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

Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

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

  • #16
    Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    No numbers other than the W/L mean anything to me. If Nate wins 45 plus games and gets us to the second round we will all be fine. Anything less? failure (caveat for injury)
    I think we should also wait to see how the off-season plays out. The Eastern Conference is historically bad right now, but it's possible some team in our division pulls off a great trade or free agent signing should adjust our own expectations. As it stands right now, I think top 4 or 5 is a reasonable expectation.
    Danger Zone

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Not aimed at you (because I pretty much agree), just using it as a jumping off point.

      The overwhelming volume of complaints here next year about how the team is boring to watch and plays ugly and deserves to be out of the league will make my eyes bleed.
      Which was the opposite of this year, i.e. everyone complaining that we should only play big and slow? Regardless of how we play, someone will be *****ing about it.
      Danger Zone

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
        I think we should also wait to see how the off-season plays out. The Eastern Conference is historically bad right now, but it's possible some team in our division pulls off a great trade or free agent signing should adjust our own expectations. As it stands right now, I think top 4 or 5 is a reasonable expectation.
        Nope.

        Frank was fired because he didn't win more games and didn't make it to the ECF. Lack of talent and chemistry be damned.

        Nate was brought in to help us take that next step, and the Vogel fans are holding him to the same standard that Bird held Vogel. Lol those are the breaks.

        ^^ This is partially tongue in cheek, but in all reality, I'm totally serious^^

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

          I don't have a problem at all with McMillan being our new head Coach. I just hope he has some input in the player we draft and/or sign. I don't care as much about pace and pace as I do about professional BB players who miss open layups. IMO, since the Granger trade the bench has become a source of pure misery. We need a Leader for the 2nd unit as much as we do for the starters. If Larry wants to coach from behind the bench, I don't have a problem with that. However, I wish he would let someone else sign the bench players and Larry just draft players.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            Nope.

            Frank was fired because he didn't win more games and didn't make it to the ECF. Lack of talent and chemistry be damned.

            Nate was brought in to help us take that next step, and the Vogel fans are holding him to the same standard that Bird held Vogel. Lol those are the breaks.

            ^^ This is partially tongue in cheek, but in all reality, I'm totally serious^^
            I know, but also, we don't know why Vogel was fired. Bird has gone out of his way (IMO) to protect Vogel and make sure he didn't say anything into the true reasons behind letting him go. The three-year thing is crap. Personally, I like that there aren't a bunch of rumors coming out of the Pacers organization as to problems and issues with the coaching. The standard Bird held Vogel too may have been less about results, and more about locker room issues or player management or other professional-based standards. Also, you can't necessarily compare this year to next. This year we were mostly healthy, while numerous other teams had serious injuries, including Miami, Charlotte, Toronto and seemingly everyone on the Bulls (karma!)
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
              Pace means nothing to me, Nate has a history of orchestrating high efficiency offenses.
              While true, Pacers don't have shooters from 3 like those teams did. Unless Bird has a version of Ray Allen/Rashard Lewis in his sights, don't hold your breath.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                Nope.

                Frank was fired because he didn't win more games and didn't make it to the ECF. Lack of talent and chemistry be damned.

                Nate was brought in to help us take that next step, and the Vogel fans are holding him to the same standard that Bird held Vogel. Lol those are the breaks.

                ^^ This is partially tongue in cheek, but in all reality, I'm totally serious^^
                I think Frank was fired because he didn't influence Paul enough to buy into Bird's plan enough to legitimately give it a shot. You can tell that by some of his comments. For example, he said Dan Burke had the respect of the players...wasn't afraid of them...wasn't stroking them. Then he went on to say defense was all because of Dan. The first part was a direct shot at Frank. The second part was backhanded implying Frank not only didn't influence the players but he also wasn't even responsible for the team's greatest strength...which is obviously defense since our offense was #25 in the league.

                This hiring was probably a safe bet and possibly a financial move just to move us toward the next Paul George era. Bird will draft and reform this team while paying very little for the coach...really just rebuilding the team. I seriously doubt anyone including Bird thinks McMillan is some kind of savior. He's already proven himself to be mediocre and everyone knows it. This hiring is just the start of a phase toward something, in Bird's mind, is greater.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                  Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                  McMillan said it well, repeatedly.

                  ..versions of: "my style will be a product of the players we have going into the season"
                  The correct philosophy no matter what.

                  Nate set up a system tailored to guys like Aldridge and Greg Oden. Oden was supposed to be the next Bill Russell. Slow and grind it out style was exactly what was called for.

                  In Seattle with Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis as his key pieces he ran a pace and space type offense similar to what Bird want's to see here. I'm not going to punish this guy for setting up the right system for the roster he's given. That's the antithesis of system coaches like Jim Obrien who I'm pretty sure most of us loathe.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    So low-efficiency ISO plays with Monta and PG?
                    Monta aside, I think Paul George is capable of playing multiple styles. His game can fit in anywhere. The key to playing the style Bird want's is acquiring a true point guard.
                    Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 05-18-2016, 03:04 PM.
                    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                    - ilive4sports

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                      Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                      The key to playing the style Bird want's is acquiring a true point guard.
                      Couldn't disagree more.

                      The key to playing the style Bird want's is acquiring shooters who are both smart and willing passers.

                      The key to these spread lineups is quick ball movement and the ability to knock down shots created from the ball movement.

                      Kyrie, Curry, Lillard, Walker are ALL scorers first and foremost.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Couldn't disagree more.

                        The key to playing the style Bird want's is acquiring shooters who are both smart and willing passers.

