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

Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

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

  • #31
    Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I would not be surprised if 90% of his shots were layups and dunks. Would anyone argue that it's at least 70% of his shots? Rarely does he take anything that isn't at the basket, be it a garbage putback, backdoor, whatever. Everything is at the hoop. And most of them would be mostly unchallenged since if he wasn't open at the hoop he wouldn't have the ball. Few and far between are his shots from farther out.

    Therefore, I'd argue that his percentages aren't all that good for a guy only taking supposedly the highest of percentage type shots.

    Maybe I'm wrong...

    -Bball
    He doesn't get many open shots, in fact most of his offensive rebound putbacks are very challenged.

    I thought it would be interesting to see what other similar type players shoot. These are just their career averages FG%.

    Bo Outlaw - 56%
    Ben Wallace 48%
    Danny Fortson - 47%
    Dale Davis - 53%

    Bo Outlaw is probably most like Jeff. My only point is shooting around 55% for the type of shots Jeff gets is not out of line with other players who get similar shots. Bball to hear you describe the shots that Jeff gets you would think he should shoot 70%, but no one does that.

    Let me make one other point that I've been making for years. So many of you say that Jeff is never guarded. That is only partially true. Sure he's not guarded 15 feet from the basket. But he sure is guarded near the basket and as soon as the ball is shot teams scramble to block Jeff out. The Nets often had two guys on Jeff in rebounding situations. Jeff is gameplanned against and the few times he isn't he gets 16-18 rebounds.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

      Originally posted by able
      nay matter, you have my blessing upload away
      Okay, over at Yahoo instead where you have to download each to have full resolution. Just a shot of the arena outside and in to give an idea of how dead it was and how much there wasn't about to be a Harrington announcement.

      Then 3 of Foster. I didn't want to linger and didn't bring the 80-200mm to get in close. Plus, while it was overcast I still was catching a big reflection obviously.

      http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lilset...?.dir=/851ascd

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

        Many thanks to Uncle Buck for looking up Foster's stats from the past few years. Perhaps I was biased by what I perceived to be a tailing off toward the latter part of the past season. It just seemed that whenever I watched games during the latter half of the season, he just wasn't doing that well offensively, but especially at the line.

        I'm not saying that the guy does not practice or does not work hard in the offseason, but there are many athletes, both stars and "commons" (as we refer to them in the sports card collecting arena) that are or were noted for their work ethic during the offseason. I guess if I heard that he'd spent all off-season practicing his free throws, I would be content. People should always want to get better in what they are doing, whether you are a doctor, lawyer, bricklayer or basketball player.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

          It really bugs me when people ***** about Jeff not being able to score and how he should have some kind of offenseive weapon by now. Anyone ever heard of a role player? One who plays best WITHOUT the ball? No he isn't Brad Miller or Bill Laimbeer or some offenseively gifted center. Jeff Foster is Jeff Foster and that is a blue coller worker. One who hustles his *** off which leads to many many rebounds. Not a bad defender but he is limited to how well he can defend due to lack of great size and strength for his position.

          I think Jeff gets a lot of crap for not being able to shoot/score due to the fact that he replaced Brad and Brad was a complament to Jermaine. No Jeff is not Brad but Jeff is still not a bad player to have starting regardless of his lack of offenseive game.

          Jeff is a roleplayer and let me spell out for you r-o-l-e-p-l-a-y-e-r and so I hope you know that this means that he isn't an all star and most roleplayers are not complete players but they are still good. I actually like having a guy like Jeff playing next to Jermaine because I am a big believer in team chemistry and players having roles....which means I don't like a team with a bunch of players who need the ball in their hands to play well and contribute. Jeff doesn't need the ball.

          People should really think that if Jeff was a more polished player offenseively you probably wouldn't see as much hustle or rebounding out of him. It's much easier to focus on a couple of things on the court as opposed to several things. I found this out from just playing pickup games. I was a pretty good defender and I could rebound well despite my lack of height but over the years I wanted to score more and be able to shoot, I looked for my shot more. Well that made me loose my focus on defense (i had less energy to use there and such) and I was not getting rebounds either because I was more concerned with scroing. This happened to me and I observed this myself playing stupid pickup games with friends. I bet you the odds are something similar would happen to Jeff. You may laugh at this paragraphy but it's true.

