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

Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

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

  • Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

    I read it in this morning's Star. No time to dig up a link for it (time for bed). Carlisle says they need to start working toward the playoffs and getting that lineup comfortable together.

    As I read it, JO seems to have asked to start so that he can get in a better offensive rhythm (I might've misread that).

    Carlisle talked to AJ and told him what was up. AJ goes back to second string PG.

    Sarunas appears to still be odd man out and have no role or minutes in this new plan. Freddie's injury was mentioned and it appears Tinsley, AJ, and Sjax will share backcourt duties. Or that is how I read it...

    Foster, JO, Sjax, Peja, and Tinsley are to be the starters. It may or may not start today against Philly.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

    Can I help you?

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...603260461/1088


    Carlisle devises 26th and final(?) lineup
    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com


    Indiana Pacers coach Rick Carlisle has settled on the starting lineup he plans to use the rest of the season.


    Carlisle is replacing Anthony Johnson and David Harrison with Jamaal Tinsley and Jermaine O'Neal.
    "With 15 games left, we have to get to the group we feel can make a run," Carlisle said Saturday afternoon.
    Tinsley and O'Neal will join Stephen Jackson, Peja Stojakovic and Jeff Foster in the starting lineup. The Pacers' key bench players will be Johnson, Danny Granger and Harrison. The switch will give the Pacers their 26th starting lineup this season. They host the Philadelphia 76ers this afternoon at Conseco Fieldhouse.
    Carlisle made the switch during a time when the Pacers are trying not only to lock up a playoff spot but also to make one last run at Cleveland for the fourth seed and home-court advantage in the first round of the playoffs. The Pacers trail the Cavaliers by five games with 15 to play.
    O'Neal's return to the starting lineup is expected today. He talked after Friday's loss to Detroit about getting back into the lineup because it would allow him to more quickly find his rhythm.
    "I have to find a way to get some easy baskets early, rather than having to take a bulk of shots to get a rhythm," he said. "Every game for this team is very, very important. Especially for me, it's important because I'm a big part of what this team does. I have to really pick my play up and make plays."
    O'Neal averaged 12 points, 6.5 rebounds and 27 minutes in two games after being out 24 games with a torn left groin. He shot 36 percent from the field and 50 percent from the foul line in those two games.
    "He's done a lot of good things, considering the amount of time he's been out," Carlisle said. "But also, you can tell there's an adjustment period here. This is going to take some time to get to full strength."
    Tinsley, who has played only 33 games this season, will make his first start since Jan. 24. He's been coming off the bench since returning from a right elbow injury March 7.
    Johnson will go to the bench after starting 44 games this season, during which he averaged 11 points and five assists. (In 21 starts this season, Tinsley has averaged 10.8 points and five assists.)
    With Fred Jones out with a thumb injury, the Pacers will go with a three-man rotation in the backcourt. Johnson will back up Tinsley at point guard and Jackson at shooting guard.
    "It's something I talked to A.J. about," Carlisle said about replacing Johnson with Tinsley. "At some point it was probably going to be time to make that switch. A.J. has been great about communicating back with me about it. Jermaine and Tinsley need to be together in the starting lineup on both ends of the floor."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

      I hope JO plays at the PF position.
      My Dream Team

      PG - A.Iverson
      SG - K.Bryant
      SF - R.Artest
      PF - J.O'Neal
      C - D.Howard

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

        I don't know why but I have little faith in that lineup. And Carlisle is being down right stupid in not including Saras in the rotation. Saras needs to play and learn. Bird went out and signed Saras for a reason. One of those reasons no doubt because Tinsel strength is injured a lot. With 15 games to go who thinks Tinsel won't get injured again before the season ends or early in the playoffs? Then Carlisle will have to play Saras and he won't be as prepared as he could be if given rotation time.

        Since I have little faith in Carlisle's chosen lineup, I get the feeling that several players will be traded in the off season.That is unless the Pacers make the Eastern Conference finals. Actually the only players that I'm sure will be Pacers next year are Granger and Harrison.

