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

Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

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

  • #91
    Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

    Originally posted by Shade
    To those ripping Tinsley's selfishness, you have to ask:

    Why does the coach continue to allow it to happen?

    I've been thinking about it all night, and here's my guess....


    I think it's all about favorites.


    For instance, Jermaine O'Neal could probably play 40 consecutive poor games and Rick wouldn't bench him.


    We've seen Rick leave many players in when they a) didn't bring their games with them b) are having an awful night c) don't care about being out on the floor or not, and we've also seen him pull players after one bad decision. It's no secret that he plays favorites, and you've heard the complaints straight out of several players' mouths.

    The treatment you get depends on which player you are. If you're Jamaal Tinsley, you get multiple chances.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

      We've seen over and over from Travis Best, from Chauncey, from Kenny Anderson, from AJ, how Rick wants his point guards to play.

      He wants them to be scoring threats.

      I think Rick's only regret is that Tinsley isn't shooting a higher percentage.

      Jamaal looks very uncomfortable on the court, and his shots are often short because he looks tentative. This is not his "natural" way of playing the PG position. I think he's second-guessing himself a lot.

      As for his defensive play - I used to be able to live with his poor defense because of how much better the team/ offense would flow.

      Now we don't get either.

      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


      • #93
        Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Really though I could take Tinsley at the offensive end, selfishness and all, poor shots and all - if he even tried to play defense. yes that is right I don't think he often tries to play defense. He often gives one effort and then he packs it in for the possession - he rarely if ever makes a second or third effort or a consistant 24 seconds of defense.


        You know, I've thought to myself many times "Jamaal is really playing when he shouldn't be. I can't believe he's playing with this injury/illness. He obviously feels miserable, but he's still trying. That shows a ton of heart and I really admire that".

        But, I've never, in the six years he's been here, thought "Jamaal really hustled his a** off tonight. He gave it everything he had."


        If he could just use his heart towards effort the way he can fight through problems, I wouldn't be complaining as much.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
          They added a vice president title when they extended his contract. I can not imagine Rick as the "helpless victim of Jamaal's selfish/ destructive play" here.

          Maybe Rick was a "helpess victim" with Ron and SJax in the past, but his bosses figured out that undermining their own coach wasn't such a smart idea after all when they added the new title.
          Hey, my idea of trade-bait still fits in this scenario.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

            Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
            With Dunleavy playing point-forward and running the offense, you could afford to have a backcourt of Daniels and Greene or Daniels and McLeod.
            I'm not convinced that Dunleavy sees the court any better than Tinsley, that he runs the team any better than Tinsley, or that he has better decision-making than Tinsley.

            Let's figure those things out before handing him the keys, eh?
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

              Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
              We've seen over and over from Travis Best, from Chauncey, from Kenny Anderson, from AJ, how Rick wants his point guards to play.

              He wants them to be scoring threats.

              I think Rick's only regret is that Tinsley isn't shooting a higher percentage.

              Jamaal looks very uncomfortable on the court, and his shots are often short because he looks tentative. This is not his "natural" way of playing the PG position. I think he's second-guessing himself a lot.
              Yes, yes, yes yes. This is exactly right. Very well said.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                Does Rick seem like the type of coach that would sacrifice half a season propping up a guy's trade value?

                He won't invest the time into developing the players that he wants to keep/ might help him later in the season. I don't buy that its Rick's idea to showcase Tinsley.

                I could buy into the idea that its Bird's/ Walsh's idea to showcase him, but even so, I think Rick would be encouraging him to play pass-first if they want him to have any trade value.

                Misusing him as a shoot-first guy is almost certain to ensure he continues to have no trade value.
                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


                • #98
                  Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  I'm not convinced that Dunleavy sees the court any better than Tinsley, that he runs the team any better than Tinsley, or that he has better decision-making than Tinsley.

                  Let's figure those things out before handing him the keys, eh?
                  Okay.

                  My point is, Dunleavy may create solutions to other problems.

                  He's played point-forward before.

                  That's why I can't figure out why he didn't work out for Nellie, at all.