          To put it simple if Jeff developed an offenseive game he is likely to be less productive in the defense/rebounding/hustle department.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

            My point was that nobody was getting the ball to Foster and expecting him to carve out a basket so he's not shooting into a defense trying to stop him. And he doesn't take hardly any shots that aren't at the rim so that isn't going to drive his percentage down (shots from outside). Mostly, he beats his man/somebody loses/ignores him and he gets a pass for an open layup/dunk or he's getting a putback off of someone elses miss. I don't remember many of those being highly contested. Maybe there's a scrum for the rebound but that's only part of it. Not every Foster basket attempt is a putback.

            And while you may not consider him wide open, he certainly has gotten enough daylight to make layups and missed them more than most... leaving fans shaking their heads on how he missed the bunny...again.

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Jeff is gameplanned against and the few times he isn't he gets 16-18 rebounds.
              Case in point, Jeff went for 20 rebounds in the win at Detroit in 2005 game 2. Game 3 they made a better effort but he still grabbed 13 so they really clamped down and made and effort to reduce his impact even further, which helped swing the series back to their control.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                Role players are all-around players that accept a role.

                Role players are not one-dimensional players.

                I always argued that Dale Davis was such a bad shooter that he could only hit 50% of his putbacks and dunks.

                Haven't you guy seen the threads I'll occasionally post after an 'alleged' good rebouding game.

                There was one game a couple seasons ago in which Jeff was 2-10 with seven offensive rebounds. And every offensive rebound except one came from rebounding his own miss.

                One should subtract missed-putbacks from the offensive rebounding totals for a guy like Foster who stuffs his own stat sheet because of his ineptness at finishing the play.

                When Jeff remembers that he can't finish and gives the ball back to the PG to re-set the offense, that's about the only time his offensive rebounds even mean anything. Other than getting the fans pumped up with a false sense of hope because he's giving 'great effort.' Followed by an exasperates sigh when the other team finally controls on of his misses.
                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


                • #38
                  Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204 View Post
                  Role players are all-around players that accept a role.

                  Role players are not one-dimensional players.
                  Wrong.

                  Role players don't have to be able to defend, shoot, rebound, pass, etc. They can but few do.

                  Please name some role plays for me that are complete players...and i'm talking about PF/C players and not SG/SFs. I'd like to see that list because off the top of my head I don't think that would be a long list at all.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                    I think what Jeff suffers from is a lack of confidence. Watch him in preseason, he takes a few of those short jumpers and hits a surprising amount of them. It's like he views the jumper as something for screwing around with before the season starts or something. The fact that his form is good combined with his history as a guard in HS only reinforces this idea for me. I think Jeff Foster will start hitting jumpers when Jeff Foster decides that he can hit it and doesn't care what JO thinks about him taking some of his shots

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                      Originally posted by rommie View Post
                      Wrong.

                      Role players don't have to be able to defend, shoot, rebound, pass, etc. They can but few do.

                      Please name some role plays for me that are complete players...and i'm talking about PF/C players and not SG/SFs. I'd like to see that list because off the top of my head I don't think that would be a long list at all.
                      I'd rather go the other direction - name some one-dimensional players that are championship-caliber role players.

                      I can only think of one - Ben Wallace. IMO, Rodman was much more versatile but made a conscious effort to focus on just two or three things.

                      In other words, if you've got a one-dimensional role player they pretty much need to be the very best in the league at doing what they do (if not one of the very best of all time at doing what they do.)

                      Joe Smith, Derrick McKey, Ron Harper, and Danny Manning are great examples of what I want a role player to be. Guys that can do it all but make sacrifices. Even Danny Ferry and Steve Kerr fit that bill, as younger players against less-athletic competition they could 'do it all'.

                      Hell, look at Miami's role players this season. Walker - for all his annoying-ness, is very, very versatile. I've thought Posey was a poor-man's Derrick McKey since his days in Denver. He doesn't do any one thing great, and his primary job is toughness and defense, but he can do many other things. Gary Payton was really just a role player at this stage of his career. And the DWade fans would even argue that Shaq was nothing more than a role player at this stage of his career, too. And yes, it took a motivational master like Pat Riley to get them all to accept their roles.

                      The difference is, when you take a player like Ron Harper and force him out of his "role", he is not a liability to his team. He could score in bunches if he wanted to, and proved it in Cleveland and LA, but in Chicago he was most famous for his defense.

                      As we've seen Detroit do to Foster many teams, he can be 'gameplanned' right out of a playoff series whenever they wanted to. How can you 'gameplan' a role player off the court? Exploit the fact that they are one dimensional.

