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

Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

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

  • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I think it depends on what you're looking for in a GM.

    Some may value the ability to sign players to "value" contracts, in which Bird would rate nicely.

    Others may value the ability to put together a harmonious roster in terms of chemistry, in which Bird wouldn't rate nearly as well.

    I'd say he's at least top 10 for sure.
    I'd agree with top 10. Maybe closer to 5 than 10 if you factor in small market.

    Comment


    • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      If that happened, why would Bird say Monta could be coming off the bench?

      And who the heck would start? And how does Candace not get this scoop and think Monta would be fine with benching.

      There's gotta be more to this. I feel like something happened (where there's smoke and I trust Peck) but we aren't getting the entire story.
      And this is why when some of us hear things that don't follow the PR machine that we tend to keep those details to ourselves even if we argue against the PR machine.

      You realize Candace is/ was a PR-puppet, right. For IndyStar to use the "Insider" marketing crap, it is easy to see why she needed to follow the company line on what she discussed publicly.

      A former ABA-era player mentioned to a work colleague of mine ON OPENING NIGHT that the locker room chemistry was already a mess because of the new guys. It was kind of hinted that the chemistry even during the meltdown wasn't even this bad because guys like Roy and Lance, among others, liked each other socially. That team's chemistry issue was largely on the court, with less off-court problems. [note that my critique of Lance, for example, is how his one-on-one skills don't mesh with a team game.] Then Mel passed away the next day and I didn't hear anything more about it. I don't know if it was more about Ellis, JHill, or Chase (let's not forget he begged his way out of town he was so unhappy).

      That's enough context to understand the following:

      The Pacers had a ballhog that wasn't playing up to his new, big, long-term contract and was the weak link in the starting five. Anybody could see a change was needed (PG to SG, start Solo or Miles at SF.) So when no change happened, the question is why?

      It certainly shouldn't be a surprise that a known ballhog, having the worst season of his career but having just signed a big, long-term contract, was going to be a point of controversy. You don't have be Madame Marie on the boardwalk of Asbury Park to see that coming.

      I don't believe Bird loves Ellis to the point of overriding the coach. That hasn't been said, at all. I do believe Bird felt/ feels the need to get something out of his investment (which had a lot more do with his "support" of Ron as well -- not that he really wanted to keep Ron but he wanted to maximize his trade value) and trying to trade Ellis this summer after he'd been benched would have made it harder. For that business reason perhaps that is justification. The coach is and should only be focused on maximizing the current season. The front office needs to blend that with a longer-term view. Ellis would be even harder to trade this offseason if he had been benched.

      No sources, just applying common sense to what might happen to a player that is clearly in decline but was just the "marquee FA signing".
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

        Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
        And this is why when some of us hear things that don't follow the PR machine that we tend to keep those details to ourselves even if we argue against the PR machine.

        You realize Candace is/ was a PR-puppet, right. For IndyStar to use the "Insider" marketing crap, it is easy to see why she needed to follow the company line on what she discussed publicly.
        Of course. This is 2016, everyone is aware of how the media works.

        But that hasn't stopped Wells and Candace from reporting on players not doing what they're asked.

        Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
        A former ABA-era player mentioned to a work colleague of mine ON OPENING NIGHT that the locker room chemistry was already a mess because of the new guys. It was kind of hinted that the chemistry even during the meltdown wasn't even this bad because guys like Roy and Lance, among others, liked each other socially. That team's chemistry issue was largely on the court, with less off-court problems. [note that my critique of Lance, for example, is how his one-on-one skills don't mesh with a team game.] Then Mel passed away the next day and I didn't hear anything more about it. I don't know if it was more about Ellis, JHill, or Chase (let's not forget he begged his way out of town he was so unhappy).

        That's enough context to understand the following:

        The Pacers had a ballhog that wasn't playing up to his new, big, long-term contract and was the weak link in the starting five. Anybody could see a change was needed (PG to SG, start Solo or Miles at SF.) So when no change happened, the question is why?

        It certainly shouldn't be a surprise that a known ballhog, having the worst season of his career but having just signed a big, long-term contract, was going to be a point of controversy. You don't have be Madame Marie on the boardwalk of Asbury Park to see that coming.

        I don't believe Bird loves Ellis to the point of overriding the coach. That hasn't been said, at all. I do believe Bird felt/ feels the need to get something out of his investment (which had a lot more do with his "support" of Ron as well -- not that he really wanted to keep Ron but he wanted to maximize his trade value) and trying to trade Ellis this summer after he'd been benched would have made it harder. For that business reason perhaps that is justification. The coach is and should only be focused on maximizing the current season. The front office needs to blend that with a longer-term view. Ellis would be even harder to trade this offseason if he had been benched.

