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

Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

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

  • #16
    Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

    Originally posted by wintermute
    jay, why does going with this lineup mean a mismatch on defense? it seems to me that it is more flexible in allowing you to play defenders who are not necessarily good pg's - in our team, maybe playing marquis and orien together in the backcourt.
    For our team, it could prove adventageous.

    You frequently end up playing two "combo guards" and two "combo forwards". Against a big SG, you could have a problem. Against a quick PG, you could have a problem. Against a team playing two post players, you could be undersized.

    I prefer to think that you've got to force your opponent to match up with you. But most coaches follow the "herd mentality" and don't like to force teams to match up to them - what if they try something different and fail? If the do, they get criticized for "not following the herd". And its easy to make excuses for following the herd.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

      Great discusion with some interesting points ...

      I have very mixed views on this set up for an offence.

      My first thought are on the
      The Type of players ... In my experience and opinion the type of players needed to play this offence have to be well rounded players capable of doing several different actions on offence, most importanting shooting ... For example it becomes considerably easier to defend the system when the players in this system are poor shooters ... Having said that the more i look at our players the more i think we do have players to fit the system .... if open Danny, Jax, Al and Tins can all hit a 3 .... they all also have at least one other offensive attribute that need to be considered .... for example a drive and dish or a post up isolation ... However there are many other players that may become isolated or ineffective within this system .... How many teams are going to take Quis, foster or baston seriously on the perimeter ... This leads on to your suggestion of using a Basline Screener to free up space for the players you want in the positions you want ....

      I was very unsold by the idea of this system till i really thought about the screener... Exactly what you were thinking of i am unsure however the impression i got, and liked, was that of posibly rotating on offence to allow outer players to take up favourable positions .... for example say marquis was handling as one of the 2 guards... foster in the weakside corner would be seeminly useless but him seting a screen 15 feet from the basket ... Danny could run from the oposite corner using the screen ... The ball can be worked accross from Quis to the other guard say Jax (were clearly going big) ...
      ...Now we have several posibilities Danny may (unlikely) be free .... foster may be able to rotate to the basket likely drawing the defense of the Central player, say J.Os man, leaving 1 simple pass to J.O in the lane (we have seen these happen recently!) If neither of these are on J.O can come High post to get the ball foster can set another screen weekside and Quis can run round to renetrate and so on ... that kind of rolling csreen play would intrest me ... certainly more than, at times, what seems like statue offense.

      One Major downside i can see is this would require players to be almost automaticly reading the situations, take Jacksons offence in L.A. as a perfect example ... This takes a lot of practise which is hard to find mid season ... it is also something that over the last few years we have stuggled to show any signs of being able to do

      Another aprehension is rebounding .... ok .. i no its only offensive boards but there is little challenge for it ....

      Generally im interested and would welcome its trial ... the more i think about it the more i think it may work with some of the skill sets we have

      sorry if that post is a little (or very) rambling ...
      'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
      Animal Farm, by George Orwell

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

        Lets look at 2 of the suggested ways to play out of this 2 guard front and examine them a little bit more in detail.

        First of all, the "2 out, 3 under" motion type game. This is using motion offense with no set movements or patterns, letting the 2 outside players primarily play, cut, and screen with one another, and using 3 man movement and actions with the 3 players below the foul line.

        This is a fun way to play offense I think, and its fun to coach it. The way it was taught to me to best be utilized was to have one player be primarily a screener for the other 2 players, while those 2 guys be your primary cutters and post up scoring options. A basic movement would be to have your designated screener (lets use Foster for example's sake) to set a downscreen for a cutter (lets say Harrington), who might recieve the first pass on a wing somewhere. Then Foster may now crossscreen for the other player so he can post up (lets say JO for example). Jo could post or go out to the perimeter to run a screen/roll for Harrington, Foster could step up and flare screen for a guard on the weakside.....

        ......there are a million different ways to go, a million different options or ways to start this, but you get the idea. There would be no play calls from the bench ( a great thing) but the players must be smart and read things on their own (maybe a bad thing for us).

        Now, 2 very smart coaches and famous coaches think running it with one primary screener and 2 cutters is wrong. They think its much better having 2 screeners primarily screen for 1 guy. In other words, put your best player down there surrounded by screening options so he can free himself creatively. Ive seen things work well either way, but for the record Im for the first way to do it.

