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 analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

    Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
    Don't hate on the guy just because he has valid points on the way things are going w/the team and offers "suggestions" on how some of those problems could be resolved. If anything, give the man his props for being smart enough to see what those being paid the big bucks perhaps don't see.

    As for the notion that coaches (or members of the Pacers franchise who are close to the coaching staff) don't read this or other Pacers' message boards, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Can't tell you the number of times the team has had some kind of problem that was discussed in here or over there and all of a sudden that very problem was addressed in much the same way it was "suggested" by we so-called "arm chair coaches & quarterbacks".

    Case and point: Many of us screamed about getting Foster back into the starting lineup. Strange that a few days after this very discussion started getting ramped up by the fans all of a sudden Foster's right back among the starters. Coincidence? Maybe...It was bound to happen anyway you say? Perhaps, but I believe the franchise listens to the fanbase alot more than folks think. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if in the coming games we see alot more of the Armstrong/Sarunas/Baston trio, as well as, find David Harrison's name among the active players again real soon.
    If all that is so I give props to the coaching staff for trying them.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

      Originally posted by Roy Munson
      Yes, maybe it was inappropriate, but I just can't get the vision out of my mind of T-Bird sitting in his easy chair drawing up plays on a greaseboard while watching the game on TV.

      I don't deny that he's a great fan, and really cares...I just suspect that he might spend a little too much time in fantasyland where he is one of Rick's assistants.
      You hijacked the thread from it being about Tbird's analysis, to being about T-bird to being finally about you.
      I would hope that your comments do not dissuade him from commenting.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

        I actually thought a little about NPFII LBIQ term. This might be the issue. Rick simply doesn't have the tools to fulfill his plans. It's a wonder (and Rick is a very good coach) we had last year .5% record. This year we are supposed to be more talented team (with huge AL addition and sophomores Granger and Saras playing better this year), still the record is the same (or a little worse). I actually don't believe in the notion "team needs to gel" - many teams are not in their best form. We just have the .5% team.
        I'm really sorry because of my english (which is my 3-4 language) and I really appreciate Your patience. I hope this board will make me better

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

          Thunderbird

          I'm in complete agreement that we need to make a change at the point. I would prefer to play Daniels at the SG as much as possible however. Greene would be my choice to replace Tinsley.

          Could you tell us what you see in Daniel's game that would allow us to benefit from his playing point?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

            Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
            Thunderbird

            I'm in complete agreement that we need to make a change at the point. I would prefer to play Daniels at the SG as much as possible however. Greene would be my choice to replace Tinsley.

            Could you tell us what you see in Daniel's game that would allow us to benefit from his playing point?
            I like this idea as well, and I think it would be quite easy to experiment with this combination in the second unit.

            This tandem would be the best possible defensive duo we could put in our backcourt using the personnel we have. Both players handle the ball fairly well, although they don't have Tinsley's court vision. And both players can penetrate the lane.

            If nothing else, the additional dribble penetration using Quis and Greene might help turnaround the disadvantage that we have in FTAs. Making any kind of a change in the backcourt, possibly leading to "easier" choices in passes might also lead to fewer turnovers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

              Count me as another who appreciates Thunderbird1245. Beast23 commments in post #7 above that he wonders why Tbird's posts don't stimulate more discussion. Well, in my case, it is because the posts are so thorough and thoughtful. I rarely have anything to add. Tbird does a good job of balancing perspectives, so there is often nothing more to be said, except, "Yeah. That is right." I don't see any of what Roy Munson complained of. Thunderbird just seems like a guy who thinks in detail, and expresses himelf well. He can't help it if he actually is a basketball coach who can discuss the game in more detail than most of us.


              Anyway, I do have one question for this thread...

              Originally posted by thunderbird1245
              We desperately need someone who can pressure the ball in the backcourt, hound the opponents pg as they cross the center line and force them to struggle to initiate offense....
              Isn't mid-court pressure a question of hustle and desire? Isn't it something that any player could do if he wished toand his coach allowed it? There is a heck of a lot involved in defending in the half court, because you want to take some opportunity away from the offense without opening up another opportunity, and because you are dealing with five players. But in the mid court area the objective is simpler. You just need a guy who will get up on the dribbler and make him change hands, change directions, hurry ahead or maybe trap him or cause him to pass to the 2 guard. Almost any disruption (except a foul) to the point guard's ball control at mid court is a good thing. Isn't this right? And if yes, then are we saying that none of the Pacers point guards have the desire, or that Carlisle isn't allowing them to pressure at midcourt?
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                We need to learn how to make a layup, we need to rebound and we need a new coach.

                Give Mark Jackson a shot!!!!!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  Isn't mid-court pressure a question of hustle and desire? Isn't it something that any player could do if he wished toand his coach allowed it? There is a heck of a lot involved in defending in the half court, because you want to take some opportunity away from the offense without opening up another opportunity, and because you are dealing with five players. But in the mid court area the objective is simpler. You just need a guy who will get up on the dribbler and make him change hands, change directions, hurry ahead or maybe trap him or cause him to pass to the 2 guard. Almost any disruption (except a foul) to the point guard's ball control at mid court is a good thing. Isn't this right? And if yes, then are we saying that none of the Pacers point guards have the desire, or that Carlisle isn't allowing them to pressure at midcourt?

