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

Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

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

  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

    McKeyfan, I did go out of my way to say that my comment wasn't directed at you personally. Regardless, that's a great list. I strongly agree with most of it. A couple comments:

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    - He has the ability to get his own shot whenever he wants it. So far, he hasn't hit that pull up jumper too well, but he also hasn't been given the long leash that others have been given. If he gets it and succeeds, watch out.
    His shooting has come a long way, but it's still the weak link in his arsenal. That's why it was so exciting to hear about his offseason work with a shooting coach... That could reap some serious rewards for him.

    When he gets hot, he can be a very good shooter. He has a track record for being a great scorer. He is perhaps just a green light and a little more confidence away from being a great scorer in the NBA.
    I agree with this completely. If we were still playing a "bench" unit and a "starter" unit, I'd argue this is a good reason for him to be on the bench. Vogel's said, though, that he plans to always have three or four starter-level guys on the floor, so it won't be as much of an issue.

    - At the 2 guard, he is bigger and stronger than almost anyone else at his position.
    But I also think that's a good argument for a Danny/PG starting wing. That is a HUGE height and wingspan on the wing. Of course, neither of those guys have Lance's power.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

      I leave for a month or two and come back to the same threads being rehashed.

      Comment


      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
        I leave for a month or two and come back to the same threads being rehashed.
        Sadly, it was fairly calm up until about 3 weeks ago.
        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

        Comment


        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

          I've been avoiding this thread as much as possible but it's been a slow couple of weeks... Hopefully this thing dies once preseason begins... But I'm afraid it won't...

          I don't see how this argument can go this long and get so heated among fans of the same team with the same goal in mind... Let the players and coaches work this out... I don't care who starts or comes off the bench so long as we are winning... And I think that's how the actual guys involved feel too... This team is all about togetherness... The press conference was somewhat gross to me with all the devicive questions being posed about who's starting and who's feelings are going to be hurt about playing a different role... This crap has been going on since PG and Lance stepped it up last year... I'm sick of it...

          I can't wait for the season to get going so we can see that this unit is so together that none of this crap matters...
          Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

          Comment


          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Eleazar is saying that the 11-12 season players were "praised for their chemistry" meaning that their "chemistry" was better than the players the Pacers had last season
            That's not what Eleazar meant. He said that the chemistry was great in the 11-12 season just like it happened in the 12-13 season. The Pacers have had great chemistry ever since Vogel became HC
            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


            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

              As much as we're postulating about Danny's return to health, let's not forget the possibility that Lance may be improving as well:

              "One of the wisest decisions a player made this summer? Indiana's Lance Stephenson choosing to work with fabled shooting coach Hal Wissel."

              https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA

              FYI

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Wissel


              "I think if he is and we pass on Leaf we'd be some dumb mother ****ers."

              - Larry Bird to Kevin Pritchard before their pick on Draft Day

              Comment


              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                That's not what Eleazar meant. He said that the chemistry was great in the 11-12 season just like it happened in the 12-13 season. The Pacers have had great chemistry ever since Vogel became HC
                And Dunleavy's (and to a much lesser extent, Ford's) contract expired and Posey was amnestied .
                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                Comment


                • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                  Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                  I wish someone would compile and compare the stats of the offense of the last two year.
                  Sure. I'll mention some stats compiled from http://www.teamrankings.com/

                  Team Turnovers per Offensive Play in 12-13:

                  29th out of 30 (14.4%)

                  Team Turnovers per Offensive Play in 11-12:

                  10th out of 30 (13.2%)

                  Offensive Efficiency in 12-13:

                  20th out of 30 (1.005)

                  Offensive Efficiency in 11-12:

                  10th out of 30 (1.021)

                  Free Throws Attempted per Offensive Play in 12-13:

                  6th out of 30 (23%)

                  Free Throws Attempted per Offensive Play in 11-12:

                  2nd out of 30 (23.9%)

                  Some comments now.

                  We were 10th in Offensive Efficiency in 11-12 but it's also important to note that it was a down year for the whole league due to the lock-out, the back-to-back-to-backs and the frequency of normal back-to-backs. If we had the exact same Offensive Efficiency number (1.021) in 12-13 we would be ranked 16th tied with Toronto. So, the fact that the league around us improved offensively while we didn't played a significant role in us falling 10 spots in offensive efficiency.

