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

Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

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

  • Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

    First let me start off with stating the obvious, going 2-1 on a West Coast swing is a good thing. I didn’t get a chance to fire off one of these last night so I don’t want the fact that we lost tonight & I will be complaining take away from the fact that I do consider this a successful road trip.

    We haven’t turned the corner as a team yet but you can certainly start to see some improvement from where we were just 3 weeks ago.

    Now having said that let’s deal with tonight’s loss.

    The Warriors are actually pretty good. In the long run I don’t see them leading the Pacific but who knows with some of those teams out there. They have a really good back court & while they still need some more size up front they have at least started to play a far more physical game than they used to. You can thank Mark Jackson for that.

    Honestly being the second night of a back to back I’m not surprised we lost and actually even though I can’t say we played particularly well I will say if Jack had not had the incredible shooting night he did I think we could have pulled this one out. But then again maybe not, can’t live off of what ifs. He did get hot and they pulled away.

    Again I am not blaming the entire loss on this but once again Frank played the bench as a unit in the first and let the get behind on a G.S. 10-0 run before he did anything. The starters had the lead but once they lost the lead I think we battled back to take a one time two point lead but that was it. He has got to stop using them as a unit or if he must he has to realize right away when they get behind a 6-0 run he has got to stop it.

    Now to their credit they played very well in the 3rd when the starters just didn’t bring it so there is that.

    I think David West was just gassed and sadly right now we have to depend on him for almost 40 min. a night as on the W.C. trip Tyler has just been horrid. His shot is not falling and every since we have come out west his lack of vertical has really been exposed more than normal.

    Also it is very apparent that Frank has a very short tolerance for Lance Stephenson. Lance made a mistake by not being ready for a pass that West threw to him causing a turn over and he also showed up late on a couple of defensive assignments and that was the night for him. I have no problem with that btw as long as he does that with most of the other players, but let’s just say that our other wing player is not held to the same standard and frankly tonight did not deserve to play one min. more than Lance.

    Also just for an interesting bit of trivia for tonight. Miles Plumlee drafted at 26 was not dressed to play tonight (it was his turn to not play) and Festus Ezeli drafted at 30 started for the Warriors. Don’t get me wrong Mahinmi played well tonight, I thought anyway, but man wouldn’t it have been nice to have that big bruiser waiting in the wings?

    Let’s just do grades for tonight.

    David West: A
    He is still living some off of that A+++ game from Sacramento. But you could tell he didn’t have his legs totally under him tonight but even with that he still led us in points, rebounds, steals and tied for the lead in assist. What more can you ask from the guy? I’m sure he would have liked to have gotten any help at all from someone beyond Hill & Roy but alas it wasn’t to be. While these are game to game reviews I want to say that West has stepped up and played large & in charge on this W/C swing.

    Paul George: F-
    His trade value will never be higher.
    I was tempted to just leave it at that but his game is so putrid right now that I feel the need to add this. I never want to hear another word about moving Granger so Paul George can play his natural position of small forward. I knew at the time his 37 point game was pyrite and I said so after the game. Will he get better? Well frankly he has to, I don’t know if it’s possible to play worse. Hell Roy in his worst games of the season still somehow scored a point. He’s starting to make me miss Brandon Rush and I don’t even like Brandon Rush. Here’s a fun fact, he has now played in 17 games and has only shot a total of 33 free throws.

    Roy Hibbert: B+
    Very solid defensive game from Roy. He also did fairly well from the field and hit 3 of his 4 free throws. His rebounding might have been a little better but the danger of playing a team like the Warriors is that a lot of their shots go long so that kind of negates interior position. If we could have gotten anything at all from George Roy’s game was good enough to win. But when your small forward position nets you 8 points (all by the backup) everybody else is going to have to play above average. Well Roy defended slightly above average but his offense was just average.

    Lance Stephenson: C
    Started the game out great and even as bad as his night ended up it was still better that Paul George’s craptastic game. He made a couple of mental errors and Frank pulled him. I think he was hoping that lightning would strike again & Young would not only defend well but have another amazing scoring night. Didn’t happen and Lance was, IMO, needlessly benched. Still learning to move without the ball and I think that is probably going to be very hard to learn for him but he is getting better.

    George Hill: A-
    Just ran out of gas at the end. He could not keep up with the fresh Jack and then the refreshed Curry. Had a great night from behind the arc and almost brought us back in the game but I just think he didn’t have anything left.

    Tyler Hansbrough: F
    He also was scoreless but at least he only played 11 min. and frankly being a bench player isn’t expected to bring at least 14 points a night to the floor. Is that to much to ask of Paul btw? Just bring 14 points to the game on a nightly basis; I’ve given up on the 20ppg that we all thought might be there so how about just reaching double figures? Anyway Tyler has had a horrific W/C swing and he has got to get to playing better because West will not be able to keep up these kind of min. Maybe seeing Carlos Boozer will light a fire under him.