        Peja will most likely be resigned by the Pacers considering Bird has said he didn't trade foe Peja to let him get away.

        JO won't be traded unless it's for Garnett, who I think will be available this summer. However, I think the T-wolves might want more than the Pacers will part with. I could see JO and Tinsel, or JO and Jax, but the T-Wolves will probably ask for two starters and a young player. For instant, JO, and Tinsel or Foster, and Harrison or Granger. That won't happen.

        Back on topic, I like using AJ as a two guard. And the rotation is fine other than not using Sarunas. However, I would like Harrison to start and either play 30 minutes a game or foul out. I would also make him first option.

        I think if Carlisle would lean hard on Harrison, Granger, and Sarunas in these last 15 games we would have a chance of making some noise this year. As is, and knowing Carlisle, we will have an isolation offense that sputters against good defense. If he would jerk players when they make poor decisions while in isolations I might have more faith in his rotation. As is I see us losing to Detroit, Miami, or New Jersey, whichever round we play one of them in.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

          Originally posted by Will Galen
          And Carlisle is being down right stupid in not including Saras in the rotation. Saras needs to play and learn. Bird went out and signed Saras for a reason. One of those reasons no doubt because Tinsel strength is injured a lot. With 15 games to go who thinks Tinsel won't get injured again before the season ends or early in the playoffs? Then Carlisle will have to play Saras and he won't be as prepared as he could be if given rotation time.
          I agree. Certainly with Fred out, I don't see why Sarunas shouldn't get any minutes.
          Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
          Bum in Berlin on Myspace

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

            Originally posted by J_2_Da_IzzO
            I hope JO plays at the PF position.
            As long as both Foster and Pollard are healthy, why should JO play any C minutes?
            I think Rick goes with maximum potential lineup.
            The question is whever they can stay healthy and realize it.

            The positive is that SJax shots will go down.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

              I agree with this decision. It is good for two reasons.

              1) We need to see how this lineup works together, just how good can it be. This will hopefully give us some idea of what to do in the future.

              2) If the pacers are going to make any kind of playoff run (like win one series) then they need to go with their best lineup and this should be it.

              As far as Saras goes. AJ is a better player, a better point guard and a better shooting guard. I would be in favor of going to a 3 guard rotation until Fred is ready to play.

              I must admit kegboy was 100% correct about Saras. And I've come to the conclusion that he's not capable of playing point guard in the NBA. He can be smothered by the most average defender, he cannot start the offense because he can't dribble into position to do so. I'm sorry to say this, I had high hopes for Saras, but Bird made a big mistake in signing the guy.

              Saras would need to play in a system like the triangle, where the point guard doesn't handle the ball much. Or he needs to play with a great shgooting guard, like Iverson, Jordan, Kobe. And I've haven't even mentioned Saras' defense yet.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                I agree with this decision. It is good for two reasons.

                1) We need to see how this lineup works together, just how good can it be. This will hopefully give us some idea of what to do in the future.

                2) If the pacers are going to make any kind of playoff run (like win one series) then they need to go with their best lineup and this should be it.

                As far as Saras goes. AJ is a better player, a better point guard and a better shooting guard. I would be in favor of going to a 3 guard rotation until Fred is ready to play.

                I must admit kegboy was 100% correct about Saras. And I've come to the conclusion that he's not capable of playing point guard in the NBA. He can be smothered by the most average defender, he cannot start the offense because he can dribble into position to do so. I'm sorry to say this, I had high hopes for Saras, but Bird made a big mistake in signing the guy.

