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

Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

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

  • #16
    Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

    Originally posted by Peck

    I don't think you gave Jeff Foster enough or any credit for that game. IMO, the key to this game was Fosters defense of Randolph.

    That may have been the single greatest defensive game I've ever seen Jeff play.

    He went toe to toe with Zach, who is like a bull, & didn't give a inch. That is the defense I want to see every game from him. He wasn't finesse at all, this was actually a power defense that I am not used to seeing him play.

    Also I know if you didn't watch the game and only look at the box score you will think that Baston stunk & even if you did watch you might have shaken your head at a couple of plays. But overall I thought he came in & did a very good job considering he only played 13 min. prior to tonight, all at garbage time. He was physical & man does the guy cover a lot of ground in a hurry.

    This is nothing like the Baston I remember from the Raptors.
    I thought Jeff's defense was fabulous - but then I always think it is (at least when he doesn't get into foul trouble). I too thought Baston came in a did a good job - it makes a diffeence him being 31 years old as vs 21.


    I thought overall Granger looked freed up and was much more active offensively. His offensive game is going to take off when he's in there with Saras, DA and Daniels.


    There was a time last night when I looked on the floor and I loved how we were playing and I loved who was out there. I meant to make a mental note about who was on the floor - but I didn't - I think it was Saras, DA, Granger, JO and someone else, but I forget.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      There was a time last night when I looked on the floor and I loved how we were playing and I loved who was out there. I meant to make a mental note about who was on the floor - but I didn't - I think it was Saras, DA, Granger, JO and someone else, but I forget.
      I'm guessing the 5th was Foster. Our top5 +- performers by hazard

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

        Originally posted by Seed View Post
        I'm guessing the 5th was Foster. Our top5 +- performers by hazard
        I think you are correct - it was

        DA, Saras, Granger, Foster, JO.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

          Originally posted by rcarey View Post
          I mentioned in my Toronto game report that Rick pulled Tinsley in the 4th quarter with about 5:00 to go, and replaced him with the DA/Saras combination.

          Is this a trend we can expect to continue in the 4th quarter of games?
          Maybe in the first quarter too.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

            Originally posted by rcarey View Post
            I mentioned in my Toronto game report that Rick pulled Tinsley in the 4th quarter with about 5:00 to go, and replaced him with the DA/Saras combination.

            Is this a trend we can expect to continue in the 4th quarter of games?


            Rick has been a coach with the Pacers for over 3 seasons - he has coached close to 300 games as Pacers coach, and I've seen everyone of those games but I've never seen him that upset before and I think he was upset with Tinsley. This was midway through the 3rd quarter when the Pacers had just given away their 11 point lead partially because Tinsley had a terrible turnover, took two really bad shots, and seemingly stopped playing any defense on Jack.

            Rick likes the combo of DA and Saras (it isn't that they are that good - but the impact they have on the team is striking to me). There will be times when Rick won't play Saras due to defensive maychups - but he likes those two guys playing together

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Rick has been a coach with the Pacers for over 3 seasons - he has coached close to 300 games as Pacers coach, and I've seen everyone of those games but I've never seen him that upset before and I think he was upset with Tinsley. This was midway through the 3rd quarter when the Pacers had just given away their 11 point lead partially because Tinsley had a terrible turnover, took two really bad shots, and seemingly stopped playing any defense on Jack.

              Rick likes the combo of DA and Saras (it isn't that they are that good - but the impact they have on the team is striking to me). There will be times when Rick won't play Saras due to defensive maychups - but he likes those two guys playing together
              The length some of you go through to paint the picture you want to see.... It amazes me no end.

              JT was sub'd in the 3rd with 4.01 to play in the quarter, during FT's as a results from a Jax foul, the last plays before that were a 3 by Al (5.48) JO Injured (5.22) airball Al (5.02 ) Jax score (4.22) foul Jax (4.01) Sara for Tins.
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                Originally posted by able View Post
                The length some of you go through to paint the picture you want to see.... It amazes me no end.

                JT was sub'd in the 3rd with 4.01 to play in the quarter, during FT's as a results from a Jax foul, the last plays before that were a 3 by Al (5.48) JO Injured (5.22) airball Al (5.02 ) Jax score (4.22) foul Jax (4.01) Sara for Tins.
                Rick was upset (I think at Tinsley) during a 20 second timeout - and JT was not taken out of the game at that point. I've never even hinted that Rick took Tinsley out of the game during the timeout.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                  Gotta go with able on this one, UB. The Pacers started the third up five, 51-46. When Tinsley subbed out with 4:01 left in the quarter, the Pacers were up three, 66-63. JO had already twisted his ankle at this point, and Randolph was on a tear.