    Ian Mahinmi: B+
    We are finally starting to see what we saw in the pre-season from Ian. He fouls to much but I think we are just going to have to get used to that from him. He is doing a decent job of protecting the rim and while I’d like to see him get more active on the boards he at least has been playing offense like he means it lately. 6 of 8 from the line is a blessing. Again he played well enough from his position to win this game, if only he could have gotten some help from his small forward.

    Gerald Green: B
    Not the greatest defensive exhibition you will ever see but it was good enough. His shooting was solid and he was doing work on the board. In fact you could say that he played well enough from his position for us to have won the game. If only he could have gotten some help from his starter.

    Sam Young: C+
    Deducting some points for not hitting enough shots. However let’s be honest here if you are really needing him to hit his shots to give you a chance to win your likelihood of winning is not great anyway. Decent defense as always and hustle as always. But since I didn’t get to comment on his Kings game I’ll give him a little break on this game.

    D.J. Augustin: C+
    Honestly just too short for Jack. He couldn’t do anything with him because Jarrett would just pull up and nail the jumper right over him. But I still wonder why with his size he doesn’t try to press the dribbler and get the ball out of their hands. Decent from the field and he made good passes to get people good shots but they just flat out missed them. Still once again we are only able to get Hill 11 min. of rest for the game; I have real doubts about if George ever gets injured.

    No real shame in losing the game but there is one player who should be ashamed of the game he played. Again good west coast trip and now we can come home for a day and get ready to face the Bulls.



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

  • #2
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

    God I love that movie. That's all I have to add.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

      What do you think about Ian playing the back up four when west needs a break if Tyler isn't playing that good on certain nights? I like the idea of Roy and Ian next to each other defensively. Ian doesn't bring the offensive game West brings obviously but it's slightly better than Tyler's hoping he gets fouled offense. I know we tried it in the pre season but I'd really like to try it now.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Also just for an interesting bit of trivia for tonight. Miles Plumlee drafted at 26 was not dressed to play tonight (it was his turn to not play) and Festus Ezeli drafted at 30 started for the Warriors. Don’t get me wrong Mahinmi played well tonight, I thought anyway, but man wouldn’t it have been nice to have that big bruiser waiting in the wings?
        We do have that big bruiser. He's called Miles Plumlee. We just don't play him.

        The Warriors are forced to play Ezeli. Their starting Center (Bogut) is injured and their back-up Center (Biedrins) is sucking donkey *** the last 2-3 years. So, they're out of options.

        Don't get me wrong, Ezeli is playing good. He's in my fantasy team for a reason

        But I'm quite confident that if Miles got the same chances that Ezeli is getting he would play just as good.

        However, I'm happy to have a healthy starting Center and a good back-up unlike them
        Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
        Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

        Panopticon

        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

          Originally posted by Miller_time04 View Post
          What do you think about Ian playing the back up four when west needs a break if Tyler isn't playing that good on certain nights? I like the idea of Roy and Ian next to each other defensively. Ian doesn't bring the offensive game West brings obviously but it's slightly better than Tyler's hoping he gets fouled offense. I know we tried it in the pre season but I'd really like to try it now.
          I'm not sure.

          I like the idea but at the end of the day Ian has to be able to give Roy some breathing time on the bench and he fouls so frequently now that I'm not sure he could play another position without fouling out.

          However when Tyler plays like this, fortunately he has not played like this all season long, my answer would be sure why not.


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

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            We do have that big bruiser. He's called Miles Plumlee. We just don't play him.

            The Warriors are forced to play Ezeli. Their starting Center (Bogut) is injured and their back-up Center (Biedrins) is sucking donkey *** the last 2-3 years. So, they're out of options.

            Don't get me wrong, Ezeli is playing good. He's in my fantasy team for a reason

            But I'm quite confident that if Miles got the same chances that Ezeli is getting he would play just as good.

