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

Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

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

  • #46
    Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

    Please AJ went 16-23 from the field with some of those being 3 pointers. The odds that JO would have shot 16-23 are so freaking high its unbelievable plus he wouldn't have been hitting 3 pointers with them.

    I am sorry but we tried the pound it into JO method the 4th quarter we were down by 20. And if screwed us up. We cut the deficit to 8 IIRC, and then JO promptly turns the ball over of misses shots 4 straight possesions. JO does not come through in the clutch. Anthony Johnson was the guy that closed out our 2 victories not JO.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

      I guess we're talking about which way we'd rather have the season end.

      I'd rather go down with my big gun blazing.

      I'm not sure how much 1-on-three JO was going to face in that game. Foster didn't play. Croshere and Danny must be somewhat respected.

      JO was getting abused because he had to step too far out on the wing to catch the ball. Not because NJ was repeating the SVG triple-teams on him.

      Most of the time Cliff was guarding him straight up, but AJ still couldn't get him the ball close enough to the basket to be effective.

      Again, there probably was nothing we were going to do that night to win. Peja's absence hurt the team much more than AJ's play. Tinsley's absence hurt the team much more than AJ's play. For that matter, Saras' overall ineptness hurt the team much more than AJ's play because if Saras could've found a way to stay on the court during the last 8-10 weeks of the season (other than other player's injuries) then perhaps we *could've* gotten the ball to JO in better position.
      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


      • #48
        Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

        Originally posted by Destined4Greatness
        Please AJ went 16-23 from the field with some of those being 3 pointers. The odds that JO would have shot 16-23 are so freaking high its unbelievable plus he wouldn't have been hitting 3 pointers with them.
        You must've been really upset during JO's 12-15 (80%), 37-point game. How exactly did AJ close out that win?
        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


        • #49
          Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

          Originally posted by Peck
          Unbelievable. You are telling me that throwing the ball into O'Neal & watching him go one on three would have been a better option?

          Let's assume you are right here, which I do not believe you are, how many points in a best case scenario would J.O. have gotten? 40? 50? 100?

          My guess is about mid 30's.

          Then I'm sure you would say that the other players would have been open. Great, wonderfull.

          Jackson shot 20% from the field that game, you know the one game they actually had to coax him into playing.

          Croshere was 2-8 & 1-4 from three point range, yes by all means let's make sure he shoots more on that night.

          Fred Jones was 0% from the field. YES ZERO % from the field. Now he only shot the ball 4 times but half of those were from 3 point land. Maybe he should have shot more as well.

          Granger was the only other player other than O'neal & Johnson hitting & in all honesty how much more did you want the rookie shooting vs. one of the best defensive players at the sf. spot in the NBA.

          The idea of just throwing the ball down to O'Neal & watching him get abused by Clifford Robinson does not appeal to me.

          I think two things are in play here.

          1. Your hatred of Johnson has reached epic proportions.

          2. Your new found love of O'Neal has reached epic proportions.

          I just don't understand any of this. I feel as though I am in bizarro world reading how a guy who shot 16-23 from the floor hurt the team.

          I bet if Jamaal Tinsley would have had the same exact stats. as A.J. we would be reading how great he was.

          This is just unreal.
          Peck, you are my hero.

          I really wish I could write half as well as you do, since I was trying to make the latter point you just made in another thread and just couldnt put it together.

          Needless to say, I agree 100% with everything you just said.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
            You must've been really upset during JO's 12-15 (80%), 37-point game. How exactly did AJ close out that win?
            IIRC thats the only playoff game where JO has shot the ball more than 3 times and had a better percentage than 16-23. Considering he never even got past 16 shot attempts he wasn't pounding away to will the team to victory, he was playing a role and getting the shots every once in a while hardly dominating to will the team to victory.

            AJ fourth quarter of that game 13 points, 3 of which came from the FT line.
            JO fourth quarter of that game 8 points, 6 of which came from the FT Line.

            Now I am sorry but I can hit 6 of 6 FT's. So if a guy scores 8 points in a quarter and only 2 from the field, I will take the guy that actually shot the ball while contested over the guy that whined about the Officials before the game to get them to go easy on him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

              Jay,

              I'm a lot like Peck. Totally stymied. Basically because you are one of the most logical, analytical guys on the forum.

              So, I can only reach one conclusion.

              You're bored, need some entertainment, and decided to stir up the ***** a little. Right? You're actually f'n with us! Right?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                You must've been really upset during JO's 12-15 (80%), 37-point game. How exactly did AJ close out that win?
                Well, Johnson had 25 points and 8 assists in game 3. Not bad for a journeyman point guard being put into a tough position. But hey, I suppose Darrell Armstrong is a better fit. I think you'll be wishing Johnson was back when Tinsley missess his usual half of a season and 38 year old Armstrong has to play big minutes.

