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

2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

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

  • #61
    Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

    We can predict a lot of stuff, based on our gut. If you look at the surface, there are a few things that stand out.

    In our favor:
    - Toronto is under a lot of pressure to finally do something it the playoffs.
    - There will be less fouls called, which should help with the free throw discrepancy we've seen during the regular season.
    - They have less experience than we do.
    - We have the better coach.

    In their favor:
    - They have home court (32-9), while we're not that great away from home (18-22)
    - The raptors have had our number the last two seasons


    If we look at it from a matchup standpoint, matchups will be like this:

    Hill vs Lowry
    Ellis vs Powell
    George vs Derozan
    Allen vs Scola
    Mahinmi vs Valanciunas

    Bench

    Lawson vs Joseph
    Stuckey vs Ross
    Solo vs Patterson
    Turner vs Biyombo

    Going a bit more in depth, over his career George Hill has played head-to-head as a net positive against Lowry. This has changed the last two seasons, however Hill does a very good job to make it as hard as possible. This will be a positive matchup for the Raptors, but not by as much as most people think.
    Paul George will outplay Derozan. But this is a bit like Hill vs Lowry, only the other way around. George is more effective shooting, but he is a lot more turnover prone.
    Luis Scola and Lavoy Allen will be a close call, if Lavoy plays with a high motor and gets to the boards he will be a positive for us. If not, Scola will be more effective with the PnR, PnP or as the corner guy stretching the floor. It'll be a wash.
    Ian Mahinmi will have his work cut out for him against JV. Valanciunas does not have a lot of difficulty scoring effectively against Ian, same goes for rebounding. Even though Ian has improved a lot this year, that has been mostly on offense. Considering Ian's improvement, it will be interesting to see if we continue to use him effectively on dives, once things get tough. This will be a difference maker for Toronto.
    Ellis has an advantage on the rookie Powell, but has really been struggling. If Monta gambles too much, than the advantage we have will be nullified.
    Stuckey and Ross are about equal, they both don't play very different from the starters at their respective positions. Ross seems to have regressed this year.
    Lawson has more importance to our scheme, than Joseph does the other way around. However Joseph has been owning Lawson all through their careers, so it will a question whether or not Lawson will be able to facilitate enough to show he is the better player.
    Biyombo and Patterson have so much more power than Turner and Solo, that we'll be in trouble. If we put Jordan Hill in for Solo, we've got Turner who has difficulty defending stretch 4's. Either way, we're in trouble.

    Overall, they have an advantage on the inside, with more options in the post and better rebounding (51,5 rebound rate vs our 49,8). We've got an advantage on the outside. Their defense is a bit better than ours, but we've got the players to take away their 1st and 2nd option. Can we consistently defend their PnR game where the 3rd guy makes the correct reads? If we do and get into our offense quickly enough (helps our potential turnover problem) this will go to 6 or 7 games. Add good rebounding to the equation, and we'll come out on top.
    Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

      Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post
      We can predict a lot of stuff, based on our gut. If you look at the surface, there are a few things that stand out.

      In our favor:
      - Toronto is under a lot of pressure to finally do something it the playoffs.
      - There will be less fouls called, which should help with the free throw discrepancy we've seen during the regular season.
      - They have less experience than we do.
      - We have the better coach.

      In their favor:
      - They have home court (32-9), while we're not that great away from home (18-22)
      - The raptors have had our number the last two seasons


      If we look at it from a matchup standpoint, matchups will be like this:

      Hill vs Lowry
      Ellis vs Powell
      George vs Derozan
      Allen vs Scola
      Mahinmi vs Valanciunas

      Bench

      Lawson vs Joseph
      Stuckey vs Ross
      Solo vs Patterson
      Turner vs Biyombo

