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: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

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

  • Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

    Hello everyone....it's glad to be back posting again after a brief hiatus.

    With everyone mostly feeling somewhat positive about our franchise and its end of the season success, it is apparent to me that the intoxicating aroma of a season without off court strife has dulled our collective senses just a bit. While I loved Conrad Brunner's line about this season feeling like just a beginning, it is also important to note that the road to misery was paved with good intentions.

    Clearly a direction is in place, and the team has shown grit and character. We have ended the era of selfishness, and exchanged it for a team of guys with class and work ethic. Our ownership is more in tune with our fan base than it perhaps ever has been, our management group led by Jim Morris has made long term progress on behalf of the franchise with the city and in its marketing to fans, and clearly our leaders seem to "get it" in terms of the kind of team we as fans will embrace on the whole.

    Larry Bird continues his life long strength of being a good judge of character, Jim O'Brien has brought a professionalism and "adultness" to how our team plays and behaves, and together they have began to try and build a team that plays in a winning way, step by step.

    All of that is great, but let us not let the era of good feelings blind us from the fact that we are still a below average team in terms of actual results. John Wooden famously said "do not let activity be confused with achievement." We have been active, but we have yet to really achieve anything yet other than mediocrity, and sometimes I think that too many of us Pacers fans don't hold our teams to a high enough standard. It is just as important I feel for us fans to not be satisfied as it is for the Pacers ownership and management to not feel that way. Our feelings and standards are as important if not more so.

    So, before I being my draft analysis in depth in a month or so, I think it is important to delve into the big questions that linger about our team and discuss them intelligently. I'll try to tackle mostly on court issues, although I reserve the right to go into the business side at least once among these threads.

    The big issue I want to discuss first is our point guard situation.

    THE BIG QUESTION: WHAT TO DO WITH JARRETT JACK AND TJ FORD?

    It seems to me that we have several options. We could:

    A. Re-sign Jack, keep TJ Ford, and play next season similar to how we did this season.

    B. Re-sign Jack, trade TJ Ford for another asset, and draft a point guard to replace him to share back up duties with Deiner.

    C. Let Jack go, go back to starting TJ Ford, and draft a point guard to replace Jack and share backup duties with Deiner or sign a cheaper free agent.

    D. Sign Jack to a sign and trade deal, and exchange him for another piece of the puzzle.

    E. Get rid of them both and go after another player to play the point that we consider an upgrade to both of them, and draft a backup point guard to go along with Deiner.


    General consensus among this board and in my Pacer loving friends is that everyone says we must re-sign Jack. People like his fire, his toughness, his size, his scoring ability, and his ability to play both guard spots. I know no one in my life who is in favor of not having Jack on next year's team, and it is possible that in your everyday lives that you don't either.

    But you can change all of that, because now you CAN say you know of someone who recommends not re-signing Jarrett Jack, and that would be me! Let me discuss the reasons why:

    1. I think it is reasonable for Jarrett Jack to want to be a starter in this league, and that I imagine will be a priority for him as he looks for a place to sign. There is no reason that he will even WANT to resign here unless he is assured of a starting role. Conversely, there is no way we can make a move with TJ Ford unless we for sure will sign Jarrett Jack back, so you have a mexican standoff situation that could drag on all summer. I do not want that type of indecision, it hampers your ability to make other improvements. Larry Bird is so much more decisive than our past regime, and that is a trait I personally usually like. I doubt he will want to play a waiting game all summer waiting on Jack to do something.

    2. We can't afford to spend 16 million year on average for one position on the floor, so either Ford or Jack has to go.

    3. I think TJ Ford is a better potential player for us long term than Jarrett Jack. He has more upside for the future, and while I have been extremely disappointed in his defensive play at the point guard spot, I have finally decided that is more a product of the system and style Coach O'Brien was using than his true defensive ability.

    Basically, I think that Ford MIGHT be a better defender than Jack currently is now, although I admit that is far from assured. In fact, that defensive question about our point guard is the single biggest mystery I have about this team....I thought Ford was average at best defensively for us, and sometimes he was worse than that. I think that was due to how he was coached and asked to play, but I clearly could be wrong....I'm making an educated guess that Ford at least is capable of playing quality pressuring point guard defense, where I don't think Jack has the physical attributes to ever do so.

