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

? for those willing tough it out to get Law

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

  • #31
    Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

    Originally posted by Mal View Post
    BlueNGold, I agree with you and I think most people will. But will Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird? Walsh has stated for years he always picks the best player, and doesn't draft by need. I'm afraid he'll stick to that to a fault. Not that I can totally blame him for his position; quality players are sometimes like currency, but this year I think it's obvious we need a guy like Law (if he's all he's cracked up to be).
    I agree, that is not the way Walsh thinks at all. However, you can be sure that Walsh and Bird badly want to send Tinsley packing and it will be very, very tough to get a better PG prospect over the summer than Law. Combine that with the leadership he is well known for...something this team is absolutely starving for....in a PG no less...a guy that team mates love..you know that will factor into any decision.

    Talent is important though. However, unless there is a significant gap in talent, I would not take a SF or PF in the draft. We already have two all-stars at those positions. ...and I have little confidence in using that piece...who will probably sit on the bench behind JO and Granger...as a trading piece.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

      Originally posted by #31 View Post
      Im with Goldfoot here, i want to wait for THE donut... i think Law is good, but not that amazing, i also think there is a reason he is the only 1st round PG in this upcoming draft.. there just aint so good PGs right now, simple as that.
      If he was in the 2008 Draft, he wouldnt be the 1st PG in the 1st round tho..

      Plus, i hate left handed shooters... No but seriously, i wouldnt cry if Pacers got him! But i want that DONUT in the 2008 Draft so bad!!
      Wait a minute here.

      You're wanting THE donut right, but you're not guarunteed THE donut in next year's draft, now are you?

      If the Ps are in position to get an incredible PG, you can't just pass on it for the hope that you get a better one next year. So many things can happen in 365 days, and could screw you over too bad.

      That's like driving with your needle on E and skipping an exit with pretty cheap gas, just to hope the next exit has really really cheap gas. Could you make it? Possibly. Is there a guaruntee that the next exit is cheaper? Then throw in the possibility of running out before you get there.

      Acie Law is going to be a VERY good PG in the league. Take what you can get, when you know you can get it.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

        Here's my thoughts is I'm pretty high on law my avatar should be evidence enough on that. However, if we don't get him I would not be disappointed if and only if we take our draft pick and send it off to some other bottom feeder and thus ensuring us a draft pick next year. If the whole Jermaine thing still isn't working out we could end up trading jermaine for yet another high end draft pick(who wouldn't want that huge expiring contract and a years worth of service with the chance to resign him) and that would then give us most likely 2 high draft picks in a draft full of guards...but where this becomes bad is that we now have like 0 frontcourt defense but it's not like this team is going anywhere with jermaine, not jermaine's fault but for our best interests and his it's better to part ways like he says.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

          IMO you have to be on crack to think just drafting Acie Law would fix the situation.

          So that means that the team WILL go through this again next year. Except next year Atlanta will get the pick unless it's top 8. And then your best players will be BETTER PG/SG than Law, so what do you do with Law after 1 year of not making the team better?

          Then you go into yet another year, but perhaps this time the new PG does help them improve a bit but not to contender status. Atlanta then gets their pick and they spin their wheels as a non-contender for a 3rd straight year (not including this year).

          Getting into the lottery this year doesn't fix a thing unless you are moving JO, Ike or Granger and realize that you are going to lose a ton next year anyway. If that happens then maybe you deal Danny for a pick, let JO walk (can't afford the cap space to trade him or resign him - see Fred/Peja) and build on the PF/SF from this draft and the PG from the awful season next year.

          After a 3rd year for growth you finally see a Jeff Green, Conley, Shawne Williams team start to come together while Atlanta takes that pick. Of course if you moved DG then perhaps you got a replacement 1st rounder anyway.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            IMO you have to be on crack to think just drafting Acie Law would fix the situation.

