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

Questions from a non-Pacers fan

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Questions from a non-Pacers fan

    Hello there. I've been to this forum a few times in the past month or so, being led by google a few times.

    I'm not from Indiana, and haven't been a Pacers fan. In the past few years, I've probably only watched a couple of games. Granger was my first pick on my fantasy team this year, and since I enjoy watching teams that have my players on it, I caught a few of the first games of the season. My team's also very bad, so I added some waiver wire replacements.. Rush, Dunleavy, and McRoberts.. 2 of which are still on my team. So with more Pacers on my team than any other, I started watching all of the Pacer games.

    Besides having guys on my fantasy team, I really liked watching them for the first month. Seeing how they played against the Heat and the Lakers, everything about them screamed 'team'. Good defense, motion offense getting everyone involved and they just looked like an atypical nba team. No boring isolation plays every other possession, very good team defense, and a lot of movement off the ball.

    I'm also a Duke fan, and the last I'd seen of McRoberts, he was a sophomore there on a comparatively bad team. Certainly didn't look ready for the NBA and honestly I didn't even realize he was still in the league. But here he was, in a system that seemed to fit him well, and playing on a team that looked like it had a lot of chemistry and played the right way. Fun stuff. Granger looked like a superstar who could play both ends, yet another player benefiting from team usa experience, and a guy who looked like he was happy to defer to teammates, bought into the system, and didn't mind a decrease in #s for the sake of winning. Hibbert didn't even look recognizable from the last time I saw him, and Collison was a player who looked really good in NO last year. With all that, I quickly turned into a fairweather fan who checked for the Pacers game first above the other games on nba league pass. Throw in one of the most impressive offensive quarters against my home team in the Nuggets and I was sold.



    So with all that said, they look like a totally different team now in mid December. The least interesting team to watch for me this year has been Sacremento, with their lack of chemistry, weird rotations and lineups, and just bad overall play. Hate to say it, but this Pacers team now has a lot of similarities with that team. Like them, it looks like almost anyone on the team can be benched for quarters, halfs, or even taken out of the rotation. Having Rush and Dunleavy in and out of the starting lineup, while not as bad as the constant changing lineups for the Kings, appears to be disruptive. Granger seems the only one immune to benching for poor play, and even when people are playing well, they seem to end up on the bench at odd times.


    So I have a few questions for you guys who are Pacer fans and have watched them for years.

    1. Why did they get Darren Collison?

    He doesn't seem to have a skillset that fits the system they have here at all. I would think more of a Fisher type of guy would have fit better. A defensive minded PG who can hit spot up shots and doesn't need to create. It seems the only time they ask the PG to do point guard stuff on this team is when the shot clock is running low, or at the end of the quarter. But a reluctant 3 pointer who isn't a great defensive player? Seems like a bad choice.


    2. Why did they trade Troy Murphy for him? From watching where the power forwards are positioned on offense (3 point line or high post), and who they're guarding (Hibbert still usually has the better post player), I don't understand why they got rid of him. The benching against the Lakers suggested that O'Brien just wanted to look at the box score at half time and see some rebounds on there for his PF, despite standing at the 3 point line on offense. Murphy could give you that at least.

    3. Is OBrien on the hot seat? He seems to really alienate the players with rotations, benching, and comments in the press. The chemistry and 'team' part that I saw before seems to be completely gone after a month and a half. While I really liked the systems they were playing previously and the motion offense, it already appears quite a bit different. Hibbert isn't getting the ball in the post. McRoberts looks like he's afraid to shoot or do anything really after a miss or 2. Collison looks completely lost. Only Rush and Dunleavy look comfortable on offense right now. And they look hugely dependent on 3 point shooting.

    4. Who do you guys think should be playing at PF? I thought Tyler was the future, but he somehow was completely out of the rotation until last night. I think McRoberts fits the system a lot better and is a young guy too, but OBrien seems to be playing him because he likes Tyler less, not that he actually likes what McRoberts is doing.

    5. What's with the rotations, benching, and platoons? Is this what OBrien commonly does, or is this just him trying to figure out what's working or who should be playing? Seems like it would be extremely hard for everyone but Granger to get comfortable when your minutes are up for grab every single game.


    Really confused on how this team looked like one of the most fun to watch in the nba to one of the worst in a matter of a few weeks. Help me understand, thanks!
    Last edited by koVe; 12-16-2010, 11:20 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

    Originally posted by koVe View Post
    Hello there. I've been to this forum a few times in the past month or so, being led by google a few times.

    I'm not from Indiana, and haven't been a Pacers fan. In the past few years, I've probably only watched a couple of games. Granger was my first pick on my fantasy team this year, and since I enjoy watching games that has my players on it, I caught a few of the first games of the season. My team's also very bad, so I added some waiver wire replacements.. Rush, Dunleavy, and McRoberts.. 2 of which are still on my team. So with more Pacers on my team than any other, I started watching all of the Pacer games.

