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

Keep Shawne Williams!

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

  • #16
    Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    DJ White?
    = half season ticket holder!
    STARBURY

    08 and Beyond

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

      I kinda like the idea of granger, dun, williams being the 2-3-4 combo on the team, given the sort of offense we are trying to build. add a true shot-blocking center in the middle (thabeet?) to gaurd the rim and a point gaurd who can defend and dunleavy's defense wont be such a liability. I have not watched flip enough to judge his D, but assuming his Defense is adaquete, the fact that he is not a "True" point can be overcome I think, especially with a guy like dunleavy on the floor who can initiate offense. His ability to break down players one-on-one has been crucial to the team's success of late, he seems to have improved in setting up his teammates as well.

      Is there any reason to think Danny won't be able to gaurd other team's 2's? Does shawne have the size to gaurd 4's? He could probably stand to put on some more pounds, but his length seems adequete. I just think that group more than anything would need a 7+ footer who concenterates soley on defense, shot-blocking, and rebounding to make it all work.

      as far as the angry mob is concerned, let their bloodlust be satisfied with tinsley, daniels, and harrison. We get rid of shawne over this crap and I garentee you this franschise will regret it for years to come. I put my money down he goes on the become a possible all star to qaulity starter somewhere and probably never gets in trouble again. mark my words... if we trade him it better be a damn good deal.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Keep him (Dun) if you want since he does make the offense go, but also understand that he's not ultimately going to be the top 2 guy of an elite team.
        I've never understood this statement. Mike is just flat out a basketball player. He has such a well-rounded game. I wouldn't say he's a franchise player, but you need that type of player to win.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

          In what way is he well rounded?

          There are 2 aspects to basketball, when you boil it down.

          He either CAN NOT or DOES NOT (I believe the former) play defense at a respectable NBA level.

          To say he is well rounded does not compute. He doesn't perform in fully 50% of the game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Jay - Dun is going to keep getting that raise. Is a one way player really worth $10.5m? Hinrich is getting Dun money for example. Jason Terry gets LESS. John Howard is in that park.

            Prince, Rip, Billups get similar. Battier is a 6.5m guy roughly.
            Mike makes $8.2 million right now. Yes, of course, he will continue to get raises. Every player in the League (minus a few) get raises every year. The salary cap goes up every year, too, so in terms of NBA inflation, he won't be taking up a significantly larger % of our cap room. Also, Mike won't be getting the $10.5 million you're talking about until 2010. Over the next two years, he will make $9 million and $9.8 million, That may $1 million above market value, but that's not a reason to trade someone. His contract is not a big deal.

            And if you're gonna bring up other guys, get the numbers right. Chauncey makes $2 million more and will be a 35-year-old making $13.2 million in 2010. The other two Pistons guys and Josh Howard are both on great contracts. That happens when you have a good GM and the guys want to stay on their team. Again, this is something we have to pray Danny wants to do this summer. If he hits the open market, we might be looking at 5 years 50+ million for him.

            As for Jason Terry, his contract is worse than MDJ's, IMO. He's OLD. And WORSE AT BASKETBALL. And his deal DOESN'T EXPIRE UNTIL HE'S 35.

            Neither he nor Rip are "two-way" players either.

            And Battier might have the best contract in the league. Not much to say about that.

            If you seriously look at the average $8 million contract around the League and don't just cherry pick like the best six you can find, Mike is pretty damn close to being a good value.

            As for not counting his numbers last year, bulls***. They were dead on with the prior 2 seasons. If they were GOOD numbers you'd be running them out there as "consistancy" and proof of how good he is.
            Not really. I honestly don't think he's all that great and I don't think I'm missing any of his several flaws. I just believe he has been our best player all season long. Is that sad? Yes. But it's true.

            Maybe he had an epiphany, or maybe he's got low tolerance for pressure and 7K disinterested fans make him comfortable.

            I still cite the system because he's doing 2 explicit things well - driving for his own bucket, making the 3. His assists, for all the freaking love-fest hype I have to hear, are BELOW STEPHEN SELFISH JACKSON'S...still, this year, not last year.

            He touches the ball ALL THE TIME. He's the "best passer" on the team. He's got Danny, Rush and Troy dropping the 3 at a 40+ rate. Options are there for him. And he's 3.5 APG compared to Jackson's 3.9 post AS, or 3.4 vs 4.2 on the full season.
            I think he turned a corner as a pro. It happens to a lot of guys around his age. That's why 28-32 is considered a player's "prime."

            You don't think he's turned anything. Cool. Agree to disagree.

            And the assist numbers don't bother me. I have eyes. Good things happen when he has the ball. He's the only guy on our team I can say that about. Danny, to me, is still little more than a finisher -- whether it's hitting a three or a traditional finish. He still rarely creates anything for himself or others.