                  Except that Dunleavy appears to be playing with 0% confidence right now.
                  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


                  • #99
                    Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    and while at it let's add this from Pacers.com:

                    TRENDS
                    Darrell Armstrong has shot 8-of-46 from the 3-point line (.174) in his last 22 games and is 0-of-7 in his last four. … Maceo Baston has hit 11 of his last 13 shots, including 2-of-2 from the arc. … Ike Diogu has made all 15 of his free throws with the Pacers. … Mike Dunleavy has averaged 9.6 points on .362 shooting in the last five. … Jeff Foster has totaled 38 minutes, seven points, seven rebounds, eight fouls and four turnovers in the last two. … Granger has averaged 17.0 points and 4.7 rebounds as a starter the last 10 games. … Rawle Marshall has missed nine of his last 16 free-throw attempts. … O'Neal has shot .383 from the field in the last eight. … Jamaal Tinsley has averaged 21.8 points, 7.8 assists, 2.6 steals and .506 shooting in the last five.
                    That can't be right, Tinsley is awful, if it wasn't for him we'd never lose. The rest of the guys are just great, it's his fault, I'm sure of it. The other guys are shooting bad cause Tinsley didn't smile at them when he through them the ball.
                    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                    Comment


                    • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                      Does Rick seem like the type of coach that would sacrifice half a season propping up a guy's trade value?
                      If Larry Bird and/or Donnie Walsh order him to? Hell yes.

                      He won't invest the time into developing the players that he wants to keep/ might help him later in the season. I don't buy that its Rick's idea to showcase Tinsley.

                      I could buy into the idea that its Bird's/ Walsh's idea to showcase him, but even so, I think Rick would be encouraging him to play pass-first if they want him to have any trade value.

                      Misusing him as a shoot-first guy is almost certain to ensure he continues to have no trade value.
                      My guess is Tinsley wants to shoot, Rick would tell him to change or shove it if it wouldn't kill his trade value. I think Walsh/Bird want him out, and the only way to do it is to give him his bottle so to speak and hope he looks (individually) better doing it (a la Stephon Marbury... sort of).

                      Comment


                      • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                        I mean do we have a play that calls for getting Danny Granger the ball at spot X on the floor for a shot? Or do we have a play where we run a pick so Rawle Marshal can get something?
                        Yes, they do. They still work the give and go like they did with Jack-JO, but usually with someone like Rawle.

                        And I think that some of the "JO plays" you see are intended to get someone like Murphy the shot the entire time. There is post and wait on the double, and then there is the 2 man game between bigs, and that's not the same thing. The Pacers do both.

                        Sure they don't do this like Utah, but I don't think their frontline contains enough physical offensive talent to run that system anyway.


                        I'm only 22 but It kills me that the city won't support the Pacers like they do the Colts,
                        It's only been about 4 years since it was just the opposite. Remember, the Colts couldn't even sell-out 2 home games in the 2003 season. Blacked out for local TV. Think about that. It's not like Manning, Marvin, Edge, Wayne and Freeney weren't on that team and they weren't worth watching.

                        In 98-2000 fans couldn't have cared less about the Colts. That's how Tennessee got 5000+ fans into the dome for a playoff game.

                        I love Nap, but it's smalltown and fickle as hell.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                          Jamaal looks very uncomfortable on the court, and his shots are often short because he looks tentative. This is not his "natural" way of playing the PG position. I think he's second-guessing himself a lot.
                          I disagree. I think he is just hurting. He's made that lane floater and the Duncan post-bank shot at a great clip previously in his career.

                          I do agree that Rick probably wants to see 12-14 shots from the PG at this point, mostly because a balanced offense needs some threats off the dribble and this team only has 2 - Tins and Quis.

                          Quis being out does hinder this team since Jack was swapped for DunDun.

                          Last night Dunleavy drove the lane one time and at the rim he passed it right to Harrington. It happened so quickly that it bounced right off Al and out of bounds (luckily for the Pacers). That's the problem, that says a lot about his game going to the rim.

                          Who on the Pacers is going to show up-fake on a defender like Granger and then step past him for the dunk like Jackson did? No, seriously, who has that in their skill-set? No one on the roster. Rawle and Granger aren't there yet, Quis isn't a dunk-finisher type, most of the other guys are spot ups or catch and shoot types, even one of our bigs (Murph).