                  In 11-12 we were very successful at getting to the line and this trend continued in 12-13. We weren't that good this year but we were still close to the top in most FT rankings. We weren't an elite team at going to the line like in 11-12 but we were still very good at it. It's important to note that as a team we want to get to the FT line and we manage to do it consistently. That's a big part of our offensive philosophy, imo.

                  The other important part is the turnovers. We were a relatively low turnover team in 11-12 but in 12-13 we turned the ball over a lot. Thankfully, those turnovers didn't lead to fast break points for the opposition since we were the best team in the league at defending fast break.

                  Now, why did we suddenly became a high turnover team in 12-13? Was this increase in turnovers accompanied by an increase in assists? Well, not so much.

                  Assists per Possession in 12-13:

                  28th out of 30 (0.211)

                  Assists per Possession in 11-12:

                  29th out of 30 (0.193)

                  There is a small increase in our Assists per Possession but the increase in our turnovers is simply bigger.

                  That's why our Offensive Efficiency suffered this year. True Shooting%-wise our team was in the same level in both seasons (103.6% in 11-12, 103.4% in 12-13). It was this spike in turnovers that made our Offensive Efficiency plummet.

                  So, it's up to Vogel to fix this problem. Thankfully, we have more offensive options this year and thus I'm confident that he will be able to correct this issue.
                  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


                  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    You know, this is something I've wondered about for a while. I've always thought Danny would thrive given a little more motion on offense as well, but he was frequently just given the ball and told "go do something."

                    I think both of those guys will do well with more motion in the offense.
                    Personally, I think that this extra motion in our offensive scheme led us to the increase in turnovers that I mentioned in my previous post. That doesn't mean that it was a bad choice by Vogel to implement this motion, though.

                    This offensive style was a much better fit for Paul George, imo. PG can take full advantage of this motion because he has the tools to penetrate and finish and because his court vision is superior to Danny's. But PG also needs this extra motion because his mid range game is not up to Danny's level yet.

                    Conversely, Danny didn't need the extra motion because his mid range game is on a very good level. However, if we were to implement this extra motion with Danny as our focal point then I don't think that this would work out that well simply because Danny's driving game is not as good as Paul's and also because Danny is not a facilitator of Paul's level.

                    Paul and Danny have some differences in their offensive games that justify Vogel's offensive choices, imo.
                    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


                    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Personally, I think that this extra motion in our offensive scheme led us to the increase in turnovers that I mentioned in my previous post. That doesn't mean that it was a bad choice by Vogel to implement this motion, though.

                      This offensive style was a much better fit for Paul George, imo. PG can take full advantage of this motion because he has the tools to penetrate and finish and because his court vision is superior to Danny's. But PG also needs this extra motion because his mid range game is not up to Danny's level yet.

                      Conversely, Danny didn't need the extra motion because his mid range game is on a very good level. However, if we were to implement this extra motion with Danny as our focal point then I don't think that this would work out that well simply because Danny's driving game is not as good as Paul's and also because Danny is not a facilitator of Paul's level.

                      Paul and Danny have some differences in their offensive games that justify Vogel's offensive choices, imo.
                      I'm not convinced the motion has anything to do with it as much as Paul as the number one option is a lot more turnover prone than Danny as the number one option. We are talking about a TOV% of your number one option going from 9.3% to 15.2%. Considering Paul's TOV% from the prior season was 14.0% I think Paul's increased usage had a much bigger affect on the amount of turnovers than any changes Vogel made to the offense. Lance's TOV% 14.4%, so he more or less played an equivalent role to Paul from the prior season. Hill and Roy had no significant change in their TOV%. Both West and Hansbrough saw their TOV% increase though by about 5% between the both of them, but that is still less than the 6% going from Granger to Paul. West also saw a 3.7% increase in his AST% which gave him his highest AST% ever by 3.1%. West being more of a facilitator is also a strong candidate. Just having more movement though I don't buy that as a viable reason for the increase in turnovers. There are better candidates out there.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        I'm not convinced the motion has anything to do with it as much as Paul as the number one option is a lot more turnover prone than Danny as the number one option. We are talking about a TOV% of your number one option going from 9.3% to 15.2%. Considering Paul's TOV% from the prior season was 14.0% I think Paul's increased usage had a much bigger affect on the amount of turnovers than any changes Vogel made to the offense. Lance's TOV% 14.4%, so he more or less played an equivalent role to Paul from the prior season. Hill and Roy had no significant change in their TOV%. Both West and Hansbrough saw their TOV% increase though by about 5% between the both of them, but that is still less than the 6% going from Granger to Paul. West also saw a 3.7% increase in his AST% which gave him his highest AST% ever by 3.1%. West being more of a facilitator is also a strong candidate. Just having more movement though I don't buy that as a viable reason for the increase in turnovers. There are better candidates out there.
                        Honestly, I think that the extra motion that we're talking about is interwined with Paul George's game.