                        The key to these spread lineups is quick ball movement and the ability to knock down shots created from the ball movement.

                        Kyrie, Curry, Lillard, Walker are ALL scorers first and foremost.
                        I didn't say shooters aren't a huge part of the equation, that's why I'm a proponent of the somewhat unpopular position of acquiring a stretch 4 to start with Turner. Shooters are comparatively much easier to acquire than a quality point guard though. Getting your point man is a big challenge and a much bigger priority.

                        One thing I believe is that to run this style you can't have a blatant offensive liability in your starting unit or you're going to wreck your spacing. So I'm not a fan of acquiring a bruiser with no shooting ability to play PF, as many have clamored for.
                        Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 05-18-2016, 03:21 PM.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          While true, Pacers don't have shooters from 3 like those teams did. Unless Bird has a version of Ray Allen/Rashard Lewis in his sights, don't hold your breath.
                          I'll agree with that, but I think everyone here would agree Bird needs to get out and sign some shooters this offseason.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                            Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                            I don't get the point of this thread. We're talking about a guy who had Aldridge, Z-Bo etc on his team in a conference that featured premier bigs in a time when the game was played inside out.
                            He also coached teams with a young Rashard Lewis and Ray Allen. Those teams played pretty slow as well. In fact, the only time that any of his teams played fast was during his rookie coaching season back in 00-01.

                            The reason why this third exists is pretty simple. Bird has made it a point to say that he wants the Pacers to play faster. He made it a point both last summer and this one. Nate has proven a lot of things through his 10 years coaching career but the ability to have his team's play fast is not one of those things. So, people have a reason to be skeptical.

                            Yes, Nate will certainly give it a shot and attempt to play the style that he boss wants. But what if it doesn't work? What if Bird doesn't give Nate the right players just like he didn't give Frank the right players? What's going to happen then? Will Bird fire Nate or will he blame it on the players this time?
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                              Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                              I think we should also wait to see how the off-season plays out. The Eastern Conference is historically bad right now
                              So, the East has 9 teams finish above .500 and a 10th one exactly at .500 and yet it's historically bad? When the West did that in 12-13 people were raving about how good the West was.

                              Consistency, people. It's valuable. Learn to use it.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Nate McMillan Ranks 92nd Out Of 95 NBA Coaches Since 2001 In Pace

                                Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                                In Seattle with Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis as his key pieces he ran a pace and space type offense similar to what Bird want's to see here. I'm not going to punish this guy for setting up the right system for the roster he's given. That's the antithesis of system coaches like Jim Obrien who I'm pretty sure most of us loathe.
                                Allow me to post Nate's rosters in Seattle and the pace that these rosters played on.

                                00-01: The team consisted of Gary Payton, Rashard Lewis (at his second season), Vin Baker, Patrick Ewing (at 38), Ruben Patterson, Brent Barry and Desmond Mason. Nate took over for Paul Westphal who was fired after a 6-9 start. They were 16th in pace and 10th in offensive efficiency. Here's the full bball-ref page -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2001.html

                                01-02: The team consisted of Gary Payton, Brent Barry, Rashard Lewis, Desmond Mason, Vin Baker, Vladimir Radmanovic and Predrag Drobnjak (both Vladimir and Predrag were rookies back then). They were 24th in pace and 5th in offensive efficiency -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2002.html

                                02-03: The team consisted of Rashard Lewis, Brent Barry, Gary Payton, Predrag Drobnjak, Vladimir Radmanovic, Desmond Mason, Reggie Evans and a young Ray Allen that was traded to Seattle midway through the season for Gary Payton and Desmond Mason. They were 27th in pace and 19th in offensive efficiency -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2003.html

                                03-04: The Rashard Lewis-Ray Allen pace and space team. The team consisted of Rashard Lewis, Vladimir Radmanovic, Ray Allen, Ronald Murray, Brent Barry, Antonio Daniels and Vitaly Potapenko. They were 15th in pace and 3rd in offensive efficiency -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2004.html

                                04-05: The team consisted of Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Luke Ridnour, Antonio Daniels, Reggie Evans, Vladimir Radmanovic, Nick Collison and Jerome James. They were 27th in pace and 2nd in offensive efficiency -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2005.html

                                Needles to say, the seasons he had in Seattle indicate that he indeed has a very good track record when it comes to offensive efficiency. So, if our main goal is to have an efficient offense then there is statistical data to back up the claim that Nate is a coach that can make that happen.

                                But if we want to emulate what Nate with Seattle back in 03-04 and have an offensive that is both very efficient and fast then Bird has to pull off some magic during the off-season. Take another look at that 03-04 roster. The only player in that top 7 that wasn't a threat to shoot the 3 was Vitaly Potapenko. The only player who didn't shoot well from 3 was Ronald Murray (29.3% on 229 attempts). All the rest? They were amazing three-point shooters.

                                Rashard Lewis shot 37.6% on 386 attempts.

                                Vladimir Radmanovic shot 37.1% on 377 attempts.

                                Ray Allen shot 39.2% on 378 attempts.

                                Brent Barry shot 45.2% on 252 attempts.

                                Antonio Daniels shot 36.2% on 116 attempts.

                                That Seattle team coule legitimately play 4 out. They had great shooting talent. If Bird wants Nate to recreate that offense then he better get him some equally good shooting talent. You cannot replicate that kind of offense with Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey as your 3-point threats.

                                PS: I know that this is not so relevant because basketball is not the same as it was back then but it's important to note that this great offensive team finished the season at 37-45. They were 27th (out of 29) in defensive efficiency.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X