            So that means that the team WILL go through this again next year. Except next year Atlanta will get the pick unless it's top 8. And then your best players will be BETTER PG/SG than Law, so what do you do with Law after 1 year of not making the team better?

            Then you go into yet another year, but perhaps this time the new PG does help them improve a bit but not to contender status. Atlanta then gets their pick and they spin their wheels as a non-contender for a 3rd straight year (not including this year).

            Getting into the lottery this year doesn't fix a thing unless you are moving JO, Ike or Granger and realize that you are going to lose a ton next year anyway. If that happens then maybe you deal Danny for a pick, let JO walk (can't afford the cap space to trade him or resign him - see Fred/Peja) and build on the PF/SF from this draft and the PG from the awful season next year.

            After a 3rd year for growth you finally see a Jeff Green, Conley, Shawne Williams team start to come together while Atlanta takes that pick. Of course if you moved DG then perhaps you got a replacement 1st rounder anyway.
            Agreed on everything you said.What your seeing happen right now in reguards to Acie Law is two things, this draft is brutal when it comes to starting caliber pgs and Acie Law is one of the few who has a chance to become a quality starter.He clearly isn't a sure bet to be a star pg.He's also having a solid tournament so far which is raising his value.Because of these two things I just mentioned your seeing him leapfrog aot of players that he probably isn't better then because teams are so desperate to find a pg.

            I have been critical of this draft, saying its way to overated to begin with in reguards to potential stars but one thing I will agree with the majority on is this is a very deep draft if your looking for quality big men and small forwards.IF you look at our roster thats pretty much our strength.We have a bunch of quality forwards on this team, we need backcourt help and I think Seth is right, I would rather lose the pick this year and have the pick next season in which there should be a decent amount of quality guards available.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              IMO you have to be on crack to think just drafting Acie Law would fix the situation.

              MO you have to be on crack to think just drafting Acie Law would fix the situation.
              Considering point guard play (leadership, shooting, defense etc.) is by far our biggest issue, it's a huge step in the right direction. And it's not just about drafting Acie Law. It's also about finally getting Quis healthy and giving him the starting shooting guard spot from day 1. And it's about having the young players, who do have nice talent, mature and become a bigger part of the teams future. and most of all, it's about developing team chemistry and finding everyones role within the team.

              2006-2007 Line-Up
              Jamaal Tinsley - Mike Dunleavy - Danny Granger - Jermaine O'Neal - Murphy/Foster

              2007-2008 Line-Up
              Acie Law - Marquis Daniels - Danny Granger - Jermaine O'Neal - Murphy/Foster

              Just in looking at next years potential starting lineup, we can already see the team would be massively improved. A huge upgrade in the frontcourt, as both Law and Daniels are light years ahead of Tinsley and Dunleavy. We replace one of the slowest, most unathletic, worst defending backcourts in the league with two quick, athletic players who can play solid defense. Law is also an ace shooter, making it much easier to start Marquis at the 2-guard position.

              Then we'll have Granger coming off his sophomore season and first year as a starter in the NBA. While he may never be the All-Star some here projected, he should be much improved just based off of experience alone. Well also have Shawne, Ike, and David all 1 year closer to their peaks, and being able to play a larger role on the team. And of course, we'll have an entire offseason to develop team chemistry. We'll also still have the MLE to sign someone and Jamaal Tinsley to use as trade bait. I'd gladly use the MLE to sign a solid backup point guard and then trade Tinsley for an expiring. That would make the team cancer-free for the first time in over 6 years.


              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              So that means that the team WILL go through this again next year. Except next year Atlanta will get the pick unless it's top 8. And then your best players will be BETTER PG/SG than Law, so what do you do with Law after 1 year of not making the team better?
              No it doesn't. Just read what I posted above for further explanation. And who are these point guards who will be better than Acie Law? I can tell you're not a college basketball watcher or you'd know Acie Law was quite possibly the second best player in college after Kevin Durant. He's every bit as good as Deron Williams was coming out of Illinois, including being a significantly better shooter. The reason he'll slip is because he's a senior (same reason Danny slipped), because the draft is big man-heavy, and because none of the current top-10 teams need a point guard.