                        Paul is a much better facilitator than Danny. To take advantage of Paul's facilitating the offense needs to have some more motion in order to free up space for PG to drive and create. Danny didn't really need a lot of space in order to create his own shot but Paul needs that space because a) his mid range game is still not great and b) he creates for others as well.

                        As we all know, players who facilitate tend to have a high TOV% as well. It's the inherent risk of facilitating and that's something that teams have to balance out. Do they prefer to take care of the ball and maybe force some less than stellar shots or are they willing to make some risky passes in order to find the best shot possible?

                        Allow me to present an example in order to explain what the last question means.

                        Carmelo Anthony had a 9.3% TOV last season. His career average is 11.4%. He has been a low turnover player throughout his career despite his heavy usage. On the other hand, his AST% has only went past 20% once (21% in 11-12 when coached by D'Antoni and used as a point forward). His career average in AST% is 15.8% which is very low for someone who has a career average USG of 31.7%. But it's an immediate result of his game. Carmelo is primarily a scorer. That's his main talent and that's what has earned him so much money and recognition so far. That's also why he is a low turnover player despite his usage. Simply put, he doesn't take risks in order to facilitate and will always prefer to take a tough shot instead of throwing a tough pass.

                        LeBron had a 12.4% TOV last season. His career average is 12.1%. He is more turnover prone than Melo (they have the same exact career average USG%) but his AST% blows Melo away. LeBron's AST% has never fell below 27.8% (his rookie season) and has peaked to enormous heights (41.8% in 09-10). His career average in AST% is 34.4% which is higher than some elite PGs in the game (Rose, for example, is at 33.7%). So, even though LeBron is slightly more turnover prone it's the difference in AST% that makes the real difference in their offensive games.

                        So, being slightly more turnover-prone is not necessarily a drawback. The thing is that you have to counter those turnovers by assisting better and thus creating easier shots. That's something that Paul George will need to work a bit. Cutting down those turnovers would be nice but improving his facilitating would be even better. And I did notice some improvement in the playoffs.

                        Paul's numbers jumped in the post-season last year. His TOV% jumped to 18.4% from 15.2% (3.2% increase) and his AST% also jumped to 23.9% from 19.6% (4.3% increase). That was something very important, imo.

                        PS: I'm not sure how much sense I'm making in this post. I'm kinda tired at the moment but I hope that I got my point through

                        PS II: Nice catch on David West. That's indeed an interesting finding.
                        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


                        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                          Granger lead the second unit to a 15-4 victory over the first unit in a scrimmage today. Clearly we have been asking the wrong question. It shouldn't be Danny vs Lance. It should be "should the entire bench be starting?"

                          BRB starting that thread.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Honestly, I think that the extra motion that we're talking about is interwined with Paul
                            I quibble in saying extra motion is due to lack of JOB. Because of that, while I'm not willing to completely discount what you are saying, I want to see more of a Frank Vogel offense with Danny in it before I judge.

                            Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
                            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


                            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                              Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                              As much as we're postulating about Danny's return to health, let's not forget the possibility that Lance may be improving as well:

                              "One of the wisest decisions a player made this summer? Indiana's Lance Stephenson choosing to work with fabled shooting coach Hal Wissel."

                              https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA

                              FYI

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Wissel
                              Yeah, he talked about that on Media Day. He had that really nice, quiet confidence that you love to see from a player: "My shot has really improved."

                              Can't wait to see the results of his hard work!
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                                Granger lead the second unit to a 15-4 victory over the first unit in a scrimmage today. Clearly we have been asking the wrong question. It shouldn't be Danny vs Lance. It should be "should the entire bench be starting?"

                                BRB starting that thread.
                                That's hilarious. Where's the info coming from? I haven't seen a report yet.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X