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

Lance is not a pg

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

  • #31
    Re: Lance is not a pg

    Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
    Owl, I remember the same thing about George. Thing is, back then, EVERYONE was taking their 2 guards and trying to make them a PG because of Magic's effectiveness. (I think I remember the Hawks even trying to shoehorn Steve Smith into a PG role) A lot of teams, us included, were trying to fit a square peg in the proverbial round hole. I don't think this is the case.
    Yep, and it didn't help that George was an introvert. There were rumors he may have had depression issues as well. Just a bad experiement because the guy could shoot the ball and should have been Reggie's backup.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Lance is not a pg

      Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
      (Man, the off-season really sets up the makings of a tempest in a teapot. I can't believe how strong some of the opinions are about LS possibly playing PG. We need something else going on with this team.)

      Owl, I remember the same thing about George. Thing is, back then, EVERYONE was taking their 2 guards and trying to make them a PG because of Magic's effectiveness. (I think I remember the Hawks even trying to shoehorn Steve Smith into a PG role) A lot of teams, us included, were trying to fit a square peg in the proverbial round hole. I don't think this is the case.

      Yes, we may be doing it out of necessity, but I see more of the raw tools to be a PG out of Lance then I ever did George.
      QFT. The NBA is as "me too" as any other sports league, and Magic Johnson made everyone look for the next tall point guard superstar.

      George was derailed from the Pacers because of injuries. His career started reeeaaal slow, partially with the injury thing, partly... whatever. His hyped shooting ability didn't even show up. After 4 years, we moved him on.

      That didn't really have anything to do with the point guard thing. As I recall, the Pacers gave up on that rather quickly. Not having seen much of George at point, I can't really say exactly what he lacked. His ball handling was okay. The basic skill that separates PG's from pretenders is understanding the offense and initiating it correctly. It's not a cookbook, if a guy is overplaying a passing lane, you have to understand the counters. The other aspect is speed, pressuring the defense in transition so that someone gets open -- and you recognize who and when -- and you make that play.

      And I share the sentiments about point guard in our current offense. We set up very quickly on picks and the PG is not asked to analyze any motion. You still need PG skills, but you don't need a Mark Jackson type.

      Obviously, you have to guard quick guys respectably. The Lakers cheated with Magic by swapping D with their other guard.

      George was a pretty good defender, but I don't think he was quick enough to take on opposing PG's very often.

      The funny think about McCloud is that he's usually referenced as a bust, not just around here, but he ended up with a 14 year NBA career as a journeyman, and had a couple nice years for Dallas. Not the stud you'd be hoping for with the #7 pick, but still...

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Lance is not a pg

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Hey wait a minute..... in the Al Harrington thread didn't you accuse us (me) of being too negative?


        LOL, Yes, But that is about your perception about the team and our whole season. THIS is a discussion point, in response to a lot of "lets play next year with Lance as pg, at least backup".

        Anyway......

        God help me but I'm about to try and justify some of O'Briens thinking using some form of logic.

        Yes Jim O'Brien likes the three point shot, that can not even be disputed by either side of the Jim fence.

        However why he likes the three is not always because of the ability to hit the three, it is to draw away bigger defenders in the paint so that wings and guards can penetrate to the basket. Thus why he is always so fascinated with having a power forward who can go out and spread the floor.

        Lance does not have to be a traditional point guard in Jim's system. In fact Jim's system does not call for a traditional point guard at all and really does not encourage the p.g. to do anything in the half court setting that you would normally see from a Darren Williams, Jason Kidd, Mark Jackson, etc.

        They have to know how to play off of the ball.

        If Lance can learn to bring the ball up on the break and if he can learn to move well without the ball then in truth there is no reason why in Jim O'Briens system he can't perform and in a few years wouldn't actually excel in the role of slashing point guard.

        There you go, and that I would agree with fully. There is definitely potential there. Just not going to happen THIS year.

        Now understand I am not saying that he will be able to hang with the Rondo's or other good defensive point guards of the world, I'm just trying to say that using Jim's system I think he can be the p.g.

        And bringing the ball up court against the Rondo's of the world is what I'm mostly talking about. Defending them too.

