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

  • #16
    Re: Will we improve scoring?

    Originally posted by Since86
    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.
    I just wanted to quote this again because nobody seems to be able to get it through their heads.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Will we improve scoring?

      Originally posted by Since86
      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.
      No, no that's not what I am saying at all, maybe I should have been more clearly. What I meant to say is that I rather spend the relatively little financial room we have on a SG who can open up the middle via his shooting than on Al (and/or Bonzi).

      Offcourse, Al is MUCH better offensively to Jeff and, for the record, I am not opposed to making Jeff part of a bigger trade package at all. But, I don't believe Al is going to have a better effect offensively compared to a good SG. IF we could get both, great. I don't believe we will though and I choose to prefer the SG to Al .

      Originally posted by Ev_eezy
      I just wanted to quote this again because nobody seems to be able to get it through their heads.
      How many shots did he take again?

      Could you even call that representative for beying a good 3-point shooter? I think he will be ok, maybe even a little better, but that's not going to be good enough. And I think his numbers will drop some when he has to shoot them a lot more (which is what I believe he would be ordered to do if we don't get someone else that could actually shoot the three), especially if teams really cover him once they realize he's one of our few players that can shoot the three a little.

      And to Jay. You are correct. Jeff did play a lot of PF when Al was around to. I do remember however that Rick tried a few times to place Ron-Al-Jo on the floor at the sametime and it didn't seem to work at all, maybe a bigger experiment was needed I don't know, but it didn't seem to work at the time. I remember beying a big advocate of it aswell.

      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


      • #18
        Re: Will we improve scoring?

        Gotcha.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Will we improve scoring?

          Originally posted by Mourning
          How many shots did he take again?

          Could you even call that representative for beying a good 3-point shooter? I think he will be ok, maybe even a little better, but that's not going to be good enough. And I think his numbers will drop some when he has to shoot them a lot more (which is what I believe he would be ordered to do if we don't get someone else that could actually shoot the three), especially if teams really cover him once they realize he's one of our few players that can shoot the three a little.
          He'll be better at driving to the basket next season, and he's a very good free-throw shooter and will get better. Soon, they'll have to pick their poison when it comes to Mr. Granger. We don't need an all-time great three point shooter, we just need someone that has the ability to hit the shot. That's what Granger is, that's what Jasikevicious is, hell even AJ could be put in that category, give us Al Harrington and he's there too. As of now Stephen Jackson can hit the shot now and then. I also hear Shawne Williams and James white aren't too bad at hitting jumpshots either.

          I mean, everybody thinks of run & gun ball and thinks we should be shooting 50 three's per game. WRONG, that's how we'll end up getting beat. If we get guys that are good at getting easy baskets, we'll be better off than the team that has to shoot a dozen three-pointers to keep up.

          Don't forget how much shooting three's hurt us in the playoffs against New Jersey. They used it to fuel their fast breaks and beat us up the court.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Will we improve scoring?

            Originally posted by rommie

            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.

            .

            44.4% Pacers FG%
            43.5% Opponent FG%

            This raises another issue.

            The Pacers took 230 fewer shots over the season than their opponents. That amounts to almost three extra shots per game. No other team had as wide a deficit in field goals attempted compared to their opponents. (Only Portland and Sacramento were close.)

            I think this was due to poor offensive rebounding. (Pacers were 8th in overall rebounding, but 16th in offensive rebounding) Many possessions, the Pacers would run back upcourt as soon as anyone shot, rather than trying for the bounce. It cost 'em.

            We also fouled too much and turned the ball over too much. Anybody see any improvement coming our way in those factors due to Bonzi, Al, Flight or Shawne?
            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


            • #21
              Re: Will we improve scoring?

              Originally posted by Putnam
              44.4% Pacers FG%
              43.5% Opponent FG%

              This raises another issue.

              The Pacers took 230 fewer shots over the season than their opponents. That amounts to almost three extra shots per game. No other team had as wide a deficit in field goals attempted compared to their opponents. (Only Portland and Sacramento were close.)

              I think this was due to poor offensive rebounding. (Pacers were 8th in overall rebounding, but 16th in offensive rebounding) Many possessions, the Pacers would run back upcourt as soon as anyone shot, rather than trying for the bounce. It cost 'em.

              We also fouled too much and turned the ball over too much. Anybody see any improvement coming our way in those factors due to Bonzi, Al, Flight or Shawne?
              This was not a issue with the players, this is a result of Rick chewing out any player that is not back on D. It is safer on a rick coached team to not go for the offensive board and get back on D everytime.
              Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
              http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Will we improve scoring?

                Originally posted by Ev_eezy
                He'll be better at driving to the basket next season, and he's a very good free-throw shooter and will get better. Soon, they'll have to pick their poison when it comes to Mr. Granger. We don't need an all-time great three point shooter, we just need someone that has the ability to hit the shot. That's what Granger is, that's what Jasikevicious is, hell even AJ could be put in that category, give us Al Harrington and he's there too. As of now Stephen Jackson can hit the shot now and then. I also hear Shawne Williams and James white aren't too bad at hitting jumpshots either.

                I mean, everybody thinks of run & gun ball and thinks we should be shooting 50 three's per game. WRONG, that's how we'll end up getting beat. If we get guys that are good at getting easy baskets, we'll be better off than the team that has to shoot a dozen three-pointers to keep up.

                Don't forget how much shooting three's hurt us in the playoffs against New Jersey. They used it to fuel their fast breaks and beat us up the court.
                Where did I ever write we should be a jump shooting team that shoots 50 three's a game, that's ridiculous. I'm also not saying we need a all-time great SG. But, we do need something better at knocking down open shots when the opponent is filling the middle.

