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

Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

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

  • Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

    Hello everyone.....It's good to have time to write again.

    I check this site several times a week, just to keep up on the pulse of Pacer Nation, and this week and last I've read alot about moves in trading for Vince Carter, or trading JO, or trading Danny Granger. That is all expected and acceptable, since we are nearing the trade deadline and teams all around are looking to add pieces for a championship run or clear the decks for the future. Without getting into specific names in this thread, I wanted to post something which to me makes perfect sense but to others it may not, which is to talk about the core of efficient championship team building: Getting guys who compliment each other, and make each other better players, instead of having players with redundant skills and talents. This is what I believe has been the key to winning titles in San Antonio, instead of just merely being "good."

    First, let me put out the theories of the traditional best formula for building a true team in the easiest ways:

    A. A true "point guard", 2 "wings" who compliment each other, 2 "post" players who compliment each other, and backups/specialists at the point, wings, and posts. If you are a really good/lucky team, some of your guys will be able to play multiple positions, but that is a luxury, not a necessity.

    B. 2 "combination guards" with multiple skills and who share roles, 2 "wings" with multiple skills and who share roles, and 1 "true center", who is strong and can guard the biggest opponent AND be the offensive low post first option. Then you need backups/specialists for the combination guards, wings, and a true backup center.

    I know there are variables/exceptions/nuances that might vary slightly, but at its basic core I think those are the DNA traces of a cohesive successful team. Most franchises go with the "A" plan of building, since the true dominant center is a rare breed. Therefore, in the paragraphs to follow, that is what I will assume the Pacers will need to do too.

    So, by my definitions, the Pacers roster breaks down like this currently, in no particular order:

    1. Point guards: Tinsley, Deiner, Owens
    2. Wings: Granger, Dunleavy, Williams, Daniels, Rush, Graham.
    3. Posts: JO, Foster, Harrison, Murphy, Diogu

    Let me take each of the three positions one after the other, and talk about what we really need to be trying to acquire.

    POINT GUARDS:

    Ok, we obviously all think we have a problem here, and I would agree. The first problem in my view is Deiner and Owens basically are end of the bench fringe guys. For my purpose, they have no value other than guys who play in blowouts or emergencies. I like Travis Deiner and his "intangibles", I just don't like his TANGIBLE ability. So, regardless of what you think of Tinsley, we are at least 1 point guard short.

    Now, on to Tinsley.

    In a perfect world, you'd make Tinsley and his pouty attitude disappear from your roster as fast as possible. But, unless you want to take on baggage as bad or even worse from some other franchise, likely JT will continue to be here. I don't view Tinsley's contract to be all that out of line from what he gives you in reality (he is basically a full MLE player), it's just that we have no other option. So, where Tinsley is concerned, the following statement is where I think our focus needs to be:

    "The goal shouldn't necessarily be to trade Tinsley, it should be to make Tinsley LESS VITAL AND IMPORTANT to our success!"

    In my mind, that means we need a legitimate NBA starter/near starter at this position who legitimately can play at a starters level, and who excels in areas where JT doesn't.

    A perfect blueprint in how this was done was the point guard combination of Mark Jackson and Travis Best back in our glory days.....those 2 guys played about the same minutes, made about the same money, and had very complimentary skills. Best being a very strong on the ball pressure defender, shooter, quicker, with more of a scoring mentality. Jackson being a veteran leader, who orchestrated our half court offense very well. Jackson's mental outlook and game meshed well with our starters, Best and his strengths meshed well with our bench, and his on the ball defense was a great thing when we were ahead in the 4th quarter.

    As aggravating as he is, Tinsley has some strengths. He is a pretty good passer, really good post scorer, and has a creative mind and self confidence that at times is a big asset. He also has a questionable attitude, is a very streaky shooter, and somewhat lazy and slow defender.

    So, in regard to our point guard spot, I think the answer is to keep Deiner as your third guard, and jettison Owens. We then need to try and draft or find a player who compliments Tinsley's game, and can do the things well that Tinsley can't: lead, defend hard on the ball, score if he needs to, and play NBA starting caliber defense on quick point guard types that JT doesn't match up well with.