        Ok back to bashing O'Brien as this makes me feel dirty.
        I bought a barrel of GoJo for degreasing after all the OB bashing here.

        edit: bleepin formatting.......... i did every comment the same way.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Lance is not a pg

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I would add, too, that there's a big difference between not really being a point guard, while being able to play at that position effectively, and being incapable of playing the position.

          Who cares if Lance isn't what anyone considers to be a stereotypical PG if, at the end of the day, you can put him at the 1 and he can make it work.

          We need a lot of help at the 1, and if Lance can succeed there, even if he's "supposed to be" a 2-guard, so be it.
          I'm okay with this. But let's first get him up to being a competent NBA-caliber SG. He's a young second-round pick. The large majority of those don't survive training camp or crack a team's regular season rotation for a while. He's got upside, I get that. I'll be patient with him - moreso than I'll be patient with all the premature Lance-love based on summer league. And we've got a coach that has been reluctant to play NBA-ready rookies. If Lance is a solution (full time or part time) at PG it probably won't happen until the 2012-13 season.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Lance is not a pg

            Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
            Owl, I remember the same thing about George. Thing is, back then, EVERYONE was taking their 2 guards and trying to make them a PG because of Magic's effectiveness. (I think I remember the Hawks even trying to shoehorn Steve Smith into a PG role) A lot of teams, us included, were trying to fit a square peg in the proverbial round hole. I don't think this is the case.
            This is why you should post more often.

            My memories of McCloud:

            a) He sprained his ankle during the legendary (in my mind, at least) 1991 playoffs while TALKING ON THE PHONE! Yeesh.

            b) He was injured quite a bit.

            c) Both of his parents passed away while he was here. I'm guessing that the injuries and family situations left him in a funk if not outright depressed. I know I would be.

            d) His handles were bad and his passing was lousy. I've got pretty good court vision, too. But it doesn't make me an NBA-caliber PG.

            e) He was a great shooter in college, but we already had Rifleman and Reggie on the wings so we didn't have much playing time for another shooter. Rather than admit we wasted a pick by drafting a guy that had the same skill as our two best players, we tried to move him to a position that ultimately exploited his weaknesses. Note that when he returned to the NBA a couple of seasons later he was simply a shooter and not a ballhandler.

            f) Donnie commented a number of times that the one thing that disappointed him in McCloud was just how poorly he shot the ball during his time with the Pacers. I believe he said (paraphraising), we believed he could shoot, and were trying to find a way to get him on the court. But when his shot left him, and he never really developed PG skills, there wasn't any place for him in the lineup.

            g) We already had a big PG with Fleming, who was 6'5". And ultimately, we went smaller with Micheal Williams when everybody got away from trying to find the "next" Magic.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Lance is not a pg

              Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
              [COLOR="Blue"]

              edit: bleepin formatting.......... i did every comment the same way.
              I had the same thing happen a couple weeks ago. I tried about 3 times and then gave up.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Lance is not a pg

                Without even getting into basketball or comparative points in telling why Lance will be just fine as a PG in this system...

                let me just say...

                If Troy Murphy can be what the coach sees as an ideal vision of the PF in this system, I have little worries about Lance succeeding as a PG in this system...at least in the eyes of the coach.

                Now, on to a few basketball points.

                What type of PG is the ideal PG to pair with Brandon Rush? What type of PG is the ideal PG to pair with Danny Granger? Likely the same answer for both. Brandon's focus is on playing defense and stretching the defense. His preference and forte at this point in his career on the offensive end is to be the guy on the receiving end of the drive and kick, rather than the one doing the driving in the drive and kick. Much like Bruce Bowen played best with a PG like Parker whose first instinct on plays that didn't run through Duncan was to drive the ball to the rim, look to score, and if the defense collapsed, kick it out to players like Bowen or Manu who would then swing the ball or reverse the ball to the open man...I believe Lance will likely fill that same role, but with the added bonus of being able to post up himself and create mismatches. Danny's forte is catching the ball and shooting. We all want him to attack the rim, but it's not his forte. He's at his best when a great PG can break down the defense and find him moving off of the ball for a catch and release.