      Going a bit more in depth, over his career George Hill has played head-to-head as a net positive against Lowry. This has changed the last two seasons, however Hill does a very good job to make it as hard as possible. This will be a positive matchup for the Raptors, but not by as much as most people think.
      Paul George will outplay Derozan. But this is a bit like Hill vs Lowry, only the other way around. George is more effective shooting, but he is a lot more turnover prone.
      Luis Scola and Lavoy Allen will be a close call, if Lavoy plays with a high motor and gets to the boards he will be a positive for us. If not, Scola will be more effective with the PnR, PnP or as the corner guy stretching the floor. It'll be a wash.
      Ian Mahinmi will have his work cut out for him against JV. Valanciunas does not have a lot of difficulty scoring effectively against Ian, same goes for rebounding. Even though Ian has improved a lot this year, that has been mostly on offense. Considering Ian's improvement, it will be interesting to see if we continue to use him effectively on dives, once things get tough. This will be a difference maker for Toronto.
      Ellis has an advantage on the rookie Powell, but has really been struggling. If Monta gambles too much, than the advantage we have will be nullified.
      Stuckey and Ross are about equal, they both don't play very different from the starters at their respective positions. Ross seems to have regressed this year.
      Lawson has more importance to our scheme, than Joseph does the other way around. However Joseph has been owning Lawson all through their careers, so it will a question whether or not Lawson will be able to facilitate enough to show he is the better player.
      Biyombo and Patterson have so much more power than Turner and Solo, that we'll be in trouble. If we put Jordan Hill in for Solo, we've got Turner who has difficulty defending stretch 4's. Either way, we're in trouble.

      Overall, they have an advantage on the inside, with more options in the post and better rebounding (51,5 rebound rate vs our 49,8). We've got an advantage on the outside. Their defense is a bit better than ours, but we've got the players to take away their 1st and 2nd option. Can we consistently defend their PnR game where the 3rd guy makes the correct reads? If we do and get into our offense quickly enough (helps our potential turnover problem) this will go to 6 or 7 games. Add good rebounding to the equation, and we'll come out on top.



      Vogel should be fired if he doesn't start Solo at PF. I don't understand what Lavoy has done to earn starter minutes. Jordan Hill who has been solid most of the season should be at backup center. Solo should start at PF to space the floor. Plus Scola is old so Solo should be able to take him to the basket whenever. If the playoffs are all about match ups Solo gives us an advantage with his age and speed versus Scola. Note I said speed-versus-Scola.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

        Originally posted by tora tora View Post
        If their bench can beat our starters, forget about it.
        Raptors in 4.
        If the Lakers starters can beat the Warriors starters, forget about it. Other LA team in the 2nd round over the Warriors in 4.
        "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
          I don't understand what Lavoy has done to earn starter minutes
          He plays what, 15 mins a game?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
            Vogel should be fired
            Sigh... this is worse than your trade proposals.

            Funny that if you go read the Raptors forum, they think Vogel being our coach and the Pacers defense is the only thing they worry about. They're more worried about Vogel than they are Paul George. They actually were laughing about Paul George falling in line statistically with Demar Derozan because they call DD a chucker. Weird that we have fans crapping on one of the best coaches in the league and opponents agree he's one of the best coaches in the league. No offense, but I'm glad our fans don't get a say in how the team operates. Of course, I would throw Larry Bird out on his *** before Vogel and I have no say as well. So I guess Bird supporters who want to blame Vogel should be glad I'm just another fan not in charge. All I know is, Vogel has been awesome since day 1 of being head coach. Even as interim he should have beaten the Bulls if no for blatantly bad calls favoring the Bulls and D-Bag, I mean D-Rose. If the Pacers knock the Raptors out of the 1st round like the Raptors are accustomed to, people better not mention Vogel being fired next season.
            "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

              Originally posted by crunk-juice View Post
              He plays what, 15 mins a game?
              He is still a starter. If you want to get off to a good start then Solo must start in the playoffs. In basketball years Scola is old as dirt. You counter that with a younger more athletic, smaller and quicker guy.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                Originally posted by crunk-juice View Post
                He plays what, 15 mins a game?
                He just sees that Allen is starting at his mind is made up. He ignores the fact that even though Allen started against the Knicks last game, that Allen played 19 minutes while Solo played 34. The previous game against the Nets... Allen 14 min, Solo 32 min. And before that, 20 min Allen and 28 min Solo. Hill has been getting more minutes than Allen despite Allen starting so I don't see the problem Grimps has.
                "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  He is still a starter. If you want to get off to a good start then Solo must start in the playoffs. In basketball years Scola is old as dirt. You counter that with a younger more athletic, smaller and quicker guy.
                  Coach K will start his seniors in big games on senior night and play them for multiple minutes to start off the game even if it's against North Carolina in a huge rivalry game. Also, Derrick Williams just went off in the last game against the Knicks. So, it's not as if Solo doesn't have his flaws. Plus, lets be honest... if you're worried about losing to Louis Scola then you shouldn't blame Vogel. You should blame the guy who gave him the roster that is worried about Louis Scola in which case, the roster is awful to begin with.
                  "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                    Originally posted by TOP View Post
                    He just sees that Allen is starting at his mind is made up. He ignores the fact that even though Allen started against the Knicks last game, that Allen played 19 minutes while Solo played 34. The previous game against the Nets... Allen 14 min, Solo 32 min. And before that, 20 min Allen and 28 min Solo. Hill has been getting more minutes than Allen despite Allen starting so I don't see the problem Grimps has.