                You NEED a good three point shooter wether you like it or not. You need the threat such a player creates to make it miles easier for other players to slash to the basket or work in the middle at all instead of beying constantly double or tripple teamed.

                We saw what happenned in the NJ-series when our only consistent outside threat didn't play.
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Will we improve scoring?

                  Originally posted by FrenchConnection
                  This was not a issue with the players, this is a result of Rick chewing out any player that is not back on D. It is safer on a rick coached team to not go for the offensive board and get back on D everytime.

                  You are absolutely right. The coaching style has to be considered, too. It is not just a question of talent. Thanks.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: Will we improve scoring?

                    Originally posted by Ev_eezy
                    I mean, everybody thinks of run & gun ball and thinks we should be shooting 50 three's per game. WRONG, that's how we'll end up getting beat. If we get guys that are good at getting easy baskets, we'll be better off than the team that has to shoot a dozen three-pointers to keep up.

                    Don't forget how much shooting three's hurt us in the playoffs against New Jersey. They used it to fuel their fast breaks and beat us up the court.
                    Preach it, brother!
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Will we improve scoring?

                      I'm actually hoping that we get an outside threat in body of a PG. I know that spot already has 3 players trying to get some PT, but hopefully some will be packaged out.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Will we improve scoring?

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                        Preach it, brother!
                        Ok, why do you think we shot as many 3-point shots as we did? And why did we only win the games when Peja was in? Maybe has anything to do with trying to open up the middle for JO a little more, but it not working when Peja wasn't there, because nobody else could consistently knock those shots down, hence the high number of 3-point shots and the large numbers of fast breaks (because of the misses). Sure, Jeff beying totally obsolete offensively didn't help either.

                        A good 3-point threat wouldn't have to shoot as many and hence we also wouldn't be getting as many fast brakes against aswell as giving JO more room and/or the other player at the wing to slash inside or shoot from mid-range.

                        So, sure, cool, let's just dump it into JO and AL and see them go to work while the others stand around do nothing and not ever shoot a three anymore, I mean if we are going to create caricatures of what I am saying like Ev_eezy just did I might aswell turn it around too.

                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: Will we improve scoring?

                          Okay, ignore his first sentence and focus on the last two:

                          If we get guys that are good at getting easy baskets, we'll be better off than the team that has to shoot a dozen three-pointers to keep up.
                          He's asking for guys that take (and hit) the high-percentage shot. The three-pointer is still a low-percentage shot for just about every player in the NBA. I'd rather find players with a great mid-range game. Al fits that mold. Live by the three, die by the three.

                          Don't forget how much shooting three's hurt us in the playoffs against New Jersey. They used it to fuel their fast breaks and beat us up the court.
                          That's exactly why the 1980s Lakers were champions and the 1980s Nuggets were not. The Lakers would "trick" you into taking a quick, long jumper and when you missed it -- SHOWTIME!!

                          The Nuggets, far too often, relied on the the three-pointer.

                          Do we need some guys that can shoot jumpers in order to spread the floor? Absolutely. But they can be role players, not necessarily the #2 option on offense.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Will we improve scoring?

                            Originally posted by Ev_eezy
                            I mean, everybody thinks of run & gun ball and thinks we should be shooting 50 three's per game. WRONG, that's how we'll end up getting beat. If we get guys that are good at getting easy baskets, we'll be better off than the team that has to shoot a dozen three-pointers to keep up.

                            Don't forget how much shooting three's hurt us in the playoffs against New Jersey. They used it to fuel their fast breaks and beat us up the court.
                            While you make a very good point that run and gun isn't about shooting 3s but it is about getting easier baskets.

                            Here is the thing though, you still need to have a balanced offense mainly because you will still have to score in the half court. Now is Bonzi/Granger/Al/JO really balanced? Not that replacing Bonzi with Jackson would be that much better though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Will we improve scoring?

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                              Okay, ignore his first sentence and focus on the last two:



                              He's asking for guys that take (and hit) the high-percentage shot. The three-pointer is still a low-percentage shot for just about every player in the NBA. I'd rather find players with a great mid-range game. Al fits that mold. Live by the three, die by the three.



                              That's exactly why the 1980s Lakers were champions and the 1980s Nuggets were not. The Lakers would "trick" you into taking a quick, long jumper and when you missed it -- SHOWTIME!!

                              The Nuggets, far too often, relied on the the three-pointer.

                              Do we need some guys that can shoot jumpers in order to spread the floor? Absolutely. But they can be role players, not necessarily the #2 option on offense.

                              Good points, I know. But, what I am saying is that I think we already have Danny that can take some really good shots closer to the basket at SF. I think David could help us tremendously this year with his power and short range percentage shots.

                              Again, I am not acquiring an extra offensive option at PF or SF either, but I rather not have Al, because I don't think he's as good defensively as some think he is, he looks too much for his own options, turns the ball over too much and isn't consistent enough IMO for the money that he's going to receive.

                              I think we would be better off getting a good PF/SF backup player (who wouldn't start grumbling when he doesn't start) and a good SG. Or preferably both.

                              Originally posted by rommie
                              While you make a very good point that run and gun isn't about shooting 3s but it is about getting easier baskets.

                              Here is the thing though, you still need to have a balanced offense mainly because you will still have to score in the half court. Now is Bonzi/Granger/Al/JO really balanced? Not that replacing Bonzi with Jackson would be that much better though.


                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: Will we improve scoring?

                                Marquis Daniels will help !!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X