                  The Pacers did go into a half-court press late in the Lakers game, so it is partly due to Carlisle. But then there are players like Darrell Armstrong that do it on their own. It's rare, but I think Carlisle should emphasize anything he can to get the opponent out of rhythm. And the players should want to do that without Carlisle having to say it. So it's definitely both coaching and hustle/desire.


                  Our team is just lacking some effort at this point, and I think it's partly because some of the players get too comfortable on the floor. The best example I can think of was on the offensive end of Monday's game when Darrell Armstrong came in. He was screaming at Harrington to get over and set a pick while Al was settling in to his spot. It was awkward to watch Al jolt as he realized he'd stopped moving. And on the defensive end players weren't even keeping their arms up.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                    Tbird...your I think your analysis is thourough and accurate, although I still think rebounding is an issue. I realize our poor rebounding numbers are being exacerbated by poor shooting, but our rebounding fundamentals are still pretty bad. I guess this isn't a new trend, but hardly anybody boxes out, and there are definitely problems with our rebounding fundamentals. If we keep shooting as poorly as we have been, then we really need to get better at rebounding. We need to grab as many of those bricks ricocheting off the glass that we can.

                    I can't agree enough about your comments regarding our defense. Defense is always important in the NBA, because it is one of the variables that you have a fair amount of control over. Even the best of offensive teams have off nights, but a good defense can keep the game close, and really good defense can even create some offense.

                    Being a poor shooting team, which was obvious to everybody when looking at this roster before the season began, we don't have a choice but to play solid defense. Ultimately we need to make some player changes to add a couple of decent perimeter shooters, in my opinion, but until then, and even then, we need to lock down our D.
                    When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder. Show the world how much you'll fight for the winners circle. If you do, someday the cellophane will crackle off a fresh pack, one that belongs to you, and the cards will be stacked in your favor.
                    -Pat Riley

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                      Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                      Thunderbird

                      I'm in complete agreement that we need to make a change at the point. I would prefer to play Daniels at the SG as much as possible however. Greene would be my choice to replace Tinsley.

                      Could you tell us what you see in Daniel's game that would allow us to benefit from his playing point?

                      Thank you for the question Jose, Ill try and explain my thinking as best I can about this, and hit on a few of the other above postings as well.

                      I dont know for sure, if we were to play Marquis at the point guard spot, exactly how he would function offensively. I just cant answer how he'd be at making decisions, leading a break, calling our offensive sets, etc etc etc.

                      But I can say with a pretty solid opinion that that those problems arent nearly as bad as our lack of defense from the others playing style. I'd rather have a great defender at this spot than a great defender at any other spot on the floor. Our point guard perimeter defense is so incredibly bad, in my judgment, that Im willing to think outside the box some to see if Daniels can be the answer there, at least for this season, until we can make a personnel move next spring or in the draft.

                      Offensive weaknesses at the point guard can be "coached around" easier than defensive problems at that spot. Daniels lack of shooting ability is lessened by putting him in a ballhandling role. The coaches can call plays themselves (which RC likes to do anyway), taking that responsibility from Daniels. We can run sets (which we are doing now already some) where the first pass is easily made and designed to not force the PG to make a decision on where to go with the ball. You can also try and initiate your offense thru other guys (Granger maybe??) on occasion, if the matchups dictated.

                      On that last part, remember back to the Larry Brown Pacers. Haywood Workman sometime struggled offensively, but Larry Brown valued his defense, so he planned around it some. The Pacers often used Derrick McKey at the high post top of the key area to initiate offense after Haywood had gotten the ball upcourt. Workman would essentialy play off the ball the rest of the possession, while Mckey was your playmaker, reading the defense and screens and feding the ball to Smits, Reggie, or whoever. The point of this is, you can plan around this some as a coach with some imagination.

                      As far as reading and running the break, as I stated earlier in the original posting, I think we've all, including myself, vastly overrated JT's skills in this particular area. Part of our fast break problem is that he either gives the ball up way too early, forcing our Pacers to make too many passes in order to score or get a good shot. He also tends to try and make the great pass, when the simple easy one would be more effective.

                      While I enjoy watching Tinsley in the half court some, his tendency to want to keep the ball and always try and make a play himself does somewhat lead to some stagnant play by the Pacers at times. RC has solved alot of that by what we are running, but it still happens occasionally.

                      Lastly, Daniels at the point gives you a size advantage at that spot, which potentially gives us another post up threat at that spot, and makes us bigger and more physical in the backcourt than we are currently playing. Please remember that part of my reasoning in my own mind about playing Daniels at the point is to be able to play Daniels and Granger/Jackson together in the backcourt with JO, Al, and some other big on the floor. I like the idea of being bigger and more physical than all of our opponents, and think that is the single best "identity" and method of play that this particular group of players can play.

                      I havent watched enough of Orien Greene yet to form an intelligent opinion on him yet, but I remain open to the possibilities.

                      I just know that we arent going anywhere playing the type of perimeter defense we are playing, and this to me seems to be the best solution currently available.

