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

Current Pacers roster

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

  • #16
    Re: Current Pacers roster

    Sunshining?? maybe if i said win 50. i hope a move is made, but as the team stands i dont think were as bad as some teams in the east.

    i hope we can acquire a point gaurd, but giving up Rush to do it seems a bit premature as some have suggested.

    the focus needs to be moving Murphy, Ford, Dunleavy, and Foster; if we cannot find a PG/PF for those players we should keep the roster as is. excluding an obvious no-brainer deal of course.

    i guess im looking long term and like the Granger, Rush, George trio.


    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
    Wow. I've heard of sunshining, but this gives the word a whole new meaning.

    Without additonal players, this team will probably not win more than 35 games. And, if we have a few injuries during the season, they won't be lucky enough to close the season on a winning streak like we saw at the end of the previous season. So we may not even see 30 wins.

    Just because we have 7 players playing PF/C, that does not make it DEEP. Having decent starters and QUALITY players off the bench would make it deep. We do not have that.

    To be honest, if we don't make at least one significant trade using one of our expiring contracts to get a decent player, preferably a PG, before the season starts, the worst possible thing for the team would be for them to somehow be in the 8th position or near it as the February trade deadline approaches.

    I say that because Bird has announced that his primary objective is to make the playoffs... that is always his objective. You put Bird in a position that the playoffs appear to be within reach as the trade deadline approaches, he may be tempted to leave the roster as is instead of wisely using some of his expiring contracts to acquire one or two players.

    That would mean that we would rely totally on being able to use our cap space to get good players next summer. I believe we can improve our roster in this manner, but will probably not make significant strides since the better free agents might not choose to come to Indy.

    So be a sunshiner if you must, but I believe that a roster left intact as the season opens is just about the worst of all possible scenarios.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Current Pacers roster

      lol dont worry guys
      we WILL have more pg options come the start of this season
      and im not sunshining, im actually being realistic
      Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Current Pacers roster

        I guess in the perfect world where Dun, Foster, and Hans all play all season and don't get injured, we could be better. It probably won't go down that way, though.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Current Pacers roster

          Winning the Central? No.
          Winning 40 games? Possible
          Sneaking into the playoffs? Possible.

          I would like to see Hans get healthy, Rush "put it together," and P.G exceed expectations. We'll probably actually see one of those three things, so it'll be a challenge to get the 6th seed (that's putting it nicely). Making a deal to get a real point guard in here, whether before the season or at the deadline - that would get us in the playoffs a little easier. And using Murphy or Ford (or both lease: ) in that deal would really help.

          We're currently looking at another season floating around .500. A couple games under or over with a shot at the playoffs. But with the pieces we have in expiring contracts, we should be able to make a move that makes this a competitive team.

          --pizza
          It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Current Pacers roster

            My outlook hasn't changed much from this time last year. Basically the same team. If healthy, it could challenge for the 7th or 8th seed. Getting Foster and Hansbrough back adds much-needed aggressiveness and offensive boards, which were probably key to losing at least 5-7 games last year. Obviously my optimism isn't shared by the pundits. I think Sporting News rated us next-to-last for the 2010-2011 season.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Current Pacers roster

              Honestly with the players we have, we could win the central. The problem though isn't the players, but the coach.

              PG:
              Ford is the best PG on the team. The problem with him is less his skill, and more of how he fits within the system. It just isn't a system that he fits with. If JOB decided to change his system to fit more around the kind of PG Ford is not only would it improve how Ford played, but it would improve the team. Price is hard to tell with his injury. After that we have offensively possibly the best main on the team for this position in Dunleavy. If he brought the ball up as the PG it would greatly improve this team. His problem is defense, we would need someone else on the floor to guard the other teams PG, Jones.

              SG:
              We have some nice pieces here, but nothing we can count on. Rush can be good, but is too inconsistent to really trust, and George is still an unknown. Jones is the only one we can really know what to expect. Really all we have hear as of right now are good back-ups to borderline starters. On a better team they would probably appear to be better players, but on a bad team they don't preform as well.

              SF:
              Defiantly our strongest position with Granger. Then Rush, George, and Dun can all play SF, and would all be decent back-ups.

              PF:
              Murphy is a SF playing PF, and that is the problem. Right now the best PF on this team is McBob. That may not be saying much, but if he got major minutes at PF this team would instantly improve. It may not be a lot by itself, but if O'Brien started to play the true PF's here and changed his system to fit the players it would create a big improvement in the team. Hansbrough is still an unknown. I was completely unimpressed with his play last year, but it is a knew year. Foster, if healthy, is on a decline, but can still give quality minutes at this position.

