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

In defense of Posey

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

  • #16
    Re: In defense of Posey

    If you can find footage of the fouls you will see why i believe they were both bad calls. 1Griffin Diving sideways because he was stuck had nowhere to go, 2 and Posey being effective backing Griffin out of the picture on a rebound. Even if the fouls were legitimate it was enough to Make Griffin start whining so at least he was affecting him more than anyone else. Fine use the excuse Griffin was tired , whatever, Poseys play was not hurting the team. Notice you won't even allow a claim with as little praise as saying Posey is not worthless. You use exaggerated phrasesl and try to belittle me and act like I am giving high praise when I am not. I am just saying the people who call him a worthless piece of crap aren't being fair. People complain about him in games that he doesn't even play in. Just because he gets 1 minute of play someone will show up and say see I told you Job's and idiot. Thats the environment around here and its unwarranted.

    also thanks for putting effort into a thought out response, I just don't like the ,"Posey's awesome +4 flurry" garbage you threw in with your content. Your right that website is a lot better.
    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Umm..that's nice.

    Here's a much better site for matchups/lineups:
    http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bi...17&game=INDLAC

    Posey spent 6 minutes without Griffin even on the court. And if you watched the game you heard the Clips announcers talk about how he was gassed when he was pulled near the end of the 3rd. Also during the nice late 3rd bump (+6) to Posey's night the Clips had the awful lineup of Bledsoe (playing him to teach him), Aminu (ditto, and even more mistake prone than Eric B), Diogu (please), EJ and Blake. The Clips true rooks were a mess as they normally are and Blake was starting to drag. Posey hit a 3, but that was about it during this stretch.


    Griffin returned in the late 4th to face Posey, Pacers down 11.
    Blake proceeded to draw a 2 shot foul against him, then assist on the Jordan dunk. However since Rush hit a 3 (ast Granger) and Granger hit a 3 (ast Collison) to go with a Foster dunk (ast Granger), technically Posey was part of the great +4 run.

    That's right, thanks to 2 3pt shots the Pacers gained 4 points on 2 makes vs 3 makes. At that point it's a 7 point game. It ends that way. There's your secret to how Posey kicked some +/- butt...he let Rush and Danny hit 2 bombs.

    Now Posey did get credited with a steal on Griffin that eventually led to Danny's 3pt shot, but not from a Posey pass on some break or anything. 11 seconds pass between the steal and the 3pt make.

    Posey also continues on to draw 2 FTAs (1-2) on Jordan and miss a 3.

    Griffin goes on to contribute to the final 7 Clips points with 2 shots near the rim and an assist to Baron for a 3 ball.



    So let's recap - final stretch with Posey vs Blake, Blake assisted on or scored ALL OF THE CLIPS FINAL 11 POINTS. EVERY SINGLE POINT.

    Posey, OTOH, was a major player in scoring 1 of the Pacers final 15, had one steal that did lead to something eventually, and a meaningless defensive rebound with the game over...oh, and a missed 3 as well.



    Were it not for Rush outrebounding Jordan and drawing a foul (2-2) and then Collison making a steal and taking it the other way for 2, the game would have been worse than 7 and Posey's awesome +4 flurry would have been ruined. The one built almost entirely on Collison, Rush and Granger.


    I love the +/- stat, but it requires lots of data and lots of CONTEXT. Granger went for 32 on 9-16 with 5 assists and 2 steals and went +2 for the game, Collison went for 30 on 10-17 with 8 assists and 2 steals and went -2 for the game, and Rush went 10 on 3-8 with 7 boards (from the SG spot) and 2 assists and was -7 for the game.

    How does that happen? His name is Mike Dunleavy, of 1-10 fame and a -14, including a dreadful short -10 stint in the early 4th. A fair portion of that was how poorly he and and Collison matched up with Baron (outsized DC and killed him), Foye and EJ. Also the whole Granger guards Griffin "going small" schtick freaking tanked instantly at that point.

    Swap Posey with Granger in that lineup (DC, Dun, George, Danny, Foster) and see how nice his +/- looks for the game.


    The lineup was dumb, going small vs Griffin on fire and Jordan, which was amplified by the size issue of Baron vs DC.
    Last edited by spazzxb; 01-19-2011, 03:26 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: In defense of Posey

      I would like to thank spazzxb for making this post.

      Obviously I am not in favor of the way that Posey is being used or the amount of time he is getting, but that is not the issue of my post.

