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

Will we improve scoring?

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

  • Will we improve scoring?

    Last year, the Pacers were a good rebounding team (8th in the NBA) and a good defending team (5th fewest points allowed). But they were a poor scoring team (23rd), and a poor ball handling team (ranked 25th in ratio of assists to turnovers).

    I would argue that the way we accomplished the 5th fewest points allowed was more by slowing the tempo than by locking down the other team. We kept scores low by using up clock at our end.

    Anyway, how do the two guys we drafted and the two we are trying to get help the team to improve where it needs to: at scoring and ball handling?

    I think the effects of Williams and White will be negligible, at least in the first half of the new season. And I don't think Bonzi or Al can help that much with scoring on a team whose main outside presence is Sarunas(!).

    Conclusion: We need to get a shooting guard who can shoot.
    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)

  • #2
    Re: Will we improve scoring?

    i've been voicing this since we lost peja.

    we will suck with a lineup of tins, bonzi, granger, harrington, and jo......teams will just pack it in on use. i am all for getting harrington and starting DG at the 3. but we need a 2 guard who can shoot....that's not bonzi.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Will we improve scoring?

      Originally posted by purdue101
      i've been voicing this since we lost peja.

      we will suck with a lineup of tins, bonzi, granger, harrington, and jo......teams will just pack it in on use. i am all for getting harrington and starting DG at the 3. but we need a 2 guard who can shoot....that's not bonzi.
      Why?

      Bonzi's career 3pt% is only 1% lower than Jackon's. Why all of a sudden would teams start packing it in?

      Harrington is also a lot bigger threat from the outside than any other option at either the 4 or 5, so he'd extend the defense a lot farther than anyone else would.

      So there's a very small drop off at the two spot, and a very large increase at the 4 spot, yet you're forseeing teams just playing the middle on us even more?

      EDIT: Sorry, his career 3pt% isn't 1% higher, it's .3%.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Will we improve scoring?

        Al + Bonzi + JO are all guys who can be effective on the low blocks.

        If you play them together, you are asking one of them to become a perimeter jumpshooter as the defense doubles the guy on the blocks.

        Sorry, but even if he were not an idiot, Bonzi on the blocks means JO and/or Al are shooting fadeaways and 18-footers. I's rather have JO or Al or the blocks and a deadly accurate and consistent SG ready to pull the trigger from the perimeter.

        The problem I'm having is identifying the deadly accurate and consistent SG. I know he is not named Jackson, though.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Will we improve scoring?

          Originally posted by pacertom
          Al + Bonzi + JO are all guys who can be effective on the low blocks.

          If you play them together, you are asking one of them to become a perimeter jumpshooter as the defense doubles the guy on the blocks.

          Sorry, but even if he were not an idiot, Bonzi on the blocks means JO and/or Al are shooting fadeaways and 18-footers. I's rather have JO or Al or the blocks and a deadly accurate and consistent SG ready to pull the trigger from the perimeter.

          The problem I'm having is identifying the deadly accurate and consistent SG. I know he is not named Jackson, though.
          Al + Bonzi + JO is still better than Foster + Jackson + JO.

          The same problem is still there, but you'll get a lot more production from Al than Foster and that's the big selling point.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Will we improve scoring?

            Originally posted by Since86
            Why?

            Bonzi's career 3pt% is only 1% lower than Jackon's. Why all of a sudden would teams start packing it in?

            Because we're talking now about replacing not just Jackson but also Peja. The Pacers suddenly are a team that has very little outside threat. We took a higher percentage of 3s last year than all but three other teams, but we won't have that ability in the coming season.

            Peja was criticized for being one dimensional. But, as such, he could spread the defense. They knew he was going to hoist a three whenever he had a chance. So if they wanted to defend him, they had to go out and met him at the arc. Peja's one-dimensional nature caused the defense to spread.

            The guys we are talking about now in the forecourt (JO, Harrington, Granger) plus Wells are more multi-dimensional. They can maybe shoot from 15-18 feet. But they can for sure go inside. So the defenses can play them differently -- collapse on them and dare them to shoot. It would help the forecourt players if there was still some serious perimeter threat -- even a one-dimensional one.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Will we improve scoring?

              Danny's 3pt% for his rookie year surpasses Peja's rookies 3pt%, and Peja had been playing at a much higher level for longer than Danny had.