              C:
              Our second strongest position as far as starters go with Hibbert. He should be better, and is becoming the presence we need underneath. Like Ford he really doesn't fit the system that O'Brien likes. He is slow, and mechanical.


              So really at three positions we have players who are at the very least average starters, one position that has borderline starters, and another where we really only have back-ups. Honestly, if used properly that will get you a low playoffs spot. The problem is O'Brien doesn't focus enough on defense, and doesn't have a system in place that fits his players. This has caused a decent player in TJ to look like a ****ty player, Granger's shooting percentage has suffered from taking too many 3's and the team being too reliant on him, and Hibbert not being able to play to his full ability. The problem is those are the three main guys to this team; your PG, your star wing, and your "dominate" big man. If you have quality players at those positions, you should be able to more or less plug players into the other two positions and be a decent team, not championship but decent. Yet this team has struggles because the coach and the players do not fit well together.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Current Pacers roster

                agree completely with your comments on JOB. was thinking this earlier, the guy is so hellbent on playing his type of system it is detrimental to the team. i wish Carlisle was still coaching, he would be a perfect coach for this team. good coaches adjust to the players, and it doesnt appear that JOB is willing to do that at all. in some ways he is ruining this team by telling them to play loyola marymount type of basketball.

                curious, what did not impress you with Hansbrough?


                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                Honestly with the players we have, we could win the central. The problem though isn't the players, but the coach.

                PG:
                Ford is the best PG on the team. The problem with him is less his skill, and more of how he fits within the system. It just isn't a system that he fits with. If JOB decided to change his system to fit more around the kind of PG Ford is not only would it improve how Ford played, but it would improve the team. Price is hard to tell with his injury. After that we have offensively possibly the best main on the team for this position in Dunleavy. If he brought the ball up as the PG it would greatly improve this team. His problem is defense, we would need someone else on the floor to guard the other teams PG, Jones.

                SG:
                We have some nice pieces here, but nothing we can count on. Rush can be good, but is too inconsistent to really trust, and George is still an unknown. Jones is the only one we can really know what to expect. Really all we have hear as of right now are good back-ups to borderline starters. On a better team they would probably appear to be better players, but on a bad team they don't preform as well.

                SF:
                Defiantly our strongest position with Granger. Then Rush, George, and Dun can all play SF, and would all be decent back-ups.

                PF:
                Murphy is a SF playing PF, and that is the problem. Right now the best PF on this team is McBob. That may not be saying much, but if he got major minutes at PF this team would instantly improve. It may not be a lot by itself, but if O'Brien started to play the true PF's here and changed his system to fit the players it would create a big improvement in the team. Hansbrough is still an unknown. I was completely unimpressed with his play last year, but it is a knew year. Foster, if healthy, is on a decline, but can still give quality minutes at this position.

                C:
                Our second strongest position as far as starters go with Hibbert. He should be better, and is becoming the presence we need underneath. Like Ford he really doesn't fit the system that O'Brien likes. He is slow, and mechanical.


                So really at three positions we have players who are at the very least average starters, one position that has borderline starters, and another where we really only have back-ups. Honestly, if used properly that will get you a low playoffs spot. The problem is O'Brien doesn't focus enough on defense, and doesn't have a system in place that fits his players. This has caused a decent player in TJ to look like a ****ty player, Granger's shooting percentage has suffered from taking too many 3's and the team being too reliant on him, and Hibbert not being able to play to his full ability. The problem is those are the three main guys to this team; your PG, your star wing, and your "dominate" big man. If you have quality players at those positions, you should be able to more or less plug players into the other two positions and be a decent team, not championship but decent. Yet this team has struggles because the coach and the players do not fit well together.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Current Pacers roster

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  Honestly with the players we have, we could win the central. The problem though isn't the players, but the coach.

                  PG:
                  Ford is the best PG on the team. The problem with him is less his skill, and more of how he fits within the system. It just isn't a system that he fits with. If JOB decided to change his system to fit more around the kind of PG Ford is not only would it improve how Ford played, but it would improve the team. Price is hard to tell with his injury. After that we have offensively possibly the best main on the team for this position in Dunleavy. If he brought the ball up as the PG it would greatly improve this team. His problem is defense, we would need someone else on the floor to guard the other teams PG, Jones.

