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

Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    So if the other team has 2 post offensive players, who IS guarding the post player not guarded by our 5? Bird?
    I'll take bird and his Walker.

    I'm sorry if this triggers anyone, but James Posey?

    Honestly, with this roster I think we funnel to the five and hope that's enough and hope that PG at the four offensively we run one of the post players off the floor. Throw a tough guy, not our team but Marcus smart was the best defender against Millsap horford that was playable. Otherwise in those cases you must concede. The rule is not absolute. I tend to believe that the majority of double post bruisers get killed defensively by 4 out.

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      In my definition? Modern basketball means ball movement, spacing, making the extra pass, driving in the paint with the goal of kicking it out for a corner 3, bigs who can both dive at the rim to finish a PnR and be a threat from outside for a PnP and most importantly NO ISO.

      In Bird's definition? Modern basketball means "scoring more points". That's all he spoke about today.
      Fair enough. Disagree on the ISO part. A singular offensive talent can play ISO ball if the spacing is correct. See James hardens sets in Houston and some of the stuff the spurs do with kawhi, they have become dependent on him running ISO sets at times. Agree with everything else. I think our spacing issues from playing too many bigs.

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

        Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
        Pretty sure you thought Hibbert would be irreplaceable but Mahinmi being just as good on defense and not requiring the ball (and Hibbert being really, really bad) sure quieted that.
        I believed that Ian would be very dependable defensively which is why I predicted we would be a top 10 defense (I predicted somewhere around #7-#8 and the team definitely exceeded my expectations here). I just didn't believe that Ian would be able to play big minutes since he has always struggled with foul trouble.

        The key point of my argument back then was that Ian can definitely replace Roy's 25 minutes but who's going to replace Ian's minutes? Ian did just that in the end. He averaged 25.6 MPG and replaced the minutes that Roy was playing. What I didn't expect was that Myles would be so good so soon. That definitely took me by surprise. I expected that since he's a rookie who needed to pack on some strength before he was able to stand his ground in the paint it would take another year for him to be a significant contributor. Myles proved me wrong and contributed from day 1. If it wasn't for his injury he would have been even better. Myles replaced Ian's minutes so our Center situation ended up being fine this season. That's not the case for our PF situation but that's obviously a different issue.

        Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
        That you think you are in a position to say this is pretty strange.

        Respectfully:

        Your dream of a 1990s style team died when they got rid of Hibbert and West ran to chase a ring in Texas. Vogel coaches that kind of system. He was not good at coaching a modern system. Not sure why you'd be acting like the writing was not on the wall for at least a year now. Your vision for the Pacers to be a slow, defensive wall of a team is never going to happen. Best to accept that instead of badmouthing every step taken away from that direction and having the gall to act like you know basketball better than Larry Bird.
        1) I don't act like I know basketball better than Larry Bird. But I'm not going to be afraid to speak my mind just because he's Larry Bird. His name doesn't matter to me. His current occupation is the only thing that matters. He is the GM of the Pacers. I will criticize him for the bad moves he makes and I will give him credit for the good moves he makes. That's it.

        2) If you think that I have a preference towards a particular system you're sorely mistaken. I have nothing against small-ball. Absolutely nothing. The team I support in Greece (Olympiakos) owes two Euroleague titles to small ball. It would be foolish of me to believe that small-ball doesn't work. I've seen it work and I've seen it do wonders. I just do not believe that it can work with the current team we have. We don't the personnel for it. The problem I have with this situation is that Bird apparently wants us to play small-ball but he keeps signing players that cannot play that style.

        Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey are not small-ball players. Period.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          The plan got torpedoed because we only have 3 reliable shooters. Paul George, George Hill and CJ Miles. They are the only ones that can shoot the 3 at a respectable rate and we all know that CJ Miles is far from reliable at it.