                          Right about now Fred Jones would really help this team a ton, even if he can only go to his right.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                            He may have played point forward in the past , but it was for losing teams. His 1.6 to 1 TO/AST ratio says he doesn't protect the ball well enough to initiate the offense. He's bench material for a playoff team. His career stats say he's an all-around mediocre player, less than 5 boards a game, 2.5 assists, no steals or blocks, a relatively low shooting % (.431) and 10.5 points a game.
                            I'm in these bands
                            The Humans
                            Dr. Goldfoot
                            The Bar Brawlers
                            ME

                            Comment


                            • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              He may have played point forward in the past , but it was for losing teams. His 1.6 to 1 TO/AST ratio says he doesn't protect the ball well enough to initiate the offense. He's bench material for a playoff team. His career stats say he's an all-around mediocre player, less than 5 boards a game, 2.5 assists, no steals or blocks, a relatively low shooting % (.431) and 10.5 points a game.

                              Dr. Goldfoot, I think it was you that made the thread about the over-emphasis of the need for a high-quality starting PG by pointing out Ron Harper/etc and how he was the starting PG for the champion Bulls and Lakers.

                              Dunleavy's stats aren't great, but for fun I thought I'd compare his #s, as a SG (mostly), to Ron Harper's.



                              Ron Harper

                              1.77 A/TO ratio
                              13.8 PPG
                              44.5 FG%
                              3.9 APG
                              1.7 ST
                              0.7 BLK


                              So Ron Harper averaged slightly better numbers in slightly more minutes. I'm not saying Dunleavy is better or worse but their numbers are close and comparable. Harper hits a higher % with more points/assts per 40, Dunleavy rebounds more and turns it over less. Either way, Harper was able to help initiate the offense with a similar AST/TO ratio, so I don't think that's much of an issue.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                                With Dunleavy playing point-forward and running the offense, you could afford to have a backcourt of Daniels and Greene or Daniels and McLeod.

                                If Dunleavy is playing point-forward, you primarily need the PG to prevent dribble penetration and to provide assistance getting the ball into the front court if the other team is pressuring you. I assume that, unlike Saras, these two guys are capable ballhandlers even if they aren't great at running the offense (there is an important distinction there).

                                The only possible drawback to this is moving Granger back to the sixth-man role, but I think Granger is showing better assertiveness in that role. Its like he's too passive if he's on the court with JO - afraid to tip the scales.

                                DA makes a lot of mistakes - turnovers, ill-advised shots, defensive gambles - even if he hustles. If he's not able to play at an extraordinarily high energy level, he's a net-negative. And he's playing way too many minutes to sustain this level of performance. I fear what's going to happen in April if we don't develop either Greene or McLeod to take some of the pressure/ minutes off him now. This is about seeing the forest (building a team for the playoffs) instead of the trees (regular season games.)
                                well yes, daniels could be a solution if he wasn't injured. so thoughts for the future. but i was talking in terms of last night. it was mcleods first game of the season. dunleavy hasn't shown the ability to command rick's offense yet. greene cannot seem to run an offense much less rick's. as a coach who isn't trying to tank the season, what choice do you have? armstrong or tinsley playing PG. and as we've mentioned, some of DA's numbers aren't fantastic. he's a solid bench energy player, but shouldn't be starting at his age. so that leaves Jamaal. now i am an advocate of having quis start with dunleavy granger oneal murphy/foster. i can't remember really seeing that lineup but i'd like to experiment with it. i appreciate the fact that quis brings a lot of energy off the bench but maybe he could get us off to a better start that we truly need.

                                i don't look at it as sacrificing a season or half a season. because i think most people predicted the pacers would be around .500 the entire season, and develop our young talent. now i think we should be doing more of that developing but i think we've seen some good things from shawne and rawle. danny has demonstrated some improvement offensively (needs to be more assertive) and his defense does still need work. but development-wise he has improved. now we have Quis and Diogu who need to develop and get Dunleavy, Murphy and McCleod more involved in the team. i think we sacrificed what we could without diving into the Oden sweepstakes by signing Al in the off-season. i certainly never thought he was the piece to take us from where we were to where we want to be, but i thought after we developed our talent, we'd have a better idea of what other parts we needed this offseason and could play with the better free agent market. so i think this season was more or less decided in july.
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X