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

3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

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

  • #31
    Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    If you have poor passers on your team, one way to "fix" that is to get your team to pass less. I don't think that is what we want though.

    I think the triangle offense would be a disaster. can you imagine these players trying to pass the ball when they have to think. Can you imagine them when they have to try and read the defense to decide where to cut. No, that won't work.
    You'd think with our size we would want to focus on setting a lot of off-ball screens to get someone open. Theoretically we take up more space when set screens, right?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post


      This is it. Period. I just don't know how you fix it, without major trades.
      Me, either. On the one hand, we have Kevin Pritchard, suggesting we very well could make moves.

      On the other hand, Donnie Walsh and Herb Simon are his bosses, so... nevermind.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

        I still firmly believe Green is a player we've been looking for, for a while. Someone who is good with iso when we need it and a decent creator. He's almost like a rookie though and it clearly showed as he gave Chase Budinger that layup and the win, but he's still only 26. He was never given a fair shot in the NBA, so he redeemed himself last season with the Nets. I like having him here off the bench. KP definitely seemed to like him a lot as he quickly signed him when free agency opened in the summer. I believe he'll average around 11 points a game during the year.

        Outside of that assessment based on what these scouts are saying, I agree with them. Especially on DJ and the fact that he's far too laid back. I don't know what he thinks when he's out there, but he's not assertive whatsoever. I knew he wasn't going to be scoring a handful of points as his role is to be GH's backup, but he's almost invisible when he's out there. Even when he was Raymond Felton's backup in Charlotte a few years ago, he still was a strong guy to have off the bench. He almost looks like he doesn't care and that he was going to get a free ride coming to a team that had just come off being the 5 best in the league.

        The offense has looked like a major train wreck as well. Too much "me me" ball out there and not enough teamwork. Guys simply are not on the same page. Roy also needs to man up in the post and get into position for guys to find him. He's not being patient. He really needs to dust the cobwebs off and stop criticizing himself because easy opportunities to score are being missed.

        This is not looking like an auspicious season thus far and it's a disgrace.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

          My question is, why bring in a guy who can score in isos and a point guard who wants to be pass first if they're just going to be asked to play in an offense that doesn't necessarily suit either of them?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            I have to agree with part of this. I think what has been missing is that the pass targets aren't moving without the ball to help the passer find a good passing lane - in fact, some of the turnovers have clearly been when someone with some semblance of court vision sees an open spot and that a player has a route to it, passes it there, but the pass receiver hasn't bothered to move to the open spot.

            We really just fail to move.
            Yeah I don't think we have the players to have a moving and well flowing offense, the Pacers need players that can move without the ball and that are smart enough not to throw the ball away.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

              You confuse pessimistic with realistic. I said all last year that the Pacers were playing way over their heads. Management also said they overperformed last year. It was a magic year with no injuries to the Pacers and other teams having injuries at key times like the Magic in the playoffs.... They were not as good as everyone thought coming into this season. They are not as bad as some folks think they are right now... I predicted 48-34 this year and 5th or 6th in the East. This is because they didn't make any big changes. They tweaked their bench but they did nothing to improve their starters. Other teams did improve their starting units. I also said that if they had a major injury, they would scrap to be the 8th seed in the east.... This team only had one winning season in quite a long time.... It will take, time, their are ups and downs. This is one of the downs.....

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Yeah I don't think we have the players to have a moving and well flowing offense, the Pacers need players that can move without the ball and that are smart enough not to throw the ball away.
                I'm not sure I completely agree here. There's a difference between moving without the ball while reading a defense and moving without the ball as part of an offense designed to put you in an area rather than plant you in a specific spot.