    If you had a guy like that, you could probably split time with Tinsley at the guard spot, cutting his minutes down into the low 20's or so. You'd have a legitimate player to play the end of the game with, and a legitimate starter who could play big minutes in the games JT is out injured or whatever. Without naming specific names, I believe there will be guys like that in the league who can be acquired or drafted by Indiana, and who won't completely screw up our salary structure. This player needs to be able to score off the dribble for us too, and to be capable of scoring in the 15-16 range fairly consistently, in an ideal world, if he had starter minutes.

    I think if you do somehow trade Tinsley, you will still need to add 2 point guards to next years roster, so Deiner can be your third emergency point.



    WINGS: Now we are to the crux of why I'm writing this article in the first place! When I watch the Pacers, my feelings on this become more and more clear to me. I'm amazed that when I get on here and read that more people don't seem to have the same clarity on the subject as I do, which has caused me to really reevaluate my own thinking on the subject. Having done that lately, I must say I still think I'm right on with what I'm about to say. First, let me set it up a bit.

    To me, in building a team you need as starters 2 wings who have complimentary, not redundant, skills. You need in my view a really exceptional scorer, and a really exceptional defender, at these spots. Your scorer needs to be able to give you great offense on a consistent basis, your "wing defender" alongside him needs to be able to stop the other teams best offensive player and cause him trouble. If possible, then you'd like to be able to have a backup who could give you a little of both defense and offense to be in a rotation with those 2 starters, with maybe a 4th guy with 1 real strength you can use in special situations/matchups.

    So, you have Granger already....so what is he? Is he your shutdown elite defender, or is he your future main 20-24pt scorer? Is he neither one?

    The Pacers currently are forced to use Danny as both a top scorer and to guard the opponents best guy. Therefore, Danny really to me hasn't reached his full potential in either area. I think the time is now to make a decision on what Granger truly is, and get the pieves around him at his spot to make him better utilized. Only the elite of the elite (I can only think of one: Kobe Bryant) playing currently can fill both the scorer and stopper role at an all star level. So what does he need?

    If your answer is Danny can be neither an elite scorer or an elite defender, then I think your move should be to trade him for a more important position and future flexibility/draft picks. If your answer is that Danny can be an elite defender for you, then you need to try and acquire a strong stud of a scorer alongside him, so Danny doesnt have to score all that much for you to win.

    I think the solution is obvious still, as I like Granger's offensive potential more than many of you do. The easiest, most efficient, and less costly way to build our team is to acquire a really great perimeter defender to play next to Granger, so Granger can be your traditional top player on offense. I see Granger being able to reach a Paul Pierce/Manu Ginobili/Reggie Lewis level of offensive potential, and doing it for a very low contract for the next few years. I think this only happens if we free him up to be "the guy" and that means getting a completely different style of player to play next to him than Dunleavy is. Dunleavy to me is a fine player, but NOT IN COMBINATION WITH GRANGER.

    I know many of you will disagree with that, and that's ok. Could you win big with a Granger and Bruce Bowen type combination? Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Could you win with a Dunleavy and Bruce Bowen type? I think you could win more than we are now, but not as much as Granger would because Granger is better than Dunleavy, not to mention younger and cheaper. Could you win a championship with a Dunleavy and Ginobil combination? Both fine players, but no I don't think so....you'd have no wing defense. Same as Granger and Ginobili would be, although it would be a bit better.

    So, I think the move to make is to try and move Dunleavy to a team who needs him more than we do, to try and fill holes we may have in other areas. Somehow someway, we need to acquire this top notch wing defender who can start alongside Granger, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be a big name. There may even be a player like this in the draft we can acquire late in the first round or early in the second round. Last year, Detroit nabbed Aaron Afflalo from UCLA....he is a prototype for a player Im describing....there are others we can sign or obtain if we are smart.

    I think we have in Kareem Rush a nice wing bench piece. He is a reasonably good scorer, and a reasonably good defender. He'd be a nice 8th man type, rotation guy, if we can resign him.