              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Then you go into yet another year, but perhaps this time the new PG does help them improve a bit but not to contender status. Atlanta then gets their pick and they spin their wheels as a non-contender for a 3rd straight year (not including this year).

              Getting into the lottery this year doesn't fix a thing unless you are moving JO, Ike or Granger and realize that you are going to lose a ton next year anyway. If that happens then maybe you deal Danny for a pick, let JO walk (can't afford the cap space to trade him or resign him - see Fred/Peja) and build on the PF/SF from this draft and the PG from the awful season next year.

              After a 3rd year for growth you finally see a Jeff Green, Conley, Shawne Williams team start to come together while Atlanta takes that pick. Of course if you moved DG then perhaps you got a replacement 1st rounder anyway.
              Everything you've posted here is assuming the absolute worst-case scenario. It's assuming we draft Law and he's a bust, it's assuming Marquis Daniels will miss the majority of next year, it's assuming Granger, Shawne, Ike etc. won't improve, and it's assuming the team develops no chemistry in the offseason.

              It seems to me to be nothing more than a highly one-sided view used by yourself to try and justify your opinion on the whole "tank or playoffs?" debate.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                Agreed on everything you said.What your seeing happen right now in reguards to Acie Law is two things, this draft is brutal when it comes to starting caliber pgs and Acie Law is one of the few who has a chance to become a quality starter.He clearly isn't a sure bet to be a star pg.He's also having a solid tournament so far which is raising his value.Because of these two things I just mentioned your seeing him leapfrog aot of players that he probably isn't better then because teams are so desperate to find a pg.
                I'm assuming you're basing Law's current draft stock on the mock lotteries, which is severely flawed for two reasons. (1) These are the same people who've had Chris Taft, Martynas Andriuskevicius, Pavel Podkolzine, Randolph Morris, Qyntel Wood etc. all in the top 5 of their mock drafts in the past. Their opinions are very questionable (2) No mock drafts currently take positional needs into consideration, and are ranking players based solely on talent. Not to mention, as previously mentioned, none of the current top-10 drafting teams need a point guard. And anyone who doesn't believe the hype behind Acie Law hasn't watched much college basketball this year, He's the real deal and is the sole reason perennially bad Texas A&M are currently in the Sweet 16. Oh, and he's also extremely clutch.


                Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                I have been critical of this draft, saying its way to overated to begin with in reguards to potential stars but one thing I will agree with the majority on is this is a very deep draft if your looking for quality big men and small forwards.IF you look at our roster thats pretty much our strength.We have a bunch of quality forwards on this team, we need backcourt help and I think Seth is right, I would rather lose the pick this year and have the pick next season in which there should be a decent amount of quality guards available.
                It doesn't matter. We're not drafting multiple players, we're drafting one player. Law is that one player, Law will be available in this coming draft. And there are other point guards who could declare this year, Tywon Lawson and Mike Conley for instance.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                  [quote=Shawne;559718] And anyone who doesn't believe the hype behind Acie Law hasn't watched much college basketball this year, He's the real deal and is the sole reason perennially bad Texas A&M are currently in the Sweet 16. Oh, and he's also extremely clutch.

                  Great college players don't always translate into great NBA players.If that was the case Miles Simon would have been a great NBA player.There are countless other players I could have inserted there.He just happens to be one of my all time favorite college players.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                    I like Law pretty well, but I can see both sides of this argument. If we do actually land a top 10 pick, what about the option of drafting a "can't miss" big and then moving multiple 3/4 guys from what we've got for some backcourt help? Or just moving the pick for it?