                While we don't have guys who do the former, the latter is within the reach of pretty much anyone smart enough to be in the NBA - IF the offense is designed for it, rather than being "go here - plant - don't move until something specific happens (like a screen set or a defense shift or whatever)". While that is a bit of an exaggeration, I feel like our offense is closer to "plant" than it is to "be in this area and be aware of the ballhandler".
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I aqgree 100% with all of this. His comments about Green are right on and it bugs me when many in this forum get excited about his dunks. I don't care about his dunks

                  http://www.indystar.com/article/20121115/SPORTS04/211150364/What-s-wrong-Pacers-NBA-scouts-weigh-in?nclick_check=1


                  The Indiana Pacers' goals for the season didn't change when they learned leading-scorer Danny Granger would miss at least three months.

                  How they achieve those goals did, though.

                  What was a team that clicked offensively and was solid defensively last season has been brutal on offense and experiencing defensive breakdowns at the wrong time this year.
                  Those two problems are the primary reasons why the Pacers are 3-6 heading into tonight's home game with Dallas.

                  The Star recently talked to three NBA scouts who have watched the Pacers in person or on film this season to get their take on what has gone wrong.

                  Biggest problem

                  Scout No. 1
                  "They're searching for who should get the ball at the right time. (Coach Frank) Vogel has condensed his offense to only a handful of plays and runs them all the time. You know what's coming. They're easy to defend because you can play everybody straight up without the concern of getting beat. There's only occasional times where Roy Hibbert is going to go off. You know how he's getting the ball, the plays that are coming. They don't strike fear in anybody."

                  Scout No. 2
                  "You hate to compare what a guy is making like in Hibbert's case, but the reality is when you pay him all that money you expect him to easily get you double figures in points and rebounds. The shots he's missing are point-blank shots; it's not like he's shooting jumpers. You're talking about jump hooks, two or three feet from the basket. You see his confidence is not there."

                  Scout No. 3
                  "They're just a careless team. They don't know how to pass the basketball, that's why they're near the top of the league in turnovers. It's simple passes that aren't being made. You can't have an offensive structure if you don't know to feed the ball into the post."


                  Replacing Granger

                  Scout No. 1
                  "David West is a legitimate pro, but he's too unselfish of a player and he's not going to go out there and give you 20-plus points a night. That's not his nature. The two people who should be doing that are Hibbert and (George) Hill. Hibbert has never handled pressure well in his career. Hill has more pressure on him to think while he's playing point guard. He's a better instinctual player. Playing off the ball (at shooting guard) will help him. It'll allow him to just play and score."

                  Scout No. 3
                  "You would think it would be Paul George since he's supposed to be the heir apparent at small forward for the Pacers. But he hasn't had the same impact that he had last year. Maybe it's because without Danny he's the focus of more team's scouting reports. The other thing about Paul is, he's not a good ball handler. You can't put the ball in his hands and tell him to make a play. You have to be able to handle the ball to do that."


                  Bench woes

                  Scout No. 2
                  "I thought (D.J.) Augustin was going to be better than what he is. He's way too laid back when he plays. It's almost like he doesn't care. He needs to get back to playing aggressive the way he did in Charlotte. Gerald Green is who he is. He was successful in New Jersey because they were basically playing one-on-one basketball out there. That's his strong suit. But that's not how the Pacers play. If you (isolate) him then they're not going to get a lot of ball movement. You know what you're going to get from (Tyler) Hansbrough. A lot of energy from an undersized power forward."

                  Scout No. 3
                  "Remember the play in Minnesota where Green got beat for the winning basket when Chase (Budinger) went backdoor? That summed up Green right there. Freakishly athletic but not a smart basketball player. You'll be fine with him if you like dunks. You just can't depend on him in key moments of the game."
                  I will now sum it up for everyone: We're ****ed.
                  "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                    I read this yesterday and thought it was spot-on. And what's not directly said in here, but is an easy place to connect the dots is this: the team is so bad at handling the ball and passing that the simplified offense is incapable of finding ways to get the ball to Hibbert in position to earn his contract. When you're a post player, you've got to depend on the rest of the team getting you the ball in position to succeed, and that's not happening. It seems so simple, yet the Pacers are really bad at it.