            However, I'm happy to have a healthy starting Center and a good back-up unlike them
            I have to agree with this......I was sitting behind the bench and was scanning the bench for Plumlee sitting in a suit and didn't see him. But I think that Vogel sees Plumlee as a Center...and that role is filled by Mahinmi. I'd have ZERO problem having Plumlee taking Hansbrough's minutes if he's not doing anything....but from the few garbage minutes that I have seen him play.....I liked what I saw...he's active, has length and far more athletic than anyone on else on the Team.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

              Originally posted by Miller_time04 View Post
              What do you think about Ian playing the back up four when west needs a break if Tyler isn't playing that good on certain nights? I like the idea of Roy and Ian next to each other defensively. Ian doesn't bring the offensive game West brings obviously but it's slightly better than Tyler's hoping he gets fouled offense. I know we tried it in the pre season but I'd really like to try it now.
              Is it me or is it that Vogel hasn't played Mahinmi with Hibbert that much together?
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                If anyone actually expected 20 points per game from him, I have only sympathy for Paul.
                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                  Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                  If anyone actually expected 20 points per game from him, I have only sympathy for Paul.
                  I would have been happy with him just scoring 12 points.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                    If anyone actually expected 20 points per game from him, I have only sympathy for Paul.
                    But is it too much to ask that my starting SF scores 1 point?

                    F*** is Paul frustrating to watch.
                    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Is it me or is it that Vogel hasn't played Mahinmi with Hibbert that much together?
                      I don't think he has at all really in the regular season. I'd like to at least try it out.


                      But yeah I'd love for Paul to average 14/8/3/2 steals while being a defensive stopper.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Paul George: F-
                        His trade value will never be higher.
                        I was tempted to just leave it at that but his game is so putrid right now that I feel the need to add this. I never want to hear another word about moving Granger so Paul George can play his natural position of small forward. I knew at the time his 37 point game was pyrite and I said so after the game. Will he get better? Well frankly he has to, I don’t know if it’s possible to play worse. Hell Roy in his worst games of the season still somehow scored a point. He’s starting to make me miss Brandon Rush and I don’t even like Brandon Rush. Here’s a fun fact, he has now played in 17 games and has only shot a total of 33 free throws.
                        i started to doubt it. i mean the rest of the league can't be stupid enough to trade for him, can they? imo we are stuck with him and that's depressing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                          I'm not ready to give up on Paul George. He's still just a 22 year old third year player. That's the age that a rookie is if they stay all four years in college. That's the age Roy was in his rookie season, and look how much better he's become in his mid 20's. Paul is still a very young kid in a man's league. Virtually no player in the NBA peaks at age 22. You don't know what you really have in a player until they are at least age 24-25. If Paul was playing like this in his fifth season, then yes I'd agree that he likely wasn't ever going to get much better. But he still has all the time in the world. You don't give up on a talent like Paul when they're just 22 years old unless you get some trade package that blows you away.

                          The problem is that this forum hyped him up way too much and had T-Mac-like expectations for him.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-02-2012, 10:51 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                            DJ rarely play press D on the ballhandler b/c, in addition to being lilliputian in statue, he's also slow as molasses straight line and laterally. Not a good combination of physical attributes. I don't see how the guy gets a C+. Per usual, he has 2-3 good plays, but they fail to override his poor ones coupled with his overall ineffectiveness and influence on the game as a whole.

                            Can we add another player to the roster? My impression is yes. If so, I'd do it and reduce DJ's court time as much as possible. He is such a defensive liability there's almost nothing he could do to make up for it.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I'm not ready to give up on Paul George. He's still just a 22 year old third year player. That's the age that a rookie is if they stay all four years in college. That's the age Roy was in his rookie season, and look how much better he's become in his mid 20's. Paul is still a very young kid in a man's league. Virtually no player in the NBA peaks at age 22. You don't know what you really have in a player until they are at least age 24-25. If Paul was playing like this in his fifth season, then yes I'd agree that he likely wasn't ever going to get much better. But he still has all the time in the world.

                              The problem is that this forum hyped him up way too much and had T-Mac-like expectations for him.
                              What is the expiration date on this lame excuse? 28? Should we wait six years to expect anything? You know how old Klay Thompson is? Twenty-two. Same age. Roasted him alive.

                              TMac expectations were a combined product of his college play & his self-created hype, because he talks about being the man and getting to that superstar/elite scoring level. Don't blame people for expecting him to put some effort behind his words. In any case, scoring 0 is inexcusable from a starter, period. And to think, some people thought he had "turned the corner" after that fluke all-3's performance. Yuck.

                              Zero points, zero effort. His new nickname should be NEX. As in, No EXpectations. Because from now on that's certainly what I'll have. You want to give a guy the benefit of the doubt, especially when he talks such a good talk. But at the end of the day you've got 18 yr olds who come in the league with a scorer's mentality (hint: more than jacking up threes), but this guy is playing like a backup with wasted height.

                              I mean seriously, it's more than the lack of ability/desire to score. He's not even as effective as he should be defensively. Two years later and he's still regularly having the same mental lapses we saw from his rookie season.

                              I'm not saying cut him, but I might be saying bench him when Granger comes back, because Lance is playing better on-ball and obviously better on offense.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X