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

Personnel Evaluation

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

  • Personnel Evaluation

    Were approximately half way through the season. Let's evaluate our team. To get us started, here are some grades based on observing nearly every home game so far ...

    Tinsley. Has shown a renewed interest in playing, even going on the floor after food poisoning. Performance is inconsistent. Has too many forced turnovers. Shooting is a weakness. Quickness has disappeared so his defense against dribble penetration is terrible. Calm demeanor makes his will-to-win hard to measure. Suspect, he's very competitive but keeps it inside so, who knows? Grade: C

    Foster. Remains an excellent rebounder for a guy who can't jump. Does this with savvy and experience. Plays defense the 'right way' -- with positioning and his feet. Help defense is first-rate. Offense, even free throw shooting, is at a 4-year low. This really hurts as it enables opponent to double team JO and kills any chance of a give-and-go or backdoor play. On this team, Steve Nash would not be an MVP when pass-after-pass bounces off your starting center's hands. Appears to handle starting or coming off the bench with emotional maturity. Probably a good team mate off the court. Grade: C-

    Armstrong. Great energy. Truely wants to win. Can't tell if he improves team chemistry. Would think his butt slapping and declaration that 'I'm the second coach' would not wear well with other veteran players. Good ball handler. Shouldn't ever shoot a 3 -- especially after he's played 10 minutes as his legs are toast. Pressures the ball which takes a couple of seconds off the opponent's clock on every possession. Grade: B+

    Daniels. Best penetrator on the team. Can take the ball to the basket when nothing else is working. Of course, this cuts O'Neal's 'touches' so maybe that explains why he's in Rick's doghouse. Rebounds well for a two. Defense is solid. PT should be doubled in 2nd half of season. Grade: B+

    O'Neal. JO's game has shown no real improvement over the past three seasons (has he peaked?). Is he 'old' after so many games and seasons? Can't tell if the "give-me-the-ball so I can back into double coverage and throw up a low-percentage turnaround jumper" offense is coming from Rick's 'controlling personality' or if it's just the way he plays. He's Mr. Windex on the defensive board but he's rarely in position to get a put-back when we shoot the ball. Defense is hard to evaluate. He plays with his hands but gets away with it because he is a consumate shot-blocker. Get's faked off his feet a lot because he dosn't know how to play defense -- and, Rick hasn't bothered to teach him. Generally, we don't ask him to play the other team's top front line player. Seems like a franchise player making $17M/year should be able to do so (example: Garnett). Leadership ability is marginal. Suspect teammates (present and past) don't care for his need to do all the shooting. If he's traded this summer, suspect we'll hear a great sigh of relief from the locker room. Grade: B- (relative to what's expected and what he's paid).

    Granger. Nice offensive game. Handle's the ball well for a three. Stopped rebounding this season -- not sure why. Not impressed with his defense. Last night, Chicago's Deng burned him for at least 10 points in the first quarter. Don't understand why Rick consistently asks him to guard people that outweigh him and are considerably taller. Perhaps so JO can save his energy for a triple team turnaround jumper. Handles on-court pressure well. Mouth is alway under control. Suspect he's well liked by team mates. Grade: B

    Greene. Can't handle the ball. Mr. Turnover. Too much energy spent trying to change referee decisions (can you say, "Jackson"?). No offensive game. Defense is limited because he's prone to foul. Boston was right. He's not NBA material. Grade: F

    Dunleavy (based on just 2 games). Interesting. Lots of energy. Can shoot and should have license to let-fly from anywhere on the court. Better rebounder than I expected. Can't dribble. Ball-handling skills suspect as he had unnecessay turnovers last night, anyway. He's got long arms and height which are great for defense. Footspeed is suspect. Emotional IQ seem OK on court. Is probably not a popular team mate in the locker room (Dukey! vs. High School) but is smart enough to keep his mouth shut. Grade -- again, after just 2 games: B

    Evaluations for Bastion, Murphy, Harrison, etc. I leave to the board regulars. But now, let's discuss our Coach.

