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

Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    The thinking is that Quis at PG will make the lineup bigger because then you have everyone shifting down with either Foster, a good rebounder, or Harrison, a good box-outer in the lineup.
    For me, whether it be in the suggested "jumbo" package lineup change or in any combination, it's not so much Quis being bigger.

    While that may be an advantage in some contexts. I think the most important issue is trying to upgrade the very evident defensive deficiencies we have there currently. Our entire defense is severely compromised by constant penetration we are allowing opposing PGs.

    JT's offensive and play making strengths may prove more effective matched against opponent second-tier points. Hopefully conversely his defensive struggles would not be as readily exploited.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
      For me, whether it be in the suggested "jumbo" package lineup change or in any combination, it's not so much Quis being bigger.

      While that may be an advantage in some contexts. I think the most important issue is trying to upgrade the very evident defensive deficiencies we have there currently. Our entire defense is severely compromised by constant penetration we are allowing opposing PGs.

      JT's offensive and play making strengths may prove more effective matched against opponent second-tier points. Hopefully conversely his defensive struggles would not be as readily exploited.
      This is part of my thinking, absolutely.

      I also believe this helps create mismatches offensively we can exploit in the half court. Either Daniels or Granger would have to be guarded by a much smaller man, giving our starters another mismatch to try and exploit.

      Daniels has been one of our more consistent and effective players, putting him at the point increases his minutes at one of our weakest spots without sacrificing the playing time of Granger/Jackson/Harrington much.

      Think of it this way: lots of times we have 4 of this group in the game :

      JO, Harrington, Granger, Jackson, and Daniels.

      Now, add a 5th player to the group....would you rather add a bigger guy or a smaller one? Im saying add a bigger, physical, and tougher player instead of primarily playing someone smaller.

      JMO

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

        I really like the jumbo lineup idea. but i would change harrison out for foster so, one, we don't get into early foul trouble. two, we would probably grab more rebounds. and three, instead of having a really slow half-court offense with this lineup...we could maybe just maybe start to get into an uptempo style of play with some fast break points off of the much needed rebounds we would be getting. Just a thought though.
        I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

          Nice idea, but it will work only against slow and big lineups.
          Now when most team are switching to 3-4 guards and fast play this lineup will be beaten on the steal and fast breaks too much. Also the PG is necessary to create some ball movement or you will go to ISO sets.

          IMO this team lives and dies with one position - PG. When anybody of Tins, Saras and Armstrong troika has a good game we are winning. They are the key. When team moves the ball we are winning. I would go to other extrema: I would put Saras/Armstrong together on the court for 20 minutes per game. It was the best thing that happened to Pacers so far in this season (agree?) and we have to explore this direction.
          Yours truly,
          Israfan, former Lithfan

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

            agree
            Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
              This is part of my thinking, absolutely.

              I also believe this helps create mismatches offensively we can exploit in the half court. Either Daniels or Granger would have to be guarded by a much smaller man, giving our starters another mismatch to try and exploit.

              Daniels has been one of our more consistent and effective players, putting him at the point increases his minutes at one of our weakest spots without sacrificing the playing time of Granger/Jackson/Harrington much.

              Think of it this way: lots of times we have 4 of this group in the game :

              JO, Harrington, Granger, Jackson, and Daniels.

              Now, add a 5th player to the group....would you rather add a bigger guy or a smaller one? Im saying add a bigger, physical, and tougher player instead of primarily playing someone smaller.

              JMO
              I agree. Otherwise we lose on boards big time and have little chance of winning. This is particularly true since Granger is emerging as one of our more important perimeter threats. This should start getting obvious to everyone soon.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                Originally posted by Seed View Post
                Baston is no center. He is a lean, athletic PF.
                He's the smallest big on the team in fact and frankly no more talented than Powell. I like him as a player, seems like a good guy, but anyone putting stock in him being this big bump for the team is in for a letdown I think.

                We are missing a clear second star player
                T-bird, Al and JO both still play for the Pacers, right? Right now Al has been having the better year perhaps, and JO just missed a triple-double last night and is an NBA leader in shots blocked. They've got 2 stars and both can score from inside to medium. Heck, Al can even knock down the 3.


                They only lack clearly in 2 ways as a team IMO. PG play, huge issue. Outside shooting, mild issue.

                The main problem away from that has been more of construction of the team, how guys interact on the court. And that still looks a lot more like "but I thought you were..." than a lack of talent outright.

                Rick and the players are still figuring out how to make this massively different roster function and how to take advantage of newly acquired talents.