    I'm souring a bit on Shawne Williams, who I thought would be better than he is under Jim O'Brien. However, he still has time to develop, so I'm not going to panic yet. If I had to include him in a deal to pick up a harder to find piece I would, but I wouldn't actively be shopping him. Possibly if you don't resign Rush he can be that "8th man back up wing rotation guy"

    This leaves Dunleavy, Daniels, and Graham to actively be shopping, if I were in charge. These 3 guys bring redundant skills, or skills we can find cheaper or more efficiently on the market or in the draft. Dunleavy in particularly would be a great acquisition for a team who really wanted to make a push and needed his type of skills, either as a starter or in a 6th man role. If any of you have agreed with my premise, maybe you can construct some deals that make some logical sense for both teams.

    In looking to move Daniels, I'd be willing to take nothing but expiring deals for him, draft pick (s), and cash. In building a team my preferred way, he can't play....especially since he is somewhat expensive and injury prone. I'd keep Rush over him for those reasons.

    Graham is an end of bench talent and is easily replaceable.


    POST PLAYERS:

    Ok, to have 2 post players starting for you, you need one of them to be a really good and strong post defender, by that I mean someone who can guard the opponents best post player and do it solo, without alot of double team help. Someone who can fight for position, and make it hard for the opponents best post guy to get the ball and then score. Someone who is a strong rebounder.

    You need the other to be an offensive force. Someone who can score with his back to the basket, someone who can produce points for you somehow someway. This guy needs to be able to play defense and rebound too, but his main key role is to be able to score for you in and around the paint.

    Ideally you'd have a third post guy who could fill either role in some ways, so he could sub for either player. Then you might have a "specialist" 4th post player who excelled in one particular specific skill, so you could use him for a specific role if you needed to. Lastly, you would ideally have a 5th guy, role player, brute physically imposing guy who could defende the few behemoth centers in the league in a crunch, and maybe who could develop.

    That would give you 5 guys who could defend the post somewhat, one of the core tenets of building a basketball team.


    The "post scorer" guy is the hardest to find. We sort of have our guy in JO, but he is often injured and is unreliable. The big decision of our franchise going forward is to decide whether to "hold or fold" with Jermaine. If you decide to dump JO, finding your next post scorer will need to be priority one, because you can't win bigh without a guy like that.

    You'll be faced with either getting a free agent to sign here for max money (unlikely to happen), have to get extremely lucky in the draft (top post scorers likely always go in the top 3 picks), get extraordinarily lucky in a trade (like we did with JO) or take someone else's trash and somehow salvage somebody (Zach Randolph or someone similar).

    It would be a defensible position I think for the Pacers to hold onto JO for a little while longer, and see if he can get healthy once and for all. I don't think he will personally ever be reliable and explosive enough to be the guy we need him to be, but I'm not sure I see a better option I like better. Now, if we get lucky in the lottery and get in position to draft Michael Beasley......then trading JO makes entirely more sense, because then it isn't really as important what you may get back position wise.

    Assuming JO is probably untradeable anyway, and assuming he will be here because of that fact, what do we need to do to compliment him better?

    Because JO is a much better weakside defender than he is on the ball, you need a bigger guy I think who can physically handle a big center. I do not think that this particularly player is on our roster. I know many of you will argue for Foster, but he lacks the bulk and strength to be a premier on the block post defender against most elite starting big men. He also isnt physically intimidating or imposing. I'm thinking of more of a Dale Davis type defender, but who hopefully has some ability to help a bit on offense too.

    The ideal player to completely compliment JO we already had in Brad Miller, although he is so totally overpaid that I can't recommend him as an option in most scenarios. We need ideally somebody like a young Brad Miller, but if you can't find that then you need to either go for a stronger defender type (Diop maybe) or a slightly more offensive type (Kristic maybe). JO in reality is a hard guy to compliment and build around, which has been one of our central problems for a long time.