            Because the Dun/Troy $21m will have the team handcuffed more than the $17.5m they were handing to Al/Jack...not to mention the additional $22m that has to go out the door the year after when Jack/Al's deals are over with.
            I know your favorite national pastime is to bring up the past and pretend it still matters, but Al and Jack's salaries have nothing to do with how MDJ's career will play out over the next three years. Murph's unfortunately is interconnected given the cap, but you don't trade Dun just because we ****ed up and are overpaying our should-be 7th man (which, as you and others have noted of late isn't such a bad salary given his post-New Year's production).

            All the more reason to trade Dun's $10m now for a 6-4 pair with at least the 4 coming off the books before you resign Danny.
            Hope to resign Danny, you mean. And again you over-quote Mike's salary by $2 million.

            So let me get this right? You want to give away the guy who has been unquestionably at least our 2nd best player this season, just for a lower cap number that we can't use for 2-3 seasons and a lesser player? Who is Mr. $6 million some team is going to be dying to give away along with an asset like a $4 million expiring? Like I said above, MDJ is pretty good value for an $8 million guy. Compared to the $6 million crop that GMs would want to move? He's a damn Hall of Famer.

            Who you want for $6 million? Vlad Rad? Bobby Jackson? Mike James? Mo Pete? Marko Jaric? Tim Thomas? Abdur Raheem? Mark Blount? You might think these names are too low-quality to get for MDJ, but most $6 million players in this League are either really good values that teams are never gonna move unless they're getting something good back (Battier, Barbosa), bad deals like those above or complete and total "mehs" like Luke Ridnour, Antonio Daniels and Darko.

            Look, I'm well aware of how royally ****ed our cap is. It's horrible. But Mike is not the problem. We need to get rid of any and all of JO, Jamaal, Murphy and Marquis before MDJ's name should even come up in a meeting. I mean, maybe we have to make Mike the sacrificial lamb and package him to get rid of Jamaal. If that's the case, so be it. Buy aside from Jeff and the rookies, MDJ is actually the only good contract we have, IMO.

            IMO, trading away one of the only decent contracts on your team while simultaneously trading away one of the two legitimate NBA talents you have on your team (presuming JO is never getting back to worth even 2/3 of his salary) is just fricking stupid. I don't care if he plays the same position as the only other one. That scenario is of course unfortunate, but it's not nearly as unfortunate as all the other problems on this roster/cap.

            I mean, we have people starting threads about Flip Murray being our savior. We have two GMs tainting things up in the front office. We have owners calling out the entire franchise in the paper after never getting involved in 20+ years (and btw, I don't think the title of this thread is gonna be coming up much in their meetings).

            C'mon, Mike Dunleavy, Jr is about number #25 on the list of problems. Let's focus on something else.

            And sorry to turn this into an MDJ thread. Much like having to go to the woodshed about JO being hurt earlier this year, this also feels weird since I don't even like MDJ that much.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

              Watching the Wizards/Pistons game, let me tell you about guys who can flatout play well rounded games, the kind you need to win, and who I'd trade Dun for in a heartbeat:

              Prince, Rip, Sheed, Chauncey, Caron, Jamison, I'd probably even take Deshawn Stevenson. ALL of these guys play vastly superior defense to Dun, and except for Deshawn they all play at least equal, if not better offense.

              Dun couldn't crack the Pistons starting lineup. He can not be the key feature of a good team. I know he's about all we have, and we want to see sunshine in him, but honestly, keep some perspective please.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Fixed. In your face Flanders.

                How many playoff teams has Dun been on? For how many coaches?
                X-Files or is there something to it?

                Like what Troy is doing too, but the fact is that the Pacers need to turn the JO/Troy/Dun money into something A LOT more productive than what they can get from Dun/Shawne/Foster.

                And I did say I can see the point to keeping him, he does make the JIM O'BRIEN offense run. Of course if you ultimately find fault with his coaching and swap him out, then maybe you get the Montgomery, Nellie, Rick Dun instead.

                I also hate that he makes it 5 on 4 at the other end.

                Making playoffs now, you need Mike. Making the ECF 4 years from now when the prospects are coming into their own, you don't have Mike as part of that.

                If Detlef was tradeable for defensive reasons, WTF does that make Dunleavy. Because Dun ain't no Det.
                Is Dunleavy's defense really that bad compared to anyone else on the team?

                I don't get the sense that his defensive liabilities are so bad that we are going 5 on 4 all the time.

                I am all for trading Dunleavy as long as we get back something of decent value that doesn't kill our salarycap. I just don't see any type of trade that we can make that involves either Murphy or Dunleavy that would improve this team. This doesn't mean that I don't agree with their impact on the Salarycap and that we would greatly benefit from eliminating them from our Financial situation.....I just don't see any trade that will get us somewhat "equal talent" in return while improving our financial situation. It would IMHO be the reverse of the Murphleavy trade that netted us ( arguably ) less talented players that killed whatever salarycap flexibility that we had.

