When Artest was playing we could afford to play Foster or Croshere at pf/c with ONeal. The fact that Artest was a huge sf afforded us the luxury of not really playing a center.

      Another thing that I have been thinking about is that when Reggie was here, even when he wasn't scoring much, he spread the defense to a degree.

      People have written a lot about player attitudes. I don't want to rehash all of that, but with a few of our players (mainly Jackson and Harrison), I feel like we have players that think they are better than they are. Maybe better isn't the right word. Jackson acts like he is Kobe sometimes. He moans about every call against him, good or bad. He pouts when he doesn't get the ball. We all know about his temper. With Harrison, we have someone who I think spent a lot of time over the summer reading about how he was the next starter. Then when he plays and shows no understanding about where he should be on offense, and draws a foul every possession on defense, he can't understand why he isn't starting....so he breaks things.

      Tinsley is IMO a high quality NBA pg. However, he needs to play a certain style. I don't think that we have the players to play that style. Who can run with him? WHo can he dish to that is a deadeye three point shooter? The other thing that drives me crazy about Tins is his incosistency. He does seem to pout when things don't go his way, but to me he just doesn't seem like a guy that will ever be an emotional leader. Also, none of our guards (well except Freddie when he is in the mood) are even average defenders.

      Then there is the issue of Carlisle playing practically everyone out of position. It is driving me insane to see Saras playing sg. I personally think that Carlisle has completely lost this team. Besides JO, Croshere, and Foster who has shown all year that they respect and buy into what Carlisle is doing? I think that either Carlisle has to go, or the team needs to be blown up and created to fit his coaching style. Personally, I would like to see him stay and us trade Jackson and Harrison, and either Tinsley or Saras....oh and AJ who should never get in the game if Tins and Saras are both on the team.

      We need a backup pg or starting sg that can put pressure on the ball. If we keep Tins we need a sg who can shoot like Saras, but is capable of playing defense. If we keep Saras we need a sg who is a great defender and can slash to the basket.

      To me Jax needs to go, but I don't know what we could get for him. I would rather start Freddie or Granger or both if we have to. I have actually thought that Jackson would be a great 6th man if he would accept that role. Unfortunately, he thinks that he is Tracy McGrady.

      The whole center thing is sort of a puzzle to me. If we get someone who is a big sf who can score and defend (harrington or Odom), I don't necessarily think that we need to bring in a new center. If we get a Maggette type in a trade, then I think we need another physical presence.

      I also hate the fact that we don't move on offense. Watching both the Spurs and especially the Mavs the last couple of days was like a clinic in how to move without the ball and use screens to get guys open. It seemed like the Mavs were screening on every play. That is much more fun to watch. One of the problems with our dump it in to JO offense the past few years is that #1 JO is not a great passer (although I will admit that he is considerably better this year) and that no one is moving often there is no where for him to go with the ball.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

        Fundamentally flawed? I don't think so, er maybe I do, I think it needs some changes.

        I would do this

        Harrison/Pollard/Foster
        O'Neal/Croshere
        Granger/
        BLANKSPACE/Jones
        Sarunas/

        Put Foster on the IR until he is physically able to take the backup center spot from Pollard.

        We aren't going to trade for a legit center. Just won't happen. Our best chance at getting one is developing David.

        Trade Jax for a backup PG who is a solid overall player who guards quick PGs, and also a backup SF. I'm going to say Watson and Najera.

        Trade Artest, Tinsley, and AJ, and Gill if you have to, but get a really good SG in return. I like to think some team would -have- to bite on that.

        Although, realistically, the best we'd probably get in return is something like Marquis Daniels + Pick + salary cap dump out of a three team trade.


        If Harrison flops, we bring back a hopefully healthy Jeff and go with him at center. When healthy, he's not the worst of options.