                  We didn't lose the lead with Jamaal in the game.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                    Originally posted by Seed View Post
                    I'm guessing the 5th was Foster. Our top5 +- performers by hazard
                    I don't know about that considering how the Pacers went at the start of the game and in the early 3rd. Last I checked Pacers.com still had TOR +/- up.


                    BTW, speaking of +/-, I'm not big on comparing players of different game situations (bench vs starters basically), but what in the heck is up with HUGE difference in +/- for Harrington and Tinsley compared to JO and Granger? Jack saw some bench minutes so I can see how he might have gotten separated from them.

                    But you can't just blame slow starts since JO is in the game then too.


                    Could it be that once he was away from Wilt jr. he was able to get the ball & do something besides just stand at the three point line waiting on a pass out?
                    Um...he didn't do that. He did camp the 3 point line. And on top of that he still spent plenty of time on the court with JO.

                    Peck, you know that beyond the game tape, which I do have available, that the shooting chart also is easily accessable.

                    He had as many MISSES from at or just inside the arc as he did MAKES in the paint. One of his makes in the paint was the layup where he threw the ball DIRECTLY to Dixon. Dixon didn't "lose control" like Clark said at the time, he clearly thought he was going out of bounds and needed to save possession by throwing it off of Armstrong's leg. It bounced right back to Danny and he easily walked through the open court for a simply layup. Pure luck and a dumb play by Dixon. Another one of Danny's inside shots was with JO on the court at the end of the 4th when Danny had his shot at the rim stuffed in his face



                    Danny's first bucket - the Pacers standard play (which T-bird and I discussed) in which Jack screens for Danny and then JO drops to the low block and let's Jack curl around him to take the pass from Tinsley. The first option on the play is a backdoor pass to Danny if his man lags on the screen or they don't switch.

                    It was a PLAY created by RICK which also featured JO on the court. Danny caught the pass from Tinsley at the rim and put it in.

                    Right after that JO blocks a shot by Magloire, Danny is the first guy out since he was up top at the time of the play...and guess where he runs to on the other end?

                    The freaking 3pt line. You know, where people complain about Jack going to the 3pt line on a transition instead of to the basket. Al and Tinsley went into the paint, Danny stood in front of the Pacers bench and watched as Tinsley took (and missed) the FT line jumper.

                    JO wasn't in the way on this, he was last back since the play started with him under the rim outletting his own block that he recovered.


                    (mental error just for good measure)
                    A few seconds later Udoka shoots FTs and Danny is the high man on the lane, instead of blocking out Udoka and generally cutting off the lane, he instead leans into Randolph and ends up BEHIND HIM with his BACK TO THE RIM as the FT hits iron and goes right back to Udoka. Keep in mind that JO had Randolph blocked out already, so I have no idea what DG thought he was doing there.


                    When Danny nabbed the offensive board just a little after that it was because he was playing weakside LANE with JO in the post. Yes, Danny was the other guy placed near the rim on the play, in spite of JO being on the court (something you suggest doesn't happen). The play was a potential ball reversal post switch in which Jack feeds JO and if they want to swap sides they rotate out to Al and around to Tinsley who then feeds Danny (if DG's man cheats or helps too much). Again, this is a standard set the Pacers run which features DG on the inside while JO is on the court.

                    The 2:50 mark, mild transistion, Danny again goes to the arc to camp. This time Tins feeds him and he makes a mild attempt to dribble baseline but is quickly cut off and must pass the ball away. A few seconds later Al took his man off the dribble easily.

                    2:20, Saras feeds Jeff going to the lane (fumbles pass, TO). Even as the ball went in and his man dropped hard to double Jeff, Danny just stood on the arc waiting for the deep kickout despite the fact that Jeff was in his shooting motion even as he tried to catch it (quick put up off a cutting catch...but he rushed it). JO was out off the weakside and not "in the way" at all.

                    1:23 - Daniels feeds Danny at the arc, he takes 1 dribble in, jumps in the air (in traffic) and does a Fred Jones spin pass back out to Quis. MD steps in for a closer jumper and as he does so Danny LEAVES the inside. He just drifts back upcourt while watching the shot instead of going on in toward the rim. JO ended up getting the offensive board on his own (Foster was in the mix but double blocked).

