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

Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

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

  • Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html

    How Could Center Position Be Addressed?


    Monday, June 12, 2006


    Q. Like Jermaine O'Neal has expressed, I think the team needs another person who can get the job done in the middle. If Larry Bird addresses this problem, do you think he will try to acquire a big man through a trade, try to draft one, or develop one of our current players : David Harrison, Jeff Foster and/or Scot Pollard? (From Kyle in Holly Springs, N.C.)

    A. After an all-too-brief respite – and thank you for your patience while I was on vacation – it's time to get back to work. So let's dive right into the mailbag by getting into something of a debate with our very own franchise player. O'Neal's assertion that the team's biggest need is at center is paradoxical, because he is the best candidate on the roster to fill that position. For all intents and purposes, he already is the center, offensively, because he's the primary post threat and the first option in the offense. Defensively, in order to alleviate physical wear and tear, others have guarded the opposing center, allowing O'Neal to move to power forward.

    Foster, Harrison and Pollard have provided a strong variety of matchup options to ease the defensive load on O'Neal. Foster can deal with the more athletic big men; Pollard is ideally suited to the less mobile behemoth-types; while Harrison has the potential to be a game-changer because of his size, offensive skill and shot-blocking. If you could somehow combine all three into one player, you'd probably have what O'Neal wants – in fact, you'd probably have what every team (except, possibly, Miami) in the NBA wants.

    Very few NBA teams have true centers anymore. It has become increasingly common for teams to go to a two-post system, where one player is the focal point, offensively, and the other plays a complementary role, either by assuming the larger defensive responsibility or providing the needed floor spacing. It was good enough for San Antonio to win a couple of championships. It worked for Detroit, with Rasheed Wallace (offense) and Ben Wallace (defense) fitting together very well, albeit unconventionally.

    That said, Pollard is a free agent, Foster is coming off two years of injury problems and Harrison has been slow to develop, so there should be some level of uncertainty about that particular slot on the depth chart. The draft offers the easiest way to acquire another big body, but also the most uncertainty. As for free agents, Ben Wallace will be out of the Pacers' price range, leaving a second tier consisting of guys like Nazr Mohammed, Joel Przybilla and Michael Olowokandi. Denver's Nene, though a restricted free agent, would be a gamble, albeit at a reduced price because of his knee. That leaves trades and, when it comes to centers, it's always a seller's market in the NBA because demand far outstrips supply.

    All of which is another way of saying this: quality centers are the hardest commodity to acquire. Even if Pollard leaves, the Pacers still will have a deeper crop than most. While I'm sure there will be an interest and effort in replacing Pollard, should he leave, that doesn't mean this is the position of highest priority this summer.

  • #2
    Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

    Bruno only justifies the current line-up at the defensive end. He doesn't say that the center position holds up on offense except when JO is there.

    We've heard O'Neal is planning to lose weight to gain speed over the summer. Doesn't that mean he's going to stick with Power Forward?

    This isn't as good as Bruno's usual stuff, saying "Even if Pollard leaves, the Pacers still will have a deeper crop than most." It seems pretty clear that "depth" is no longer a strong argument around here. What we need is one really good center, not an assortment of broken pieces and unmolded potential.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

      I'm not sure how Foster always ends up on these lists, he's always seemed more like a power forward to me. Looking at it that way, if Pollard leaves, the Pacers are left with only one true center. Which may be a good thing, if it would make Rick play him. But that seems unlikely.

      IndyToad
      Me only

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

        You can have a center like FOSTER who doesn`t need the ball to be effective. With 4 other scorers in the starting line-up FOSTER fits in nicely. He has the energy that the team needs on the floor, plus I feel he will have very good year coming up after getting all the way back from his injuries the past 2 years

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

          Originally posted by Conrad
          O'Neal's assertion that the team's biggest need is at center is paradoxical, because he is the best candidate on the roster to fill that position. For all intents and purposes, he already is the center, offensively, because he's the primary post threat and the first option in the offense.
          Did I write that? It sounds familiar.

          Originally posted by Conrad
          Defensively, in order to alleviate physical wear and tear, others have guarded the opposing center, allowing O'Neal to move to power forward.
          Did UncleBuck write that? It sounds familiar.

          Prior to this past season, JO did spend a lot of time defending the C. And he was taking too much wear and tear. So to keep him healthier, he didn't play as much C defensively last year. Worked wonders, didn't it?

          When Foster is playing C, both Foster and JO break down because Foster, for all his hustle, just isn't physical enough nor strong enough to play C in the NBA.

