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

A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

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

  • A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

    This article puts Danny and Mike's quotes in context.

    A playoff team in name only
    Pacers, 7th in East at 14-20, aren't happy with their record
    -Jeff Rabjohns

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...team-name-only

    PHILADELPHIA -- At this point, tonight's game between the Indiana Pacers and Philadelphia 76ers is between two playoff teams.

    The 14-20 Pacers are seventh in the Eastern Conference standings and the 15-22 Sixers are eighth, the final playoff spot.

    In part, that's an indictment on the East, which had six teams at least six games above .500 entering Monday night and a bottom nine all at least six games below .500.

    It also means, despite nearly a month of struggles, the Pacers are playing games that could be critical at the end of the season.

    "I guess it's a good-news bad-news thing, but we're really not happy with where we're at," Pacers guard Mike Dunleavy said. "You almost don't even look at the standings. The most important thing for us is to start playing better.

    "The winning, the seeding, the playoffs will take care of themselves. Right now, it doesn't really matter that we're in the seven spot because if we keep playing the way we do, we won't be for long."

    The Pacers have gone 5-13 their past 18 games, sliding into a pack of six teams vying for the East's final two playoff spots.

    Indiana, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Toronto and Detroit entered Monday within three games of each other.

    Pacers coach Jim O'Brien isn't pleased with the team's position.

    "We're a little angry to be 14-20," he said. "We should be a better team and that's my job; 14-20 is not very good. It doesn't matter whether we're seventh in the East or 10th. We are not playing the type of basketball that allows us to be anything other than 14-20."

    The Pacers have been good offensively and poor defensively the past few years, but the opposite has been true recently. The offense needs fixing.

    The Pacers are third in the NBA in field-goal defense (43 percent) this season, but they are averaging just 92 points over the past 10 games, fifth worst in the NBA in that span.

    The players have become irritated with the situation.

    "Guys are not happy. There's some frustration, and there's also some looking for answers," Dunleavy said. "Quite frankly, some guys just don't feel like we have this thing figured out, especially on offense."

    So what isn't working?

    "A lot of it is rhythm and timing and making smart basketball plays," Dunleavy said. "We have a pretty simple offense. It's based on reads, hitting the open guy. We struggle with that. Until that changes, we're probably going to struggle on offense."

    The Pacers spent more than two hours on the practice court Monday, the entire time dedicated to offense.

    The issue isn't simply missing shots. The Pacers haven't been getting quick shots and, as a result, have fewer possessions and more shots taken as the shot clock runs down.

    Danny Granger, Indiana's leading scorer, said players have worried about the offense for several weeks.

    "Teams are scouting us, taking away a lot of our set plays," he said. "We like to do our quick motion, which is a little bit unpredictable and easier to score out of, but with that offense, we really have to have an understanding of what's going on, and I don't think we have that yet."

    If they don't get it soon, seventh in the East may begin slipping away.





    To me it looks like the players' really believe that the team really isn't getting the offense and not blaming the coach. And pigs must be flying because Jim took some blame for the losing. It seems the player's really are trying to follow his offense (even though it clearly isn't working). But frustration is setting in and the ship needs to get turned around soon before the team loses any confidence they still have.

  • #2
    Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

    Semi-refreshing article to read. I love reading accountability.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

      Yip, credit where credit is due. Jim actually did seem to take some of the blame in this interview.

      Also the wording is written and probably said in such a way that you really can not tell who the players are placing blame on or if they are placing blame at all.

      If I were guessing though I would not be suprised if Darren Collison is at the center of this either way. He really hasn't hid the fact that he is not happy in this offense at all.

      But again, that is just a wild guess on my part.

      They really need to get some wins or I have a feeling this team may be on the verge of a mental collapse, if they are not already there.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

        Originally posted by Jim O'Brien
        "We're a little angry to be 14-20," he said. "We should be a better team and that's my job; 14-20 is not very good. It doesn't matter whether we're seventh in the East or 10th. We are not playing the type of basketball that allows us to be anything other than 14-20."
        I've posted several times that one of the things that bothered me most about O'Brien, is that he often tries to deflect all the blame onto his players. I've complained about it frequently, so I think it's only fair if I give him credit for this. He took a small share with this quote.

        It isn't much, but it's a start.

        There was another article in the Star on Sunday from Mike Wells that talked about the Atlanta game, and how the Pacers cannot match up with their athleticism as a team.

        http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...|text|Sports|s

        Originally posted by Mike Wells, Indy Star

        ATLANTA -- Brandon Rush, between bites of his postgame meal of grilled chicken and rice, looked up and was ready to pounce on the question the way the Atlanta Hawks jumped all over the Indiana Pacers.