          If that was the plan then Bird should have signed some shooters. He didn't do that. If anything he did the exact opposite by trading away one of our few dependable shooters in Damo.
          I think we spoke about it in the past, but one of the ways to create spacing and taking advantage of uptempo ball is to have slashers and dribble pen and a decent midrange threat. Part of what the spurs run is dependent on variations of that concept. From Parker's dribble pen and midrange game or kawhi midrange or post play opening up their floor. LMA and West ditto for them. In that sense I think the staff failed at opening up our spacing that way as well.

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            When it comes to Bird...there is no such thing as a "developmental year". The goal is the Playoffs, Playoff, Playoffs ( which is the correct mindset to take when it comes to the way that Bird wants to run an Organization ). Now, we can ignore that we are changing how our offense is run and that these Players and Coaching Staff is learning a totally new offense on the fly....but that's fine....it's all about making the Playoffs.

            As for Solo....we didn't need to wait for him to develop into the role that we saw him. He was already there since 2 seasons ago. It was just a matter of playing him.
            I really wish I wasn't doing this all from a phone a can't address this all at once.

            I think if we played the style bird wanted us to play we probably either would have morphed into a small ball juggernaut or flamed out. I don't think we gave it enough time or tried enough lineups for it. I think we would have accepted Vogel this year if the players showed better adaptation to birds vision, playoffs or no. I think in the scheme of things, looking at the roster turnover and our players playoffs was a goal but not the goal. I mean look how long he tolerated job even though he wasn't making the playoffs, as long as the style of play fit what he was looking for.

            Comment


            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

              Originally posted by flox View Post
              Fair enough. Disagree on the ISO part. A singular offensive talent can play ISO ball if the spacing is correct. See James hardens sets in Houston and some of the stuff the spurs do with kawhi, they have become dependent on him running ISO sets at times. Agree with everything else. I think our spacing issues from playing too many bigs.
              You can certainly ISO when the situation calls for it. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you sign players who's primary strength is playing ISO. That's exactly the kind of players that Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey are. That's their talent? Is there room for their talents in modern NBA? Yes. Will they help your team play a more modern offense? No, they won't.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                Originally posted by flox View Post
                I think we spoke about it in the past, but one of the ways to create spacing and taking advantage of uptempo ball is to have slashers and dribble pen and a decent midrange threat. Part of what the spurs run is dependent on variations of that concept. From Parker's dribble pen and midrange game or kawhi midrange or post play opening up their floor. LMA and West ditto for them. In that sense I think the staff failed at opening up our spacing that way as well.
                We don't have good midrange threats either. David West and Luis Scola were our best midrange threats and they're no longer with the team. Myles is the only big that could develop into a reliable midrange weapon.

                I'm not going to blame the coaching staff for the FO's mistakes.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                  Originally posted by Jetman View Post
                  Compare the stagnant offense that we see most of the time to teams that know how to move the ball and keep a motion offense fluid. Many many times i screamed at the tv that they were all standing around as the ball handler was hoping that something magical would open up.
                  And yet there were times the team had great ball movement and player movement.

                  Why the inconsistency?

                  I honestly think a couple of the guys just did not want to play that way, and would revert back to old habits.

                  Now, you can blame that on the players for doing that, but it also comes back to the coach for allowing it to continue.

                  There are some people who want to turn the keys to the castle over to the players, but this is what you get when you do.

                  Comment


                  • Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                    Man, this is a sad day.

                    I really liked Frank. His smashmouth speech and positivity were inspiring. He was the angel that brought us out of some really difficult basketball years.

                    Loved the defense-first mentality.

                    But I can't help but acknowledge the 2014 season. It was one of the rarest chances this franchise has ever had to go over the top. We had the pieces to win it all IMO. Some of that falls on Frank, and if you go look at my posts, I was quick to question him at the time.

                    I think he's shown a tendency to lose the players and not hold them accountable for their actions.

                    However, at the end of the day... the timing is the biggest issue here. Why oh why would he do it this year?

                    Why wouldn't he give Frank an ultimatum and one more chance to figure it out? We are not championship bound next year either.

