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

I feel bad for Croshere

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

  • #16
    Re: I feel bad for Croshere

    Let me ask this because I'm not 100% sure what your thoughts on this.

    Do you think Austin is horrid on defense? If yes, how bad.

    Of course in this day & age Jeff is good enough to defend the center spot. To me though that just speaks to the quality of the center spot of today.

    "Is Austin horrid on defense".

    I would say no he is not horrid on defense because he tries and he follows the game plan.

    Peck, you always say that Croshere is a good low post defender and he is to some degree, I have admitted Cro is pretty good at using his body to keep bigger and taller offensive players from getting deep in the lane.

    And I have also said that Croshere blocks out better than anyone on the team in rebounding situations.

    However, Croshere has very slow feet, he does not move laterally well at all. I will say that Croshere is a bad defender away from the basket, an offensive player with any quickness at all, can go right around Croshere without any problem.

    Peck, Croshere maximizes his defensive talent and I respect that, but his defensive talent is not at a high level.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I feel bad for Croshere

      [fade]
      i'm not much of an IT fan as a coach,but i'll agree,"cro does 0".many of our players could stand stationary at the top of the key and fire 3s.he does very very little else.give any of our guards open shots [ which is the defense fault ] and let them fire up 5-3s and most will make 3 of them.when you don't do much but that,should be rather easy. [/fade]


      WHAT?/???????? Croshere is very aggressive on the offensive end when given consistent minutes....too aggressive sometimes in fact, in driving to thehoop.....


      he only shoots a lot of threes when he plays like 5 minuts a game, because he is only put in there to stretch the floor..thats his role....

      when he plays more minutes he gives a very balanced offensive contribtuion....

      I like the guy....ithink he is a very solid contributor to this team

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I feel bad for Croshere

        If anything Jeff is underated for his rebounding and D.

        He is getting 7 rebounds a game in 20 minutes a game. If you watch him you will see that he tips the ball to another Pacer as often as he pulls it in with his own hands. Those rebounds are not credited to him.

        Also he plays the passing lanes and plays great D. If anything he should play more not less.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I feel bad for Croshere

          One of the biggest problems I see with Croshere is his decision making on offense.

          Unless he is wide open for a 3 or being guarded by a much smaller player, he seems very unsure as to what he wants to do and generally does nothing.

          When he does drive to the basket, he hesitates before he goes and when he does go, the defense is waiting.

          That is the main flaw I see besides his lack of real athletic movements.

          I would rather be the hammer than the nail

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I feel bad for Croshere

            When Cro is playing at a high level it is hard to argue that Cro isn't better than Foster.

            But for some reason even when he's getting the minutes Cro doesn't play that way all the time. Cro is just too streaky in his play for me to want him as a major contributor. At least with Foster you know what you are going to get.

            I'd vote "Foster is clearly the better defender " on the poll.
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I feel bad for Croshere

              Personnaly I hate it. I can't stand salary dumps but in this case I guess it might make some sense from both the team & the players point of view.
              I might not do the trade straight up for the capspace, but I'd do it in a heartbeat if they'd throw in a decent prospect.

              Just think.... more POTENTIAL!!!

              Seriously, without major injuries or player moves, Austin will be a 3rd-string player on this team at best. A 3rd-stringer should be either a young player that the team is developing or an older player that's a lockerroom guy and a practice warrior. Austin is not a player to have on your third string.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I feel bad for Croshere

                Let me ask this because I'm not 100% sure what your thoughts on this.

                Do you think Austin is horrid on defense? If yes, how bad.

                Of course in this day & age Jeff is good enough to defend the center spot. To me though that just speaks to the quality of the center spot of today.

                "Is Austin horrid on defense".

                I would say no he is not horrid on defense because he tries and he follows the game plan.

                Peck, you always say that Croshere is a good low post defender and he is to some degree, I have admitted Cro is pretty good at using his body to keep bigger and taller offensive players from getting deep in the lane.

                And I have also said that Croshere blocks out better than anyone on the team in rebounding situations.

                However, Croshere has very slow feet, he does not move laterally well at all. I will say that Croshere is a bad defender away from the basket, an offensive player with any quickness at all, can go right around Croshere without any problem.

                Peck, Croshere maximizes his defensive talent and I respect that, but his defensive talent is not at a high level.
                I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong with my working assumption then.

                You feel that Austin is a decent but unspectacular defender in the post & you feel he is a liability on the wings. Is that about right?

                If that is the case I won't try & state otherwise because I tend to agree with that assesment. He will never be good vs. Garnett but would be ok vs. Olawakandi (at least that is what I think).

                So overall Jeff Foster has an advantage vs. Croshere on the defensive end. But it's not worlds apart correct? I mean were not talking Ben Wallace vs. Glen Robinson differance are we? Personnaly I don't think so.