                Saras would need to play in a system like the triangle, where the point guard doesn't handle the ball much. Or he needs to play with a great shgooting guard, like Iverson, Jordan, Kobe. And I've haven't even mentioned Saras' defense yet.
                I'll just say that you and Kegboy are 100% wrong because all you care about is D.
                And now I will go away before somebody will trash about separate Saras thread etc...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                  Originally posted by Lithfan
                  I'll just say that you and Kegboy are 100% wrong because all you care about is D.
                  And now I will go away before somebody will trash about separate Saras thread etc...

                  I hardly mentioned Saras defense, in fact I'm not basing my judgment on his defense

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                    Originally posted by Will Galen
                    I don't know why but I have little faith in that lineup. And Carlisle is being down right stupid in not including Saras in the rotation. Saras needs to play and learn. Bird went out and signed Saras for a reason. One of those reasons no doubt because Tinsel strength is injured a lot. With 15 games to go who thinks Tinsel won't get injured again before the season ends or early in the playoffs? Then Carlisle will have to play Saras and he won't be as prepared as he could be if given rotation time.

                    Since I have little faith in Carlisle's chosen lineup, I get the feeling that several players will be traded in the off season.That is unless the Pacers make the Eastern Conference finals. Actually the only players that I'm sure will be Pacers next year are Granger and Harrison.

                    Peja will most likely be resigned by the Pacers considering Bird has said he didn't trade foe Peja to let him get away.

                    JO won't be traded unless it's for Garnett, who I think will be available this summer. However, I think the T-wolves might want more than the Pacers will part with. I could see JO and Tinsel, or JO and Jax, but the T-Wolves will probably ask for two starters and a young player. For instant, JO, and Tinsel or Foster, and Harrison or Granger. That won't happen.

                    Back on topic, I like using AJ as a two guard. And the rotation is fine other than not using Sarunas. However, I would like Harrison to start and either play 30 minutes a game or foul out. I would also make him first option.

                    I think if Carlisle would lean hard on Harrison, Granger, and Sarunas in these last 15 games we would have a chance of making some noise this year. As is, and knowing Carlisle, we will have an isolation offense that sputters against good defense. If he would jerk players when they make poor decisions while in isolations I might have more faith in his rotation. As is I see us losing to Detroit, Miami, or New Jersey, whichever round we play one of them in.
                    I agree with you Will. I believe the line up that Rick has chosen to go with won't win. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see how three ball dominant players can coexist. Jax needs his shots because he addicted to them, Tinsley needs his to show his homeboys how its done and JO needs his to get into a "rhythm". Rick also wants JO to shoot out of his favorite ISO play. How will Peja get any shots? Foster lives on rebounds and will be the only one to actively go for them. Peja rebounds some and it helps.

                    The second team with AJ running it will become ineffective because AJ will be jacking up shots looking to prove he's still a starter. Harrison is going to suffer because of this and Granger will look lost again. Fred is hurt but he lives to shoot too.

                    I hope I'm wrong but I just can't see much advantage to this. Unfortunately its the only option the Pacers have. Saras won't even be on the Playoff roster and I think its because Carlisle really doesn't like him for some reason. Personality clashes, whatever reason I don't know.

                    After the season ends, Bird and Walsh have got to do some serious thinking about where this team is going and how they are planning to get there. Some big changes need to be made in the off season.

                    There is always next season....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck
                      I agree with this decision. It is good for two reasons.

                      1) We need to see how this lineup works together, just how good can it be. This will hopefully give us some idea of what to do in the future.

                      2) If the pacers are going to make any kind of playoff run (like win one series) then they need to go with their best lineup and this should be it.

                      As far as Saras goes. AJ is a better player, a better point guard and a better shooting guard. I would be in favor of going to a 3 guard rotation until Fred is ready to play.

                      I must admit kegboy was 100% correct about Saras. And I've come to the conclusion that he's not capable of playing point guard in the NBA. He can be smothered by the most average defender, he cannot start the offense because he can dribble into position to do so. I'm sorry to say this, I had high hopes for Saras, but Bird made a big mistake in signing the guy.

