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

What do the Bucks have that we don't?

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

  • #46
    Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

    Great thread - Milwaukee native and Bucks fan here.

    Andrew Bogut abused Roy Hibbert last year to a career-high 31 points in one of the trips to Indianapolis and I find the faith in Hibbert misplaced or at least not earned. Maybe that's why it's "faith." I find Hibbert to be stiff and inflexible when working near the basket. His height and lack of other bonafide scoring options are keeping him in that "breakout candidate" list but I don't know that I would expect miracles. Notions of Hibbert surpassing Bogut's skills are unfounded and frankly, a little insulting.

    Bogut can put the ball on the floor, is a fine passer and has post moves with both hands. His best offensive comparison in the league is likely Pau Gasol. Adding Gooden will only help on defense as Charlie V was one of the bigger defensive liabilities (after Redd went down...again) on the team.

    I am as high on Collison as anyone who isn't a Pacer fan. I like his chances at becoming a solid scorer, maybe up to 15-16ppg and really moving the rock. While I envision Jennings being the better player, Collison is almost certainly a better shooter at this point in their respective careers and Collison's experience will play a major role on a team looking for an identity.

    The major differences between the two teams is going to be shown on the defensive end. Once again Bogut shines over Hibbert. Both centers provide a shot-blocking influence while Bogut brings the increased awareness of a five-year veteran and more athleticism. Does Hibbert come out of the tunnel with two fouls?

    Danny Granger is a great player to watch on the offensive end but until he brings it defensively on every possession, the Pacers will be lost against many of the better 2s and 3s in the league. At every other position the Bucks are superior, including the coaching staff. (Please no Kelvin Sampson hate, I get it, he ruined IU for years to come and you paid Milwaukee back by wresting Tom Crean from Marquette)

    I'm looking forward to the game November 5th as the Bucks start a run for the Central Division title. Good luck to the Pacers and all the fans that have stuck through these thinner years.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

      The Bucks were one of the best defensive teams in the league last year. We were one of the worst. I guess you could make a comparison on the offensive end.
      2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

        Originally posted by bulldog View Post
        The Bucks were one of the best defensive teams in the league last year. We were one of the worst. I guess you could make a comparison on the offensive end.
        Oh, but our defensive field goal percentage was .453, while there's was only .451, so we're actually really, really close.

        [/very, very green]
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

          Wins!!!!
          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Thinking about it...

            Phil Jackson (hate to admit it)
            Scott Skiles (burns hot and burns out players quick)
            Larry Brown (crazy, but the best, imo)
            JEFF Van Gundy (like the Rainman of coaches)

            I might be missing someone, but not Doc Rivers or that kind of coach.

            Sure you have some good, some bad, but hardly any difference makers.

            Sorry to digress, but I honestly think that is the difference between the two teams. And I'd put Obie as not bad, overall.
            It's funny. Whenever I would day dream about the day JOB is replaced, I never once thought of Van Gundy. I hated him when he was with the Knicks (for obvious reasons) but I love his defensive mentality and toughness. Wouldn't mind having him lead this new young team next year.
            Turn out the lights, this party's over!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

              Originally posted by Kurtishahn View Post
              Great thread - Milwaukee native and Bucks fan here.

              Andrew Bogut abused Roy Hibbert last year to a career-high 31 points in one of the trips to Indianapolis and I find the faith in Hibbert misplaced or at least not earned. Maybe that's why it's "faith." I find Hibbert to be stiff and inflexible when working near the basket. His height and lack of other bonafide scoring options are keeping him in that "breakout candidate" list but I don't know that I would expect miracles. Notions of Hibbert surpassing Bogut's skills are unfounded and frankly, a little insulting.

              Bogut can put the ball on the floor, is a fine passer and has post moves with both hands. His best offensive comparison in the league is likely Pau Gasol. Adding Gooden will only help on defense as Charlie V was one of the bigger defensive liabilities (after Redd went down...again) on the team.