                Now let's juxstapose this a little.

                Is Jeff Foster in the same league with Austin Croshere on the offensive end?

                My guess is that you would have to admit that he is not. Jeff has gotten at least to the point where we don't cringe whenever he gets the ball. Actually he is developing a decent jumper from the wing, not Brad Miller good, but decent none-the-less.

                But even still he is not nearly as good as Austin. We are talking T.R. Dunn vs. George Gervin differance here, IMO.

                You have admitted that the rebounding is debatable. Which is shocking, I admit. But since you have admitted that, isn't that the one big thing that Foster is supposed to bring to the deck?

                I guess what I'm getting at is this.

                If Foster is only slightly better as a defender (worse in the post, better on the wings = slightly better to me)
                Has no real great rebounding advantage.
                Is about = in passing (althought I think Cro is better but I'll conced they are = for this argument)
                Is far & away worse on the offensive end.

                Why should Jeff Foster get all of the min. at the center spot again? I don't get it.

                What one thing makes it that Cro couldn't do at least as good a job, if not better, than Foster?

                I am not 100% saying Cro should start over Foster but IMO Austin should never get a DNP-CD again & IMO should get some of Fosters min.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I feel bad for Croshere



                  I am going to make this short and sweet because we have argued about this for a couple of seasons.

                  Did you not see the two Spurs games and see the fantastic job Foster did on Duncan. Tim even admitted it after the second game.

                  Peck, obviously the Pacers coaching staff disagrees with you, they have said many many times how good a defender Jeff is and they always oput Jeff on the best inside scorer.

                  Rebounding is a debatable point, but the defense is not even comparable.

                  Jeff is an extremely talented defensive player beyond his hustle and effort. He has extremely quick feet which enables him to have great footwork, he has extremely quick hands.

                  I am really surprised this is even a discussion point after the defense Jeff has played this season.

                  The Jeff vs. Dunan thing is a good point but in fairness it must be pointed out that Duncan and Foster work out and play against each other all summer. And because of that, Foster is more self-confident against Duncan AND most importantly, knows his moves. I, too, was frustrated with how easily Blount backed him up on that last shot.
                  Two=the number 2
                  Too=means "also"
                  To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

                  Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
                  They're=they are
                  There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

                  Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I feel bad for Croshere

                    If Bird talks Ainge into Croshere and his contract for an expiring contract, Bird deserves the GM of the decade award.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I feel bad for Croshere


                      I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong with my working assumption then.

                      You feel that Austin is a decent but unspectacular defender in the post & you feel he is a liability on the wings. Is that about right?

                      If that is the case I won't try & state otherwise because I tend to agree with that assesment. He will never be good vs. Garnett but would be ok vs. Olawakandi (at least that is what I think).

                      So overall Jeff Foster has an advantage vs. Croshere on the defensive end. But it's not worlds apart correct? I mean were not talking Ben Wallace vs. Glen Robinson differance are we? Personnaly I don't think so.

                      Now let's juxstapose this a little.

                      Is Jeff Foster in the same league with Austin Croshere on the offensive end?

                      My guess is that you would have to admit that he is not. Jeff has gotten at least to the point where we don't cringe whenever he gets the ball. Actually he is developing a decent jumper from the wing, not Brad Miller good, but decent none-the-less.

                      But even still he is not nearly as good as Austin. We are talking T.R. Dunn vs. George Gervin differance here, IMO.

                      You have admitted that the rebounding is debatable. Which is shocking, I admit. But since you have admitted that, isn't that the one big thing that Foster is supposed to bring to the deck?

                      I guess what I'm getting at is this.

                      If Foster is only slightly better as a defender (worse in the post, better on the wings = slightly better to me)
                      Has no real great rebounding advantage.

                      Is about = in passing (althought I think Cro is better but I'll conced they are = for this argument)
                      Is far & away worse on the offensive end.

                      Why should Jeff Foster get all of the min. at the center spot again? I don't get it.

                      What one thing makes it that Cro couldn't do at least as good a job, if not better, than Foster?

                      I am not 100% saying Cro should start over Foster but IMO Austin should never get a DNP-CD again & IMO should get some of Fosters min.

                      Peck, I have to give you a lot of credit. Anyone who can work T.R. Dunn into a post deserves a couple of

                      If you go back and read my most recent post, you'll notice I never said that I thought Croshere was as good a low post defender even against the big strong offensive players, I said that Croshere is good at using his body, but I still think Foster is better in those situations.

                      Offensively, Croshere is better than Foster, no argument there, but I don't like a front line of J.O, Artest and Cro, all three want the ball and I just like the balance of Foster with J.O and Ron.

