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

How do you guys see Granger's potential?

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

  • #16
    Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

    Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
    I expect Granger's numbers to match Odom next year and he will surpass him after that.
    i don't think danny will ever average double digit boards. doubt he can get his assists up past 4 a game either.

    he'll be a better scorer and wing defender than odom though.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

      I see 18-8-4, good defender/borderline all-star as his top end.

      A very nice 2nd option for a team but if he's your go-to guy night-in, night-out you have a team weakness that needs to be addressed. He COULD be your primary perimeter option if you had a top-tier post player.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

        I think we can comfortably say he will land somewhere between Shane Battier and Scottie Pippen.
        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
        RSS Feed
        Subscribe via iTunes

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

          I see Granger as a guy who does everything very well, but he's not overly great in anything. He's the perfect complimentary player, but not the #1 guy. He could be a great fit to a JO team if JO continues to develop his leadership skills, which it soulds like he is doing. On another note, Shawn Williams is very similar in that mold, but a little more explosive as a slasher. In the end, he may turn out to be the better player.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

            Yes, DG has most upside as a complimentary guy in the Pippen mold. As a consistent scoring option he'll be much more successful as a 2nd or 3rd option.

            Of course, the problem with that here is that he's on a team that has nothing but other 2nd and 3rd option type players offensively. In fact, I'd go so far to say that I think JO's ideal role on a team would also be the way many describe DG's except it would be more in the paint obviously. A 2nd scoring option who would really make his mark in the paint with shotblocking and rebounding.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

              Originally posted by THE DAGGER View Post
              I'm a Lakers fan. I'm not here to talk about "JO to LA" (at least not in this thread). But, I just wanted to get an understanding on how you all see Danny Granger's potential. And I would also like to share my own opinion on his potential as well.

              I know your front office is high on him. From reading some of the posts here, I can see that most of you fans are high on him as well. With good reason, I really like him as a player too.

              But, I think you guys are going to expect more from him than he can give you.

              I definitely see him as the second best player on your team behind JO. But, I think there's a difference between being the second best player and being the second best scoring option.

              I get the feeling you guys see him as both.

              As far as I know, before you made the trade with the Warriors, Granger was the 3rd or 4th scoring option behind JO, Jackson, and Harrington.

              He was thrust into being the 2nd scoring option after the trade. And even then, with free rein to score, he had trouble with the role.

              His talents don't really lie in scoring. His talents actually lie in everything but.

              Don't get me wrong, he can score if needed. He shoots really good percentages from the field, the 3, and the line. But, I don't think he's comfortable being relied upon to score.

              If you keep the team as is and expect Granger to be your perimeter scorer and JO to be your post scorer, you might be in for a rude awakening.

              And if you do actually trade JO, and put even more of the scoring load on Granger, it could be a recipe for disaster.

              To me, Granger can be an all-star caliber player. But, in particular, an all-star caliber "complementary" player.

              To put it in perspective, he grew up idolizing Scottie Pippen and patterned his game after him. He even wears #33 in his honor. That's the type of player Granger is.

              And I know you're going to just think I'm a Lakers homer after I say this. But, honestly, who better to pair Granger, a "Pippen" type player, than with Kobe, a "Jordan" type player?

              Even if it's not Kobe, Granger is better suited playing next to a perimeter scorer while he concentrates more so on defense and filling up the stat sheet in other areas.

              Your guys' main priority should be to find that perimeter scorer while Granger is in his prime. But, until you guys do that, you'll be wasting his talents.
              On this forum, Granger could stand next to a Floating Jesus and two hand fulls of people would pick Granger. That is how much they love this kid.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

                Still on track to be Pippen-like. He's improved the 3, he was able to get away from camping the arc last season, he's clearly showing signs of learning the game, adopting and adapting rather than just getting by on pure skill.

                He's nowhere near done developing his awareness IMO. In fact most Granger supporters hated how I critiqued his game last season, though I have no doubts still that my points were accurate.

                See for that side they think that any negative translates to "I don't like him and he's a bust". Nothing could be further from the truth. I just am not going to gloss over the real issues in a rush to put him on the pedistal before he's reached the top.

                He'll get there, but it will clearly be a progressive thing, not instant. This year look for him to find his dribble game and to really improve his defense thanks to JOB/Harter.

                This kid gets lost a lot in games and I think it's due explicitly to OVERTHINKING when he hits things he hasn't learned yet. He tries to figure it out rather than reacting. Sucks now, but the upside is that he WILL LEARN because that's his process, that's what he has been suffering through. Once he knows what to do he clearly has the ability to make good on it.