      I appreciate the fact that you started a post and put it out there. So many times people go around just responding to other people's post and eventually trying to brow beat each other into submission.

      You have an opinion, you put it out there and you are leading the conversation.

      Two thumbs up to you for doing this. This is refreshing.



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

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: In defense of Posey

        This goes back to what Hicks ( or was it Peck? ) that posted that JO'B is a numbers guy that could look at something like this post to justify why he does what he does. When you look at certain game situations and decide a certain course of action ( go with Posey ), it makes sense when you crunch the "numbers" a certain way ( see spazzxb post ) ....but when it doesn't work out.....well, we get what we saw with Griffin ( see Seth's post ).

        One more thing....I don't think that many of us here have a problem with playing Posey next to some combination of Hansbrough/Foster/Hibbert/McBob/Solo at the PF/C spots for 10-15 minutes a game.....where he's basically one of the Wing Players for short periods of time FOR CERTAIN SITUATIONS ( like guarding other slower Tweener Stretch Forwards....think VladRad...maybe Jamison or even Murphy ) nor do we don't have a problem with Posey himself....it's the way that JO'B is uses him that we have a problem with. He's using him in MOST situations when it comes to going with defending opposing lineups....when he should be used only in certain situations.
        Last edited by CableKC; 01-19-2011, 02:46 AM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: In defense of Posey

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Also during the nice late 3rd bump (+6) to Posey's night the Clips had the awful lineup of Bledsoe (playing him to teach him), Aminu (ditto, and even more mistake prone than Eric B), Diogu (please), EJ and Blake. The Clips true rooks were a mess as they normally are and Blake was starting to drag. Posey hit a 3, but that was about it during this stretch.
          While taking another glance at your work something else relevant occurred to me.Diogo scored 9 points in the first half, with Posey on the floor we completely shut him down. This is from the website you cited.
          Last edited by spazzxb; 01-19-2011, 03:24 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: In defense of Posey

            Look I really love having Posey on this team. Don't take some of the sentiments on here personal though spazz.

            Posey is being utilized correctly in recent weeks. He was logging 30 minutes in some games and that is completely unwarranted though. I think that is the past that stick to people's minds. When he plays 15 minutes a night, he is a perfect compliment to what we are trying to do. Unfortunately, Posey is associated with small ball and people hate it. I don't hate it when it is for stretches of 3-4 minutes with opponents' second teams in. Our small ball lineup can kill other teams.

            It is kind of like hockey. Our first line isn't as good as most teams, but our second line is much better than most teams and can be utilized to take advantage of certain situations. Posey is a part of the second line. Mike should be as well. George, Price/Ford, and Foster. I think the big problem is not that we used Posey against Blake, but moreso that we didn't even try to use our most athletic big against the most athletic PF in the league. (Sorry Amare). Jim has used this same strategy the last several games against really athletic fours, including Amare, JSmith, and Griffin. He didn't even TRY to use him as an option. I would have loved to see more Foster and McRoberts matching up with their front court. Instead we have Mike Dunleavy and Danny Granger guarding Deandre Jordan. Really?

            It is the timing of JOB's substitutions that are the complaint instead of James Posey. Posey is the microcosm of the complaint itself.
            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: In defense of Posey

              Also, I thought Posey was used very well in this game. It was the other bigs that I didn't care for. With Foster on Griffin most of the night, it left Deandre Jordan with a huge size advantage. Jordan was way more effective than he should have been. I would have preferred Foster's helpside with McRoberts manning up Griffin. We had no helpside defensive capability with Foster on Griffin and no other bigs out there. I'm not considering Posey a big for helpside purposes. You absolutely need to have helpside rim protection against a guy like Griffin (and Amare and Smith for that matter). We hardly used a decent double team against Griffin, and when we did, he exploited it. If the Clippers didn't hit just about every three they took in the second half, we would have won this game. Their three point shooting was what killed us.

              Posey did a great job of coming in and knocking down a couple of threes. You want him in just long enough to do that and then pull him. His defense wasn't terrible, but it wasn't an appropriate matchup for him. He is a great player to have on our team, when utilized correctly.
              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: In defense of Posey

                According to @ZachLowe_SI:

                James Posey leads the league in 3-point attempts/minute: 9.2 per 36 minutes played.
                about 2 hours ago via web

                He is only shooting 33.5% from there.

                Does being a below average three-point shooter who shoots more than anyone else in the NBA really jump start the offense?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: In defense of Posey

                  Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                  According to @ZachLowe_SI:

                  James Posey leads the league in 3-point attempts/minute: 9.2 per 36 minutes played.
                  about 2 hours ago via web

                  He is only shooting 33.5% from there.

