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

Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
    I didn't say one was more important than the other. I said our wing players we better defenders than our point guard and bigs.
    I meant that I think our wing players are the reason for our poor defense. Dunleavy is a bad defender, and Granger isn't a good defender when asked to defend SG's. Plus, I include PG in my assessment of wing defense and we could have the worst PG defense in the league.

    I think Granger, Foster and a healthy O'neal are our only descent defenders on the roster, so I see what you're saying. We do need a little of everything.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

      Love to see Josh Smith defending!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

        Originally posted by thunderbird1245
        6. Thabo Sefalosha, Chicago Bulls. The Bulls and Pacers look like potential trading partners anyway, so it would be a smart move for Larry Bird to try and fleece the Bulls out of Sefalosha. He is extremely quick, moves his feet well, and is young and afordable.
        Nothing to add on Thabo -- don't know much about him -- I just wanted to point out that when I first read your post I read that last word as "adorable" and had to do a double take.

        I would love to have any and all of Renaldo, Quinton or Aflalo. Battier obviously, too, but that isn't happening.

        Trevor Ariza has been my version of your "Quinton Ross" and UB's "Marquis" since he was in NY. Looks like he was finally getting run in LA before he went down, but the Lakers are so loaded nowadays that maybe he could become available.

        Tony Allen is also a free agent (I think). He was just coming back from that knee injury and most of yall probably just know him for that, but he's an uber-athlete who has always taken pride in his D. I doubt Boston let's him walk, but he'd be a nice pickup.

        Eduardo Najera, although not perimeter defense, could be a good pickup. Also a free agent.

        Desmond Mason is probably available for a one-year, stop-gap rental. Not sure I've seen him play in two years though, so his lateral quickness may be falling off.

        Keyon Dooling is a free agent. He's not a "stopper" but still better than anyone we have. Can score a little too. Probably a little too "Quisy"esque for my taste though and his lack of improvement doesn't really bode well.

        Like Simmons, I like DJ Strawberry. Maybe the Suns are still in the business of giving players away? Diener for DJ?

        Failing Ronnie Brewer, how bout Ronnie Price. He can guard some people right?
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

          I would like two birds with one stone. A pg that could defend and pass would be ideal.
          If you take Mike D out of the line up the question remains how do you replace his pts/game. A gurantee you its not with a defensive sg/sf that is other teams are willing to trade.

          I am ok with leaving the wings where they at and looking to stop the pg than the sg. Stopping the points scored while not being able to score points is not ideal in my eyes.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

            Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
            I didn't say one was more important than the other. I said our wing players are better defenders than our point guard and bigs.
            Totally agree.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

              TBird....this is something that we have discussed and agreed upon.

              Optimally, I actually would like to look further to not only acquire ( either through the draft and/or Free Agency ) a player that can defend / help pressure both PGs and SGs....I would look to see if we can acquire another one that can guard stronger the slower SGs and stronger SFs. I thought about this when we played the Lebrons. The sheer amount of energy that is needed to guard stronger SFs like Lebron wears down players like Granger ( much less anyone ). If we are able to get a stronger SF that can help keep up and pressure scoring SFs like Lebron by using their strength....I think that it would go a long way to improving our defense.

              As to the # of minutes that any perimeter defender can play....IMHO...there are purely roleplayers that can warrant between 10-15 minutes a game. If JO'B expands his likely rotation to a 9-man rotation while limiting players like Granger, Dunleavy and JONeal to 33-36 minutes a game....then I think that we would have enough minutes to get a Defensive minded Wing-Player some enough minutes to contribute over the course of the game.

              This hasn't been brought up yet....but if JO'B will not play a player that has decent offensive skills but has really poor defensive skills ( Ike ), will he feel the same about solid defensive minded players that has limited offensive skills?

              I guess the answer is "maybe" since Foster gets solid minutes.....but he's not an entirely one-dimensional player as he provides not only solid Big Man defense but superior rebounding. Unfortunately, there aren't that many Bruce Bowen's out there that can not only lockdown a player but hit an open 3pt shot on a consistent basis.

              As for who to go after in Free Agency: Quinton Ross or Ira Newble ( if I had a choice....I would want both )

              As for who to go after in the Draft: Kyle Weaver, Brandon Rush, Westbrook or Marcus Dove( Dove will likely go undrafted or some 2nd round pick )

              As for who to go after in some trade: Adrian Griffin, Greg Buckner and Trenton Hassell.