                    Its too bad we don't have a starting-quality pure PG. And spare me the "Collison" story, he was great driving the ball but not much of a passer. We need another PG so we can move Hill to SG.

                    At this point, and I'm no Lance Stephenson fan, I'd rather run with TBD - Hill - Lance on the perimeter. That's got to be better than Hill - George - Lance or any other awful combination we've thrown out at the wing spots this year.

                    I think Hill needs to be on the court no matter what, and I'm glad he was re-signed, but I still wonder if he's got a better future at SG than PG? (And if his future at SG is going to be better than Paul George's future at SG? I think so.)

                    Mike Brown's available? Vogel is starting to look at lot like Dick Versace at this point. Some immediate success with a couple of gimmicks, minor amount of playoff success, and then **thud** that's all folks, nothing else.

                    But I'm not enthusiastic AT ALL for Shaw. We don't need to just swap-out with another assistant coach with no HC experience. I know people on here would ***** about any "re-tread" coach but this team needs a voice with more experience to brigde the gap between their potential and consistent results.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                      Scout No. 1
                      "They're searching for who should get the ball at the right time. (Coach Frank) Vogel has condensed his offense to only a handful of plays and runs them all the time. You know what's coming. They're easy to defend because you can play everybody straight up without the concern of getting beat. There's only occasional times where Roy Hibbert is going to go off. You know how he's getting the ball, the plays that are coming. They don't strike fear in anybody."
                      This is what I'm saying. The playbook is too simple and has very little "punish you for attacking too much" type of secondary responses in terms of movement, picks and screens. Of course teams are going to double Roy, but it's not just "well then pass it". You've got to have guys going to places that are good passing lanes and present good continuation of play flow. Roy doesn't need to kick it to the shot, he kicks it to the guy that's then drawing help from somewhere else because his man doubled and he moved without the ball, and then that leads to the shot. Or a guy moves off a pick/switch and then picks someone else in order to confuse the switches and rotations.

                      They don't do any of that. Look at the low post to Roy plays. Besides the baseline give and go run through or the normal kick-out, what else do they do off of it? Stand and wait for Roy to beat a double team, and that takes so long that the drop down guy easily times his move with Roy's turn and disrupts him or knocks the ball completely loose. They don't even do a good job of quick reposts, that in-out-in-out keep guys from getting settled type of post work.

                      So teams just sit on it. And they Roy is getting a "good" look at the rim with a not-in-rhythm hook or runner or face up jumper (at best) that he misses.

                      When West does score it's always shoving his way through a double team, it's never in some quick, clear motion with space. So what kind of FG% do you expect that to generate?


                      Lance passing to the always in motion Tyler is about the only real active/motion offense we see, and I suspect that's mostly freelance between two guys that have familiarity.



                      Also I agree that of the 4 new guys, 3 look comfortable and DJ looks almost bored or disinterested. His play is well below what should be expected.


                      Green makes errors, but he also can shake guys for a drive to the rim and has come up with strong athletic plays well beyond dunks. Having hops to get in-traffic boards, challenge shots or chase plays down has a big impact. Just like people wanted to blame Sam Young and then he got benched for the two worst games the Pacers have played yet.

                      Green, Young and Mahinmi might not be starters, but they all can thrive in a good system. Right now the starters look just as bad, far worse than last year.


                      Vogel was always going to be the point of scrutiny this year. I said it during the off-season that to me he was the biggest question mark, and that wasn't because I thought he'd fail. I was one of the high mark predictors looking at 58 wins, and even without Granger I think they have enough talent to win 50.

                      But not if you have them using the playbook they are using right now. Not if they don't learn to react to how teams have decided to defend them. Bigs go to the FT line vs the zone but the team can't figure out how exactly to feed that or make it work for them. Teams triple Roy and no one knows what to do to punish them for it. That's why they are losing and why they have to be one of the 5 worst teams in the NBA at this point.