        "People don't talk about them, but they're a true contender in my eyes," Rush said of the Hawks.

        Atlanta would be the best team in the league if it played the Pacers 82 times a season. The Hawks continued their dominance in a 108-93 victory at Philips Arena on Saturday night.

        "They're a terrifically talented basketball team and they're just a little too much for us to handle right now," Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said.

        The Hawks have won nine straight over the Pacers, and they're showing no signs of letting up as long as Josh Smith, Al Horford and Joe Johnson are on the roster.

        The Pacers lack the personnel to match up with Atlanta's athleticism.

        Smith beat the Pacers with an array of moves -- dunks, jump shots and 3-pointers -- to finish with 27 points, 10 rebounds and a block.

        Johnson had 24 points, six assists and five rebounds. Horford continued to treat Pacers center Roy Hibbert like a junior varsity player, compiling 14 points, 10 rebounds and six assists. Hibbert had only eight points on 3-of-8 shooting.

        "They have a great inside attack and they space themselves very well," O'Brien said. "They're terrific in post-ups and in one-on-one situations."

        The Pacers, on the other hand, continue to search for an identity that has been missing for more than a month. The Pacers are 5-13 since being two games over .500 in late November. They've lost eight straight games on the road.

        The Pacers were held to 41 percent shooting and they've only reached the 100-point total three times in the past 18 games.

        Danny Granger, who said their offense "sucks right now," led the Pacers with 16 points but had just two points in the second half.

        "We're really not playing well right now," Mike Dunleavy said. "We just have no flow on offense right now. It can't be a whole lot of fun to watch us right now. We just have to get back to playing good basketball."

        Smith took his game to another level in the third quarter after Jeff Foster fouled him hard on an alley-oop attempt from Johnson.

        Smith had words for Foster and the officials when he got up because he thought it was a flagrant foul. Smith was given a technical.

        "It wasn't a flagrant," Foster said. "I went up to contest his shot and we just had body contact."

        Smith closed out the quarter with 11 points, including a follow dunk and a 3-pointer.

        Smith's play helped the Hawks build their lead from five at halftime to as many as 20 points late in the third quarter.

        "It's like they can beat you in so many different ways," Rush said. "They've got Josh, who can do so many things out there. Then you also have to worry about Joe, Horford and they bring Jamal (Crawford) off the bench."
        So O'Brien doesn't think he has the players to beat the Hawks. They are just too athletic. Call me crazy, but if a team's athleticism, especially from the big guys, is what has beaten you 9 games in a row, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to make your most athletic big man, and one who has already started 29 games for you this season inactive.

        Nobody matches up better with Josh Smith on our roster than Josh McRoberts. Twice already this season, McRoberts has had some success defending Smith. Twice already this season, he had tried Posey on Smith with disastrous results. O'Brien's solution was to deactivate McRoberts, give Posey (among others) a third shot to defend him, and Smith goes off for 27 points, 10 rebounds, and 6 assists. Clearly he didn't get all of those numbers against Posey alone, but when the opportunity was afforded to him, he absolutely abused him for a third time.

        Smith has had huge statistical games against us in all 3 games, and in each case, it has been largely because O'Brien keeps putting James Posey on him. Sorry Jim, that doesn't work. It isn't James' fault, he isn't capable of defending a player like Smith. Anyone can see that, except Jim O'Brien.

        Here is the thread from the December 11th Hawks game in Atlanta.

        http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=59208

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose on December 11th
        For the second time this season, he really didn't do much against McRoberts.

        He made a couple jump shots to start the 2nd half when Josh was in, but most of his points came against Posey early and against Granger late.
        And here is the post-game thread from the November 16th Hawks game in Conseco.

        http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.p...ks+game+thread

        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force on November 16th
        Josh Mcroberts has hardly been tearing it up lately and did commit a few dumb fouls in the third quarter... but Josh Smith only scored 2 points against him all night. He scored 23 against Posey... and the vast majority were directly coming at Posey who was clearly outmatched. Why did he play 25 minutes vs. 22 for Josh?
        Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 01-11-2011, 09:31 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

          Mackey - I always thought we didn't want Jim to match up with the opponent, but rather make the opponent match up with us. Roy should be too tall for Horford or Smith, so play Roy and make the Hawks adjust.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Mackey - I always thought we didn't want Jim to match up with the opponent, but rather make the opponent match up with us. Roy should be too tall for Horford or Smith, so play Roy and make the Hawks adjust.
            Not always. He played Roy. I don't understand what you are suggesting. I never mentioned Roy one time.

            Playing Posey is a bad match-up on our end, and does not force anyone to match-up against him. Especially against the Hawks.

            What are you saying?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
              Not always. He played Roy. I don't understand what you are suggesting. I never mentioned Roy one time.