    Then as a third guy, you'd like to have a post player who could play with either starter effectively, much like Antonio Davis used to be able to do. This type of player I think can be found later in the draft, in Europe, or in the trade market. I don't think it would have to be a big name or expensive acquisition necessarily. Whether or not you want to keep Foster or not to fill this role is a big question. I think arguments can be made either way, but I'd probably lean toward finding a cheaper and younger alternative. If you keep Jeff, then this is the role he needs to be in, not as a starter. I've never liked Jeff as a DEFENSIVE TANDEM WITH JO....I'd prefer someone bigger and stronger. These type of guys are available in the middle or later parts of the first round, which is why when we deal we need to get picks thrown in as often as possible. A great guy to draft for this role if we could get multiple picks would be D.J. White, a player I don't project as an NBA star or starter, but as a great rotation energetic post player who helps you win, like Antonio Davis was.

    Your 4th post guy could be a specialist. Either someone who is a great perimeter shooter, letting you play a different scheme if you wished (Robert Horry type), or someone who is a great shotblocker/athlete, or maybe someone who would be an extremely great low post scorer for a period of time (Ike maybe?), or maybe a great rebounder type (Jeff Foster again).

    Again, what your 4th guy would need to be able to do in large part depends on your first 3 guys.

    Your 5th guy can either be a project young guy with size, or an old crusty veteran you can play in an emergency.


    This leaves Murphy for sure as an odd man out. I'd deal Murphy for any contract of similar size that was shorter in length than his, and I wouldn't be picky who I got back. I'd even be willing to pick up others trash if it meant purging his contract off the books, as long as we shortened the time we had committed in length. For a playing role until then, Murphy can only be at best the 4th big man.

    Ike is cheap, so I have no problem keeping him in the 4th big man role. However, much like Golden State did to us, I'd include him in a heartbeat if it gave me a way to get rid of Murphy.

    Let me be clear, I have no real issue with Murphy, he just is what he is. If he had a contract more in line with his talents, then he'd be a nice 4th big man piece on a winning team. The only real argument for keeping him is to save him for 3 years and carry him on your roster, then use him as a major expiring contract to trade for some superstar in a blockbuster trade. That is best case scenario, and it is too far in the future to have as a legitimate idea.

    We might be able to use Shawne Williams in the 4th big man role too, against certain matchups. It is in this role that he gains a little value to me, as he is the only guy we have who I project as being able to swing from the wing to the post area defensively against certain teams.

    Harrison is ok as a 5th big man type, but since his attitude sucks he can go away and begin his future as a journeyman big man. He is easily replaceable.


    Ok, so the conclusions I'm trying to make with this long article are as follows:

    1. We need players who compliment each other, instead of duplicate their teammates skills, in both the backcourt and frontcourt.

    2. Trading for a scoring wing player isnt the most efficient use of our resources, and won't help us wing long term. (Vince Carter, I mean you)

    3. We need a different type of player than Dunleavy is to play along Granger and use him in the most efficient way which in my view is as a scorer and number one option. We need an elite perimeter defender in the worst way, like the Spurs do with their combination of Ginobili and Bowen.

    4. We have assets to trade that other teams could use that aren't named JO or Tinsley, and we need to think that way sooner rather than later. Dunleavy, Daniels, Murphy (if by some miracle possible), Foster, and Ike should all be moved in the right circumstance.

    5. We need to start acquiring picks in bulk when we trade these assets, to help set up future moves.


    This isn't going to be checkers, this is more like multi dimensional chess, but it is the game that the Pacers front office needs to be able to play. Before identifying specific players, the Pacers must first realize how a championship level team is built piece by piece, and quit trying to put square pegs in round holes.

    Just a few days left to see if the Pacers can help their future before the summer time.....what happens next should be interesting, and educational, about whether the Pacers can improve their future, or stay on the treadmill to mediocrity.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

    Would the offensive and defensive style that JO'B runs ( which is completely different then the way the Spurs or the Pistons run ) affect the type of roleplayers that you're suggesting that we get?

    Also......although it is optimal to get a complimentary player that can play defense for the offensive wing and Post players that we have ( Granger and JONeal ), is there a requirment that the defensive Starter be a decent scorer as well?

    Players like Artest and ( to a certain degree ) Bowen who can provide pressure defense as well as score ( or hit the 3pt shot like Bowen can ) aren't easy to find. It would seem that it would be easier to find a defensive minded player ( Quinton Ross or Diop )...unfortunately, most defensive-minded players are not very good scorers.