                    After JO gets the rebound on the wing DANIELS slashes to the lane as they come back into the offensive end (prior to the actually play). Granger? Camps the arc to the point that you can't even see him on camera.

                    JO OUT - near the end of the quarter (less than 24) ball hurries into the front court. Granger goes to the high arc and CALLS for the ball. It's 15 seconds left in the half with no shot clock. Saras does not pass to him obviously.

                    Now Danny does get a close jumper to early in the 2nd, but it's due to the Blazers showing a full court press. Saras passes ahead to Danny who quickly is behind Randolph and is able to get to about 5 feet away before a Blazer gets in front of him. Not to discredit DG, this is a great, smart play. Just saying that it was a broken defense and not a normal situation. If DG had been without the ball, say Jack was the one coming up, then it's quite possible that Granger would have sat on the arc yet again.

                    WITH JO STILL OUT - Danny procedes to take THREE 3pt shots in a 90 second window, and bear in mind that he missed the first one so it wasn't like he started hot and kept going.

                    Here's the basics:

                    11:07 - Saras gives him the ball, he shows shot fake and jab step, never uses a dribble, then makes a soft pass to Saras that is tipped and almost stolen.

                    10:33 - Granger lingers on the right arc yet again as Quis works as the PG off the double high pick. Quis goes right (off Foster) and passes to Danny. He looks briefly and kicks it back out. When Saras makes the strong drive to the lane to hand off to Foster underneath you see Danny still standing on the arc CALLING FOR THE ball for a 3pt shot. Sorry, I'll take the Foster layup inside instead.

                    (good note - right here Danny blocks an awkward layup attempt by Outlaw off the sideline in-bounds)

                    9:50 - rebound transition, Saras pushes it up with a pass to Quis running, Al had gone to the low post ahead of the pack. This ends up being Al's baseline spin layup score. But in the meantime Danny? Camps immediately outside the opposite side 3 arc

                    9:20 - rinse, repeat. Danny stands in the same spot, arm up for the ball as Saras drives. Saras takes his own shot and misses, offensive board, pass finally to Danny calling for it. 3pt miss, no dribble, no other look, even though Outlaw was awkwardly closing on him and he could easily blow past him and shoot over the PG (if he could even get there in time to cut him off)

                    (bad defensive note - Granger sags way too far off Outlaw on a PnR which gives Travis a wide open jumper make)

                    8:46 - play off timeout, double high pick, Saras goes right off of Foster, kicks to Danny on the right baseline arc. DG shoots and hits it.

                    8:21 - Danny finally transitions away from the arc, on a breakout (semi-cherry pick) he is ahead of the crowd for a certain layup, but lets the long pass go off his fingertips and out of bounds for a TO. Still, at least he didn't run to the arc this time.

                    7:55 - Danny does do a nice job to run baseline past the Al postup on a "hurry up" rebound transition (ie, the quickly moved to a HC setup rather than a full break). But then he goes to the right arc and camps. Ball comes to him and he rotates it, comes back to him and he shoots and makes, again with no look to drive...and no JO to blame


                    Okay, this is more than enough to make the point about Danny camping the 3. Sometimes I'm sure its by design, but he also does it on mixed transition (ie, if he's not alone and in front of the pack), so it's also part of his mindset.

                    At no time, JO on or not, did Danny exhibit any serious level of dribble penetration, and when you suggest it as "proof" for a point (about JO) when it is so clearly proven otherwise it really suggests to me that you are simply seeing the game you want to see.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Gotta go with able on this one, UB. The Pacers started the third up five, 51-46. When Tinsley subbed out with 4:01 left in the quarter, the Pacers were up three, 66-63. JO had already twisted his ankle at this point, and Randolph was on a tear.

                      We didn't lose the lead with Jamaal in the game.
                      Thank you

                      I just saw this thread and my head about exploded.

                      We did not lose the lead when Jamaal was in despite J.O. going down. We lost the lead when Saras and Armstrong were in. We regained the lead when J.O. came back and dominated.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        ... because Tinsley ... seemingly stopped playing any defense on Jack.
                        Jack scored 2 FG and 1 FT on Tinsley in the third quarter (8 minutes), for a total of 5 points. Against Sarunas in the third quarter (4 minutes), Jack had 4 FT for a total of 4 points.