                    I think Birds personal style sucks, but I appreciate the directness aspect of it plus the bravery to lead and stick to his convictions. No one could accuse him of being satisfied or complacent. He creates high expectations, which is what you want from your leader.

                    The proof will be in the outcomes.

                    Larry Bird is one of the only people in the world who can say that they were the player of the year, the coach of the year, and the executive of the year. I'm going to stay behind him at this point, but be very wary of his future actions.

                    Please, Larry... treat people with respect. Especially someone as good and right and decent as Frank Vogel.


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                      People complain about Vogel's rotations and game management and offense..
                      And then complain Bird doesn't renew his contract?
                      Make up your mind people.

                      If Turner, Ian, and Stuckey were healthy, the team would have had a much better season but we had a big chance to beat Toronto and he blew it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        You can certainly ISO when the situation calls for it. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you sign players who's primary strength is playing ISO. That's exactly the kind of players that Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey are. That's their talent? Is there room for their talents in modern NBA? Yes. Will they help your team play a more modern offense? No, they won't.
                        I'm going to say that I completely disagree. Out of the remaining contenders, all of them have great iso players that they can go to in the clutch and who's iso play allows their system to work. I mean, the thunder are mostly an iso team, the cavs when they play contenders are more or less an iso team, and the spurs can revert to iso ball for a large amount of time.

                        Not to mention when your 2nd and 3rd biggest at rim and paint area for the season are George and Ellis, I don't see how we can consider Ellis a bad signing. He did exactly what we needed him to do. He wasn't that much different of the player he was for the Mavs, and really opened up that offense a took a huge load off of Dirk.

                        I mean, in terms of gravity and causing a team to collapse inward defensively and actually contest the midrange, Ellis is great. He can definitely be a part of a modern offense. He can make the safe pass, and that's all you really need from that type of player.



                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        We don't have good midrange threats either. David West and Luis Scola were our best midrange threats and they're no longer with the team. Myles is the only big that could develop into a reliable midrange weapon.

                        I'm not going to blame the coaching staff for the FO's mistakes.
                        Monta was a known midrange threat ever since he's been in the league. Not that he's efficient or anything, but he can beat you from there. You can't just not guard him there because if he gets that shot and hits it you have to guard him everywhere. I don't think that our spacing was good enough to survive with ellis or george playing the way they play now.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                          Originally posted by flox View Post
                          I'm going to say that I completely disagree. Out of the remaining contenders, all of them have great iso players that they can go to in the clutch and who's iso play allows their system to work. I mean, the thunder are mostly an iso team, the cavs when they play contenders are more or less an iso team, and the spurs can revert to iso ball for a large amount of time.
                          The Thunder iso with Durant and Westbrook. The Cavs iso with LeBron and Kyrie. The Spurs can revert to iso with Tim Duncan and Kawhi Leonard. We attempt to iso with Monta and Rodney. It's really not even close to being the same thing.

                          Originally posted by flox View Post
                          Not to mention when your 2nd and 3rd biggest at rim and paint area for the season are George and Ellis, I don't see how we can consider Ellis a bad signing. He did exactly what we needed him to do. He wasn't that much different of the player he was for the Mavs, and really opened up that offense a took a huge load off of Dirk.

                          I mean, in terms of gravity and causing a team to collapse inward defensively and actually contest the midrange, Ellis is great. He can definitely be a part of a modern offense. He can make the safe pass, and that's all you really need from that type of player.

                          Monta was a known midrange threat ever since he's been in the league. Not that he's efficient or anything, but he can beat you from there. You can't just not guard him there because if he gets that shot and hits it you have to guard him everywhere. I don't think that our spacing was good enough to survive with ellis or george playing the way they play now.
                          Monta's main issue is that he is not a real threat from 3. Yes, he can definitely penetrate and dish out to the open man (although, he has been prone at turning the ball over lately while doing that) but when the ball swings back to him in the corner (happens a lot when the initial rotation works) or when someone else is doing the driving and kicking then Monta often cannot finish the play by making the 3. I mean, he's the kind of player that when open behind the arc he will often take a dribble and step into a long 2. I understand that this is the shot that he feels comfortable with but that's not how modern basketball is played.