    Also...assuming that most of the players that you have suggested that we move...specifically Dunleavy and Murphy...aren't going to be moved primarily due to their contracts.....what role do you see them playing on the team? It sounds like they can be used as the rotational guys that come in behind the primary starters as the 4th Wing or Post guy for scoring off the bench.
    Last edited by CableKC; 02-20-2008, 05:10 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

      cool i guess step 1 is to pair a top 10 alltime power forward with a hof center.

      step 2 all you have to do is get a great mix of shot makers and great defenders.

      see guys we are all closer than we think only 2 steps away from being annual contenders
      then: adverb - at that time; at the time in question

      than: conjunction & preposition - introducing the second element in a comparison

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Would the offensive and defensive style that JO'B runs ( which is completely different then the way the Spurs or the Pistons run ) affect the type of roleplayers that you're suggesting that we get?

        Also......although it is optimal to get a complimentary player that can play defense for the offensive wing and Post players that we have ( Granger and JONeal ), is there a requirment that the defensive Starter be a decent scorer as well?

        Players like Artest and ( to a certain degree ) Bowen who can provide pressure defense as well as score ( or hit the 3pt shot like Bowen can ) aren't easy to find. It would seem that it would be easier to find a defensive minded player ( Quinton Ross or Diop )...unfortunately, most defensive-minded players are not very good scorers.

        Also...assuming that most of the players that you have suggested that we move...specifically Dunleavy and Murphy...aren't going to be moved primarily due to their contracts.....what role do you see them playing on the team? It sounds like they can be used as the rotational guys that come in behind the primary starters as the 4th Wing or Post guy for scoring off the bench.

        CableKC, thanks for responding to my original post with some good questions. I'll try to answer them in order.

        My answer to the Jim O'Brien system question, whether that would affect the type of role players I'd look for, is absolutely not. I would build this team to the blueprint I described, irregardless of the particular system Jim O'Brien is running. Why is that? Because by the time the pieces are in place completely to be a championship contender, Jim O'Brien likely won't be here. I also have real reservations about O'Brien in general.....his overreliance on his "system", his stubbornness streak, his ability to handle young guys, his in game coaching decisions, his ability to analyze players in the same way I do, etc etc etc. I was clear early on that I wouldn't have hired a "retread coach" like Jim O'Brien anyway. Having said that, no coach can win with the players we have currently playing big minutes, so this mess isn't really his fault in my view.

        It's very important for the front office and the head coach to be completely in sync with one another so they can build together the type of players they can win with. I just lack confidence in the tandem of Larry and Jim to be able to have the correct vision and execution to pull this off.

        On the next question, I think it would be a requirement for our "defensive" wing and post players to have at least some offensive skills, they just may not all be scoring in and of itself. For instance, Dale Davis couldnt really post up or shoot, but his ability to set bonecrunching baseline screens helped Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose score, and his ability to offensive rebound enabled Rik Smits to play more at the high post and away from the basket.....Dale couldn't score much himself, but his abilities COMPLIMENTED our other guys.......that's really the point I'm making.

        Derrick McKey was a reluctant scorer, but he could handle the ball well at the top of the circle, so we could run different plays other teams couldn't, with him as a primary ballhandler. Derrick had only a decent jump shot, but he was an excellent and tall feeder to the low post....his skills, while not scoring totally himself, helped the PACERS SCORE.....which is the entire point.

        We can find guys that have defense as their main function, and yet have a few redeeming offensive skills that can help us win I believe.

        In terms of Dunleavy and Murphy and using them in the event we are forced to keep them, the two players really are entirely different.

        I think Dunleavy could probably be a really good primary backup wing man on a really good team. If a team was set up perfectly, he might even be able to start....for instance, he could play the Ginobili role in San Antonio about 90% as good as Manu does, I believe. I think if the Pacers decided to move Granger instead of Dunleavy (not what I would do at all, but still) then he could start for us, AS LONG AS YOU PUT A COMPLIMENTARY PLAYER ALONGSIDE HIM. Dunleavy is a good player no doubt, I just don't think he fits well alongside Granger......think of it like what we need to do with Dunleavy is akin to moving Detlef Schrempf for Derrick McKey all those years ago. Detlef was probably a better individual player, but MCKEY HELPED US WIN BETTER.