              I am as high on Collison as anyone who isn't a Pacer fan. I like his chances at becoming a solid scorer, maybe up to 15-16ppg and really moving the rock. While I envision Jennings being the better player, Collison is almost certainly a better shooter at this point in their respective careers and Collison's experience will play a major role on a team looking for an identity.

              The major differences between the two teams is going to be shown on the defensive end. Once again Bogut shines over Hibbert. Both centers provide a shot-blocking influence while Bogut brings the increased awareness of a five-year veteran and more athleticism. Does Hibbert come out of the tunnel with two fouls?

              Danny Granger is a great player to watch on the offensive end but until he brings it defensively on every possession, the Pacers will be lost against many of the better 2s and 3s in the league. At every other position the Bucks are superior, including the coaching staff. (Please no Kelvin Sampson hate, I get it, he ruined IU for years to come and you paid Milwaukee back by wresting Tom Crean from Marquette)

              I'm looking forward to the game November 5th as the Bucks start a run for the Central Division title. Good luck to the Pacers and all the fans that have stuck through these thinner years.
              Just wanted to point this post out as it got made before the last handful, but didn't show up until now.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                Not sure where all the Skiles love is coming from. He is mediocre. Sure he has had his share of playoff series, but he's not gotten a team out of the 2nd round to contend for anything, and he has had his share of 20 win season with every team he has coached.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                  Originally posted by Kurtishahn View Post
                  Notions of Hibbert surpassing Bogut's skills are unfounded and frankly, a little insulting.
                  I think you, along with most people watching NBA basketball will be shocked by the Roy Hibbert you see this year. While I think Bogut is the leagues best kept secret (and unfortunately missed the chance to show it on a national stage with the injury), but Hibbert is going to be a lot better.

                  Hibbert this year should keep pace with Bogut in minutes per game. He hasn't had any foul issues in the preseason like he's had in the past. I don't expect that to change much in the regular season. I truly believe Hibbert will be talked about for the first time in his career during All Star team talks.

                  That said, he still won't rebound, or play defense like Bogut. I just don't think it's as "insulting" as you believe.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                    i want this team to become like the bucks

                    the bucks players actually had specific roles which no one this team has they all go out there and shoot (thanks to our clueless coach)

                    heck even hibbert shoots 1 step inside the 3 point arc and is decent because he always did that but he needs to become way more tough in the paint like a center should like andrew bogut for this matter
                    In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Not sure where all the Skiles love is coming from. He is mediocre. Sure he has had his share of playoff series, but he's not gotten a team out of the 2nd round to contend for anything, and he has had his share of 20 win season with every team he has coached.
                      If I was still a Pacers fan I think I'd take that kind of mediocre coach in a heart beat.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_S...oaching_record

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                        To be fair grace, I think you'll find that most Pacer fans would be okay with a YMCA coach at this point.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                          Originally posted by Kurtishahn View Post
                          Great thread - Milwaukee native and Bucks fan here.

                          Andrew Bogut abused Roy Hibbert last year to a career-high 31 points in one of the trips to Indianapolis and I find the faith in Hibbert misplaced or at least not earned. Maybe that's why it's "faith." I find Hibbert to be stiff and inflexible when working near the basket. His height and lack of other bonafide scoring options are keeping him in that "breakout candidate" list but I don't know that I would expect miracles. Notions of Hibbert surpassing Bogut's skills are unfounded and frankly, a little insulting.
                          Hibbert has put a lot of work into his body and foot work this off-season. He should be much improved in this area, plus the fact that Murphy is not on the team anymore... means less fouls because of PF's blowing by Murphy.

                          Bogut is still way above Hibbert's level though.