    Besides having guys on my fantasy team, I really liked watching them for the first month. Seeing how they played against the Heat and the Lakers, everything about them screamed 'team'. Good defense, motion offense getting everyone involved and they just looked like an atypical nba team. No boring isolation plays every other possession, very good team defense, and a lot of movement off the ball.

    I'm also a Duke fan, and the last I'd seen of McRoberts, he was a sophomore there on a comparatively bad team. Certainly didn't look ready for the NBA and honestly I didn't even realize he was still in the league. But here he was, in a system that seemed to fit him well, and playing on a team that looked like it had a lot of chemistry and played the right way. Fun stuff. Granger looked like a superstar who could play both ends, yet another player benefiting from team usa experience, and a guy who looked like he was happy to defer to teammates, bought into the system, and didn't mind a decrease in #s for the sake of winning. Hibbert didn't even look recognizable from the last time I saw him, and Collison was a player who looked really good in NO last year. With all that, I quickly turned into a fairweather fan who checked for the Pacers game first above the other games on nba league pass. Throw in one of the most impressive offensive quarters against my home team in the Nuggets and I sold.



    So with all that said, they look like a totally different team now in mid December. The least interesting team to watch for me this year has been Sacremento, with their lack of chemistry, weird rotations and lineups, and just bad overall play. Hate to say it, but this Pacers team now has a lot of similarities with that team. Like them, it looks like almost anyone on the team can be benched for quarters, halfs, or even taken out of the rotation. Having Rush and Dunleavy in and out of the starting lineup, while not as bad as the constant changing lineups for the Kings, appears to be disruptive. Granger seems the only one immune to benching for poor play, and even when people are playing well, they seem to end up on the bench at odd times.


    So I have a few questions for you guys who are Pacer fans and have watched them for years.

    1. Why did they get Darren Collison?

    He doesn't seem to have a skillset that fits the system they have here at all. I would think more of a Fisher type of guy would have fit better. A defensive minded PG who can hit spot up shots and doesn't need to create. It seems the only time they ask the PG to do point guard stuff on this team is when the shot clock is running low, or at the end of the quarter. But a reluctant 3 pointer who isn't a great defensive player? Seems like a bad choice.    2. Why did they trade Troy Murphy for him? From watching where the power forwards are positioned on offense (3 point line or high post), and who they're guarding (Hibbert still usually has the better post player), I don't understand why they got rid of him. The benching against the Lakers suggested that O'Brien just wanted to look at the box score at half time and see some rebounds on there for his PF, despite standing at the 3 point line on offense. Murphy could give you that at least.

    3. Is OBrien on the hot seat? He seems to really alienate the players with rotations, benching, and comments in the press. The chemistry and 'team' part that I saw before seems to be completely gone after a month and a half. While I really liked the systems they were playing previously and the motion offense, it already appears quite a bit different. Hibbert isn't getting the ball in the post. McRoberts looks like he's afraid to shoot or do anything really after a miss or 2. Collison looks completely lost. Only Rush and Dunleavy look comfortable on offense right now. And they look hugely dependent on 3 point shooting.

    4. Who do you guys think should be playing at PF? I thought Tyler was the future, but he somehow was completely out of the rotation until last night. I think McRoberts fits the system a lot better and is a young guy too, but OBrien seems to be playing him because he likes Tyler less, not that he actually likes what McRoberts is doing.

    5. What's with the rotations, benching, and platoons? Is this what OBrien commonly does, or is this just him trying to figure out what's working or who should be playing? Seems like it would be extremely hard for everyone but Granger to get comfortable when your minutes are up for grab every single game.


    Really confused on how this team looked like one of the most fun to watch in the nba to one of the worst in a matter of a few weeks. Help me understand, thanks!
    No pg has the skill set to make JOB happy. Collison will be good under a different coach. That will let him be a playmaker.


    Getting rid of Murphy made our team better he was a cancer


    JOB better be on the hottest seat ever or i might not watch this team for a long time after this season if he isnt fired before next season.


    and to answer number 5 i am think JOB is bi-polar he saysone thing and doesnt aother. He also has no feel for the game so is rotations are horrible
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 12-16-2010, 11:06 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

      1) Collison was supposed to be an upgrade and an opportunity to offload Murphy. Collison probably an upgrade even though everything you say is correct.

      2) Murphy was traded because Larry Bird has some sense. I cannot tell you why JOb played him but Jersey has him properly positioned on the bench.

      3) He should be because he's been trying to force a square peg in a round hole since he's been in Indy. His strategy and the players Larry is acquiring do not match.

      4) I think Tyler should be playing because I think he will be more productive on offense and I believe he plays with force, something this team desperately needs.

      5) This is how JOb coaches and why there is constant screeching on PD.