    4. To justify keeping both of these players, you probably need to decide that you can win big with both of them playing at the same time. Jim O'Brien clearly likes playing small like that from a theoretical point of view anyway.

    But I don't think that is a winning combination, and my reading of the tea leaves is that Larry Bird doesn't either. Everything I believe about Larry Bird is that he values "positional purity"....he likes guys who fit the basic traditional way to play. Jack is a "tweener" that can be very effective in a role like that, playing a little at each backcourt spot. But I don't think Bird values that very much, and in this case I am in total agreement with that way of thinking.

    By not giving his coach that luxury of playing small, Larry Bird can softly micromanage Jim O'Brien into playing a more traditional defensive lineup.



    So, in my mind that eliminates the "A" and "B" options I listed above.

    But I am not crazy about option "C" either, which is to just let Jack go for nothing. I bet you that David Morway is putting possibilities together as we speak for ways to get some sort of compensation for Jack in a sign and trade in my scenario "D".

    To simply let Jack go as a free agent is unlikely I feel. With the NBA overall finances struggling, and with teams looking to keep as much payroll flexibility as possible, I am guessing there will be few outright free agent signings this summer. By agreeing to a sign and trade, teams can pick up Jack and balance it out somewhat by trading a contract back to Indiana. The Pacers have some leverage in this of course in that they theoretically could match an offer sheet, so another team that would want Jack has motivation to play ball with us.

    And Jarrett Jack himself along with his representation should want to cooperate as well, as the teams who actually have cap room above the MLE this year are very few. Jack can expand the list of teams he can sign with by agreeing to and in fact encouraging a sign and trade scenario.

    Now, if we do what I am recommending here for real, this can't be a scenario where we get stuck with a useless trade exception or a poo poo platter like Scott Pollard, when we played sign and trade roulette the last couple of times. We would need to get a productive player back of some kind, or a future piece, an expiring contract we can use, or a 2010 draft pick, or some combination of the above.

    There are teams out there who make sense to deal with in a Jarrett Jack sign and trade scenario. Jack makes sense for Charlotte if they deem Raymond Felton to be too expensive, or for Philadelphia if they let Andre Miller go. A trade with Phily bringing back Marreese Speights and Reggie Evans in some form seems both possible and positive for both teams. Jack would make sense as a starter in several other cities as well, or if he really expanded his sights he could go somewhere like Pheonix or San Antonio, where he could come off the bench for a better team than we are.

    Ordinarily, I might agree that my "option E" makes sense. I love Raymond Felton for example, and feel after playing a year for Larry Brown that he is poised for a huge year next year in the right situation. He is the right age, has the right type of size and skill set, and would be in fact the type of upgrade I am speaking of at this critical point guard position.

    But I also am leery of too much change for the second straight off season. I value continuity from a basketball purist standpoint and from the view of the actual casual fan. I think keeping at least one of the point guards is the right move for now. Since I have personally came to the conclusion that TJ Ford will be better next year defensively and more comfortable in our motion offenive style, I am fine with making the case that keeping Ford is the right thing to do.

    It does bear mentioning that in the "tryout" that we gave Jack as a point guard coming down the stretch, that Ford could have caused trouble, could have pouted and sulked, but didn't. That shows a growth in maturity than I am wasn't sure he had in him, and it impressed me. It also is key to note that Ford is a player who can score in end of game situations because he can get his own shot, a thing most of our roster struggles with.

    Now, all Ford must do to prove me right in 2009-2010 is to be used more strategically well defensively, and to put much more effort into not being the turnstile that he turned into at times this last season. I have to believe that his skill set and athleticism to move his feet better side to side is there, he simply is too quick otherwise for it not to be. My analysis of him is that our team defensive concept was so convoluted at times that he was thinking defensively instead of attacking like I want a ball hawking, harrassing point guard to do.

    So with all that being said, I am endorsing hesitantly the idea of bringing Ford back as a starting point guard, and letting Jack move on, preferably in a sign and trade.