        In regards to Murphy, I just now basically don't think he can play on a good team. Much like I think JO is a difficult player to build around and compliment, Murphy is impossible. Murphy has a few skills, but the combination of them compliments nobody. Chris Mullin dumping him on Larry Bird/Donnie Walsh will end up being his crowning achievement as a GM someday.

        I suppose Murphy is good enough to play a role similar to Austin Croshere, kind of a tweener guy who doesnt play at all some nights, but who occasionally can come in and give you some offense when you are desperate. Unfortunately, he makes even more that AC did.

        I'd trade Murphy for almost any expiring(s) deals in the league, or almost anyone who had a shorter deal than he does. Murphy just can't play.

        Thanks for the questions CKC, I hope that clarified my thinking.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

          So my previous post was lost but I wanted to suggest 2 things for you T-bird.

          To you is granger quick enough and good enough with the ball to be our number one option? To me he is not and it has nothing to do with a dual role we ask of him. Some people have it and other don't or are unwilling to assume the role. You might think that it is developed but I don't think so. Look at all of the number one options in the NBA and how long did it take them to assume that role. Danny to me has had enough time.

          For me our biggest need is a number one option and unfortunatley the only ones I can see us getting/trading for all have baggage.

          So my next question is of that baggage list who would you suggest?
          Last edited by Gamble1; 02-20-2008, 06:39 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            So my previous post was lost but I wanted to suggest 2 things for you T-bird.

            To you is granger quick enough and good enough with the ball to be our number one option? To me he is not and it has nothing to do with a dual role we ask of him. Some people have it and other don't or are unwilling to assume the role. You might think that it is developed but I don't think so. Look at all of the number one options in the NBA and how long did it take them to assume that role. Danny to me has had enough time.

            For me our biggest need is a number one option and unfortunatley the only ones I can see us getting all have baggage.

            So my next question is of that baggage list who would you suggest?
            Thanks for the question Gamble.....I'm glad you wrote.

            Well, in regards to Granger being "good enough" to be a number one option on a really good team, I think that he is but I admit there is room for argument. I know he isn't the greatest ballhandler and "slasher" but I think he makes up for some of that by being a very good decision maker and perimeter shooter, in spite of the fact that in this system very few plays are necessarily designed for him to score. Combine that with the extra energy he does have to expend trying to guard the Rip Hamilton/Dwayne Wade/Carmelo Anthony/Kobe Bryant/LeBron James types, and I think his production is about what you'd expect. I think getting extra touches, not having to expend so much energy defensively, and by some natural improvement and development that Granger can be a 20-23 point guy who is very efficient and effective consistently.

            Like I said, I compare his upside to be at about the limit of Paul Pierce and Reggie Lewis. You'd need a post player to be a primary scorer also, and at least one more good offensive player on the floor to score.

            I think its much more likely to develop Danny as a scorer than a lockdown defender.


            On the "baggage" list, who exactly are you referring to?

            Tbird

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

              Personally, I don't believe that Granger will ever be an 'elite level'
              scorer (which I define as a guy who can get his won shot almost
              anytime, is both an explosive and efficient scorer and opens
              things up for other guys via his abilities) or an elite level defender.

              My biggest fear as that TBTP disagrees and because he's also a
              'good guy', will hang on too long waiting to find out only to realize
              he isn't.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                CableKC, thanks for responding to my original post with some good questions. I'll try to answer them in order.

                My answer to the Jim O'Brien system question, whether that would affect the type of role players I'd look for, is absolutely not. I would build this team to the blueprint I described, irregardless of the particular system Jim O'Brien is running. Why is that? Because by the time the pieces are in place completely to be a championship contender, Jim O'Brien likely won't be here. I also have real reservations about O'Brien in general.....his overreliance on his "system", his stubbornness streak, his ability to handle young guys, his in game coaching decisions, his ability to analyze players in the same way I do, etc etc etc. I was clear early on that I wouldn't have hired a "retread coach" like Jim O'Brien anyway. Having said that, no coach can win with the players we have currently playing big minutes, so this mess isn't really his fault in my view.