        No sources, just applying common sense to what might happen to a player that is clearly in decline but was just the "marquee FA signing".
        Eh, so basically you think w/o any sources that the guys you didn't like before the season started (and would lead us to around 30 wins) caused problems before the season started?

        Okay.

        Comment


        • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

          I just wish we knew who Vogel wanted to start for Ellis?

          I guess CJ was an option, but he was either injurned or playing the 4 for most of the season.

          So that leaves Stuckey. Injurned.

          Then you have to believe that GRIII, Solo or Chaz were players Vogel wanted to start but wouldn't play in the rotation? And were better than Monta?
          Last edited by freddielewis14; 07-27-2016, 10:25 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

            What is the Jordan Hill/Philly thing? Was this something I missed during my hiatus?

            The Monta thing all sounds about right.


            Comment


            • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              Of course. This is 2016, everyone is aware of how the media works.

              But that hasn't stopped Wells and Candace from reporting on players not doing what they're asked.
              Which isn't the point.

              There are times they may want that story out there, for reasons we still don't know. It is certainly the way to knock down the ego of someone, which could be a desired outcome with some players.

              Take the PR machine for what it is worth. Think for yourself.

              And yes, there have been rumors over the past year about the players I didn't want the Pacers to ever sign because, in fact, there were rumors about some of those players before the Pacers signed them.

              Self-fulfilling prophecy? Sure, but that's not my problem.

              My point on this is not that I had any substantive details, but there are other ways to look at what is going on/ rumored vs. the all/nothing comments above.

              As always, this is much more grey and much less black/white than an internet forum is going to make it.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                Since Monta venting is happening... does anyone remember how it seemed like Monta refused to pass to Myles (like half the year). Or that inbound play when Myles was wide open under the basket but Monta opted to get the ball himself for the final play.
                The moment I gave up on Monta was that Myles Turner play.


                Comment


                • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  The moment I gave up on Monta was that Myles Turner play.
                  I said this before, but if you actually watch the video, the defender does a fake like he's going to cover Turner. I believe it was the fake that makes Monta pause and look for another option. It's split second. Monta sees the fake, and moves on to look for another option.
                  Danger Zone

                  Comment


                  • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                    Which isn't the point.

                    There are times they may want that story out there, for reasons we still don't know. It is certainly the way to knock down the ego of someone, which could be a desired outcome with some players.

                    Take the PR machine for what it is worth. Think for yourself.
                    Of course man, like I said, it's 2016. So many ways to get news and inside scoop, nobody needs to be told about the PR machine.

                    However, I don't just make up scenarios and believe them to be true though without a shred of proof.

                    Example, I've thtought for awhile the players didn't care for Vogel's decision making and it fractured the team. I also think Vogel played favorites and it contributed to the effort the players gave. But I'm not going to say I or anyone should believe that to be true.

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                    And yes, there have been rumors over the past year about the players I didn't want the Pacers to ever sign because, in fact, there were rumors about some of those players before the Pacers signed them.

                    Self-fulfilling prophecy? Sure, but that's not my problem.

                    My point on this is not that I had any substantive details, but there are other ways to look at what is going on/ rumored vs. the all/nothing comments above.

                    As always, this is much more grey and much less black/white than an internet forum is going to make it.
                    This my first time hearing this rumor. What other rumors? What other players over the past year?

                    And I'm still trying to figure out who was going to start over Monta?
                    Last edited by freddielewis14; 07-27-2016, 11:08 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      And I'm still trying to figure out who was going to start over Monta?
                      Hence my question below. Did Bird say no because he loves Monta, or because we had nobody to start in place of Monta. We really had nothing of any quality to play at SG after Monta, and most of what you can even consider was injured for large portions of the year and playing poorly. I guess it makes sense that Bird would say no because the move seems, at least in a vacuum, like a really dumb idea.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


                      • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        Hence my question below. Did Bird say no because he loves Monta, or because we had nobody to start in place of Monta. We really had nothing of any quality to play at SG after Monta, and most of what you can even consider was injured for large portions of the year and playing poorly. I guess it makes sense that Bird would say no because the move seems, at least in a vacuum, like a really dumb idea.
                        Or my point, not a helpful business decision longer-term.

                        Which doesn't mean "Bird is in love with Monta."

                        Sorry, that was my entire point.