    Rick. Controlling. Inability to adjust coaching style to player personnel. Has yet to design a play that gets us a good shot in the final seconds of a quarter. Players in his system don't 'get better'. Guess h can't teach. Runs a lax training camp (just ask the boys at the strip club why they had enough energy left over to party all-night). Handles press well. Rarely criticises his players in public. Classy face of the franchise. However, he plays favorites which is tough on team morale. If you're in his dog pen, you'll soon have splinters. Rotation is by the clock rather than who's hot and what's working. In terms of the locker room, suspect players respect him but don't like him. Grade: C-

    These are the grades from Professor Madison. Anyone care to add their two cents?

  • #2
    Re: Personnel Evaluation

    lmao @ JO's B-. He has been nothing but an A this year, this team would be the worst team in the NBA if it wasnt for Jermaine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Personnel Evaluation

      Jermaine can't play defense? Dunleavy has bad handles?

      A few other things I disagree with also but those are the biggest, it seems your not a big O'neal fan correct?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Personnel Evaluation

        Tinsley: D+ (The question is not IF, but WHEN)
        Foster: B- (Defense and rebounding yes, offense brings down his grade)
        Murphy: B (Better fit with JO. A slight upgrade over Foster)
        Armstrong: B+ (Red Bull! Energy baby!)
        Daniels: B+ (Helps with penetration and ball movement...getting a better stroke...one piece to a better back court)
        O'Neal: A (Maybe his best year)
        Granger: A- (Breaking out...All Star candidate next year)
        Greene: D (Would get a much higher grade if he didn't look lost on offense)
        Dunleavy: B+ (Adds things to this team that do not show up on the stat sheet...the other piece to a better back court)
        Williams: B (Will be a solid pro)
        Marshall: I (Is not getting a chance, but is highly skilled)
        Diogu: I (Has not had enough time on the court)
        Baston: C+ (good shotblocking, so-so offense)
        Harrison: D (Lucky to get a passing grade)
        Mcleod: I (Who is he again?)
        Rick: I (Too hard to grade IMO. Too many roster changes to make a judgment)
        Bird: C- (Great player, Poor GM IMO)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Personnel Evaluation

          Originally posted by madison View Post


          Foster. Remains an excellent rebounder for a guy who can't jump. Does this with savvy and experience. Plays defense the 'right way' -- with positioning and his feet. Help defense is first-rate. Offense, even free throw shooting, is at a 4-year low. This really hurts as it enables opponent to double team JO and kills any chance of a give-and-go or backdoor play. On this team, Steve Nash would not be an MVP when pass-after-pass bounces off your starting center's hands. Appears to handle starting or coming off the bench with emotional maturity. Probably a good team mate off the court. Grade: C-

          I don't know where you are getting your free throw stats because yours are simply not correct.

          Source: Pacers.com

          Jeff is shooting 68% at this point in the season which is an alltime high

          07 - 68%
          06 - 60%
          05 - 63%
          04 - 67%
          03 - 54%
          02 - 61%

          And the next time I see a team double off of Jeff to double JO will be the first. Teams double JO with the point guard - they don't double team JO with Jeff's man. If you notice whenever JO gets the ball in a postup situation Jeff goes to the oppsoite low block and is ready to rebound and no team will leave him open in that area.

          However, I realize teams don't guard Jeff at all outside of about 10-12 feet - I realize teams back off Jeff to clog the lane - but no team just leaves Jeff roam free and no team commits his man to double team JOf leaving a guard or small forward to try and block Jeff out. No team does that. Last week in Miami we saw what happens when a a team leaves Jeff when a shot goes up. Zo who was guarding Jeff left him to try and block shots and jeff got 3 straight 3 point plays late in the 4th quarter.

          I don't consider Jeff to have bad hands - they aren't Dale Davis hands or Chris Webber - but I don't recall Jeff fumbling the ball away.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Personnel Evaluation

            Jermaine hasn't improved over the past 3 seasons? Are we watching the same guy?
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Personnel Evaluation

              I question a number of grades in this thread so far.....


              How does Daniels warrant a B+ from both of you guys? What is that based on the last three games?
              Greene gets an F & D based on 87 minutes this year?