                  SG:
                  We have some nice pieces here, but nothing we can count on. Rush can be good, but is too inconsistent to really trust, and George is still an unknown. Jones is the only one we can really know what to expect. Really all we have hear as of right now are good back-ups to borderline starters. On a better team they would probably appear to be better players, but on a bad team they don't preform as well.

                  SF:
                  Defiantly our strongest position with Granger. Then Rush, George, and Dun can all play SF, and would all be decent back-ups.

                  PF:
                  Murphy is a SF playing PF, and that is the problem. Right now the best PF on this team is McBob. That may not be saying much, but if he got major minutes at PF this team would instantly improve. It may not be a lot by itself, but if O'Brien started to play the true PF's here and changed his system to fit the players it would create a big improvement in the team. Hansbrough is still an unknown. I was completely unimpressed with his play last year, but it is a knew year. Foster, if healthy, is on a decline, but can still give quality minutes at this position.

                  C:
                  Our second strongest position as far as starters go with Hibbert. He should be better, and is becoming the presence we need underneath. Like Ford he really doesn't fit the system that O'Brien likes. He is slow, and mechanical.


                  So really at three positions we have players who are at the very least average starters, one position that has borderline starters, and another where we really only have back-ups. Honestly, if used properly that will get you a low playoffs spot. The problem is O'Brien doesn't focus enough on defense, and doesn't have a system in place that fits his players. This has caused a decent player in TJ to look like a ****ty player, Granger's shooting percentage has suffered from taking too many 3's and the team being too reliant on him, and Hibbert not being able to play to his full ability. The problem is those are the three main guys to this team; your PG, your star wing, and your "dominate" big man. If you have quality players at those positions, you should be able to more or less plug players into the other two positions and be a decent team, not championship but decent. Yet this team has struggles because the coach and the players do not fit well together.
                  So you are pinning our problems entirely on O'Brien? That is absurd. As Jeff Van Gundy says, it is a players league, and it is a make or miss league. Ford's problem is not O'Brien. Ford drives the ball constantly, puts himself in bad positions and throws up ill advised shots. That is on TJ Ford, not Jim O'Brien.

                  And what is up with everyone thinking anyone on the team can just be a point guard? In one thread it was Dhantay Jones, now it is Mike Dunleavy. Guys, if finding a quality pg to run a team were this easy then no one would ever be in need. You need to be able to run pick and roll, defend it, handle the ball against the quickest defenders, make smart decisions, pass well and defend the position. That is a lot of stuff to ask which makes finding a pg extremely tough. If it were as easy as moving a two guard or forward over we would have solved this issue a long time ago. Unfortunately it is not that easy.

                  And no, players don't go from starters on good teams to garbage on bad teams like you suggest about Jones and Rush. Sure, being on a good team may be able to mask certain weaknesses, but the two guard position is one of the major reasons why we are a bad team. The reason they don't preform well isn't because of the team they are on, it is because at this point in time they are not very good players.

                  You also really think Murphy is a SF? Seriously? I would love to see Murphy match up against the Paul Pierces of the world on defense. Do you have any idea how bad we would get tourched by the Carmelo Anthony's? Even someone like Loul Deng would kill Troy Murphy. Murphy is a terrible defender at any position, but he would get badly exposed at SF.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Current Pacers roster

                    I would really like to see this team stay healthy all season for a change. And if they "upgrade" the PG position I think this team can be competitive. Not win the division competitive but I think they can be a .500+ type team...

                    Really depends upon the PG situation IMO..

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Current Pacers roster

                      im not sure who suggested dunleavy run the point, thats not a logical solution. my suggestion was jones backing up TJ for the following reasons:

                      1) he will not get much PT at sg with Rush, Dunleavy, George, and possibly Stephenson.
                      2) he has the frame of pg/combo gaurd
                      3) im not stating he is our answer at the point, but that he can play it, and if he wants PT its his best option this season
                      4) can he not dribble the ball up the court and pass it to the wings to initiate the offense?? i dont think that is too much to ask. im not asking him to be john stockton, but simply backup TJ until Price can play. dribbling and passing is something any shooting gaurd from duke should be able to do.
                      5) the main reason i am comfortable suggesting this is Jones defense. half the game is defense, and Jones can defend point gaurds in this league. I would feel comfortable with him on Rondo, Nelson, Rose, Wall, Jennings etc. his specialty is defense.

                      in summary, let him defend the point gaurd, and simply dribble and pass the ball, not per se orchestrate the offense.

                      in regard to Murphy as a SF, i think what the poster was referrring to was Murphy is a PF who plays like a SF. which is absolutely correct. i dont think he was suggesting playing Murphy at the SF, at least i hope not.