              Danny is no slouch when it comes to outside shooting. He might not ever be come on par with Peja, but he'll be in the same vicinity.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Will we improve scoring?

                The answer for all our troubles would be to bring in Damon Jones, Phil Jackson, and run the triangle. Problem solved.

                and yes, I'm kidding. I think...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Will we improve scoring?

                  Originally posted by Since86
                  Al + Bonzi + JO is still better than Foster + Jackson + JO.

                  The same problem is still there, but you'll get a lot more production from Al than Foster and that's the big selling point.
                  It might be better, but it sure is predictable and easy to defend aswell as costing as a TON more. I rather get a good SG with that money and make sure we get some room for the players who play inside to be more effective.

                  Comparing Al with Foster makes no sense to me at all. They don't play the same position and this also means by default JO would have to play Center, something I am opposed to giving the way he seems to be breaking down the last two years in which he played major minutes at Center.

                  We better keep JO from breaking down with that contract of his.

                  And that Bonzi is a slightly better or worse 3PT% shooter then or current starting SG means absolutely nothing to me as people want him out, partially because of some of his bad shooting and shot selection (which brings down his 3PT%) which isn't that good for a SG at all. So, Jackson is NOT the guy I would want our new SG to compare with.

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Will we improve scoring?

                    i have no problem signing bonzi if we intend to start him over DG at SF and then bring in a shooting 2 guard.

                    but we can't hold our hopes on starting bonzi at the 2 and granger at the 3. it just won't work. you need someone to keep the D honest at the 3 point line.

                    mike miller is a guy i have in mind.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Will we improve scoring?

                      Originally posted by Mourning
                      It might be better, but it sure is predictable and easy to defend aswell as costing as a TON more. I rather get a good SG with that money and make sure we get some room for the players who play inside to be more effective.
                      I would too, but at this point in time it's not looking like it will happen. I'm going with the theme of this thread, and that means looking at how the pieces will fit if we acquire Bonzi and Al.

                      Originally posted by Mourning
                      Comparing Al with Foster makes no sense to me at all. They don't play the same position and this also means by default JO would have to play Center, something I am opposed to giving the way he seems to be breaking down the last two years in which he played major minutes at Center.

                      We better keep JO from breaking down with that contract of his.
                      No they don't play the same position, but Al would replace Foster in the lineup. So for all intents and purposes, they need to be evaluated by each other. JO is going to play the same style whether he's matched up with the 4s or 5s, so the only thing that's going to change is his wingman.

                      Again, I'm also against JO playing center, but that's not the theme of this thread.

                      Originally posted by Mourning
                      And that Bonzi is a slightly better or worse 3PT% shooter then or current starting SG means absolutely nothing to me as people want him out, partially because of some of his bad shooting and shot selection (which brings down his 3PT%) which isn't that good for a SG at all. So, Jackson is NOT the guy I would want our new SG to compare with.

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      Jackson isn't who I want either, nor is Bonzi, but I don't have the power to change that. Bonzi is going to bring the same shooting as Jax, just with a different name, which is why I labeled Al being the bigger selling point in the offensive category than Foster.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Will we improve scoring?

                        Will we improve our scoring? Possiably. But that can be easily done by just picking the tempo up a bit.

                        Does anyone know our oppenants FG% from last year? That, IMO, is the telling of a good defenseive team. We already are a good rebounding team, which could change depending on moves, but if we can force missed shots and rebound we can run...improving our scoring.

                        If we sign Al we better not go sign Bonzi, I don't want 3 post scorers. Bonzi has only shot over 100 3s in 3 seasons And I also consider Danny Granger a guy who scores inside. Some of you may say well Danny can shoot the 3 and blah blah blah but the thing is that Danny is not as good at shooting it deep as he is at taking it in. I don't really want our top 4 scorers being players who do their scoring on the inside. We need to be balanced.

                        As someone has already mentioned Damon Jones and Mike Miller would be alright. Kyle Korver is another opition. Ricky Davis is not a great shooter but I think he is more perminter orianted than Bonzi.

                        To be honest thought we might be better off just keeping Stephen Jackson because the guys that would work would probably be difficult to get. And sure we can get Bonzi but I don't think he is a better fit than Stephen for this team.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Will we improve scoring?