                        EDIT:

                        Mr. Lewis, I'm referring to whatever happened to Jordan Hill that he was finally benched. He sucked all year, so I'm amazed it took that long and he wasn't missed at all once he was benched. But the rumor is that some type of insubordination happened. I think that's the "Philly incident", but not sure.

                        One thing I really enjoyed this season, since I was too busy to be online, was not seeing all the gory details of the rumors on PD. But it was interesting to see them after the fact and reconcile those timelines to what I was observing (or missing) in isolation.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          I said this before, but if you actually watch the video, the defender does a fake like he's going to cover Turner. I believe it was the fake that makes Monta pause and look for another option. It's split second. Monta sees the fake, and moves on to look for another option.
                          You're very generous. I've watched that video 100 times and I think Monta throws that pass if it's Paul George. Of course maybe Monta just wanted the last shot that badly, it wouldn't surprise me. Frank's reaction in the background tells me he thinks the pass should have been made. Lots of times Frank's late game plays would create opportunities like this and the players would not capitalize.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                            Mr. Lewis, I'm referring to whatever happened to Jordan Hill that he was finally benched. He sucked all year, so I'm amazed it took that long and he wasn't missed at all once he was benched. But the rumor is that some type of insubordination happened. I think that's the "Philly incident", but not sure.
                            Jordan Hill did not suck all year. Let me be clear, he is not a player I want on the team, but he was okay.

                            Not terrible on defense and could score. His bench scoring kept us in games last year. It was about all you could ask for from a backup big.

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                            One thing I really enjoyed this season, since I was too busy to be online, was not seeing all the gory details of the rumors on PD. But it was interesting to see them after the fact and reconcile those timelines to what I was observing (or missing) in isolation.
                            There weren't rumors all year though.

                            Peck said there was a Philly incident.

                            - Which is weird because Bird and JHill both complained about communication with JHill benching. So was Vogel the only one aware of the incident? JHill flat out said he had no idea why he was benched.

                            And Peck and Able said there was a Monta incident.

                            -Which would make more sense if we knew who was going to play over Monta and if Bird just refused to get involved.

                            So this wasn't a thing all season, and we certainly haven't gotten any details.
                            Last edited by freddielewis14; 07-27-2016, 11:41 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                              Here's what Paul George thinks about these preseason predictions:

                              http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-pau...225445798.html

                              Irving has already recognized a difference in George this time around. No longer trying to find his way, understand Krzyzewski’s system or figure out how he fits among a roster full of All-Stars, George now has the strut of someone in control, in command. “Right now, I feel like I belong,” George told the Vertical.

                              Back among the elites, George is on a higher perch. He’s on the cover of the video game NBA2K17 and expected to have a prominent role on this Olympic team, a position that wasn’t assured on that World Cup squad before the injury.

                              “You can tell he carries an aura about him now. That I don’t know if he had it before,” Irving said. “Sometimes, adversity can do that to you. And it has a way of shaping a person’s life like no other. None of us were there when he was going through rehab. None of us were here when he was in his bedroom alone, thinking about life, how he was going to get back. None of us were there when he was trying to figure out, what is the next step? That right there builds character. I can feel it. I can see it.”

                              Game restored, George now has his sights on Irving and the champion Cleveland Cavaliers, confident that the Pacers are back to being “one of the premier teams.” Indiana was coming off consecutive trips to the Eastern Conference finals when George’s injury stalled his career and stunted the team’s growth. He is the only starter remaining from those teams after Pacers president of basketball operations Larry Bird completed one of the league’s most dramatic offseason makeovers with the additions of Jeff Teague, Thaddeus Young and Al Jefferson.

                              “I think with the moves that they made, it’s on me now, to get us back to being contenders,” George told The Vertical. “I think, with what I’m going to bring, the talent I have around me now, I’ve got a chance to challenge Cleveland.”

                              Comment


                              • Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Jordan Hill did not suck all year. Let me be clear, he is not a player I want on the team, but he was okay.

                                Not terrible on defense and could score. His bench scoring kept us in games last year. It was about all you could ask for from a backup big.
                                No.

                                He was pushed all of the court defensively. He's a soft as a stick of butter left out in the sun. He's like a softer-Troy Murphy with a cooler haircut and less range.



                                On the other hand, unlike last summer where I thought Bird made a bunch of "desperation" moves to sign guys that wouldn't fit...

                                I'm really excited about most of the offseason moves this summer, even though I'll really miss George Hill.

                                So I'm looking forward to that self-fulfilling prophecy as well.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X