              I'm not gonna nitpick but those two stand out to me. I'd give Greene an Incomplete. I'd give Daniels and his career lows across the board a C- because he's not even playing what I'd consider average Marquis Daniels basketball. I'm remembering the whole season not just the last three games.
              I'm in these bands
              The Humans
              Dr. Goldfoot
              The Bar Brawlers
              ME

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Personnel Evaluation

                Originally posted by madison View Post
                O'Neal. JO's game has shown no real improvement over the past three seasons (has he peaked?). Is he 'old' after so many games and seasons? Can't tell if the "give-me-the-ball so I can back into double coverage and throw up a low-percentage turnaround jumper" offense is coming from Rick's 'controlling personality' or if it's just the way he plays. He's Mr. Windex on the defensive board but he's rarely in position to get a put-back when we shoot the ball. Defense is hard to evaluate. He plays with his hands but gets away with it because he is a consumate shot-blocker. Get's faked off his feet a lot because he dosn't know how to play defense -- and, Rick hasn't bothered to teach him. Generally, we don't ask him to play the other team's top front line player. Seems like a franchise player making $17M/year should be able to do so (example: Garnett). Leadership ability is marginal. Suspect teammates (present and past) don't care for his need to do all the shooting. If he's traded this summer, suspect we'll hear a great sigh of relief from the locker room. Grade: B- (relative to what's expected and what he's paid).
                I agree completely with above, he's our best player but certainly has enough flaws that makes an "A" grade impossible.
                Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Personnel Evaluation

                  Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post

                  How does Daniels warrant a B+ from both of you guys? What is that based on the last three games?
                  Greene gets an F & D based on 87 minutes this year?
                  Exactly what I though upon reading, too. How can Daniels get a higher grade than Granger based on his minutes and performance throughout? Neither IMO has played their best ball yet although both seem to have made positive strides thanks to the trade.

                  Also, JO B-??!! Foster C-? Really? In addition, I think Baston in the small amount of inconsistent minutes might be a B- and I'd give Tins a C+.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Personnel Evaluation

                    Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                    I question a number of grades in this thread so far.....


                    How does Daniels warrant a B+ from both of you guys? What is that based on the last three games?
                    Greene gets an F & D based on 87 minutes this year?

                    I'm not gonna nitpick but those two stand out to me. I'd give Greene an Incomplete. I'd give Daniels and his career lows across the board a C- because he's not even playing what I'd consider average Marquis Daniels basketball. I'm remembering the whole season not just the last three games.
                    Grading never was fair in all cases. You have a pretty good point on Quis. His grade has risen primarily because it is based on the "new" Pacer team. He has stepped it up since given an opportunity. The same could be said about Granger. Quis would have received a C a few games ago...and Granger a B or B+.

                    Foster also probably deserves a little better than a B- from me. He is the reason we are not well under .500. His grade would have been much higher prior to the trade, B+ easy. Maybe that's what I should have given him. However, his grade, fair or not, reflects what I think of Murphy and Dunleavy. I think adding them to the roster reduces Foster's value to this team. He was always so valuable because of his rebounding. Rebounding is no longer a problem IMO. His D is still an asset we need, so I would be hesistant to move him unless we get a very good deal.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Personnel Evaluation

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I don't know where you are getting your free throw stats because yours are simply not correct.

                      Source: Pacers.com

                      Jeff is shooting 68% at this point in the season which is an alltime high

                      07 - 68%
                      06 - 60%
                      05 - 63%
                      04 - 67%
                      03 - 54%
                      02 - 61%

                      And the next time I see a team double off of Jeff to double JO will be the first. Teams double JO with the point guard - they don't double team JO with Jeff's man. If you notice whenever JO gets the ball in a postup situation Jeff goes to the oppsoite low block and is ready to rebound and no team will leave him open in that area.

                      However, I realize teams don't guard Jeff at all outside of about 10-12 feet - I realize teams back off Jeff to clog the lane - but no team just leaves Jeff roam free and no team commits his man to double team JOf leaving a guard or small forward to try and block Jeff out. No team does that. Last week in Miami we saw what happens when a a team leaves Jeff when a shot goes up. Zo who was guarding Jeff left him to try and block shots and jeff got 3 straight 3 point plays late in the 4th quarter.