                It's very important for the front office and the head coach to be completely in sync with one another so they can build together the type of players they can win with. I just lack confidence in the tandem of Larry and Jim to be able to have the correct vision and execution to pull this off.

                On the next question, I think it would be a requirement for our "defensive" wing and post players to have at least some offensive skills, they just may not all be scoring in and of itself. For instance, Dale Davis couldnt really post up or shoot, but his ability to set bonecrunching baseline screens helped Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose score, and his ability to offensive rebound enabled Rik Smits to play more at the high post and away from the basket.....Dale couldn't score much himself, but his abilities COMPLIMENTED our other guys.......that's really the point I'm making.

                Derrick McKey was a reluctant scorer, but he could handle the ball well at the top of the circle, so we could run different plays other teams couldn't, with him as a primary ballhandler. Derrick had only a decent jump shot, but he was an excellent and tall feeder to the low post....his skills, while not scoring totally himself, helped the PACERS SCORE.....which is the entire point.

                We can find guys that have defense as their main function, and yet have a few redeeming offensive skills that can help us win I believe.

                In terms of Dunleavy and Murphy and using them in the event we are forced to keep them, the two players really are entirely different.

                I think Dunleavy could probably be a really good primary backup wing man on a really good team. If a team was set up perfectly, he might even be able to start....for instance, he could play the Ginobili role in San Antonio about 90% as good as Manu does, I believe. I think if the Pacers decided to move Granger instead of Dunleavy (not what I would do at all, but still) then he could start for us, AS LONG AS YOU PUT A COMPLIMENTARY PLAYER ALONGSIDE HIM. Dunleavy is a good player no doubt, I just don't think he fits well alongside Granger......think of it like what we need to do with Dunleavy is akin to moving Detlef Schrempf for Derrick McKey all those years ago. Detlef was probably a better individual player, but MCKEY HELPED US WIN BETTER.

                In regards to Murphy, I just now basically don't think he can play on a good team. Much like I think JO is a difficult player to build around and compliment, Murphy is impossible. Murphy has a few skills, but the combination of them compliments nobody. Chris Mullin dumping him on Larry Bird/Donnie Walsh will end up being his crowning achievement as a GM someday.

                I suppose Murphy is good enough to play a role similar to Austin Croshere, kind of a tweener guy who doesnt play at all some nights, but who occasionally can come in and give you some offense when you are desperate. Unfortunately, he makes even more that AC did.

                I'd trade Murphy for almost any expiring(s) deals in the league, or almost anyone who had a shorter deal than he does. Murphy just can't play.

                Thanks for the questions CKC, I hope that clarified my thinking.
                Since I don't think that we will ever move Murphy and ( I prefer to keep Dunleavy ) to rotate in with Granger while playing next to a defensive minded player ( Quinton Ross ), I am guessing that we need to get a defensive minded player to compliment what he does. It's been said that Murphy seems to play well next to Foster....maybe both of them can work as the 3rd/4th rebounding/scoring Post Players that you suggest. Maybe all we need is a decent Big Man that can defend the post and rebound while scoring on occasion. It sounds like we need to find a "Dale Davis" type-player to go alongside the Rik Smits player that JONeal is becoming.

                I don't know if we could afford him....but I wouldn't mind going for a player like Diop in the offseason. He may have little to no offensive game...but he's worth a try.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                  CableKC-

                  There is always Thabeet as a possibility in the June draft. If
                  the stud G's are gone by the time the Pacers pick, he might be
                  a better way to go rather than 'reach' for a PG/SG. He's a guy
                  at '5' who can cover alot of defensive ills at other spots. He's
                  raw, but he's on his way to being a more fluid, athletic version
                  of Motumbo if he works at his game.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                    Thanks for the question Gamble.....I'm glad you wrote.