                          Originally posted by Kurtishahn View Post
                          Bogut can put the ball on the floor, is a fine passer and has post moves with both hands. His best offensive comparison in the league is likely Pau Gasol. Adding Gooden will only help on defense as Charlie V was one of the bigger defensive liabilities (after Redd went down...again) on the team.
                          Charlie V did not play for bucks last year. Are you really a bucks fan?

                          Originally posted by Kurtishahn View Post
                          I am as high on Collison as anyone who isn't a Pacer fan. I like his chances at becoming a solid scorer, maybe up to 15-16ppg and really moving the rock. While I envision Jennings being the better player, Collison is almost certainly a better shooter at this point in their respective careers and Collison's experience will play a major role on a team looking for an identity.
                          OK, Jennings is the better shooter... I do not know what games you were watching but Collison has not much three point range.. His mid range game is coming along though.

                          Jennings is more streaky. Collison seems to be more consistent. Collison and Jennings both have played 1 season, and if anything Jennings is more experienced because he has played in the playoffs and started for a team the whole year.
                          Last edited by Magic-man; 10-24-2010, 03:17 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                            From everything I've ever read, seen, and heard Skiles and Brooks are not really very similar to each other.
                            They are very similar in the sense that both are great on the defensive end, and both get the most out of there players.

                            What reasons do you have for them not being similar? Is it because Scott Brooks does not hold the NBA record for Assists?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                              Tbh, i dont see much similarities right now.
                              The way i see it, Bucks were one of the top defensive teams last year, built around one of the best centers in the league. Possible the best offensive center (when Yao isn't at his best), one of the best rebounders, and a top 5 defensively. We on the other hand have Hibbert who looks like Rik Smits v2.0 when he's at his best. Nice offense, nice passing, 6-7 rebounds, a block here and there. Now Rik Smits was one of my fav centers in the 90s behind Dream and Sabonis, and I'd absolutely love Hibbert to be like him, but you don't build 'new Bucks' around a center who doesn't rebound and who isn't much of a post defender.

                              Besides, Bucks are incredibly deep team. The way i see it, this year their starting 5 will probably be Bogut/Gooden/Delfino/Salmons/Jennings (once they are all healthy). Which makes their bench look like this: Magette, Dooling, Mbah a Moute, Chris Douglas Roberts, Ilyasova, Redd, Jon Brockman, Earl Boykins. Maybe Redd is starting, if he is good enough when he comes back from injuries (probably not). Either way, that's an awesome bench, one of the best in the league.
                              Us on the other hand - I'm not sure that anyone on our bench would get meaningful minutes with Bucks... So we'll probably end up putting everything on a couple of guys again, wank at their stats for a while, then wonder why they don't have anything left on defense.

                              No way we can build a team similar to Bucks with what we have right now, not even if we swap Ford and Dunleavy for someone decent. Way too few competent players, and even of those, not sure that Hibbert / Collison are made for defense-first teams. Imo build around the guys you have, adopt a style that fits them best, and make a few trades later on. Imo, Nuggets with Billups/Melo/Nene is a more comparable scenario for us than Bucks.

                              But i agree with you, a coaching change might help a bit. Not Mike Brown though please. And not Woodson. Maybe Lawrence Frank? Brown and Woodson are just way too offensively challenged for this team imo, u need to be creative to take full use of Hibbert. Frank was amazing at changing around his schemes based on personnel. And his teams weren't terrible defensively either.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: What do the Bucks have that we don't?

                                Originally posted by Magic-man View Post
                                Are you serious?
                                Yes, I'm serious. What exactly did you disagree with?



                                Originally posted by Magic-man View Post
                                Bucks have made vaste improvements to the roster from last year.

                                They turned Charlie Bell and Dan Gadzuric into the Corey Maggette... they clearly needed a slasher type player. Acquired CDR one of the top steal players in the league and young! added Dooling and Boykins to give them solid depth at PG; Add Gooden and versatile PF/C who is a strong rebounder. Resigned Salmons who fitted in perfectly.