                With Earl, Jack and even T.J. this has been issue. Earl and Jack weren't the greatest of pentrators and while T.J. can penetrate, he rarely has his vision set on anything other than the rim once he starts a move to break down the defender.

                Lance has far better court vision and a better ability to break down the defense and find an open man than any PG we've had on the roster for quite some time.

                Does he have some things he needs to work on? Undoubtedly. He will absolutely have to stop the "jump in the air and look for someone open", routine, and he'll have to learn when the time is best to attack and when the time is best to move to plan B for that possession. Inexperienced PGs often think that it's all on them to make things happen, and in the summer league, you saw that from Lance. Where Lance will be the most valuable as a PG is when option #1 and option #2 are covered, and when he catches the ball at the arc with 10 seconds left on the shot clock, he'll actually be able to make something happen. In the past, Earl, T.J. or any other PG we had couldn't make something happen and we ended up with some sort of ridiculous three point attempt from someone.

                With Lance in the game, your bail out situation on a halfcourt possession is to give him the ball and let him create, rather than throwing the ball to someone and hoping they can nail a contested, off balance three point attempt.

                And for some reason, there were a great many times when rather than the ball landing in the hands of a wing with 8 left on the clock, it seemed to land in the hands of our PG last year.

                People have pointed out before, generally when you have a 6'5 PG, he has trouble getting around or keeping up with the smaller PGs. In Lance's case, many of us have been watching closely, and it's been the other way around.

                Jim has wanted a big PG ever since he found out who Tyreke Evans was. I think this is a big reason why Lance was picked by the Pacers. I don't have a link, but this fact was documented somewhere before the 2009 draft and led to all of the chat about the Pacers trying to trade up to draft Tyreke.

                Is he the ideal solution at PG? Is he the ideal solution at PG for this system? Those are two questions with two likely different answers. Personally for this year though, I see no harm in giving him a shot at it...in fact, I would almost prefer that option over bringing back Earl or spending $ on anyone not named Chris Paul.

                People can say it was just summer league and lower quality players were matched up with him. But, on the flipside, he did a serviceable job at PG in summer league with raw, inexperienced wing players who barely knew the system. If you put him on the court with wings like Danny and Brandon who not only know the system but know where to be to make life easier for the PG, you have a pull in both ways.

                Just my opinion.

                A final point, just in line with much of the chat on this board as of late...

                I'm not as sold on Collison as a long term solution as many on here seem to be. My main reason is that I believe there are players in the NBA that you can scout and study and easily stop or control simply from doing that...and I believe that there are the players that you can know every single thing about, know every move and every tendency and still struggle to stop. I see Collison as the first type and Lance with the capability to be more of the second type. Having that type of player, to me, is worth the chance for a year like the upcoming year. It's likely a pre-lockout year and we'll have several guys overachieving outside of the PG position for their next contract. To me, it's worth a look for 20-30 games.
                Last edited by jcouts; 07-15-2010, 10:59 AM.
                Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Lance is not a pg

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  Hey wait a minute..... in the Al Harrington thread didn't you accuse us (me) of being too negative?

                  Anyway......

                  God help me but I'm about to try and justify some of O'Briens thinking using some form of logic.

                  Yes Jim O'Brien likes the three point shot, that can not even be disputed by either side of the Jim fence.

                  However why he likes the three is not always because of the ability to hit the three, it is to draw away bigger defenders in the paint so that wings and guards can penetrate to the basket. Thus why he is always so fascinated with having a power forward who can go out and spread the floor.

                  Lance does not have to be a traditional point guard in Jim's system. In fact Jim's system does not call for a traditional point guard at all and really does not encourage the p.g. to do anything in the half court setting that you would normally see from a Darren Williams, Jason Kidd, Mark Jackson, etc.

                  They have to know how to play off of the ball.

                  If Lance can learn to bring the ball up on the break and if he can learn to move well without the ball then in truth there is no reason why in Jim O'Briens system he can't perform and in a few years wouldn't actually excel in the role of slashing point guard.