                      Jones is capable of splitting PT with TJ at 24 minutes a game. if the other team wants to trap him, im sure he can advance the ball up the court via the pass. now if jones could not defend the opposing PG's i would not have suggested this.



                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post

                      And what is up with everyone thinking anyone on the team can just be a point guard? In one thread it was Dhantay Jones, now it is Mike Dunleavy. Guys, if finding a quality pg to run a team were this easy then no one would ever be in need. You need to be able to run pick and roll, defend it, handle the ball against the quickest defenders, make smart decisions, pass well and defend the position. That is a lot of stuff to ask which makes finding a pg extremely tough. If it were as easy as moving a two guard or forward over we would have solved this issue a long time ago. Unfortunately it is not that easy.


                      You also really think Murphy is a SF? Seriously? I would love to see Murphy match up against the Paul Pierces of the world on defense. Do you have any idea how bad we would get tourched by the Carmelo Anthony's? Even someone like Loul Deng would kill Troy Murphy. Murphy is a terrible defender at any position, but he would get badly exposed at SF.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Current Pacers roster

                        If Ford is our starting PG we could be in trouble. I like him, but he doesn't fit here. Price is out 4-6 months. Will he even make the final roster? Rush as our starting SG is laughable. You don't know when he will show up, and when he wil be timid Brandon and not show up . Most of us are happy with George, but he hasn't palyed a game yet, so we don't know what he will bring. At SF we don't even need to talk about Granger 25 pts per game, enough said. Dunleavy will never be like he was before he was injured. PF is another issue Murphy is a stat hog who will get his numbers but not help the team. I think foster has fallen off too. He is 33. He can be effective but not like he was a few years ago. Hansbrough is a mystery. He could be fine next year, or he could be done. McRoberts should improve even more next year, but will JOB give him enough minutes. Hibbert is still a work in progress and should improve even more this year. He could be the key to this team.
                        With the current lineup we might crack 40 wins, but probably won't make the playoffs. I don't like it anyway when a team with a losing record makes the playoffs, so unless we win 42 or more games next season I don't want to make the playoffs.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Current Pacers roster

                          D. Jones' handles are not good. He also has a tendency to be a black hole, possesion-wise....if he has the ball, the likelihood that he will over-dribble or make an ill-advised attempt to penetrate into nonexistent lanes has been sufficiently demonstrated, IMO.

                          If he is any sort of option for us in the coming season at point, we are in trouble, and 35 wins will be a pipe dream.

                          On the bright side, we are never going to go with him at point....someone will be obtained who can actually run an offense. It may be temp filler, a la Jack or Watson....heck, it might be Jack or Watson...but playing Dahntay at point has even less upside than playing Marquise at point did.


                          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Current Pacers roster

                            Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                            If Ford is our starting PG we could be in trouble. I like him, but he doesn't fit here. Price is out 4-6 months. Will he even make the final roster? Rush as our starting SG is laughable. You don't know when he will show up, and when he wil be timid Brandon and not show up . Most of us are happy with George, but he hasn't palyed a game yet, so we don't know what he will bring. At SF we don't even need to talk about Granger 25 pts per game, enough said. Dunleavy will never be like he was before he was injured. PF is another issue Murphy is a stat hog who will get his numbers but not help the team. I think foster has fallen off too. He is 33. He can be effective but not like he was a few years ago. Hansbrough is a mystery. He could be fine next year, or he could be done. McRoberts should improve even more next year, but will JOB give him enough minutes. Hibbert is still a work in progress and should improve even more this year. He could be the key to this team.
                            With the current lineup we might crack 40 wins, but probably won't make the playoffs. I don't like it anyway when a team with a losing record makes the playoffs, so unless we win 42 or more games next season I don't want to make the playoffs.
                            I disagree, making the playoffs with a losing record could be a blessing in disguise. Playoff experience is very important and if we could get some type of experience while having a losing record that could go a long way in helping us when we really do start to become winners. I would like to see how Granger plays in the playoffs as the leader and best player on the team.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Current Pacers roster

                              I see another season of 35-40 (maybe worse) wins and missing the playoffs based on the current roster.
                              Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Current Pacers roster

                                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post

                                and again, whats wrong with Jones playing point?

                                Don't mean to rain on your parade, but this has already been discussed and put to rest months ago. Same with Dun being PG.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X