                      Really nothing else to say on this topic, I just think Foster makes the Pacers a better team than Croshere does.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I feel bad for Croshere


                        I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong with my working assumption then.

                        You feel that Austin is a decent but unspectacular defender in the post & you feel he is a liability on the wings. Is that about right?

                        If that is the case I won't try & state otherwise because I tend to agree with that assesment. He will never be good vs. Garnett but would be ok vs. Olawakandi (at least that is what I think).

                        So overall Jeff Foster has an advantage vs. Croshere on the defensive end. But it's not worlds apart correct? I mean were not talking Ben Wallace vs. Glen Robinson differance are we? Personnaly I don't think so.

                        Now let's juxstapose this a little.

                        Is Jeff Foster in the same league with Austin Croshere on the offensive end?

                        My guess is that you would have to admit that he is not. Jeff has gotten at least to the point where we don't cringe whenever he gets the ball. Actually he is developing a decent jumper from the wing, not Brad Miller good, but decent none-the-less.

                        But even still he is not nearly as good as Austin. We are talking T.R. Dunn vs. George Gervin differance here, IMO.

                        You have admitted that the rebounding is debatable. Which is shocking, I admit. But since you have admitted that, isn't that the one big thing that Foster is supposed to bring to the deck?

                        I guess what I'm getting at is this.

                        If Foster is only slightly better as a defender (worse in the post, better on the wings = slightly better to me)
                        Has no real great rebounding advantage.

                        Is about = in passing (althought I think Cro is better but I'll conced they are = for this argument)
                        Is far & away worse on the offensive end.

                        Why should Jeff Foster get all of the min. at the center spot again? I don't get it.

                        What one thing makes it that Cro couldn't do at least as good a job, if not better, than Foster?

                        I am not 100% saying Cro should start over Foster but IMO Austin should never get a DNP-CD again & IMO should get some of Fosters min.

                        Peck, I have to give you a lot of credit. Anyone who can work T.R. Dunn into a post deserves a couple of

                        If you go back and read my most recent post, you'll notice I never said that I thought Croshere was as good a low post defender even against the big strong offensive players, I said that Croshere is good at using his body, but I still think Foster is better in those situations.

                        Offensively, Croshere is better than Foster, no argument there, but I don't like a front line of J.O, Artest and Cro, all three want the ball and I just like the balance of Foster with J.O and Ron.

                        Really nothing else to say on this topic, I just think Foster makes the Pacers a better team than Croshere does.
                        I've got the answer. Since J.O., Artest & Cro all want the ball let's eliminate Artest.

                        I think you are underestimating Austins ability to be a team player. I think if Carlisle told Austin to go out there & do nothing but rebound & defend he would put 100% into trying to do it.

                        I'll be fair though & say the same thing about Jeff. If Carlisle wanted him to go out & shoot the three he would try his darndest to do it.

                        We'll just agree to disagree on this, but in fairness again, both sets of coaching staffs have agree with you.

                        But you were still wrong about Brad Miller.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I feel bad for Croshere

                          All these things in which everyone says Foster is better, I still the Cro is pretty good at. He really does try hard when he is playing, and rebounds pretty well. Whenever he is on the floor, I always see him going after the ball, and he boxes out real well. Foster might be slightly better in this and in D, but honestly, Cro isn't all that bad.

                          When Cro has been in, he has been productive. Since this is the case, why shouldn't we give him more minutes? I really think we should. I think Artest gets too many minutes, and JO could lose 1 or 2. Foster as well. That should open up maybe 10-15 min per for him to work with, which is better than what he is getting now. He could be a solid contributer, and should be.
                          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I feel bad for Croshere

                            All these things in which everyone says Foster is better, I still the Cro is pretty good at. He really does try hard when he is playing, and rebounds pretty well. Whenever he is on the floor, I always see him going after the ball, and he boxes out real well. Foster might be slightly better in this and in D, but honestly, Cro isn't all that bad.

                            When Cro has been in, he has been productive. Since this is the case, why shouldn't we give him more minutes? I really think we should. I think Artest gets too many minutes, and JO could lose 1 or 2. Foster as well. That should open up maybe 10-15 min per for him to work with, which is better than what he is getting now. He could be a solid contributer, and should be.
                            These are my thoughts exactly, but I'm alway afraid that Uncle Buck will on us if somebody mentions that Ron can play one less min. a game than he gets now.

                            I agree with the 10-15 min. every game theory.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I feel bad for Croshere

                              imo, the argument should be croshere vs pollard and not croshere vs foster. both croshere and foster have been effective when given minutes. pollard, well... ed: you can easily get cro's 10-15 min from pollard. still not enough, really, but there just are not enough minutes to go around.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X