          Foster is a big part of the problem, and he's not part of the solution. And that's a shame because he is likeable as a player and as a person. Well, except when you pass him the ball, then he just plain sucks and I'm tired of watching this team play 4-on-five.
          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


          • #6
            Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

            Foster is a back-up PF with no offense and injury concerns.

            Pollard is a good back-up C with injury concerns; and judging by his post-season comments, he's not coming back anyways.

            Harrison is our only true C, but has some maturing to do - including his foul trouble.

            JO is an All-Star PF, OK C.

            Anyone know anything about Robert Whaley? He's probably not an All-Star, but I've heard his name mentioned with all the Toronto Trade Talks and now they plan on waiving him. Good back-up C?
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

              Originally posted by pizza guy
              Anyone know anything about Robert Whaley? He's probably not an All-Star, but I've heard his name mentioned with all the Toronto Trade Talks and now they plan on waiving him. Good back-up C?
              Well hopefully this answers your question....

              He's getting waived by Toronto

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                What comments by Pollard suggest he's not coming back?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  Did I write that? It sounds familiar.



                  Did UncleBuck write that? It sounds familiar.

                  Prior to this past season, JO did spend a lot of time defending the C. And he was taking too much wear and tear. So to keep him healthier, he didn't play as much C defensively last year. Worked wonders, didn't it?

                  When Foster is playing C, both Foster and JO break down because Foster, for all his hustle, just isn't physical enough nor strong enough to play C in the NBA.

                  Foster is a big part of the problem, and he's not part of the solution. And that's a shame because he is likeable as a player and as a person. Well, except when you pass him the ball, then he just plain sucks and I'm tired of watching this team play 4-on-five.
                  Did Jay write what I highlighted? He must have because he has a lot of weird ideas.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                    Let me ask a question that is related to this topic.

                    Why are the Mavs so effective guarding Shaq and the Heat, (at least through the first two games)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                      Am I missing something? Aren't they keeping a fresh Diop and Dampier in the game against Shaq?

                      I know Shaq hasn't played well but I haven't taken the time to figure out why yet (other than my assumption that Shaq just doesn't play well on the road anymore but he's a beast during home games.)
                      --- Edited Follow-Up ---
                      Originally posted by Will Galen
                      Did Jay write what I highlighted? He must have because he has a lot of weird ideas.
                      Cute.

                      Maybe unconventional, because I figure stuff out before others do. And then spend weeks or months or longer explaining what I see. But not weird.

                      Do me a favor. Come out from behind that snide remard and tell me what is weird about that? Do you ever see Foster putting a body on the offensive player? Of course not. Further, that's what UncleBuck loves about Foster's defense: he fronts the post because he's too damn weak to play behind the guy. Its not a weird idea. Even Foster's biggest fans would agree.

                      Quick? Yes. Hustle? Of course. Strong? uh, no.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204

                        Maybe unconventional, because I figure stuff out before others do. And then spend weeks or months or longer explaining what I see. But not weird.

                        Do me a favor. Come out from behind that snide remard and tell me what is weird about that?
                        Don't break an arm patting yourself on the back! And since you are so good at figuring out stuff before others do, figure it out.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                          :harrison:
                          --- Edited Follow-Up ---
                          Originally posted by Will Galen
                          Don't break an arm patting yourself on the back! And since you are so good at figuring out stuff before others do, figure it out.
                          Well then how bout you explain it for the rest of us?
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                            Jay is right here. We play usually with two PFs, one that plays at that spot but should be a center and another that plays at the C spot but should be a 4off of the bench. What the Pacers need is a player that is a C in physical stature and not only is willing to accept the contact, but actually likes banging down low. It would also be really nice if he had more than one post move.
                            Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                            http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, How Could Center Position Be Addressed?

                              Why so many of you are stuck on acquring a "center" is beyond my comprehension. Why you want a physical bruising center, just doesn't make any sense to me. Why anyone feels like we need a center to put a body on the offensive player, I just don't understand it at all.

                              Seems to me many of you are thinking this is 1996. The NBA has changed.

                              Replace Foster if you must but don't replace him with a big bruising center, that would be a huge mistake. Haven't you watched the playoffs. Shaq's reign is over.


                              Jay, the reason I like Jeff has nothing to do with him fronting the post. I love Jeff's hustle and I think his quick feet and quick hands are a real asset in todays NBA. Now if he can just get to the point where he can hit a wide open 12 footer.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X