                People want Daniels to play PG, and I have said before that he can play it well enough to cover if they get in trouble. BUT I've watched him in several different games get crossed over pretty hard and it wasn't a PG doing it. He's a backup that you can swing to PG IF NEEDED, but he's not a PG starting answer. Greene is more that than Daniels is.


                The team has had many slow starts and to me that looks like that part of the game most planned out (naturally). I think the problem is that RC hasn't found the playbook makeup that works with this group, nor the rotation he's comfortable with.

                He's tried to repeat the "Sarunas magic" from the first game, brought him in the exact same way and asked him to repeat his output, and then it doesn't happen. He watched 2 games where Al looked worthless and then suddenly has a scoring machine. JO was hot, then cold, and appears to be finding his shot again.

                So you have new faces, player games that are jumping all over the place, and just a lot of dust still settling. I really think looking at the season so far and thinking it's a matter of a big overhaul is wrong.

                That will not fix the PG play, it won't make Jack a better shooter (he chucked MORE from the bench last night than he had total in several games in a row as a starter), and it sure won't find the on-court chemistry.


                After all, wasn't last night with no Al, Jeff and Daniels starting, and Jack on the bench what might be considered a major change? And they were still down 17 very early after the subs had rotated in for many minutes (Tins was the first to leave and it was only a 9 point hole, so it continued to get worse with the bench players too).

                The team adjusted the defense a little, went to JO more in the post, and honestly guys started hitting shots and making some better plays. The lineup overhaul didn't get them the win anymore than it got them way behind early on.


                B. If you can't get a defensive rebound and outlet the ball.
                If you saw the game then you know the Pacers were much better on the glass than they have been, yet were struggling most of the night to match MIL in transition scoring. I think at one point they were down 14-2 on transition scores.

                The running game has been iffy because it's new to several guys, they force it at times, and honestly the last 2 years I had been saying they weren't very good in transition offense. They have struggled to space their breaks. Last night they had another where they got the score after a ball fumbling awkward toss back bounced to Tinsley who hit a standing still baby hook...not a layup coming off the run. ie, ugly.

                Too much PG penetration has led to more inside attempts from other teams, so fewer long rebounds and definitely fewer turnovers on the outside. Add that to them not really being good at running (yet, hopefully it gets better) and it's just going to be a hard road no matter what the lineup.

                IMO they might have to find their way back to a more comfortable style of play, one that isn't as up-tempo as they had hoped. They have several players who drive the ball well in the half court (Jack, Daniels, Armstrong, Tinsley) and some bigs that have enough range to space the HC sets. I strongly suspect that this will be where they finally settle in.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                  I like the idea of the jumbo lineup.

                  Jax's game is well suited to coming off the bench, where he will have a more prominent role.

                  Danny will have to work on his ball handling more if he is to play SG more often.

                  I think we need to find some minutes for Powell. His skill set compliments JO nicely.

                  You dont need to be a particularly athletic team to get fast break points. The Spurs are a good example of being an effective fast break team when the opportunities present themselves, without having an overly athletic lineup. I want to see a team that is efficient in both disrupting the opponents offense enough to cause some turnovers which lead to fast breaks and being able to run half court sets well enough when the break isn't there.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                    Seth:

                    While I agree with some of your points in general, I still think in a perfect world we still arent good enough playing the style and the personnel we are currently. I dont think my proposed solution will lead to a championship level either, but I do think it maximizes our personnel better.

                    On the comment I made about the Pacers not having a second star player, while I think Harrington is a nice player and good addition, I doubt very seriously that anyone considers him an elite star player, even you. As a player who is a classic "tweener" both in size and in style of play, you have to make a decision on where to primarily play him at, either as a bigger slower "power 3" or as a slightly undersized and finesse type "4 man". Ive watched him play previously and in this season, and I just think overall we are better playing bigger personnel around him.

                    No matter how we play our roster, we are not an elite championship quality team, but its all about maximizing what we do have until we can add some pieces to the puzzle. A better more dynamic perimeter player, a shooter or 2, and a big guy with a combination of the skill set of Dale davis and Brad Miller would be the ideal additions, but those guys arent exactly on the market or available. Until then, I think the players and style im recommending now fit our pieces together better than playing smaller and quicker lineups.

                    Reasonable minds can disagree of course.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                      ...while I think Harrington is a nice player and good addition, I doubt very seriously that anyone considers him an elite star player, even you.
                      Yes, amazingly he was never clearly the best player on the lowly Hawks over the last several years. Fatoine was just as good. Joe Johnson is clearly better.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                        Good post T-bird. I've thought about the "jumbo" lineup for the last week or so and I agree with everything you wrote.