                                There Roster went from:

                                C: Bogut; Thomas; Gadzuric
                                PF: Mbah a Moute; Ilyasova
                                SF: Delfino; Stackhouse
                                SG: Salmons; Bell
                                PG: Jennings; Ridnour

                                to this years:

                                C: Bogut; Gooden
                                PF: Ilyasova; Mbah a Moute; Sanders
                                SF: Delfino; Maggette; Brockman
                                SG: Salmons;Douglous-Roberts
                                PG: Jennings; Dooling; Boykins

                                They have added all players who fit there system and improved in every position. They are one of the deepest teams in the league and will be one of the top defensive teams. I do not see the comparision between the Bucks and the Pacers.

                                The pacers however have a lot more players with greater upside. Maybe the comparision can be made in a couple of seasons and with a new coach similar to a Skiles and Scott Brooks
                                Yeps, they look stronger on paper. But last season lots of people were saying they were going to be pitiful because they apparently looked weaker, bad on paper.

                                There's a fair amount of uncertainty in regards to the Bucks team because Gooden and Maggette are two very aggressive scorers who will probably be both in the top-4 in usage rate for that club next season and that get a large part of their offense by creating their own shots and stopping the ball. They'll also be two average at best defensive players who'll spend major minutes on the floor - something they didn't have to deal with in the past. More importantly, the Bucks line-up to finish-games will often be Jennings/Salmons/Maggette/Gooden/Bogut: 5 guys who like to create their shots. Salmons/Maggette/Gooden have all been notable ball-stoppers for their career (especially the first two) and none of them is a natural cutter off-the-ball, they're all pretty bad at that. They don't move and they don't move the ball except when it's on their hands and they can dribble it. So there's a risk that offense will be way too stagnant and actually become worse than it was last season - when they had plenty of off-the-ball players and good cutters, guys who are comfortable playing off others. Most of them are still in there, but they'll play less.

                                Two additional notes: I don't think they're better at the backup PG position - Dooling is acceptable as a combo-guard who can shoot and defend and but he's no Luke Ridnour. The Bucks will need Jennings to be consistent, Skiles won't be able to give the keys to another quality point-guard whenever he's struggling.

                                I'm not convinced they have replaced Kurt Thomas well - Gooden becomes a major liability as a center and they don't have a post defender of the same calibre. Having that combo of good post defenders in Bogut+Thomas was important because it allowed them to never send doubles to the low blocks while still making it difficult for teams to score from there the entire game. Thomas is now a mediocre player outside of his post defense, so maybe they'll gain from the trade-off. We need to see how Sanders responds or if Brockman can improve enough to gain a rotation spot.

                                I'm also not sure why CDR is a steal. He was supposed to be a steal when drafted and his value after 2 years didn't improve a bit. A one-dimentional volume scorer with pedestrian athleticism and no outside shot.

                                So, I need to see them play (I watched a couple of their pre-season but they were missing many guys) because I'm not sure how the new pieces will fit. I believe they'll improve significantly - become a high 40s/low 50s team, that's my best prediction now - and I like the Maggette addition quite a bit (even though Maggette is one of my least favourite players to watch in the league) but once we see them play for a few games it'll be easier to see how're they dealing with the sudden excess of on-the-ball scorers/creators. A lot will depend on Jennings evolution - he'll need to do a good job as a distributor to make things work and keep that offense with some degree of fluidity. A very different challenge than the one he had last season.

                                -------------

                                Btw, I think you have that rotation wrong:

                                Brockman may have the height of a SF, but he is a center (who may play spot minutes at the 4 depending on the matchup). A great offensive rebounder and a very tough player.

                                Gooden will start as the PF.

                                I'd expect LRMAM to play most of his minutes at the 2/3, not as a 4.

                                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                                From everything I've ever read, seen, and heard Skiles and Brooks are not really very similar to each other.
                                They're both favoured by the "what have you done for me lately" mentality.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X