        Now for an entirely different way to play out of a 2 guard front, and that's the Tex Winter/ Phil Jackson Triple post pattern. How this works primarily is that instead of reading the defense and cutting appropriately, the offensive players movements are designed and determined by where the ball is. In other words, if the ball is passed to the corner then you make cut "A", if its passed to the post the you make cut "B", and so on. I could diagram the basic movements of this pretty easily, and so can you if you watch the Lakers play, or go get Tex Winter's book at your local library.

        One of life's great certainties 99% of the time in sports is that teams all copy what the winning teams do and try and emulate them. However, this hasnt happened with teams running the "triple post" as a committed base offense, and truthfully I dont know why. I guess its because they dont think they can coach it well enough and dont know the minute details that make it work ( maybe its because they dont have Kobe, Shaq, Jordan or Pippen though lol).

        Anyway, I like watching the Lakers play offense because again, there are hardly ever set plays called from the sideline, and it makes the game much more free flowing. I also think its much harder to guard a team that doesnt run memorized plays so much, but instead reads and reacts to the situation.

        It is very unlikely that the Pacers will ever use a 2 guard front under Rick Carlisle. To my knowledge RC has never played or coached under, or ran himself, a 2 guard front offense. But it is something to think about for not just our future, but for how the game will be played 10-15 years from now, in my opinion.

        Lots of good discussion in this thread, and I appreciate the kind words many of you have said.

        Tbird

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

          I have greatly enjoyed reading this thread. In high school and college...(very very very small) the team always played the 1 guard offense. I've never really studied much the 2 guard offense but it seems to me (I might be wrong here) that one of the main problems with that offense is that you need your wing/small foward to be a good passer... i.e Pippen .... didn't boston basically run this kind of offense a lot with with Bird??? The other reason I feel the 1 guard offense is used so much is one of the hardest plays to stop is the pick and roll and this play is much easier to run with a 1 guard offense then the 2 guard. Also I would add that with a 2 guard offense don't you need to have 4 players who are fairly active. This means your power foward has to be more then just another big body and comfortable with the ball away from the basket and won't get worn out in all the motion. This can be limiting to teams...

          These are just some thoughts.. hopefully those in the Know will correct my mistakes...

          I personally with this team would like to see them do more PnRl with Tin's and Al or JO...

          ps. I hope it isn't a coincidence that we have this thread and the other thread asking for an improvement in this forum
          You didn't think it was gonna be that easy, did you? ..... You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did.....
          Silly rabbit..... Trix are for kids.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

            It is very unlikely that the Pacers will ever use a 2 guard front under Rick Carlisle.
            As I've said, they do use a double PG, 3 man configuration all the time (for lack of a better terminology in my vocab).

            Diagram as above but with the big on the low block and crossing the lane as the ball rotates. It's not a traditional 5 players because the 2 guards and 2 forwards play MIRROR versions of each other, they have the exact same roles and options as it appears to me.

            It's just a way of running the same set but being able to switch sides depending on how the defense is playing and who the defenders are - like rotating away from an Artest type.

            You get some GiveNGo out of this if it's JO/Jack especially, and lots of wing/PG screening meant to clear the passing lane to the Big. Also you'll see the big come to the elbow to run the high pick for the PG, especially if it's Saras since he likes to go to the lane both to shoot off the dribble and to dish back to the big.

            When you see Saras and DA on the court together this is typically how they've played, rather than how they used to run Saras off standard SG routes through/around screens, catch and shoots, etc.

            IMO they went to this because Saras is much better off the dribble/with the ball and Rick still wanted to play to the depth he had at PG, especially with injuries to JO, Foster, Pollard, and Harrison that came up last year. At some point he needed to rotate every down a notch and go small just to have more talent on the floor, and that meant 2 PGs, and then that meant finding a way to make Saras more productive than he was in JAN as a "SG".