                Again, Pippen progressed, he wasn't an instant guy. And he was paired with Jordan. Danny's had a tougher road so far and still improved his game at a decent rate. It's coming....it's just not there yet.

                18-7-5 with 1-1 on defense and a 38% 3pt shot. I can see that by year 4.


                And I prefer to pair him with Gordon or Mayo...oh, and some guy named JO.



                Shawne - more of an inside defender/rebounder, better shot on offense, less ball handling than Danny. I don't think he'll be the all-around guy that Danny will, but he will be a guy that can impact a game nearly as much given the opportunity. But that's less certain. It's been one season and then a very unimpressive summer league for him.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 08-19-2007, 01:16 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Again, Pippen progressed, he wasn't an instant guy. And he was paired with Jordan.
                  FWIW...I think there was also quite a direct correlation between those two. Danny doesn't, nor ever likely will play with anyone that pushes him towards greatness as MJ did Scottie. Especially in respect to having someone help instill him with confidence.


                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Danny's had a tougher road so far and still improved his game at a decent rate. It's coming....it's just not there yet.
                  I still have faith he'll be a great player. I just think the Pippen ceiling most likely needs to be lowered. HOF expectations just seem somewhat of a stretch at this point. But regardless of semantics, we still have a really strong starting SF for the next decade if we keep him around.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

                    Jay-

                    Your final few words may end up being the $64,000 question. I'm not
                    quite as high on DG as some, but nonetheless, I recognize that he's
                    the Pacers' #2 asset at this point. If for whatever reasons, J.O.
                    ends up sticking around longer term, at some point, in an attempt
                    to balance the roster and infuse the backcourt with a legit, high
                    impact talent, strong consideration to moving DG to make that
                    happen will have to and should be considered.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

                      Ultimately, I expect more from every player than they can give. When it comes to young players (guys still playing on rookie contracts) I expect a LOT more from them than they can ever give.

                      Part of the fun of following a team is waiting with baited breath for a young player to become a star.

                      Granger has that kind of upside. He can reach coach selected all-star status as long as he and Coach OB really find ways to exploit his talents.

                      Sometimes players seem to get worse when they work more on their difficiencies than they do on their strengths. I think Danny may have done that this past year, and what I considered to be his strengths seemed to falter a bit.

                      The fact that he was not coached well, especially on the defensive end, did not help his situation.

                      I have no problem with expecting excellence from our young guys, even when they are not excellent players. I can only hope that their expectations are even higher than mine, and that they are doing everything in their power to meet those expectations.
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: How do you guys see Granger's potential?

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        FWIW...I think there was also quite a direct correlation between those two. Danny doesn't, nor ever likely will play with anyone that pushes him towards greatness as MJ did Scottie. Especially in respect to having someone help instill him with confidence.


                        I still have faith he'll be a great player. I just think the Pippen ceiling most likely needs to be lowered. HOF expectations just seem somewhat of a stretch at this point. But regardless of semantics, we still have a really strong starting SF for the next decade if we keep him around.
                        Good point on being pushed, though I suspect he's a bit more mature than Pippen that way (ahem, "I won't go in if I don't get to take the final shot").

                        The HOF thing is overrated with Pippen I think. So part of this I guess is that I don't think Pippen was some lofty goal that is unreachable. Bring the Pippen icon back down to the actual Pippen and it becomes within Danny's reach. To me it's more like "can DG become an all-star".

                        On that count I will admit that it's still pretty iffy. But he's already proven that he can start even when he probably wasn't ready to in terms of learning a complete game. Next rung up from starter is high quality starter and then all-star. If he's not there in 3 years then it probably won't happen, but for now I'll be stunned if he doesn't continue to progress fairly quickly (in relative NBA terms, like 4-5 PPG improve or 2-3 rpg/apg improve, which to me is a lot).

                        The fact that he was not coached well, especially on the defensive end, did not help his situation.
                        I agree. Rick had this defensive rep but he's an offensive coach who likes safe, deliberate, efficient offense. That keeps the scoring down and helps the defense get set up, but after that it's not his area as much. He had guys like Ben and Ron who made the defense better, but having someone like Person as the defensive coach seemed to be a mistake IMO. Love Chuck, but this team floundered in defensive awareness last season.

                        Closing out guys ahead of time, covering space before it can be exploited, forcing a team to choose the option that your teammates are waiting on, those things can make weaker defenders look okay. That's awareness, not physical ability. This team did a lot of reacting and ball chasing last year, rather than controlling the space.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 08-20-2007, 01:59 PM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X