                    The problem is that we wait until Lavoy's guy lights him up. Then we make a substitution. The object of the game is not to fall into a deep hole when the game starts. Our last few opponents were an exception (Knicks, Nets, etc).

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                      I just want to see us fighting hard.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                        Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post


                        If we look at it from a matchup standpoint, matchups will be like this:

                        Hill vs Lowry
                        Ellis vs Powell
                        George vs Derozan
                        Allen vs Scola
                        Mahinmi vs Valanciunas

                        Bench

                        Lawson vs Joseph
                        Stuckey vs Ross
                        Solo vs Patterson
                        Turner vs Biyombo
                        People really think Toronto is that good? Lol. Thank goodness the Pacers didn't play Cleveland.

                        Sent from my Nexus 5X

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                          I'll take the Pacers in 6, assuming Indy steals game 1 or 2.

                          My thinking:

                          1. PG is the difference maker. If he gets his mid/high 20's average and does it semi-efficiently he'll put a TON of pressure on Derozan and Lowry.
                          2. Speaking of Demar...if he just goes crazy like he has before, this'll be a tough series. PG needs to play top notch defense to keep him from getting too confident.
                          3. Bench will probably be the deciding factor. You MUST keep Biyombo off the boards (Like, seriously, the dude is trash. BOX OUT!) and not allow Ross to get any kind of a rhythm. CJ, Stuckey, Turner, Lawson need to give Frank reason to keep them out there for more than 3-5 minutes at a time.

                          Ultimately I'm pumped to see what Ian/Monta/CJ bring to the series. If those guys play well, Indiana becomes very tough to beat.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                            Pacers started the season off 0-3 which could be attributed to be due to rust factor and roster turnover. The Pacers also lost 7 games in OT after matching up with their opponents in regulation. That doesn't include other close losses that could have been won or tied on a single shot. Of course the Pacers won some close games like that and won a game in OT but I am looking at the glass half full side. Raptors aren't amazing in comparison to the Pacers by any stretch of the imagination. They have 10 more wins which seems like a lot but I just pointed out 10 games that could have gone differently in favor of the Pacers. The only thing that bothers me is that their bandwagon is full. They're flourishing in both basketball and baseball and as the only teams from Canada in those leagues, their fans are going pretty crazy. We're really not just talking Raptors fans, we're talking Canada fans in general. I guess I'm only assuming but I would assume a lot of NBA and MLB fans outside of Toronto are also fans of the only Canadian teams in either sport. In other words, I'm actually more worried about playing in Toronto with their frenzy fans than I am about their actual team.

                            Think back to Vogel taking over midway through Paul George's rookie year. Those damn Bulls... Pacers with a below .500 record(above .500 under Vogel's time) went 4-1 against the Bulls but in 4 of the 5 games tied or led against the Bulls with like 2 or 3 minutes left in the game. Vogel now experienced... PG now as the team leader... screw the Raptors. Pacers can take them down. But like the Chicago D-Rose treatment... I fear the refs in Toronto. They have one of the largest fan bases in the league. Check out their realgm forum sometime. So long as DD doesn't go to the line 15-20 times in game 1 to help barely beat us, the Pacers can take game 1. Hopefully sending their guys to the line while not calling fouls against them won't set the stage. It sounds like they may do some type of red out or whatever color game 1. Drake will be there I'm sure even if we're on nbatv lol. This Raptors team folds every year in the first round. Last year they were a 2 and went down to a 7 didn't they? I think they showed that the Raptors roster has like 100 playoff games of experience and the Pacers players have 200 games of experience. Their coach has been losing in the 1st round every year, our coach... not so much. Given how the east played out and actually making it in over someone like the Bulls, we couldn't asked for a much better match up for the most part. Who would have been a better match up?
                            "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                              1. Cavs
                              8. Pistons

                              4. Hawks
                              5. Celtics

                              3. Heat
                              6. Hornets

                              2. Raptors
                              7. Pacers




                              If that's correct which I think it might be, that means we might have to play the damn Heat again if we advance.
                              "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                                I like this TOP better.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X