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

              I would love to see the Pacers use more of a two guard front, and I think they have the personnel to do so. The main thing you here about a "triangle" type offense is that you need to have versatile players. With the exception of Foster, the Pacers big men, especially JO and Al, have the ability to hit outside jump shots with some regularity. JO has also shown flashes of being a good passer. These two would thrive in this type of offense. Using Foster as a screener would be a great way to take advantage of his constant energy and effort. He doesn't really like/want/need to score, so I think he would embrace this sort of role. The one problem I see with this offense is that Jackson fits in much better as one of the "3 down" than as one of the "2 up." Someone mentioned earlier that Jackson is better as a 3. I completely agree with this. He just doesn't have the ball-handling skills to help out much in a 2 guard offense. He has, however, shown some good passing ability this year, and he could be used similar to the way the Lakers are currently using Luke Walton.

              RC used the two guard a bit early in the season with DA and Saras and it seemed to be fairly successful. The problem with the current roster is that Tinsley and Saras can not be on the floor at the same time. Maybe they could if we were playing a team with two Kevin Ollie's on the floor, but even then, one of them would probably light us up. I'd like to see this type of offense run with Marquis and Saras. That could be interesting.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

                When I read this thread earlier, I waited to see where it would go.

                My question is just this: How would Danny Granger and Shawne Williams fit into this offense? I'm asking about next year or the year after, and assuming that Williams has earned a bigger role in the rotation by then.

                Does this two guard offense allow the Pacers to exploit their long and athletic swingmen?
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  As I've said, they do use a double PG, 3 man configuration all the time (for lack of a better terminology in my vocab).
                  True, but they are often using the second PG (Saras, sometimes DA) in a "SG role." on the baseline, or in other spots.

                  They are not "allowing either guard to initiate the offense."

                  I'll go diagram some things, scan them, and try to upload them. We'll see if that works.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    When I read this thread earlier, I waited to see where it would go.

                    My question is just this: How would Danny Granger and Shawne Williams fit into this offense? I'm asking about next year or the year after, and assuming that Williams has earned a bigger role in the rotation by then.

                    Does this two guard offense allow the Pacers to exploit their long and athletic swingmen?


                    I personally think this offence fits very well for these kinds of players .... they can both shoot mid-long range well and are both althetic and effective going to the basket ... infact they are the kind of players that, in my opinion, you want in this lineup .... they can even play together playing similar roles on either side, with a big (say J.O) in the middle which may be a nightmare for others to match up against, although one of them would have to defend the opponents PF and J.O there C and also takes out the Baseline screener ... however they can definitly be effective ... IMO
                    'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
                    Animal Farm, by George Orwell

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

                      Some of you were asking about diagrams. There is a great 5 part series on youtube w/ this information. This is part three of the series:

                      HTML Code:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxwxurwp14&mode=related&search=


                      This covers the basics, but you can find the other 4 parts from this link relatively easily.

                      One problem with implementing a 2 guard front is that it requires the traditional small forward to be a really good passer. Pippen was a great passer, and it's not an accident Odom was getting 5 apg before even joining the Lakers. Granger is not there--yet anyway.

                      Just from a passing standpoint, these guys are better suited for this than either Al or Granger:

                      Boris Diaw
                      Joe Johnson
                      Kobe Bryant
                      Lamar Odom
                      Lebron James
                      Ricky Davis
                      Paul Pierce
                      Kevin Garnett
                      Rip Hamilton
                      Ron Artest
                      Ike Iguodala

                      From a decision making standpoint, I think we can throw out Davis and Artest. Still, that means that we're averagely suited for this based upon the most critical position on the floor.

                      From a versatility standpoint the Pacers have nice pieces: Granger, Jackson, Harrington, Daniels. This offense could hide some of the deficiences of Sarunas. O'Neal would probably benefit the most, because he'd be getting the ball more on the move rather than getting doubled while waiting for the ball. Tinsley would be worthless though. I think we'd need to package Tinsley + Harrington/Jackson in the offseason for one good small forward to make this work well. That and pick up a decent /shooting passing SG/PG for an MLE in the offseason. The problem is, the guys on the list above are generally either untouchable or we wouldn't want them.

                      The player from Pacer past who springs to mind as perfect for this offense is Rose. He could've been a point forward rather than whining about not getting to play PG. Others: Schrempf, McKey, Brown, Knight, and even McGinnis as a good passing 4 rather than 3.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X