                      I don't consider Jeff to have bad hands - they aren't Dale Davis hands or Chris Webber - but I don't recall Jeff fumbling the ball away.
                      Agreed, and where did he ever get the idea that Jeff can't jump? Jeff is a leaper. During IT's reign, he had a policy that 3 players had to dunk the ball from the ft line before practice ended. Foster was one who could do it, Jones and I think maybe Bender was the third...can't really remember. Anyway, Jeff can still jump!
                      .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Personnel Evaluation

                        Foster - B - A high-energy player who knows and accepts his role.
                        O'Neal - A- - Has played well and tried to lead. The blocks are great.
                        Murphy - B - Will eventually fit-in well. I hope he keeps playing hard.
                        Granger - B+ - Has shown improvement. Looks ready to be #2.
                        Williams - B - Has shown us why he was drafted. Needs to get stronger.
                        Dunleavy - B+ - Would be an 'A' if he was shooting better.
                        Daniels - C+ - Gets the plus for the last 3 games.
                        Tinsley - C - Has shown flashes of dedication and effort.
                        Armstrong - A - All the 'If he were only younger' comments are right on.
                        Greene - I - I haven't seen much, but I haven't been impressed.
                        Baston, Marshall - I - Decent players, but I'm glad we don't have to play them much.
                        Harrison - I/F - Should be on the floor and contributing, the situation was right for him to supplant Foster this year and he didn't step up.

                        RC - His people skills and discipline are all that's really holding him back as a coach. I think in some respects he might be, or may have been, afraid of the players. He clearly knows basketball, though, and if he can bring the teams focus back to defense this could be a contending team.
                        Grade - B-

                        Larry & Donnie - You can't say they haven't tried. James White has really been their only mistake so far this year as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have him sitting on our bench than Marshall. Giving the 1st rounder to Atlanta may be risky, but if Dunleavy & Murphy continue playing well and Diogu develops into player he's projected to be, no one will care that we didn't draft another decent to good player in the late teens or 20's of this draft. Based on what little we've seen so far, the GS trade has worked out incredibly well, and Daniels is finally starting to show something.

                        Grade - A for effort, B- for results
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Personnel Evaluation

                          Originally posted by madison View Post
                          Foster. can't jump.


                          That said, err shown, I don't think Jeff gets up quite like he used to.
                          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                          - Jimmy Buffett

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Personnel Evaluation

                            Tinsley: C- I haven't been too impressed with his play but I have to give him props on playing in 40 straight games. I don't hate watching him play as much as I have in the past but he's still a mess when it comes to his shooting and shot selection.

                            Foster: B- Defense has been okay but his rebounding ability seems to have diminished a bit. Still a pretty solid and dependable guy.

                            Murphy: B- Hard to give him an accurate rating based on 3 games but I think he'll be a very good fit for this team. Good solid player who knows his role. His rebounding is a big plus.

                            Armstrong: B+ I love DA and always have. He still has it too.

                            Daniels: C+ His mid-range game is a joy to watch. The new roster makeover will allow him to put the ball on the floor more where he's at his best.

                            O'Neal: A When he's out of the game the team struggles, especially on the defensive end of the floor.

                            Granger: A- He's coming into his own and starting to live up to the Pippen hype. Still needs to improve his on the ball defense.

                            Greene: D I'm really disappointed in his lack of ballhandling. If he had good handles, he'd actually be a decent 3rd-string PG.

                            Dunleavy: B+ IMO, he was having a much better season in GS although the stats may not bear that out. I definitely think he was a good addition and he should blossom in Indy.

                            Williams: C I'm not sold on him. He still looks lost out on the court. He has potential but potential is a tricky thing to estimate.

                            Marshall: C I actually like Marshall but I don't think he's a good fit for this team. Reminds me of Norm Richardson and Rasual Butler. Guys that can score but don't bring a lot of other skills to the table.

                            Baston: C+ About what I expected. Good energy guy off the bench. Probably deserves more minutes but he's playing behind a crowded frontcourt.

                            Harrison: F If he wasn't so screwed in the head he could be a decent player.

                            Rick: B I can't lay much blame on Rick considering he was placed in a bad situation by TPTB - FOR THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW!

                            Bird: C He's done an average job. Should've traded Jackson and Tinsley over the summer but then again maybe there were no takers. Did a good job in getting Marquis and Harrington (he had to get something for Peja) and got the GS deal done.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Personnel Evaluation

                              LOL Doug.. I remember that pic from a few years ago when I think it beat out one of Jordan's pics for NBA photo of the year Is that Mags in that pic? I bet he doesn't want to be traded to Indy, cuz well, I wouldn't want to come here after having a face full of Jeff Foster's ***

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X