                        Our biggest weaknesses right now IMO is being unable to stop dribble penetration and rebounding. Despite being drove on a few times Marquis seems to be our best on the ball defender. I thought he played well against Gilbert and Kidd in the short time he gaurded them. Danny has struggled some in this area of his game but is still very good. They both rebound the ball better than our current gaurd rotation so I think this lineup will help with both of my biggest concerns.

                        Our current starters arn't getting it done defensivly to start off games. We are consistantly getting torched in the first quarter letting the other teams gaurds penetrate the lane getting etiher layups or passing it out for wide open 3's. This has also led to our bigs getting in to some foul trouble. IMO I think Marquis and Danny are our to best options to stop this problem.

                        Offensivly our shooting should be improved with the emergence of Al and Danny's 3 point shooting and the usual high percentage shooting of Marquis.
                        Our bench should also be improved. Not many back-up gaurds could handle Jack on the low block and if Tinsleys playing he should have his way as well. Like you said we're in the bottom third of the league right now anyway in scoring so I'm not convinced it'll hurt our new "up-tempo" offense.

                        All in all I see no reason why we shouldn't try this. We're going nowhere with our current starters at the gaurd positions and never will IMO. Why not throw the young guys out there and see what they've got.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                          (I've just skimmed the thread for now)

                          I like the idea of playing Quis, Danny, JO, and Al together, whether we're doing it in a small lineup or a jumbo one. The only problem is, either way, we're lacking a key player. If Quis is at SG and JO is at C, we lack the sharp-shooting, play-making PG needed to make it work. If Quis is at PG and JO at PF, then we lack the real bruiser, quality C needed to make a jumbo lineup worthwhile.

                          I

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                            Marquis can't play the point for a long period of time.

                            Start Armstrong.
                            STARBURY

                            08 and Beyond

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                              I like the following starting lineup. PG, MD; SG, Jax and then Harrington , JO and foster. MD gives the team a more active up tempo player than Tinsley and Jax can also give us assists that Granger doesn't. Several teams do not play a true PG but get assists by committee. That can be done by having Jax and MD on the court at the same time. what's to lose. If that lineup can't work put tinsley back in and fall behnd as usual.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                                Good in theory.

                                But, I think I just heard a sniffle from Indy...I hear sinupoutitis is going around...

                                The two biggest problems are PG-play and outside shooting. Our PGs are inconsistent, and only pretend to play defense. They also compound the second problem of outside shooting. Our usual starting SG, Jackson, has plenty of well-documented issues. Our best 3-pt shooter is a guy that Larry Bird said shouldn't focus so much on 3-pt shooting. The next best is 93 years old, and about to retire.

                                A third, milder problem, is rebounding. We've had problems in this area, but I seem to remember a couple games where we didn't. No Peck, not just the games when Dale Davis was here, games this year. We have the players to do it, so it must be in either effort or scheme, and thus can be fixed.

                                I do like that jumbo lineup, but I tend to agree with Israfan in wanting Sarunas and Red Bull on the court together. And while I'm not a Tinsley fan, I don't think moving him to the bench is the right move. As poorly as he has played, Danny Granger has been nearly as bad. Send Danny back down with Jack moving to the 3. The lineup would look like this:

                                PG-Tinsley
                                SG-'Quis
                                SF-Jack
                                PF-JO
                                C-Al

                                I'm not in for big changes quite yet, but I would welcome this one. DG hasn't adjusted to starting, and I think playing with JO and Al hinders him more than coming off the bench behind them. Jackson is a much better SF than SG, IMO. His biggest strength is taking the ball to the hoop, because he's got good size and strength, and if he gets fouled is a decent free-throw shooter. Playing 'Quis with Tins is a defensive fix, but certainly doesn't address our shooting problem. JO and Al is tricky. JO is having a very good defensive season, while Al is having a good offensive season. Is that good or bad, though?

                                The bench would include Sarunas/Red Bull at the guard spots, Danny playing a more comfortable, defined role. Harrison plays his best with Sarunas, but Foster has been playing like a man possessed off the bench.

                                There is no quick fix, not on the roster. In my mind, our biggest problem is shooting. We can't consistently hit outside shots, and opposing teams know that. So they play zone, forcing us to take those shots, and it works well. When I see someone throw up a 3-pt shot, I have no confidence that it's going in, and that same feeling has to be hanging on the players as well, because it's how the opposition feels. There has to be something done more than roster changes, because the real solution is not currently on this roster.
                                It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X