        Leaves us with

        Harrison/Pollard/Foster
        O'Neal/Croshere
        Granger/Najera
        Daniels/Jones
        Sarunas/Watson


        Okay, maybe that didn't work as well as I thought it would.
        Well I gave it a shot anyway.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

          My overall point is the team was built around J.O and Artest. Just like the Lakers 2000-2004 were built around Shaq and Kobe. Or the Jazz were built around Stockton and Malone or the Bulls around Scottie and Michael.

          Rememeber when some of the Bulls role players went elsewhere and how bad they were. Same with the jazz, I honestly thought Howard Eisley and Bryon Russell were very good players, but when they left the, I soon realized they were horrible when they weren't protected by Karl and John.

          Some of you will no doubt mention how well the Pacers did in March and April last season when they were without J.O, Artest and Tinsley. Well that is a head scratcher. But Reggie played great and so did Dale (until he wore down) and those two veterans, who really know how to win, were able to help the other players. Remember how well some of the role players played during that time.

          OK, lets skip ahead to today. What do we have besides J.O.

          Foster is about 50% physically. He has never had any problems catching the ball until now.

          DH - has talent but he has no clue how to play basketball.

          Granger is going to be very good in a couple of years, but right now he's a rookie.

          Fred, Cro, Scot, AJ are all good role players but are only role players.

          That leaves us with Jax and Tinsley,. They are the two key players on this team, and they aren't getting it done. They might have good individual games, but they don't really help the team win.

          Saras - as many have said he needs to be the starting point guard or the backup point guard. He is not being used correctly by Rick. But I think I know why. Something Mike Wells said in one of his articles last weekend. Wells hinted that Rick was wise in cutting off any possible point guard controversy by inserting Saras into the starting shooting guard role. I didn't think too much of that comment, but right now I think that is one reason why Rick decided to start Saras at shooting guard. Rick will self correct himself very son, probably Friday night

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

            Originally posted by recap
            . When Artest was playing we could afford to play Foster or Croshere at pf/c with ONeal. The fact that Artest was a huge sf afforded us the luxury of not really playing a center.


            I agree 100%. Ronnie made Foster an effective player for the Pacers. Remember Jeff has been the only Pacers player who has had any kind words for Ron since 12/10 (date Ron asked for a trade)


            here is what Jeff said

            http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart

            "I don't know why he would feel that way," Foster said. "Obviously we would have gotten a lot further with him last year. . . .
            "He and J.O. complement each other real well. Hopefully this is just a state he's going through right now. He's out, he's hurt and he feels like he can't play. We all know we need him. He makes us a better team when he's out there."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

              Originally posted by Unclebuck
              I agree 100%. Ronnie made Foster an effective player for the Pacers. Remember Jeff has been the only Pacers player who has had any kind words for Ron since 12/10 (date Ron asked for a trade)
              :jackson:
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                To both uncle Buck & recap, please please please explain to me why haveing a powerfull small foward allows you to have a weak center?

                What does Ron Artest bumping James Posey have anything to do with Jeff being plowed over by Shaq?

                Or what does Ron stopping Prince....er um scratch that, what does Ron playing against Prince have anything to do with Jeff being blown away by Ben?

                U.B. has been spouting this for years & I do not even slightly understand what one has to do with the other.

                Center spot has been our weakest link for going on three seasons now.


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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                  Also, Jeff had some of his best games ever last year against Detroit.... funny enough, Ron wasn't playing.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck

                    OK, lets skip ahead to today. What do we have besides J.O.

                    Foster is about 50% physically. He has never had any problems catching the ball until now.

                    DH - has talent but he has no clue how to play basketball.

                    Granger is going to be very good in a couple of years, but right now he's a rookie.

                    Fred, Cro, Scot, AJ are all good role players but are only role players.

                    That leaves us with Jax and Tinsley,. They are the two key players on this team, and they aren't getting it done. They might have good individual games, but they don't really help the team win.