                And how many times has it happened when a guy has shot over 75% and got 30 points in a playoff time like JO did? A handful. It wasn't going to happen again in game 6. A shooting display like that happens once in a blue moon.

                I remember sportscenter at the time saying it happened something like 4 times. Jabbar and Wilt did it. To assume JO could have dominated like that in game 6 is ridiculous. JO's percentages are almost always in the 44-48 percent rage. He rarely breaks the 50 percent mark. If JO has a 55% shooting night, it's reason to be estatic. The bottom line is you go to who is hot. JO was hot in game 3. AJ was hot in game 6.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Kravitz} This team is making all the wrong moves

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  VA,

                  Who do you want taking more shots in an elimination game? AJ or JO?

                  There's a reason we lost, and AJ's inability to run the offense, and thus taking too many shots or giving the ball to JO 22-feet from the basket (and facing it) was a big contributor.

                  In fact, just think how badly we would've lost if he wasn't shooting lights-out.
                  AJ has always been a good shooter.
                  I would perfer AJ's shot selection and him pulling the trigger than I would have JO's. If JO was slashing to the basket getting fouled and shooting layups then I would take JO. Kristic & JO shot at about the same distance in that series. I would say Kristic is A better shooter. I like JO as A basketball player more than Kristic & AJ, but he has worse shot selection than both. It doesn't help the way it looks considering he has a worse shot than both as well.
                  1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
                  3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
                  5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
                  7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                    Originally posted by Adam1987
                    Well, Johnson had 25 points and 8 assists in game 3. Not bad for a journeyman point guard being put into a tough position. But hey, I suppose Darrell Armstrong is a better fit. I think you'll be wishing Johnson was back when Tinsley missess his usual half of a season and 38 year old Armstrong has to play big minutes.

                    And how many times has it happened when a guy has shot over 75% and got 30 points in a playoff time like JO did? A handful. It wasn't going to happen again in game 6. A shooting display like that happens once in a blue moon.

                    I remember sportscenter at the time saying it happened something like 4 times. Jabbar and Wilt did it. To assume JO could have dominated like that in game 6 is ridiculous. JO's percentages are almost always in the 44-48 percent rage. He rarely breaks the 50 percent mark. If JO has a 55% shooting night, it's reason to be estatic. The bottom line is you go to who is hot. JO was hot in game 3. AJ was hot in game 6.
                    QFT
                    Quoted For Truth
                    1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
                    3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
                    5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
                    7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                      Originally posted by Bball
                      It doesn't seem like too many have the game archived... altho I bet AJ does!
                      It's one I'm keeping. Haven't burned it yet, but I would pass a copy on to a fellow fan if it was just 2-3 people

                      I think Anthem said he had this one still too. I know the reason I kept it was because AJ was incredible. Remember the whole series was about attacking JO. They used Krstic and bad perimeter defense from the Pacers to go after JO from game 1 on. JO got the better of them one game and it was a disaster for them, so they increased their efforts.

                      I agree that Jack had the guts but not the ability to make good. His shooting was just awful and cost them the game (along with what the Nets were doing that is).

                      Maybe if, oh, TWO OF THE STARTERS weren't sitting on the bench (and I don't mean Tinsley) they might have put up a better fight in game 6.

                      Sure, we could blame the sitting Peja, Foster and Tinsley but its so much easier to blast the guy going for 40 on GOOD shooting.

                      Let's look at Points per Shot
                      AJ = 1.73
                      Granger = 1.63
                      JO = 1.50
                      no one else over 1.00

                      Now the way math works is this, if you have a certain number of FGAs, the way you get the MOST points total is by giving ALL your shots to the player with the highest PPS. The closer to that you come, the better your score will be.

                      1.50 PPS

                      That was the number that helped WADE get MVP of the Finals. I didn't hear people saying "they should have gone to Shaq if they wanted to win". What, Shaq isn't good? I don't give a if its Eddie Gill scoring at a rate like 1.73, you milk that till it runs dry.

                      He was 6 of 7 for 15 points in the 4th till the final 30 seconds.

                      And when it was 92-90 JO pulled down AJ's 2nd missed of the quarter and then this happened...
                      Richard Jefferson blocks Jermaine O'Neal's layup

                      So like Reggie in 03-04, the tying shot was at the rim in JO's hands and it was blocked.

                      I'd rather look at the DG/Jack/AC vs Jefferson/Vince/Krstic matchup...not looking so good at either end, and Fred in the late 4th wasn't helping a lot either.


                      To assume JO could have dominated like that in game 6 is ridiculous.
                      At RATS I pointed out that you have to be as good as Wilt and Jabbar's greatest nights just for Pacers fans to stop saying you suck.