                I can only see a trade that can do one or the other....not both.
                Last edited by CableKC; 03-23-2008, 09:49 PM.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  Is Dunleavy's defense really that bad compared to anyone else on the team?
                  A great couple of quotes from the Bulls game. At one point Quinn talked about how Dunleavy really was having a hard time guarding Gordon, and that he sometimes got beat on the dribble by quick 2's. At another point in the game, Dun got matched up with somebody (Deng?) who just outmuscled him, and Quinn talked about how Danny tended to get overpowered by 3's.

                  I sat in my chair and wondered "Then who is he supposed to guard?"
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                    I've really changed my opinion on Dun. I hated the trade that brought him here (although I really didn't mind losing Harrington, Jack, or Sarunas), and I hated the thought of going into the season with him as our shooting guard. I hated his timidity and his streakiness.

                    But he's really hit a whole different level. I still don't think he'll ever be a big crunch-time performer, and I really don't want the ball in his hands when the game is on the line, but the dude clearly has skills. Some of his recent offensive outings have been just beautiful.

                    But I still don't see where he fits, long-term. I don't see Dun-Granger-Shawne as a legit starting NBA 2-3-4, and I think both Shawne and Danny have a higher ceiling than Dunleavy. In theory, it makes the most sense to move Granger, but he's my favorite Pacer and it would kill what little fanbase they have left. So ultimately I really don't know how TPTB (whoever they end up being) will resolve the issue. But I know pretty much nobody will like it.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                      Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                      I kinda like the idea of granger, dun, williams being the 2-3-4 combo on the team, given the sort of offense we are trying to build. add a true shot-blocking center in the middle (thabeet?) to gaurd the rim and a point gaurd who can defend and dunleavy's defense wont be such a liability. I have not watched flip enough to judge his D, but assuming his Defense is adaquete, the fact that he is not a "True" point can be overcome I think, especially with a guy like dunleavy on the floor who can initiate offense. His ability to break down players one-on-one has been crucial to the team's success of late, he seems to have improved in setting up his teammates as well.

                      Is there any reason to think Danny won't be able to gaurd other team's 2's? Does shawne have the size to gaurd 4's? He could probably stand to put on some more pounds, but his length seems adequete. I just think that group more than anything would need a 7+ footer who concenterates soley on defense, shot-blocking, and rebounding to make it all work.

                      as far as the angry mob is concerned, let their bloodlust be satisfied with tinsley, daniels, and harrison. We get rid of shawne over this crap and I garentee you this franschise will regret it for years to come. I put my money down he goes on the become a possible all star to qaulity starter somewhere and probably never gets in trouble again. mark my words... if we trade him it better be a damn good deal.

                      I don't think this is a good idea because Dun, Shawne, and Danny's skill sets are synonymous with eachother. They are redundant on this roster. Each shoots realitively well from 3pt range and all three are average defenders at best. We need to pair one of them with an elite wing defender with slashing capabilities and trade the others for players at different positions. Look at the Bobcats- their wings work so well together because Gerald Wallace is an elite slasher and JRich is an above average shooter.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                        I really think we could keep all three and be ok is see a depth like such

                        PG ?????
                        SG ????? / Dunleavy
                        SF Granger/ Dunleavy
                        PF Williams/ ?????
                        C ?????

                        We have alot of Question marks but Dunleavy, Granger, Williams are a good thing to have. If we keep JO I think with these guys on the wing and having JO in the middle that will go a long way in improving our D. We need a solid Point Guard and a Shooting guard. We will be back contending for the east when Dunleavy natrually moves to being our 6th man.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          I know your favorite national pastime is to bring up the past and pretend it still matters
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            A great couple of quotes from the Bulls game. At one point Quinn talked about how Dunleavy really was having a hard time guarding Gordon, and that he sometimes got beat on the dribble by quick 2's. At another point in the game, Dun got matched up with somebody (Deng?) who just outmuscled him, and Quinn talked about how Danny tended to get overpowered by 3's.

                            I sat in my chair and wondered "Then who is he supposed to guard?"
                            This part I agree with when it comes to Dunleavy being able to guard quick SGs that can score and stronger SFs.

                            I just don't think that he is THAT bad on defense that we are always playing 4 on 5. He is as guilty as the rest of the crew when it comes to defense.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                              Aside from Murphy, I'd have to say that Dunleavy is the worst one-on-one defender we have. Even when he's trying 100%, he's mismatched by everyone he guards. Even Ruben Patterson got hot when he was guarded by Mike.

                              And he's too slow to recover on help defense. I'd say close to 1/3 of opponent's threes have come at the expense of Dunleavy not closing out fast enough. I love Dunleavy, truly, and I was very excited when he was traded here, but he has to have an above average offensive game to have a positive impact (which he does, btw).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Keep Shawne Williams!

                                I agree that if we could move Mike, now is the time. He's 27 years old, and while he's made improvements on his makes, he still struggles defensively. My big issue with him is that he doesn't play well against teams with a better record than us. The games he's shined against superior talent this season are rare. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=1708

                                Heck even Jamal would bring his A game some nights against the Detroit's and San Antonio's of the league. I've yet to see that from Mike. We need that player like Reggie who has the balls to think he's Michael Jordan.
                                Protect the Promise!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X