                    Saras - as many have said he needs to be the starting point guard or the backup point guard. He is not being used correctly by Rick. But I think I know why. Something Mike Wells said in one of his articles last weekend. Wells hinted that Rick was wise in cutting off any possible point guard controversy by inserting Saras into the starting shooting guard role. I didn't think too much of that comment, but right now I think that is one reason why Rick decided to start Saras at shooting guard. Rick will self correct himself very son, probably Friday night
                    I agree with all of this. I'm not quite sure what you mean about Tins/Saras. Do you think that Carlisle is just trying to eliminate friction during this wierd time, or do you think this is somehow increasing Tins trade value?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                        Originally posted by recap
                        I agree with all of this. I'm not quite sure what you mean about Tins/Saras. Do you think that Carlisle is just trying to eliminate friction during this wierd time, or do you think this is somehow increasing Tins trade value?
                        I was so very confused by Saras playing SG that I thought it was a way to keep him in game shape while not creating a PG controversy...in preparation for trading Tinsley. Man, that sounds crazy...but what would you do if you were going to trade Tins?
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                          Originally posted by Peck
                          To both uncle Buck & recap, please please please explain to me why haveing a powerfull small foward allows you to have a weak center?

                          What does Ron Artest bumping James Posey have anything to do with Jeff being plowed over by Shaq?

                          Or what does Ron stopping Prince....er um scratch that, what does Ron playing against Prince have anything to do with Jeff being blown away by Ben?

                          U.B. has been spouting this for years & I do not even slightly understand what one has to do with the other.

                          Center spot has been our weakest link for going on three seasons now.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                            b. Just a little screwed, we need to make one good trade
                            c. Not really screwed, time & patience will right the ship

                            Now how would you improve this team.

                            Would you build a team that Carlisle can use to his own devices or would you put together a team that you liked & force Carlisle to either change or get rid of him?


                            My random thoughts.

                            Walsh will be patient. He said in another article he is not interested in a "big package deal" involving three or four Pacers. He likes to move one piece at a time and see what he has before making another.

                            I think he took the lead on Artest because Bird was ready to just cut Ron. I think Bird scouting in Europe was a good thing. Notice when Bird came back he talked about getting a draft pick for Ron, while Donnie wants a player.

                            Bird and Walsh obviously work good together. However what about the coach? In one respect he is good, because he has patient too. He will give a change several ballgames to see if it works.

                            I think Rick's main problem is after JO everyone is about equal in ability. He's got to shuffle though all these equal in ability players to see who makes the best fit. The problem is his patience drives the rest of us crazy.

                            JO is one problem because he is both our best C and PF. Cro is a problem because he only plays well with lots of minutes. Foster is a problem because he's out of shape and just plays defense. You can go though the whole lineup that way. Etc.Etc.Etc.

                            We are obviously not going anywhere with the team we have now. So . . . Saras should start at the point, Granger at SF, and Harrison at C, so that we can see what we have before the trade deadline. JO obviously starts at PF, so that leaves shooting guard. Jax? Fred? Even Tins?

                            Management is confused about this team. Bird has admitted to it. I think we have too many emotional disruptive players.

                            We should do the package deal Donnie doesn't want to do!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                              I would say a little screwed but I think we need to got a couple good trades. I really think we need to rid our team of bad eggs. Anyone that doesn't put the team first needs to go. In my opinion, Tinsley, Harrison and Jackson appear from my viewpoint to be the main ones that need to head out but that's just an outsiders perspective.

                              I don't have much hope of a championship this year so I really want a 2006 lottery pick and maybe a decent player for Artest. I'd trade Tinsley/Johnson/Jackson/Harrison for a good defending PG, decent SG that can hit treys and defend the 2 spot, decent big man, and maybe an expiring contract.

                              With the lottery pick that we got for Artest, I would hope to get a great shooting guard.

                              That's what I hope to see happen but I don't think we'll trade that many players. I think after the Artest trade, we will only see minor tweaking.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X