                      If you heard me out, I realize I didn't answer your question. I don't have a list of (current) big-man role players on the top of my head. I'd have to watch some games. But I'm happy to revisit this discussion during the season.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204 View Post
                        The difference is, when you take a player like Ron Harper and force him out of his "role", he is not a liability to his team. He could score in bunches if he wanted to, and proved it in Cleveland and LA, but in Chicago he was most famous for his defense.
                        Harper was an elite scorer, entering into the NBA too. He was the MAC all-time scoring champ, until Bonzi came along.

                        Role players accept a role. They aren't pigeon-holed that role, because their lack of ability to do anything else.

                        There's a name for Jeff Foster, and it's called one-dimensional.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section204 View Post
                          If you heard me out, I realize I didn't answer your question. I don't have a list of (current) big-man role players on the top of my head. I'd have to watch some games. But I'm happy to revisit this discussion during the season.

                          I agree with Jay here, mostly. Bruce Bowen is one example of a truly "one-dimensional" role player (defense) that is effective. But there really aren't that many. And even he can hit a baseline three when he's open.

                          Even the people you might think of as "specialists" like Robert Horry, Raja Bell or Lindsey Hunter are very capable in other aspects of the game. They just choose to do what it is that their team needs. If you are indeed a "specialist" like Foster is, then you need to be damned good at that specialty in order to have much of a real impact on your team's W/L record. Even specialist's on the level of Tyson Chandler aren't really impacting the game all that much. You really need to be a Dikembe, Steve Kerr or Dennis Rodman level of excellence at one thing if you are one dimensional to really be a big asset to your team, IMO.

                          Other good role players of the "Ron Harper" mold that jump to mind are Dan Marjele, Toni Kukoc, Xavier McDaniel, Anthony Mason and Gerald Wilkens. These guys were all complete players that sacrificed parts of their game in order for the team to suceed.

                          As for current Bigs that fit this mold, I'd say Udonis Haslem is the posterboy. He brings everything to the table that Jeff does--grittiness, rebounding, tenacity, toughness--but can also hit the jumper and score on occasion out of the post. He is also a capable passer and someone you can include in a screen/roll.

                          Other versatile big men role players:

                          Drew Gooden
                          Erick Dampier
                          Kurt Thomas
                          Juwan Howard
                          PJ Brown
                          Jamal Magloire
                          Malik Rose
                          Ryan Gomes
                          Matt Harpring
                          Nick Collison
                          Darius Songalia
                          Kenny Thomas
                          Luke Walton
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                            Jay - your whole premise is just wrong. First of all Jeff is not one-dimensional. Unless you consider defense, rebounding and all out 100% hustle as one-dimensional. In fact Jeff has two more dimensions than several NBA players.

                            Oh and the all out hustle thing is a real skill, very few players do it, very few players can do it and even fewer choose to do it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Jay - your whole premise is just wrong. First of all Jeff is not one-dimensional. Unless you consider defense, rebounding and all out 100% hustle as one-dimensional. In fact Jeff has two more dimensions than several NBA players.

                              Oh and the all out hustle thing is a real skill, very few players do it, very few players can do it and even fewer choose to do it.
                              I believe you were talking to the other Jay, but I for one don't consider all out hustle a major skill. It's a plus, but it's not something that should have you starting in the NBA. Eduardo Najera, Brian Scalabrine and Eddie House also give you all-out hustle whenever they are on the court. It doesn't mean they are bringing extra Wins to their teams. It means it's something they have to do every minute that they are on the court in order to continue getting an NBA paycheck. They can't get by on talent because they don't have much.

                              Is that better than the reverse type of player? The Tim Thomas syndrome? Yes, probably. But a below-average talent that tries as hard as possible to make himself an average-talent is still an average NBA player. It looks better than an above-average talent like Tim Thomas playing lackidasically to become a average player, but the end result is the same: Average. Or mediocre if you prefer the term.

                              His defense is nothing special either. More mediocrity.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Why Hasn’t Foster Developed Offensive Game? Q.O.D 8-14-06

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Jay - your whole premise is just wrong. First of all Jeff is not one-dimensional. Unless you consider defense, rebounding and all out 100% hustle as one-dimensional. In fact Jeff has two more dimensions than several NBA players.

                                Oh and the all out hustle thing is a real skill, very few players do it, very few players can do it and even fewer choose to do it.
                                There are very few players Foster actually matches up with. It just happens that one of those is considered the leagues best PF.

                                Everything he does is pure hustle, and that's his dimension. He's not a good "rebounder," because fundamentally he's awful at it. He's too weak to guard post players, and not capable to guard smaller/quicker players.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X