                        So Jack scored 5 points against Tinsley in 8 minutes, and 4 points against Saras in 4 minutes.

                        Not seeing it.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                          Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                          We did not lose the lead when Jamaal was in despite J.O. going down. We lost the lead when Saras and Armstrong were in. We regained the lead when J.O. came back and dominated.
                          No, we lost the lead when Sarunas was in by himself. In the third quarter, with DA and Sarunas both in, we did just fine.

                          Saras plays fine, as long as he doesn't have to be a point guard.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            Gotta go with able on this one, UB. The Pacers started the third up five, 51-46. When Tinsley subbed out with 4:01 left in the quarter, the Pacers were up three, 66-63. JO had already twisted his ankle at this point, and Randolph was on a tear.

                            We didn't lose the lead with Jamaal in the game.
                            I remember it almost exactly as UB said. Pacers had an 11 point lead, someone misses a decent shot and foster chases down the rebound. He gives it to JT who immediantly launches a bad three. From there I don't remember the exact order of events but JT had several vary bad turnovers / shots and quit playing D. I specifically remember thinking JT was single handedly keeping portland in the game. It wasn't a long stretch, maybe 4-5 posessions, but it was enough to erase an 11 point lead.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                              In contrast to that (my Granger log up above) I will go rewatch Baston's 6 minutes and look for these great defensive plays. I will say that he was -3 on the quarter if you count the 2nd FT make that came from a foul while he was still on court (I count FTs lingering as part of the scoring for the person on court when the foul occured).

                              O#1 - sat weakside, not really involved, rebound went away from his area

                              D#1 - Randolph shot right over him for the make

                              O#2 - set a mild pick for JO, mostly out of the play, was inside for a possible rebound when Jack made his lane jumper

                              D#2 - decently physical with Zach, but semi-picked Jackson when his man drove baseline as Zach crossed and then drifted out of the lane (Jack fouls)

                              O#3 - PnR with Saras, Pryz denies entry pass so Saras rotates to Granger (on the arc, what a surprise). Baston struggles to get post position despite his man having to recover from the PnR and catch up to him. Danny makes a nice 2 dribble drive to the lane (that's more like it), jump passes to Baston on the baseline. Baston turns into Zach, fumbles the pass and it rolls away from him. It ends up in DGs hands with Blazers on the floor or stumbling, DG pops the mid-jumper.

                              D#3 - Baston fully extends his arm and shoves Zach has he crosses the lane. Baston had fronted him on the other side which gave Zach a space advantage when he crossed the lane. This was NOT a bad call, and not even close to the legal arm bar. In the penalty, Zach shoots and makes 2

                              O#4 - Saras carries the ball at the HC line.

                              D#4 - Strong post defense by Baston on Zach, missed baseline fade, but when Pryz taps it away from Jack Baston stops and watches the play as Zach comes from farther away to chase down the ball. Because of this lapse Baston is forced to defend the layup drive by Zach from inside the charge circle. Zach misses this shot, but it's not because it wasn't a good look.

                              O#5 - Comes to the lane at one point looking for a pass, but basically not involved. The rebound off the DANNY 3PT MISS (again, no surprise there) goes toward Baston but he is holding off Pryz which gives Outlaw room to easily get the rebound.

                              D#5 - Baston lets Zach slide out when he gets caught ball hawking. Jack sees Zach come free and moves to him. Only then does Baston realize he's lost his man and when he runs out to also cover Zach it leaves Outlaw a wide open path to the goal. Baston tries to recover but it turned sideways and still moving when Outlaw runs into him. Clear blocking foul, again I see no reason to question this, it's pretty routine. Basket and one (which is missed)

                              O#6 - again another "stay out of the way" set for Baston. Nothing wrong, just not involved and looking for rebound spaces. Saras makes a shot off a dribble drive.

                              D#6 - Zach almost loses his dribble to Jack, gets a high bounce semi-out of control dribble going and then tries to cross over Baston. Baston defends decently and the shot is nowhere close. However, if this was JO you would rip into him for crazy wild crap shot like this. Baston was fine here, but not special in any way.

                              O#7 - very light PnR by Baston with Saras (meaning no physical contact with the defender), he again stays out of the way looking for rebound spots and eventual coming out to pick for Jack just about the time Jack puts up (and makes) a 3. Not a big fan of him leaving the rebounding area just when a shot is going up, but this could be as much on Jack as him.