                    Well, in regards to Granger being "good enough" to be a number one option on a really good team, I think that he is but I admit there is room for argument. I know he isn't the greatest ballhandler and "slasher" but I think he makes up for some of that by being a very good decision maker and perimeter shooter, in spite of the fact that in this system very few plays are necessarily designed for him to score. Combine that with the extra energy he does have to expend trying to guard the Rip Hamilton/Dwayne Wade/Carmelo Anthony/Kobe Bryant/LeBron James types, and I think his production is about what you'd expect. I think getting extra touches, not having to expend so much energy defensively, and by some natural improvement and development that Granger can be a 20-23 point guy who is very efficient and effective consistently.

                    Like I said, I compare his upside to be at about the limit of Paul Pierce and Reggie Lewis. You'd need a post player to be a primary scorer also, and at least one more good offensive player on the floor to score.

                    I think its much more likely to develop Danny as a scorer than a lockdown defender.


                    On the "baggage" list, who exactly are you referring to?

                    Tbird
                    I am referring to anyone we can get with our tradeable pieces. For me I think Zach would be a reasonable first option and a low post threat we could get. I know the forum is high and tight with such suggestions but to me you play the game to win not to look good. If you want role models go to church is my opinion. We need scorers that are cheap and who we could get.

                    So Zach to me is rare in the fact that he is cheap and fulfills two roles, rebounding and points. I know everyone knocks his defense but most teams have one not two low post scorers. His defense could be masked with a hard nosed big man, which in my opinion are easier to come by than a scoring big man that rebounds.

                    Danny could be developed but in my opinion we need a guy to create off the dribble which Danny in my eyes is lacking.

                    Lastly taking SA as a model of building has 2 flaws. The first is they were ahead of the curve in drafting over seas. The second is they were incredibly lucky to draft Tim D because of D.R's injury.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                      Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                      CableKC-

                      There is always Thabeet as a possibility in the June draft. If
                      the stud G's are gone by the time the Pacers pick, he might be
                      a better way to go rather than 'reach' for a PG/SG. He's a guy
                      at '5' who can cover alot of defensive ills at other spots. He's
                      raw, but he's on his way to being a more fluid, athletic version
                      of Motumbo if he works at his game.
                      Do you actually believe he will be around? I don't at all..
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 02-21-2008, 12:32 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                        1. We need players who compliment each other, instead of duplicate their teammates skills, in both the backcourt and frontcourt.

                        2. Trading for a scoring wing player isnt the most efficient use of our resources, and won't help us wing long term. (Vince Carter, I mean you)

                        3. We need a different type of player than Dunleavy is to play along Granger and use him in the most efficient way which in my view is as a scorer and number one option. We need an elite perimeter defender in the worst way, like the Spurs do with their combination of Ginobili and Bowen.

                        4. We have assets to trade that other teams could use that aren't named JO or Tinsley, and we need to think that way sooner rather than later. Dunleavy, Daniels, Murphy (if by some miracle possible), Foster, and Ike should all be moved in the right circumstance.

                        5. We need to start acquiring picks in bulk when we trade these assets, to help set up future moves.
                        TBird,

                        I agree with EVERYTHING here. Very well put.

                        I really like Dunleavy but he doesn't complament Granger. At all really.

                        To me Danny is not your shutdown defender, he is one of the players you probably want for the future. So Mike should be moved at some point.

                        I'm a big fan of gathering as many draft picks as possible for teams that are re building. Like it or not, call it whatever the hell you want, the Pacers are re building.

                        One thing though, you were saying about point guards how good it is to have two different ones, such as Jackson/Best. Can you even do that now a days? The point guard has become a scoring position and probably the most important player on the floor. Can you really win a championship without a great point guard now a days?

                        I just wish TPTB would realize these things and take actions. I think Larry has the knowledge to do a good job. I just worry that Donnie is holding him back. I also worry that Larry may himself be reluctant to pull the trigger on deals but maybe not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          Due you actually believe he will be around? I don't at all..
                          If we miss the Playoffs....then we will likely draft no later then the 10th spot.....he'll probably be there.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                            I bet he goes in the top 5.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Building a championship team by defining specific roles, with San Antonio as our model

                              Gamble1-

                              I have my doubts. We all know that 'bigs' tend to rise as the draft
                              draws near. As much as he's been improving as the seasons rolls
                              along, he may well sneak into the 4-6 range. It depends on who is
                              picking where and what they need.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X