                          In 2003-04, Al and Foster *WERE* the powerforwards. Jeff started and played 20 mpg, almost exclusively at PF. Al played 28 mpg off the bench, almost exclusively at PF. Al would play a few minutest per game at SF, but Jeff rarely played center.

                          Al and Jeff most certainly play the same position.

                          Let's take this one step further... Rick prefered Jeff at PF and JO at C over Al at PF and JO at C, at least in the starting lineup. Fred took almost all the backup SG minutes.

                          The frontcourt combination of Ron-Al-JO was almost never on the court together.

                          When Reggie sat down, the combination of Ron-Al-JO at 2-3-4 was also almost never on the court together.

                          Now, this could have been because the chemistry between Al and Ron was shaky - for the longest time that's where I thought the chemistry problem was (not a Ron-JO problem) (after all, Ron took over "Al's starting spot" while he was injured and on many teams that is a no-no.)

                          Regardless, if Rick is coaching this team we've already seen him coach away from a Ron-Al-JO trifecta. I can't imagine Rick designing an offense around a Bonzi-Al-JO combination, period. And if I could imagine such an offense, it would be extremely painful to watch.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Will we improve scoring?

                            Originally posted by Since86
                            I would too, but at this point in time it's not looking like it will happen. I'm going with the theme of this thread, and that means looking at how the pieces will fit if we acquire Bonzi and Al.

                            I rather waite until next year then to tie up some serious dollars then to tie them up for players who we don't need and are likely going to duplicate each other. I'm not one that is in favour of the standing pat motion of the last few years, but NOW is the time to do just that if the other option is getting players we don't need.


                            Originally posted by Since86
                            No they don't play the same position, but Al would replace Foster in the lineup. So for all intents and purposes, they need to be evaluated by each other. JO is going to play the same style whether he's matched up with the 4s or 5s, so the only thing that's going to change is his wingman.

                            Again, I'm also against JO playing center, but that's not the theme of this thread..
                            True, but JO playing center it IS the consequence of the choice you just made. That's one of the principal reasons I am against making that choice, even if it increases our offensive output.

                            Originally posted by Since86
                            Jackson isn't who I want either, nor is Bonzi, but I don't have the power to change that. Bonzi is going to bring the same shooting as Jax, just with a different name, which is why I labeled Al being the bigger selling point in the offensive category than Foster.
                            It's not about having the power to change it. We are just fans, but we can speculate, think, brain-storm and talk about it. Either way, one of the reasons we lost to New Jersey is that when Peja was out we didn't have ANY reliable 3point shooter on the team and lost the game.

                            Whether you replace Jackson with Bonzi won't change that outcome, so in effect we still have the same problem and will loose about the sameway, unless you think Al is going to completely breake everything open. I don't believe that. He could help some, but clodding the middle is very easy and difficult to break when you don't have someone who can really hurt the opponent for doing just that.

                            With the money on the line for Al or Bonzi (let stand both) there's no way we are going to really get a good SG IMO and also would create a potential chemistry disaster even if we would, because of limited playing time.

                            Regards,

                            Mourning
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Will we improve scoring?

                              Originally posted by Mourning
                              Whether you replace Jackson with Bonzi won't change that outcome, so in effect we still have the same problem and will loose about the sameway, unless you think Al is going to completely breake everything open. I don't believe that. He could help some, but clodding the middle is very easy and difficult to break when you don't have someone who can really hurt the opponent for doing just that.
                              I agree with out for the most part, but this is where we really part ways.

                              Foster and Al have to be measured with each other, since one would replace the other. Defensively not much would change, assignment wise, because JO is going to guard the heavier/strong post player and Foster would guard the quicker/smaller post players. TD would really be the only player that breaks the rule.

                              But anyways, are you really trying to say that Foster would open up the middle more than Al? Even if Al didn't leave the lane, EVER, he would command more respect from the defense than Foster does.

                              Foster is a good rebounder, don't get me wrong, but he gets atleast 2rebounds a night just because he misses bunny shots right at the rim and no one is even close to being around him to challenge for the rebound. Teams can literally let him shoot at point blank range.

                              Not only does Al command more attention in the paint than Jeff does, Al can also effectively step out and hit a jumpshot. No, that's not the mainstay of his game, but he's 1000 times deadly at 15ft than Foster can even dream of being.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X