                      That is the issue here. The team had lots of problems, but JO game 3 and AJ game 6 weren't them, nor should those nights be considered anything less than spectacular.

                      Guess what, Reggie had monster nights when the TEAM lost. Guess Reggie should have learned to pass the ball instead of hogging it.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204

                        In an elimination game, I want my "go to" guy (JO) to take (1) the most shots, (2) considerably more than his season/ playoff average. Not a journeyman backup forced into a starting position because of injury that happens to get hot.



                        You keep repeating this point over and over. In average circumstances, everyone would agree with you. If the choice is between giving the ball to an average game JO or an average game AJ, the choice is obviously JO. But these weren't average circumstances. AJ was a red hot 70% in that game, which is not average for him, or any other player for that matter. If a guy can hit 70% of his shots, then you let him take the shots. Why dump it into JO, who consistantly shoots 44-48% instead?

                        It's rare for a guy to have a shooting display like JO did in game 3. It's rare for a guy to have one like AJ did in game 6. They were both hot, they both deserved the ball in those games.

                        There have been alot of times in the playoffs where average players pick up the torch and have big games. Maybe this is a bad example, but remember when old man Steve Smith got hot in the playoffs for the Hornets against the Heat in 04? Was Smith the go to guy? No way, Baron Davis was. But Smith had the hot hand, hence he kept getting the ball and scoring.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                          Originally posted by Adam1987
                          You keep repeating this point over and over. In average circumstances, everyone would agree with you. If the choice is between giving the ball to an average game JO or an average game AJ, the choice is obviously JO. But these weren't average circumstances. AJ was a red hot 70% in that game, which is not average for him, or any other player for that matter. If a guy can hit 70% of his shots, then you let him take the shots. Why dump it into JO, who consistantly shoots 44-48% instead?

                          It's rare for a guy to have a shooting display like JO did in game 3. It's rare for a guy to have one like AJ did in game 6. They were both hot, they both deserved the ball in those games.

                          There have been alot of times in the playoffs where average players pick up the torch and have big games. Maybe this is a bad example, but remember when old man Steve Smith got hot in the playoffs for the Hornets against the Heat in 04? Was Smith the go to guy? No way, Baron Davis was. But Smith had the hot hand, hence he kept getting the ball and scoring.
                          Plus Rik Smits vs the Magic. His logic says it should have gone to Reggie again, but instead it was Rik and his fake on Tree gave the Pacers a victory.

                          Should I really get into Kukoc 98 Game 7 4th quarter on a team with Jordan and Pippen. How about Paxson, or Kerr, or Horry? Manu in the 4th over Duncan? Terry over Dirk?

                          There is an endless list of role players or 2nd/3rd options getting clutch shots or coming up with big stretches to win a game that the "star" contributed to but did not dominate.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                            Everyone Keeps saying its deffinitly not AJs fault or it is AJs fault .... yes AJ scored 40 points yes he was hot ..... but hes a PG ... a PGs job is to feed people with shots that they can make and execute plays ..... he didnt do that .... so many times down the floor istead of stopping up and calling for a pick and roll or trying to draw pressure off J.O and feed him went for tha running jumper of his ...

                            Im not saying i agree completly with Jay ... you cant deny he score points... but ild have liked to have seen some more team ball in that game opening things up for J.O .... Its quite easy to stop one guy in the paint but its even easier if you know theres only one other guy on the team thats gunna be in a position to score!

                            I dont think its "his fault" we lost byut i do think some accountability has to given to a PG who clearly couldnt feed the players as he should!
                            'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
                            Animal Farm, by George Orwell

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                              Originally posted by The Hustler
                              Everyone Keeps saying its deffinitly not AJs fault or it is AJs fault .... yes AJ scored 40 points yes he was hot ..... but hes a PG ... a PGs job is to feed people with shots that they can make and execute plays .....
                              Nope. A PG's job is to run the offense. He can't even execute plays unless he's the only guy involved in plays (very few called plays happen in a game anyway - generally it just involves sets). And if the best chance of scoring on a given possession is him, then it's his responsibility to take it.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Jay's AJ Rant (taken from the Kravitz thread)

                                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                                Nope. A PG's job is to run the offense. He can't even execute plays unless he's the only guy involved in plays (very few called plays happen in a game anyway - generally it just involves sets). And if the best chance of scoring on a given possession is him, then it's his responsibility to take it.
                                What i mean is its the PGs job to find that shot within a set ... find the guy that gunna take and make a shot the highest percentage shot available ... he has to find "the best chance of scoring" ... agreed that sometimes is him ... but lets be honest AJ isnt exactly a proven high percentage clutch shooter ...
                                'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
                                Animal Farm, by George Orwell

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X