                          Plus, Monta really struggled with his shooting this year. He shot below 60% at the rim (59.4%) and below 40% from 16 ft to the 3-point line (38.2%). I agree that our spacing wasn't good enough but I firmly believe that this was due to our personnel. We only had 3 shooters all season long.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                            Originally posted by flox View Post
                            I'm going to say that I completely disagree. Out of the remaining contenders, all of them have great iso players that they can go to in the clutch and who's iso play allows their system to work. I mean, the thunder are mostly an iso team, the cavs when they play contenders are more or less an iso team, and the spurs can revert to iso ball for a large amount of time.

                            Not to mention when your 2nd and 3rd biggest at rim and paint area for the season are George and Ellis, I don't see how we can consider Ellis a bad signing. He did exactly what we needed him to do. He wasn't that much different of the player he was for the Mavs, and really opened up that offense a took a huge load off of Dirk.

                            I mean, in terms of gravity and causing a team to collapse inward defensively and actually contest the midrange, Ellis is great. He can definitely be a part of a modern offense. He can make the safe pass, and that's all you really need from that type of player.





                            Monta was a known midrange threat ever since he's been in the league. Not that he's efficient or anything, but he can beat you from there. You can't just not guard him there because if he gets that shot and hits it you have to guard him everywhere. I don't think that our spacing was good enough to survive with ellis or george playing the way they play now.
                            The difference between the ISO ball players on the remaining teams and Monta is the consistent threat of getting to the rim and finishing. Monta can get to the rim, but he struggles to finish at a high level anymore. Also, his mid range jumpshot has taken a bit of a dive also. Teams simply back off of him and make him take those over size and are able to live with the results.

                            Monta IS not the guy that he was in Dallas. He was a much more dangerous and explosive offensive player there. He had a relentless, attacking type of game that constantly put pressure on the defense. He was also a guy that got to the FT line a bunch. Here he's not the same type of attacking player. He rarely gets to the FT line, and has been just as likely to score in single digits as he has to score more than 16-18. Most of his bigger scoring games this year are because he was hitting the 3 ball. His lack of consistency or really his lack of being a threat period hurts him and the team. A lot of his 3 point attempts are uncontested.

                            You talk about spacing and bring up a good point that we need more of it. But Monta is a part of our spacing problem. Adding even another shooter to the lineup doesn't fully solve that issue unless Monta becomes at least average at shooting the 3 ball.

                            Being as objective as I can, Monta is a mixed bag. He has nice vision, but makes way too many last second jump passes to be the main offensive initiator. He can knock down some mid range J's, but he is inconsistent everywhere else and is pretty hot and cold from mid range as well. He can push t in transition, but doesn't attack as frequently or aggressively as he used to.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              In my definition? Modern basketball means ball movement, spacing, making the extra pass, driving in the paint with the goal of kicking it out for a corner 3, bigs who can both dive at the rim to finish a PnR and be a threat from outside for a PnP and most importantly NO ISO.

                              In Bird's definition? Modern basketball means "scoring more points". That's all he spoke about today.
                              But all those things you are talking about, lead to more points. I think Bird is just keeping it simple. I want to score more points. Nice and simple.
                              But the game you explained is what I would like to see. And that will lead to more points.


                              "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                              "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by JimmyJames View Post
                                But all those things you are talking about, lead to more points. I think Bird is just keeping it simple. I want to score more points. Nice and simple.
                                But the game you explained is what I would like to see. And that will lead to more points.
                                Yes, what I described certainly leads to more points. But the way to score more points is to actually do those things. Just saying that you want to score more points will not actually make it happen.

                                The issue I have with Bird's explanation so far is that he hasn't actually explained how we're going to score more points. Scoring more points is more complex than simply shooting more 3s and creating more transition opportunities. I'm pretty sure that every team wants to score more. The ones to manage it are the ones who have a plan on how to do so. And that plan starts at the very top.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X