                              Honestly though, Baston looks lost on offense at this point.

                              D#7 - Zach sits low post weakside and Jack drives hard on the other side. Baston reads it very well and makes a strong shot block. Unfortunately this doesn't count because Harrington fouled before the shot. 2 FTs taken and made.

                              ZACH GOES TO THE BENCH

                              O#8 - Stay out of the way. POR is in zone and Aldridge gets the lane violation because of it. Saras makes the tech.

                              In-bounds to Al who has it stolen (crap play by Al), Baston not involved as he is on the high weakside staying out of the way.

                              D#8 - Baston helps on a scren and catch well. He tries to take a good charge, but he blatently pulls up his right foot and moves it about 3 feet in a weird attempt to turn, almost like the ball was passed and he's rotating to defend the baseline. This was a call that at first everyone groaned about, but on replay it's really obvious that before Jack gets there that Baston has moved that foot.

                              Again its very odd because it's not the point of contact. Clark suggested it was Saras running into him, but it's not. That's the wrong side. His left foot/side stays planted, even during contact. It's the foot away from the play that he is clearly moving for some reason so he can turn his hips. I mean he nearly puts his right foot ONTO his left foot after having them planted about 5 feet from each other in a good, solid base.

                              Maybe he was just shying from the hard contact, putting his hip to it instead of his chest. In any case, he had position and just gave it up for no apparent (good) reason. Not a bad call, just poor execution of an otherwise great play.

                              2FT makes

                              O#9 - Baston sits baseline out of the way waiting to sneak in to rebound or catch a pass off a drive. Aldridge gets another lane tech, Saras hits.

                              Stays weakside elbow, Jack goes inside and Baston's man Aldridge leaves him to block Jack's shot. Another non-event possession by Baston.

                              D#9 - On the drive Baston comes too late to help Al which leaves Aldridge with a huge path to the basket. Pass goes to him and has he steps easily past Baston, Baston trips over Al's leg and falls to the floor. Aldridge gets what should have been a dunk, Granger's defense helps a lot, but then Danny fouls him on the rebound.

                              Baston sits as Aldridge makes both FTs and the game is tied (he came in with the Pacers leading by 3).



                              Sorry, I see one nice play against Zach. A couple of medium things. No involvement on offense at all expect for one fumbled pass right at the goal. 3 legit fouls, all caused by how he chose to play, not just bad breaks.

                              He did have a great defensive set going till he pulled his foot on what would have been a charge, but the fact is that he did pull that foot pretty obviously.

                              In my initital comments I didn't rip Baston, I said mostly NEUTRAL. I stand by that still. He was given very little to do on offense, mostly was off to the side, and POR attacked the snot out of him when Zach was on the court, mostly with decent success.

                              Baston was SERVICABLE for the time being, but he was not winning his battle with Zach. His play was much more similar to Aldridge, who also looked out of place most of the time.


                              PS - I didn't leave out the alley-oop and 1 minute of 4th quarter play on purpose, I just got tired of doing this and had already logged his prime period of floor time.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                As to your thoughts on Danny? Well, I can't let a post or a night go by without getting a shot in here somewhere.

                                Could it be that once he was away from Wilt jr. he was able to get the ball & do something besides just stand at the three point line waiting on a pass out?

                                Not having to defer to Jermaine/Al helps, but it's the mentality that he has to defer and that he couldn't find his niche in the starting lineup that prove Granger's immaturity.

                                I think he has a chance to be great, but he still looks clueless at times. Like Seth said, he's been running up court without keeping an eye on transition and looks lost on some defensive rotations. You could see Jax and JO both pull Granger aside last night to give advice. The good news is that Granger recognizes his mistakes, listens to his teammates, and doesn't keep his head down. And it's all mental, and it could "click" with him before the year is over.



                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                Also while we are at it & yes I blame the guards for a lot of this. But could someone explain to me how we have this supreme shot blocker yet we are # 3 in the NBA at allowing points in the paint?

                                One reason...dribble penetration. It only takes 3 blocks per game to be a supreme shot blocker, and teams are getting 20-30 shots near the basket against us.

                                I'm looking forward to seeing Jermaine's blocks/game go down as a result of better penetration defense. I'm also wondering when/if Greene will start getting minutes as a result.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X