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

Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

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

  • Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

    Combo guards are, by my definition, point guards who play more like ball-dominant shooting guards. Ones who need the ball in their hands to score, but still not exactly leading scorers. Can help with playmaking but can't consistently run the offense.

    I think most pacers fans of the last 8 years or so would agree that our guard positions were our weakest spots. We haven't had a 'true' 1 since maybe Tinsley and a 2 since Paul George started playing it (and eventually shifted to the 3 spot which benefited him). Our recent guards were Darren Collison who was sort of a let-down and George Hill who never really played like a true play-making point guard but more of a complimentary point guard who can play off the ball. Last year Hill had his best season but he still really has combo guard traits - Not exactly a scorer, not exactly a playmaker. More of an undersized 2 than a 1... A good player on both ends of the court but not one who can run the offense. It should probably be noted that Hill is actually very versatile and can play on-ball and off-ball well, and also defend both 1's and 2's which is something most combo's don't do.
    Then we added Stuckey. Stuckey is definitely a combo-guard who doesn't really fit either the 1 or the 2 and plays as an undersized 2.
    And now, Monta Ellis have it all. Monta Ellis is the type of player we really needed back in the day. a ball dominant scoring guard who creates for himself. However, he still is an undersized, ball dominant 2, which is again another trait of a combo guard. While it isn't really the best case scenario, starting him alongside Hill makes sense because Monta could then defend 1s while Hill defends 2s and they could share the playmaking load.

    Though now I've asked myself: Why have we resigned Stuckey? We had Hill, then Stuckey expired, then we signed Monta and then resigned Stuckey. At that point we already had two players who don't exactly fit the classic guard position, and we decided we need a 3rd one. Why have we stacked so many point guards (Won't they interfere with each other?), and didn't it make more sense to somehow get a frontcourt player or save the cap space?
    Originally posted by Piston Prince
    Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
    "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

  • #2
    Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

    Ball dominant? Not necessarily.

    Stay tuned.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

      I completely see where you're coming from. Ideally I'd love to see a true point on the team, but there are really few FA options. Additionally, if you look at the trend in the NBA, 'scoring PGs' have seemed to be in vogue (Curry, Parker, and to some extent even CP3). Interchangeable players also is trendy, and you can see that throughout the changes Biird made this summer. You might have a 'primary' position, like Turner being a 5, JHill being a PF, but each can play the others role.

      I was actually relieved to see them resign Stuckey. The salary's this summer are all crazy, but it's the market. And as good as JYoung looked, it's still SL and he's still a rookie. I just recall 3 years ago when Vogel could not rest his starters because the bench was so bad. Stuckey allows him greater flexibility and insurance that scoring won't drop to nil when his starters are taking a breather.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

        I would think it's obvious. Our bench players are supposed to come in and continue playing the same style as our starters. We aren't going with point guards and shooting guards, but rather 'guards.' So when GHill or Ellis comes out, Stuckey comes in and you keep playing the same way.

        If you need a different skill set at the position, Budinger, Solo, PG, and CJ are all capable of keeping up with guards and can be substituted in accordingly.

        Playing this way also will let Vogel mix and match our lineups more easily due to hot players, foul trouble, etc.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

          I don't know why people aren't more open-minded to the possibility we are trading one of these combo guards or wing players. We have the most odd roster I have ever seen. Just because there aren't any obvious moves out there doesn't mean there isn't something else in the works...
          Lifelong pacers fan

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

            I don't see a problem with Stucky he is our spark plug off the bench you need that guy. Why would anyone be opposed to having someone like him when Hill or Ellis has to rest, we have a pretty good 3 man rotation there, add CJ Miles as someone who can play the 2 we have probably the four best guards we have every had. Not saying any one of those are as good as Reggie but the dropoff from Reggie to his backup was rather large other than when we had Malik.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

              Larry Bird never played with a true point guard. DJ and Ainge were combo guards (Ainge was more of a Reddick type player). With that said Larry tends to create his roster like the 86 Celtics.
              Hill= DJ
              No equivalent to Ainge role in the starting rotation, MILES and Rudez come to mind.
              PG= Bird (superstar role)
              West= McHale role (Throw it to him and have him get you a bucket. West was more of a jump shooter and driver, while McHale was a post savant)
              Hibbert= Parrish (Defensive anchor)

              Scola= Walton (older guy who can carry your bench with moxy)
              Sichting= Augustine

              In no way am I saying our Pacers fulfilled those roles perfectly. Parrish was not inept on offense like Hibbert. Olajuwon couldn't stop Mchale in the finals. And Bird was more reliable than the Paul George of two years ago. But the roles seem to resemble our old team. I don't even think Bird knows how this roster will play out.