                  Now understand I am not saying that he will be able to hang with the Rondo's or other good defensive point guards of the world, I'm just trying to say that using Jim's system I think he can be the p.g.

                  Ok back to bashing O'Brien as this makes me feel dirty.
                  Isn't that a little bass akwards

                  Seriously..how about having guards that can shoot (hence, perimeter players) and post players inside (hence..POST players..)

                  I actually think Lance is going to semi-resemble TJ in Obrien's offense. He's ball dominant (TJ's ball dominant) He's turnover prone (TJ's turnover prone)

                  However, he's much better at scoring at going to the rim, or my guess is he will be.

                  As for being a PG in O'brien's system. At first look, I think people assume that the PG doesn't have to be a "true" PG. But I have to be honest, I think it's actually an incredibly hard position to play for O'brien because there's absolutely no offensive structure. The PG is supposed to play off ball often, but also supposed to create when things go off.

                  Not to mention, JOB doesn't really help the PGs.
                  Last edited by Sookie; 07-15-2010, 12:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Lance is not a pg

                    People comparing Lance Stephenson to George McCloud? Wow, that's a reach. I'm old enough to remember George McCloud. His play never excited anyone. Lance did things in the summer league that were amazing. His skills say point guard. His skills say special. Is there room for improvement? Of course. Might he have trouble against smaller point guards? Of course. Might smaller point guards have trouble against him? Of course. Is there any way to know at this point? Nope. Just gonna have to wait and see. But I can't remember a Pacer with his passing and ball handling skills. I want to see more, and I want to see it at the point. What I've seen so far has been amazing.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Lance is not a pg

                      He played pg in high school and has stated that it is his preferred position. Maybe you should complain to his college coach about the 1 season of his life he played sg.
                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      I think he'll have a better chance to be a PG than George will have to be a SG.

                      First, we should get them ready to play thier "natural" positions before we move them away from their strengths and emphasize thier weaknesses.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Lance is not a pg

                        Again, how are you anything at 19?




                        Edit: couldn't find the article
                        Last edited by Speed; 07-15-2010, 01:08 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Lance is not a pg

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          Again, how are you anything at 19? I thought I read he did play some point in college, anyway. I'll search for the article.
                          They tried him there...

                          Just like they tried him there in AAU...

                          albiet, the reason it didn't work could be something as simple as "not mature enough to make proper decisions with the ball.."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Lance is not a pg

                            The guy is a basketball player... put the ball in his hands and he will make plays for you, yes he will try to force things, and yes he will have turnovers, but he will also make the people around him better and bring energy to the team.

                            Too many people get caught up with this typical pg stereotype and want to force the issue of us having one. We just need to take what we get for now and if it doesn't work out well nothing new we will try again. It is not like we are one PG away from winning a title, and at best right now with FA and through trades we could only get a unproven guy with potential* or a low level starter or back up, and I personally would hate to give up decent assets for pg's with potential when we don't even know how good they will be when I feel that right now most aren't much better than our current options.

                            Finally we are so quick to put people in set positions, the real question should be can the kid play with the ball in his hands... If he can than lets give him a go and support him along the way.
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Lance is not a pg

                              I guess I will chime in and pop the cherry on this one.

                              I watched the summer league games and what I like about Lance is not only the fact that he has some nice point guard skills but what stood out to me were his intangibles. I just got the feeling that he embraced the challenge of taking over leading the team at the point. It seemed he felt like the point was his best position to play and his job to lose.

                              While a lot of the rookies took a while to adjust he seemed to be ready to play as soon as the 1st game started. I also noticed he wasn’t intimidated or timid in his play at any point.

                              I believe his attitude and confidence built up from playing against older players and being in the spotlight while growing up will allow him to be able to handle a spot in the rotation from day one.

                              I for one hope he is the starter on day one because I see no downside. Best case scenario is he gets better and better and exceeds everyone’s expectation and becomes our point guard of the future. Worst case he struggles and we win 25-30 games and get in better position to draft one of the point guards coming out next year.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Lance is not a pg

                                Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
                                ...pop the cherry on this one.
                                Welcome. Great "name", coach!
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X