                      Saras would need to play in a system like the triangle, where the point guard doesn't handle the ball much. Or he needs to play with a great shgooting guard, like Iverson, Jordan, Kobe. And I've haven't even mentioned Saras' defense yet.
                      So now that Saras hasn't played for a while, you're giving up on him?

                      From what I've seen from him this season, I still think he could be a good back-up PG.

                      Defense: man-to-man defense is certainly his weakest point. He's not that great of an athlete so whenever he's matched up one-on-one you know he's gonna get beat of the dribble 4 out of 5 times. I don't think that should be that big of a problem for a back-up PG. The team should recognize that and give help when needed.

                      Other than that, his team defense is ok. He knows when and where to help out because of that great basketball IQ of his.

                      Offense: he has problems bringing the ball up the court when being pressured. To be precise, I don't think it's his ball handling that causes those problems. His ball handling is ok to me, it's just quickness and speed he lacks against most (more athletic) PG's in the NBA. As you mention, that problem can also be fixed by letting the SG do most of the ball handling. And I think Sarunas recognizes that himself too. Back in the days when he was the 2nd unit PG most of the times he instantly passed the ball to Fred Jones, also with the intention of setting up the ball movement.

                      He's no driving/slashing guard. Again, that has to do a lot with his lack of athletism in comparison with most other NBA PG's.

                      On to the positives. He has great court vision. The problem here is, that, with the adjustment of coming to the NBA, where the game is played faster, sometimes that court vision doesn't always pay off because his execution isn't fast enough. After a while, with that great basketball IQ of his, he should be able to adjust to that.

                      There's no guard on our team that executes the pick-and-roll better than Sarunas. Pick-and-rolls give you easy baskets. And easy baskets make you win basketball games.

                      The ball movement will never suffer from his presence. He knows how to involve other teammates. His shot: he had a great season start, but then his shooting percentage went way down. Those things happen and I really expect it to get better if he gets another chance.

                      Lastly this man plays with passion for the game. That's something you really can see watching him play.

                      In summary: the man has his flaws, but overall I think he helps the team win. Especially thanks to his great passing he overcomes those flaws.

                      (mods, feel free to move this to the official Sarunas thread. I just felt UB's post needed a response...)
                      Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                      Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                        A pretty good lineup, if it stays healthy. Let's hope.

                        Saras will get his shot next year. All he can to do is improve and stay ready. He's capble of being a very good backup.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                          I am not sure what the big fuss is all about. You look at the lineup and I don't see any other one you could put out there is better by leaps and bounds. With this lineup JO returns to the go to guy (what you guys want that to be Danger, a rookie?) By leaving Harrison with the second unit it allows him to be a more prominent fixture in the offense( just where would he get the shots with JO, Peja, Sjax, and Tins on the court at the same time?) Danny can be a great energy guy off the bench (remember Al a few years back?) With this line up you will see Sjax be used for what he was brought in here for( 3rd option)

                          Considering the players on this team, I think this is the right lineup. All to often teams want to put their best 5 individual players on the court at the same time (How is that working Isaah and the Knickerbockers?) With this line up you have 2 rotations that have scorers, defenders, and rebounders. I will admit I would be a little more comftorable with a more experienced scorer on the second unit (please return to health Mr. Jones) but with the parts we have this can work. People look at this team and keep wanting more than what is there, sometimes you have to take what is given and role with it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                            This is the lineup that I want to see. We started the season with championship aspirations. The only change in this lineup is Peja, for Artest. This lineup should jump on teams from the start, and make them adjust to us.
                            It's time for a playoff push, not develop rookies. It doesn't make any sense to worry about how this effects Harrison, or Granger, they both have the chance to stay in the rotation off the bench. If these guys can pile up a few wins, and start to Gel, they could be very dangerous.
                            Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                            Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tinsley and JO back to starting lineup

                              Wow 26th lineup. Doesn't seem like that much. I like it alot though..very energetic




                              http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TS02/603260502 THREEPEAT!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X