    But no matter where you come down on the great Ford vs Jack debate of the 2009 spring, I think it is clear that the Pacers front office has to resolve this issue first before doing anything else this offseason. With the dire need of improving our front court, and with the cold hard truth being we have so much dead money invested in Dunleavy and Tinsley, I see no way it makes sense to bring back a good but replaceble combination guard who in my view is not nearly the player and point guard my friends and fellow Pacer fans think him to be.

    Time will tell if I am correct in my analysis about the direction the Pacers go in regards to their point guard position.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

    Good read, T-bird...
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

      As always, a good read.

      I think I disagree with you for the first time.

      My preference for Jack over Ford is due to the way they play offense at the point. While Ford has improved since being relegated to the bench, I still think he does not make good decisions on what to do with the ball - or, probably more accurately, he does not have the flexibility to change his decision once he makes up his mind.

      Ford's improvement in recent games comes when he "looks up" (not a literal look but more of a pause for decision) at the top of the key or thereabouts before either continuing a drive or passing the ball. He still misses that spot and drives well into the crowd under the basket before realizing he is in trouble and either forcing up a shot or trying to pass, or losing his handle on the ball for a turnover. I am simply not convinced that he can change his game enough to have more of the "new" decisions rather than the "old" ones.

      Now, if Point Guards were pennies in this league I'd be interested in going for option E. However, good PGs are second only to big centers in rarity (and sometimes I think size in the front court is more common than the kind of skill and size it takes to be a top PG).

      Yes, defense is a big hole, and there is something to be said for the way we let so many teams get away from us on offense. For the last part of the season in particular, though, it seems to be the consistency of our offense that has been an issue - specifically our inability to play a real inside-outside game so that there's a weapon available when the jumpers aren't falling.

      Given all of those, I'd rather see us try to use TJ in a deal to get a solid "traditional" PF who has a balance of post offense and defense.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

        If Philly is willing to give up Speights, ring it up! But I actually think they would be more willing to Deal Elton Brand, as he doesn't seem to fit their running game.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

          Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
          If Philly is willing to give up Speights, ring it up! But I actually think they would be more willing to Deal Elton Brand, as he doesn't seem to fit their running game.
          If Philly were up for it, that'd be tempting to try.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

            In regards to our PG situation, I would go with Option "B".

            I think that there will be interest from other Teams for somewhat decent Starting Quality PG like Ford.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

              I think a Jack/Ford rotation at the point is fine. There are many, many worse PG rotations out there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                If Philly is willing to give up Speights, ring it up! But I actually think they would be more willing to Deal Elton Brand, as he doesn't seem to fit their running game.
                Hell yes! Speights is who I wanted the Pacers to take at #17. Unfortunately, he went #16.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  As always, a good read.

                  I think I disagree with you for the first time.

                  My preference for Jack over Ford is due to the way they play offense at the point. While Ford has improved since being relegated to the bench, I still think he does not make good decisions on what to do with the ball - or, probably more accurately, he does not have the flexibility to change his decision once he makes up his mind.

                  Ford's improvement in recent games comes when he "looks up" (not a literal look but more of a pause for decision) at the top of the key or thereabouts before either continuing a drive or passing the ball. He still misses that spot and drives well into the crowd under the basket before realizing he is in trouble and either forcing up a shot or trying to pass, or losing his handle on the ball for a turnover. I am simply not convinced that he can change his game enough to have more of the "new" decisions rather than the "old" ones.

                  Now, if Point Guards were pennies in this league I'd be interested in going for option E. However, good PGs are second only to big centers in rarity (and sometimes I think size in the front court is more common than the kind of skill and size it takes to be a top PG).

                  Yes, defense is a big hole, and there is something to be said for the way we let so many teams get away from us on offense. For the last part of the season in particular, though, it seems to be the consistency of our offense that has been an issue - specifically our inability to play a real inside-outside game so that there's a weapon available when the jumpers aren't falling.

                  Given all of those, I'd rather see us try to use TJ in a deal to get a solid "traditional" PF who has a balance of post offense and defense.
                  BillS here pretty much nailed my thoughts on this.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                    I'm a Ford-backer, but Jack has clearly earned the starting nod. For now, at least.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                      Excellent comments so far, as expected, by some of our best posters. I'm not at all surprised that I am in the minority on this topic, and that's ok, but I do have some follow up on some of the things that have been mentioned so far.