                      JMO

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        Count me as another who appreciates Thunderbird1245. Beast23 commments in post #7 above that he wonders why Tbird's posts don't stimulate more discussion. Well, in my case, it is because the posts are so thorough and thoughtful. I rarely have anything to add. Tbird does a good job of balancing perspectives, so there is often nothing more to be said, except, "Yeah. That is right." I don't see any of what Roy Munson complained of. Thunderbird just seems like a guy who thinks in detail, and expresses himelf well. He can't help it if he actually is a basketball coach who can discuss the game in more detail than most of us.


                        Anyway, I do have one question for this thread...



                        Isn't mid-court pressure a question of hustle and desire? Isn't it something that any player could do if he wished toand his coach allowed it? There is a heck of a lot involved in defending in the half court, because you want to take some opportunity away from the offense without opening up another opportunity, and because you are dealing with five players. But in the mid court area the objective is simpler. You just need a guy who will get up on the dribbler and make him change hands, change directions, hurry ahead or maybe trap him or cause him to pass to the 2 guard. Almost any disruption (except a foul) to the point guard's ball control at mid court is a good thing. Isn't this right? And if yes, then are we saying that none of the Pacers point guards have the desire, or that Carlisle isn't allowing them to pressure at midcourt?

                        Thank you for the kind words, of course.

                        This is a very interesting question to me.....why do the Pacers play so soft of perimeter defense, especially at the point guard position? Is it by design, or is it just a weakness of personnel? Is it just an effort problem?



                        I cant say that I have any real answers to that. My guess is that its a combination of things, that vary from player to player.

                        In Tinsley's case, he isnt the most athletic, but he should be much better a defender than he has been lately. In his case my guess is that he is pacing himself for a long season (trying to stay healthier). I also am guessing that while RC probably sees how bad his lack of pressuring the ball is hurting us, that he is letting it go in order to keep Tinsley healthy and happy, because he lacks confidence in anybody else playing the minutes Jamal plays in the event of a JT injury. I think thats bad logic, and a big mistake, but I cant explain it any other way.

                        In Sarunas case, I suspect its more strategic than anything, since he really lacks the athletic skill to defend quickness from his spot. Playing position is really the only way he can stay in front of his guy. Sarunas has rarely been asked this year to defend a quick point guard anyway, because he usually has been paired with JT or Armstrong.

                        DA does pressure the ball well, and puts for the the effort in this that I wish Tinsley did. While everyone seems to agree that we sometimes play much better when we have DA and Sarunas in the game together, most people seem to believe its because our offense functions better, but I disagree...I think its because our point guard defense with Armstrong in there is just SO much better.

                        Of course, DA is old, injured and can only play limited minutes, so that only leaves 3 options on what to do now:

                        1. Keep playing the same people in the same way that we are playing now, and just submit to the fact that we will be a borderline playoff team.

                        2. Demand that Tinsley pressure the ball hard like we need, and cut his minutes back to make that possible if indeed that is what is necessary. Or get him in shape, or yell at him, or emphasize it much more, or whatever....just make JT play more like what we need.

                        3. Bench JT, realize he is what he is, and play somebody else who can play like we want. Use JT against second string guards who wont hurt us as much, and have him in there to help our second unit score better. That somebody else is Daniels at PG, in my view.

                        I personally am for option 3, but thats just me.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                          Excellent post as always, TBird.

                          I noticed the other night (can't remember which game it was) that for about a quarter we continued to drive to the basket even though the defense was crowding it because we were (as usual) bricking everything from outside. Because we continued to force it inside anyway, we were getting to the line and actually staying in the game.

                          Of course, then we started trying too hard and were hitting defenders outside the no-charge circle, delaying too long and drawing a 3-second call, or making a bad pass into traffic for a turnover. Lost the momentum and went back to trying to breakup the interior defense by trying (unsuccessfully) to hit perimeter shots.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                            Man, we miss Artest.

                            He was quite helpful for problems #1 and #3. Don't know on #2 since we weren't running as much then. But he can definitely finish and he was great at getting to the foul line. No one on our team has replaced that ability, and Reggie, our other best at it, is also gone.

                            Lateral quickness needs to be considered regarding half court pressure by the point. Tins and Runi seem to be quite lacking in this regard. I do think desire is part of the problem, but Armstrong also has decent lateral quickness. Marquis too, but maybe desire and IQ are his issues. But has he really had enough opportunities to demonstrate his ability at defensive point?

                            A great solution would be to trade for a point guard who can defend, run the break, and get to the rim (and make his free throws). Anybody out there we could get?

                            A second solution would be a two guard who can defend, and get to the foul line, and then we hope the point guard can improve on running the break. Any two guards out there?

                            I had a great feeling about Quis when we acquired him--I liked what I saw of him in Dallas. Then, I had an ominous feeling when he was one of the guys at the strip club incident, (and apparently the one who invited everybody). I hoped like heck this wouldn't be a sign of his on-court play, but apparently it was.

                            The great combination needed is character and talent. We have players that have one or the other, with the possible exception of Granger, who is still not the most talented player around (offensively, anyway).
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X