              Although it's obvious to us that we need a defensive specialist....I still have no clue as to whether Bird realizes this or not. My hope is that we can trade Marquis and Ike to free up the necesary Cap space to make some FA moves and go after Quinton Ross. I'm guessing a 2-3 mil / 3 year contract should do it. I know that this maybe too much for a roleplayer.....but there is a reason why players like Trenton Hassell and Raja Bell are highly sought players that are usually locked down to 3-4 year long term contracts.....teams need players like them and once you get one...teams want to be sure that they are kept for the immediate future.
              Last edited by CableKC; 04-20-2008, 11:57 PM.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                So, are we to assume these potential 'stoppers' would be starting at
                SG ahead of Dunleavy ? Assuming so, theoretically, I have no
                problem with that as long as Duns has been delt elsewhere
                $10mil per is too much for a backup). But not many of those
                names have enough offensive game to be solid starters. If not,
                it's tough to be a 'stopper' coming off the bench when the guys
                who need stopping start for the other team.

                Btw, Clark is returning to L'Ville.
                manu comes off the bench...

                on the actual topic i have no names to add but feel as though Ross is our best and most easily doable option.
                Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

                Passion. Pride. Pacers.

                It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
                #31 & Only

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                  Another good defensive player we could draft, possibly with our 2nd pick is Michael Flowers from Wisconsin. He impressed me in the tournament with the exception of getting lit up by Curry...but he did everything humanly possible to stop him 1 on 1..he just never got any help/double teams from his teammates.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                    Don't know if this player would have to start or not. Understand the playing time concern if Dun and Granger are both still here.

                    If you can somehow acquire one of these guys and a PG that's at least a defensive upgrade, maybe that allows you to play those two positions opposite (start-bench) other than in certain game situations. This would allow both our wings to continue to start.

                    Last thought, it's not so much who starts but who finishes and I think there could be time split between three guys at two positions (SF-SG). Plus, if JO's here I fully expect him to miss at least 25-30 games so we'll see the inevitable small ball again allowing those three to get on the court plenty.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                      Thabo Sefalosha and Chris Duhon can probably be acquired from Chi-town. Actually Duhon is a free agent, and out of favor there. The only thing about Duhon seems to be maturity. If he can be reeled in, he's a pretty good defensive pg, and a good 3 shooter.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                        PG is the priority spot to address. On defense, the PG is almost
                        like a C in football on an offensive line vs the pass rush. If your
                        your C can't handle his guy, you get pressure up the gut and
                        you're screwed.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                          I haven't read all the posts from the weekend. I'm a little surprised that the general agreement is that the wing defense is horrible and you have to prioritize it as a need.

                          Mike's a good team defender and a clever one on one defender. Granger wants to and has the tools to be a very good defender. I have always like Shane Battier, to me he's Mckey who can shoot the 3, but I don't think Houston is going to move him.

                          Maybe I'm over stating it. I think if you get a Point Guard who can guard his position and a reliable big who can rebound and protect the lane, you're okay, or in pretty good shape as a team defensively.

                          I'd put a shut down wing defender pretty far down my list.

                          I guess I mean I want ANY position that you can get a shut down defender for, thats a given, but I think there is so many more things to get that this has to be down the list, but I see several threads and posts like this is 1c on the need list. I don't see it, just my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                            After Listening to the Jim O'Brien show this past week, I think he is looking for a defensive point guard. he said that he believes point guard and "center" are the two most important defensive positions. He mentioned that he would rank those two positions as 30% each - of the total defense. So that leaves 40% for the other three positions.

                            I agree with Speed on this, and I agree with O'Brien that point guard starts the defense and while I think point giuard is the most important defensive position on the floor, in O'Brien's defensive system, having a big guy to clean up everything in the post would be huge. Garnett would be a savior for us. A healthy JO makes a huge difference.

                            (some of you might be wondering why I am not talking up Jeff Foster. He is a excellent one-on-one defender - but he isn't what O'Brien was talking about last week - he isn't a shotblocking or help defender.
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-21-2008, 09:47 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                              I think we are in dire need of a Defensive PG as well. One that can push the ball and also distribute the ball.

                              With JO in our lineup we will have 3 players that will put up 50-60 ppg in JO, MD, and DG. We are no the same team a from a few years ago that had problems putting it threw the hook. We really need a GOOD PG that we can rely on. We have our Backup in Diener now we just need someone to fill the fulltime role.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird analysis: Identifying available wing defensive players who fill a huge need

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                (some of you might be wondering why I am not talking up Jeff Foster. He is a excellent one-on-one defender - but he isn't what O'Brien was talking about last week - he isn't a shotblocking or help defender.
                                I don't know why but this makes me think about what Jonathan Bender could do if still healthy and playing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X