                      Frank needs to take the next step more than Paul, Roy or George do. I hope he can, but I'm worried that he can't.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        I read this yesterday and thought it was spot-on. And what's not directly said in here, but is an easy place to connect the dots is this: the team is so bad at handling the ball and passing that the simplified offense is incapable of finding ways to get the ball to Hibbert in position to earn his contract. When you're a post player, you've got to depend on the rest of the team getting you the ball in position to succeed, and that's not happening. It seems so simple, yet the Pacers are really bad at it.

                        Its too bad we don't have a starting-quality pure PG. And spare me the "Collison" story, he was great driving the ball but not much of a passer. We need another PG so we can move Hill to SG.

                        At this point, and I'm no Lance Stephenson fan, I'd rather run with TBD - Hill - Lance on the perimeter. That's got to be better than Hill - George - Lance or any other awful combination we've thrown out at the wing spots this year.

                        I think Hill needs to be on the court no matter what, and I'm glad he was re-signed, but I still wonder if he's got a better future at SG than PG? (And if his future at SG is going to be better than Paul George's future at SG? I think so.)

                        Mike Brown's available? Vogel is starting to look at lot like Dick Versace at this point. Some immediate success with a couple of gimmicks, minor amount of playoff success, and then **thud** that's all folks, nothing else.

                        But I'm not enthusiastic AT ALL for Shaw. We don't need to just swap-out with another assistant coach with no HC experience. I know people on here would ***** about any "re-tread" coach but this team needs a voice with more experience to brigde the gap between their potential and consistent results.
                        I agree with you but Simon will go cheap with another assistant coach. If not Shaw, then someone else. What retread do you want. SVG is available but he alienates his players quickly. Sloan is getting mighty old and probably would not be interested in the Pacers.... I just don't see a lot of "great" coaches out there who would want to come to Indiana....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                          Obviously the professional scouts are correct however in defense of Frank here a little I want to say this.

                          Roy all season and David the past 3 games are missing wide open shots that have been gotten in the flow of the offense or in other words by design.

                          Roy has been missing honest to God 3-4' baby hooks that last year was automatic. West has been missing his stright up 13-17' jumpers that once made him an all-star.

                          I'm not saying Franks offense hasn't been an issue, it has, but Phil Jackson couldn't win with your only two reliable post palyers are continuasly missing easy shots that the offense has produced for them.


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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            I agree with you but Simon will go cheap with another assistant coach. If not Shaw, then someone else. What retread do you want. SVG is available but he alienates his players quickly. Sloan is getting mighty old and probably would not be interested in the Pacers.... I just don't see a lot of "great" coaches out there who would want to come to Indiana....
                            That's really the odd thing about Herb Simon. In the past he has not been shy about paying top dollar to bring in a big name coach yet has never been able to get in the bidding for a top flight player talent.

                            I mean Bird/Thomas/Carlisle were all top dollar coach signings. I have no idea why we have such a paradox in this case.

                            God forgive me because I know he has saved the Pacers for the state of Indiana but right now I'm a little distraught with Herb because I honestly believe Birds flying the coop was because he was ready to go to the next level and Herb was ready for another 3 year plan.


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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                              I agree with you but Simon will go cheap with another assistant coach.
                              Are you saying for this season or after? This idea Simon is too cheap for a name coach seems off base to me. I don't think Bird, Carlisle, Thomas, or Brown were cheap pickups. We can agree there have been mistakes, but cheap has not been a problem going back to the hiring of Jack Ramsey.

                              Edit: Peck beat me to it.
                              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                                I'm to the point I think Ian Mahinmi should start over Hibbert. Let Roy come of the bench and dominate back up centers to get his confidence back up. Mahinmi can start play 8 minutes then bring in Roy perhaps the demotion to the bench will light a fire under him. I don't care if he is making 13+ mil this year his performance ( more lack of) is not getting it done. Roy's too damn passive this season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X