              Playing Posey is a bad match-up on our end, and does not force anyone to match-up against him. Especially against the Hawks.

              What are you saying?
              I thought you wanted Josh to play center with Tyler as the PF. Josh matches up better with Horford than does Roy. My bad.

              But my larger point was just to mention that yes sometimes a coach must match up to the opponent. Many are critical of Jim or Rick when he was the coach, but one thing that is seldom mentioned is unless you have the better player it is almost impossible to make the opponent match up with you. Wasn't really directing this at you Mackey
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-11-2011, 09:31 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I thought you wanted Josh to play center with Tyler as the PF. Josh matches up better with Horford than does Roy. My bad.

                But my larger point was just to mention that yes sometimes a coach must match up to the opponent. Many are critical of Jim or Rick when he was the coach, but one thing that is seldom mentioned is unless you have the better player it is almost impossible to make the opponent match up with you. Wasn't really directing this at you Mackey
                In general, I want to see a lot more of the Hansbrough/McRoberts front court. I think they have games that are extremely complementary of each other, and I do think they play really well together. The energy level of the whole team is raised by having either one of those guys in the game. Put them both in, and the other three guys on the floor can't help but to turn their energy level up a notch. I think that helps, and I think that is what makes them effective. That wasn't what I was suggesting though.

                I think that PF/C combination could possibly work against the Hawks, it certainly would be a better option than Posey/anybody. I'd probably put Hansbrough on Horford, and let McRoberts utilize his length and athleticism against Josh Smith. That isn't ideal, obviously, but it at least has the potential to be effective. Smith is like a better version of McRoberts, and Horford is like a bigger, better version of Hansbrough. But again, it would at least be a lesser of two evils.

                Posey on Smith is a recipe for disaster, every single time.

                You are right, sometimes it is definitely necessary to match-up to the opponent. Sometimes. Sometimes, I think taking advantage of Roy's size is the best thing for the Pacers. I don't think that's the case against the Hawks. You are correct to say that sometimes it isn't best. He may be taller than Horford, but Horford is so much stronger, has such long arms, and is athletic enough that any advantage Roy has due to sheer height is negated.

                Putting Posey against a front line of Smith and Horford does neither. It does not force them to match-up with him. He isn't good enough on either end for anybody in the league to bother to try anything like that. It doesn't help us match-up with them.

                It just doesn't work. Period. The fact that O'Brien was unable to come to that conclusion after two unsuccessful attempts, says a lot about him. He is unable to adjust. He simply goes with what he thinks is right, regardless of previous results. The "security blanket" theory makes a whole lot of sense when it comes to O'Brien, and James Posey vs. Josh Smith is just further evidence of this phenomenon.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                  pretty sure the problem with the hawks is the pacers cannot match up with josh smith. if any of the pacer bigs could do that, they would be playing. since ATL plays an isolation offense so much, any bad matchup sticks out. plus roy is having trouble with horford just makes things worse.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                    Would a zone be helpful against teams like Atlanta?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                      Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
                      Would a zone be helpful against teams like Atlanta?
                      joe johnson and mike bibby are really good shooters. not sure about marvin williams. josh smith is shooting more 3's this year. i think he is making more also. not sure a zone would do the trick.

                      however, any defense that would get josh smith shooting 3's instead of layups would be worth looking at imho.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                        I don't know why Jim doesn't have any kind of confidence in teams we play.

                        We can have the capability of beating Atlanta and definitely can avoid getting blown out by them.

                        Our players matchup well to their players. Roy has the ability to outplay Al Horford, Danny can score over Joe Johnson and he or Brandon can lockon defend him.

                        The main issue we have is matching up with Josh Smith, but I think Tyler who is our best defensive option and player at PF can defend him in the post well. Both guys are the same height too and play above their size.

                        Tonight we should win. If we lose then that's a disgrace.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                          Originally posted by Trophy View Post


                          Tonight we should win. If we lose then that's a disgrace.

                          You mean like the last time in Philly? The Pacers are in 7th place and 13.5 games out of ist with "3" teams at 14 games and only a half game behind the Pacers. If the Pacers lose this game and some upcoming games to good teams they'll be playing, you can kiss the playoffs off, if you haven't already done so.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                            Yeah a zone has been sucessful against the hawks in the past. but the pacers never practice zone, so I don't think it is smart to play zone in a real game unless you practice it first

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A playoff team in name only (Indystar)

                              "We're a little angry to be 14-20," he said. "We should be a better team and that's my job; 14-20 is not very good. It doesn't matter whether we're seventh in the East or 10th. We are not playing the type of basketball that allows us to be anything other than 14-20."
                              H3ll has officially frozen over, Jim has criticized himself
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X