                      To BillS, Cable, and Count: I think the scenario you envision, my scenario "B" of re-signing Jack to be the starter, and then trading Ford for a power player inside is the most conventional train of thought that I think most fans will choose at this point. In this case, I think the majority is mistaken.

                      I fail to see why a team that struggles so much defensively should base one of its biggest decisions on offensive concerns however. Especially since I think Ford is a slightly better individual player offensively, and I don't agree that our offense from a team standpoint flows that much better with Jack playing instead. I think Jack's defense was this season a smidgen better defending the point of attack than Ford's, but neither was a stopper by any means.

                      I guess I must view Jack as more of a "small 2" guard, a poor man's version of Ben Gordon, while you guys view him as starting point guard material for a really good team. He has intangibles in terms of attitude, toughness, leadership, etc etc that I like, but I think you plan a team with "purity in guards" at the point, and I think he is a mini shooting guard masquerading as a point guard.

                      To QR: No way are we trading for Elton Brand.

                      To Shade: I think the combination while playing either one or the other is fine as well. I would bet that Larry Bird and Jim O'Brien disagreed behind closed doors about how often those 2 played together this year. That is just me surmising of course, I have no inside knowledge of such a rift, but I wrote about such a possibility before last season even started when I posted a thread with a title of something like "A potential looming conflict on the horizon" or something similar...I'm too lazy to look it up. So you see, I think the problem is if they are both on the roster, then they will both play significant minutes playing together as the Pacers go small too often for my preferred taste. It is for that reason I think you have to choose, along with the obvious financial repurcussions.

                      Also to Shade: You and I may have disagreed big time on Bayless, but we were both on the Speights bandwagon and I think we may both turn out to be correct about him. Any potential deal with Philadelphia must include him, in my opinion.

                      To all: To those who like the re-sign Jack, trade Ford for a power forward idea, do any of you have any specific players and trades in mind? It isn't as easy as many of you think I believe to come up with a deal that both makes sense for each team involved and fits the CBA. Trading Jack in a sign and trade is easier as it involves less money, enabling us to perhaps take a player still on his rookie contract.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                        I don't see the Ben Gordon comparison at all other than they're both small for 2-guards.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I don't see the Ben Gordon comparison at all other than they're both small for 2-guards.
                          The size was pretty much what I was referring to.

                          Obviously Jack has the capability of playing a point guard position for stretches while Gordon doesnt have the mentality or the ballhandling skills for it in any way.

                          It wasn't meant to be a perfect comparison. Maybe I should have worded to say Jack is "closer" to being a Ben Gordon type than he is a true point guard, in my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                            I have a feeling we might not see both Jack and Ford on the team next year. Both have pros and cons. Assuming that trades might be similar in what they bring to the team-in other words there is no huge benefit to trading one over the other as far as what the team gets in return-then I think chemistry might be the overriding factor in determining which one they keep.

                            And I cant help but think that they might keep Jack based on the chemistry issues.
                            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                              Since I'm not the X and O guy most of you are I just have to have a brief observation.

                              I'm for JJ simply from a leadership standpoint.

                              I will take issue with one point. I don't think acceptance of mediocrity is valid nor do I think the expectations are lowered. What I think is the front office was in a tough spot. They didn't have a lot of talent or money to deal with. A decision had to be made. I think serviceable with high character was an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. The fan interest was sinking quicker than the Titanic. In my opinion, Bird did a superb job - beyond anything that could have been expected. At the same time, the message was loud and clear - there will be no tolerance with "police blotters".

                              It may take a three-year plan to put the competitive team together we all want to see. But it had to be a one-year plan for the character issues. There are a lot of variables to consider with the increased attendance. All I will say is it did increase and I think, by large measure, it's because the players measured up to the character expectations. People could pull for this team.

                              With that established, the team can now make the player adjustments to be a contender. I don't see how anyone would think this is the team Bird wants. But I bet he gets the team he wants.
                              Last edited by ABADays; 04-17-2009, 10:27 PM.
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X