              In 1990 Bird played alongside Pickney and Lewis, playing the power forward position more. He also played PF with Cedric Maxwell on the team. The interesting thing that was when they had a more traditional point guard in Tiny Archibald.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on combo guards. The thing is they will always be complimentary players to stars who do the playmaking themselves. If you have prime Wade or prime Kobe or prime Magic or Lebron or whatever on your team then you're better off with a guard like Hill than a guard like Rondo.
                Even if we assume George takes that star position and does it well, Why 3 combos? Have 1, maybe another to come off the bench.
                I also have no problem with scoring point guards. But scoring point guards are usually stars or bust, and those qualified as star scoring point guards also do seem to be at least average playmakers (like Westbrook) or good ones (like CP3 or Curry).
                And even though I like Monta's playstyle, history has shown that teams that rely on him and on another point guard don't seem to do very well (think GS a few years ago and Bucks, both had scoring point guards). Scoring point guards don't compliment each other, and two scoring point guards don't compliment a star who carries the offense.
                Originally posted by Piston Prince
                Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                  Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                  Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on combo guards. The thing is they will always be complimentary players to stars who do the playmaking themselves. If you have prime Wade or prime Kobe or prime Magic or Lebron or whatever on your team then you're better off with a guard like Hill than a guard like Rondo.
                  Even if we assume George takes that star position and does it well, Why 3 combos? Have 1, maybe another to come off the bench.
                  I also have no problem with scoring point guards. But scoring point guards are usually stars or bust, and those qualified as star scoring point guards also do seem to be at least average playmakers (like Westbrook) or good ones (like CP3 or Curry).
                  And even though I like Monta's playstyle, history has shown that teams that rely on him and on another point guard don't seem to do very well (think GS a few years ago and Bucks, both had scoring point guards). Scoring point guards don't compliment each other, and two scoring point guards don't compliment a star who carries the offense.
                  I think the idea is to take the weight off of PG to continually score 24 a night. I would assume after this year, PG will shoot more and Monta will shoot less. We need Monta to average 18-19 ppg. Here's how I see most of the break down. So that's like 50 to 72 ppg from the starters in my opinion. That leaves another 30-50 to come from our bench and considering our bench will have Miles, Young, Stuck, Lavoy, and Budinger. I see that as doable. I like the combo guards of GH, Stuck, Monta, Young.

                  GH - 10-15 ppg
                  Monta - 15-20 ppg
                  PG - 15-17 ppg
                  Jordan Hill 5-10 PPG
                  Turner 5-10 PPG
                  Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

                  www.jjhughesracing.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                    Aren't pretty much 90% of the starting Point Guards in today's NBA combo guards? I mean who is a "floor general" anymore? The ability to play multiple positions is a good thing in today's league. Buzz words like "tweener" and "combo" used to be negatives, but now they're positives. I think we have combo guards because they're interchangeable within Vogel's system. There's no reason to believe Ellis and Hill can't play together just because they're both combo guards (although Ellis is more of a pure 2 guard. He's not really a point guard, just a 2 guard with passing and ball handling ability)

                    Stuckey is a bit redundant for sure, especially with Monta. But if he plays (and shoots) at the level he did last season, we should be fine.

                    I think the point is to have our guards be interchangeable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                      We have Hill, Monta, and Stuckey. Some of you act like we have 5 ball dominant combo guards on the roster or something. Having three talented guards who can handle the basketball and create for themselves is NOT A BAD THING. Also, if we're really serious about pushing the pace, then rest will be even more important for these guys. All of them may be at ~30 MPG in the regular season and not see an uptick in minutes until the playoffs.
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-17-2015, 10:04 AM.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                        Bird likes players that can play multiple positions. I you look at our current roster, there is only one or two players that are locked in to one position. Mahinmi and maybe Turner.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                          The point of Monta, Stuckey, Hill, and Joe Young, is to have backcourt scorers in the game at all times and to have some redundancy in the event of injuries or foul trouble. Depth is a good thing and our lineup will put pressure on the opposing defenses to have to guard at least 4 scorers in the game at the same time.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                            Having combo guards isn't a problem. But having combo guards that have overlapping talents, and more specifically, need the ball in their hands to reach 100% of their potential can be a problem. If I graphed Hill/Ellis/Stuckey, it would look like this.



                            The "white space" is what concerns me. The best teams have little white space, meaning they have enough versatility (e.g. for guards, shooting/scoring/passing/transition/halfcourt/defense/size/speed/etc.) and skills to successfully face up against any opponent. Our guards are so ball dominant, and so is Paul George, that I think there's no way for all of them to hit 100% of their potential. And our strategy right now, as a team, dictates that we'd need 100% out of all of them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why are we stacking Combo Guards?

                              It kinda depends on what Stuck really is no? Maybe working with Damo on his shot all of last year really helped. That would change the dynamic quite a bit.

                              I'm not sure you're giving Ellis or Hill enough credit for their creating either in that graph JMO. Both of them are better creators than I think they get credit for.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X