      BTW, you are a quick study. As for what happened in December:

      1) Tyler was benched
      2) McRoberts was asked to play Murphy 3 ball
      3) Teams starting scouting the Pacers more based on their success (maybe)
      4) We played several good teams in December. LA, Utah, Chicago, Atlanta and Milwaukee is under-rated.

      It's a combination of the above IMHO.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

        Trying to be patient, but the dramatic 180 turn you're talking is pushing me closer and closer to a mindset that we'll never make true progress until JOB is out of here. I'll give him until mid to late Jan. before I completely give up on him.

        The PF position is a real cluster****. We just don't have talent or depth. In fact, if you look at our 4-5 rotation all together, it's probably the weakest in the NBA. So that's not all JOB there.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

          These have to be most thought out (and accurate) questions that I have ever read on this forum. You've pretty much summarized the entire season, our concerns, and our preferences in your first post. I applaud you on your first post!


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            As for what happened in December:

            1) Tyler was benched
            2) McRoberts was asked to play Murphy 3 ball
            3) Teams starting scouting the Pacers more based on their success (maybe)
            4) We played several good teams in December. LA, Utah, Chicago, Atlanta and Milwaukee is under-rated.

            It's a combination of the above IMHO.
            I agree wholeheartedly with 1, 3, & 4. I really don't think that McRoberts has been asked to change his game since November.

            I'd also add number 5 - Granger and Hibbert started playing like crap at the same time.
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

              Good questions.

              I'd say that the answer to the first three questions is "This is probably Jim O'Brien's last year."
              This space for rent.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                1) Collison was supposed to be an upgrade and an opportunity to offload Murphy. Collison probably an upgrade even though everything you say is correct.

                2) Murphy was traded because Larry Bird has some sense. I cannot tell you why JOb played him but Jersey has him properly positioned on the bench.

                3) He should be because he's been trying to force a square peg in a round hole since he's been in Indy. His strategy and the players Larry is acquiring do not match.

                4) I think Tyler should be playing because I think he will be more productive on offense and I believe he plays with force, something this team desperately needs.

                5) This is how JOb coaches and why there is constant screeching on PD.

                BTW, you are a quick study. As for what happened in December:

                1) Tyler was benched
                2) McRoberts was asked to play Murphy 3 ball
                3) Teams starting scouting the Pacers more based on their success (maybe)
                4) We played several good teams in December. LA, Utah, Chicago, Atlanta and Milwaukee is under-rated.

                It's a combination of the above IMHO.
                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                I agree wholeheartedly with 1, 3, & 4. I really don't think that McRoberts has been asked to change his game since November.

                I'd also add number 5 - Granger and Hibbert started playing like crap at the same time.
                Agree. I don't get the McBob-Murphy ball thing you're on, BnG.

                I think that the key is 3-teams have us scouted now. We're very stoppable on offense because our center hasn't adjusted to being adjusted to. And our best player was in a bit of a slump/injured. They'll bounce back once we get some counter-adjustments going.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

                  Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                  Agree. I don't get the McBob-Murphy ball thing you're on, BnG.

                  I think that the key is 3-teams have us scouted now. We're very stoppable on offense because our center hasn't adjusted to being adjusted to. And our best player was in a bit of a slump/injured. They'll bounce back once we get some counter-adjustments going.
                  Yes, you are correct I am "on" something. I am very pleased with what I believe is a recent change in the way McBob is being asked to play.

                  Just look at the 3 pt attempts by McBob starting in December versus November:

                  http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/...deiGD9ktWrPaB4

                  He had more attempts in the first 6 December games than he had the previous 16 games. Last night was the first game he did not attempt a three in the month of December. More important, there was never a time where it looked like he was even considering shooting the three. Not even considering it.

                  Instead, he was posting up. Yes, Josh McRoberts posted up. Also, he was dribble driving to the hoop with some success. This is like an early Christmas present for me.

                  IMO, JOb has slowly become frustrated because his strategies are not working very well...and it boiled over a little during the Laker game...and into the press. The good news is that he recognizes the problem. He knows the team needs to play with more force in the paint, grab rebounds, etc.

                  This includes mixing it up in the paint on offense. Forcing Hibbert's man to help on McBob cannot be done when McBob is standing on the perimeter. This reduces the chance the guy guarding Hibbert gets in foul trouble...and is only one reason why offensive strategy has a huge impact on defense. Also, McBob cannot get offensive boards...or smack the ball off the backboard to Hibbert for the dunk last night when he's on the perimeter. This is a tiny sampling of the costs you have to cover by stretching with your PF.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Questions from a non-Pacers fan

                    Jim O'Brien's system tends to make point guards look bad and everyone TO prone. He is not a long-term fixture of the team. He was a stop-gap coach.

                    At the same time,I don't want to completely blame the coach- the team has had lackluster efforts and Granger even admitted to coasting- but O'Brien really is bad.
                    Pacers,baby!

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X