                    We've got so many PFs on our roster it's scary. I know Shawne and Danny could just as easily be 3s, but I'm not sure their best positions aren't really 4. I think Granger has become less productive in some ways since his permanent switch to 3 and his assuming the unofficial 3-pt specialist mantle. Then there's JO and Ike who are traditional 4s. Murph is also more 4 than 5 IMO.

                    Personally, I think it's time to deal JO if we can get anything decent to good. It's just not worked out here with him and it's hard to deny that his body just can't handle the rigors of an entire season and/or what we're asking him to do. Tins, of course, I'd be happy to see sent packing but at this point I wonder if it will just be another GS type trade that we'll have to settle for.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                      Maybe I'm in a minority, but I just don't see Law as being all that special? He's hit some huge clutch shots, yes, but being clutch and having the talent to compete day to day in the NBA are two different things. I think he might have starter NBA talent, but I'm not convinced he does. Therefore, I'm not convinced he's worth breaking any banks over.

                      I'm also not in the camp that thinks something has to be done in the off-season. Unless it's switching coach/GM. Otherwise, roster shakeups are precisely what has gotten the team into this state.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                        Acie Law is a bit of a quandary.

                        Law is a big PG with all the NBA gifts.

                        At the same time, his PG skills are raw, and he's going to be best-suited to providing scoring punch off the bench for 2-3 years while he learns how to run a team, ala Billups or Cassell.

                        So while he's going to be taken high, I don't think that he's going to really help a team that needs someone to step in and start right away.

                        But yeah, his skills are undeniable. Dude can flat out score.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          Acie Law is a bit of a quandary.

                          Law is a big PG with all the NBA gifts.

                          At the same time, his PG skills are raw, and he's going to be best-suited to providing scoring punch off the bench for 2-3 years while he learns how to run a team, ala Billups or Cassell.

                          So while he's going to be taken high, I don't think that he's going to really help a team that needs someone to step in and start right away.

                          But yeah, his skills are undeniable. Dude can flat out score.
                          That's why he'd be perfect on the Pistons.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                            Originally posted by D-BONE
                            I like Law pretty well, but I can see both sides of this argument. If we do actually land a top 10 pick, what about the option of drafting a "can't miss" big and then moving multiple 3/4 guys from what we've got for some backcourt help? Or just moving the pick for it?

                            We've got so many PFs on our roster it's scary. I know Shawne and Danny could just as easily be 3s, but I'm not sure their best positions aren't really 4. I think Granger has become less productive in some ways since his permanent switch to 3 and his assuming the unofficial 3-pt specialist mantle. Then there's JO and Ike who are traditional 4s. Murph is also more 4 than 5 IMO.

                            Personally, I think it's time to deal JO if we can get anything decent to good. It's just not worked out here with him and it's hard to deny that his body just can't handle the rigors of an entire season and/or what we're asking him to do. Tins, of course, I'd be happy to see sent packing but at this point I wonder if it will just be another GS type trade that we'll have to settle for.
                            Shawne will be the 3 when he's ready. Danny the 4 then if he's still here. Both are just players. No need to define who is what position.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                              Originally posted by shags
                              That's why he'd be perfect on the Pistons.
                              Yep. We're a very good fit for him.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Acie Law is a bit of a quandary.

                                Law is a big PG with all the NBA gifts.

                                At the same time, his PG skills are raw, and he's going to be best-suited to providing scoring punch off the bench for 2-3 years while he learns how to run a team, ala Billups or Cassell.

                                So while he's going to be taken high, I don't think that he's going to really help a team that needs someone to step in and start right away.

                                But yeah, his skills are undeniable. Dude can flat out score.
                                I think your 100% right.I can definetly see him being a Sam Cassel type of player eventually which is not bad at all.Chauncey Billups I'm not so sure about.

                                Some people make it sound like he's going to be a superstar and I just don't see it.Those people are going to be dissapointed.He's going to be a solid player and most likely a starting caliber pg but I don't expect him to be a 10 time allstar.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X