                  Does being a below average three-point shooter who shoots more than anyone else in the NBA really jump start the offense?


                  Statistically, that's actually pretty good! His 3-point eFG% is 50.3%!

                  /

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: In defense of Posey

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post


                    Statistically, that's actually pretty good! His 3-point eFG% is 50.3%!

                    /
                    Thanks Jim.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: In defense of Posey

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      The last few games the "small ball lineup" has consistently gotten us back in games. Ever since roy's struggles, we have issues scoring otherwise.
                      I'm going to break this up a little bit to make things easier on everybody. It is hard to read, but I managed, and there is just so much wrong with this post that I can't ignore it, regardless of the big block of text issue.

                      First, Roy's struggles coincided with the institution of small-ball. Another classic error of cause and effect on this board. We did not switch to small-ball when Roy started struggling, Roy started struggling when we switched to small-ball.

                      Roy's struggling was the effect of switching to small-ball, not the cause of the switch.

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      Josh does not help us generate points, Tyler wasn't getting the job done, we are weak at the 4 and have been all year.
                      This is just completely inaccurate. Josh probably does more to help generate points for his teammates than any other player on the team. He works harder to free his teammates with off-the-ball screens than anybody, sometimes to a fault, and he is one of the best passers on the roster. His off-the-ball movement and screening, plus his passing ability, is something that I think the offense greatly missed when he started seeing his minutes reduced.

                      Generating points is not just about the number of points a guy scores.

                      When we were playing well in November and playing Josh and Tyler a majority of the minutes at the power forward position, that was actually a position of strength. It became a position of weakness when we stopped playing our best players at that position.

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      As I pointed out in the thread Posey replaced Danny and Dunleavy in the lineup. If you want to complain small ball go ahead but Posey didn't check in for a big. Posey filled grangers role in a small ball lineup. Its not ideal but small ball has been effective. If we are going small Posey becomes the only option at the 4 other than granger. Going small brings in an extra shooter to help us score.
                      We started going small in December. Since that time, our offense has been mostly abysmal. It has not been effective. It has been a major detriment to the success of this team.

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      If the traditional lineup was effective there would be no need to go small.
                      False. It was effective for the entire month of November. Then we went small in December, for no reason, and saw our team's success decline. O'Brien's idea to start being successful again was to go smaller. It hasn't worked.

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      If Tyler was getting the job done we probably never would have seen Posey in yesterdays game.
                      It doesn't matter whether or not Tyler was getting the job done. The fact is, Posey was not the best option to take those minutes. The fact that JOB is unable to realize this, says a lot about him.

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      Before he exchanged places with tyler alot of people complained about Joshs lack of offense so I find it hard to believe that these same people think he is the answer when the team can't put points on the board. Again I think Josh should play some, but if the team needs scoring, Josh isn't the guy.
                      By saying this, you are making the same classic mistake that those people complaining about Josh's offense were making. It isn't his job to try to get himself buckets. It is his job to help his teammates on offense, to play defense, and run the floor. That was his role, and when he was allowed to play that role, the team was winning.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: In defense of Posey

                        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                        I'm going to break this up a little bit to make things easier on everybody. It is hard to read, but I managed, and there is just so much wrong with this post that I can't ignore it, regardless of the big block of text issue.

                        First, Roy's struggles coincided with the institution of small-ball. Another classic error of cause and effect on this board. We did not switch to small-ball when Roy started struggling, Roy started struggling when we switched to small-ball.

                        Roy's struggling was the effect of switching to small-ball, not the cause of the switch.



                        This is just completely inaccurate. Josh probably does more to help generate points for his teammates than any other player on the team. He works harder to free his teammates with off-the-ball screens than anybody, sometimes to a fault, and he is one of the best passers on the roster. His off-the-ball movement and screening, plus his passing ability, is something that I think the offense greatly missed when he started seeing his minutes reduced.

                        Generating points is not just about the number of points a guy scores.

                        When we were playing well in November and playing Josh and Tyler a majority of the minutes at the power forward position, that was actually a position of strength. It became a position of weakness when we stopped playing our best players at that position.



                        We started going small in December. Since that time, our offense has been mostly abysmal. It has not been effective. It has been a major detriment to the success of this team.



                        False. It was effective for the entire month of November. Then we went small in December, for no reason, and saw our team's success decline. O'Brien's idea to start being successful again was to go smaller. It hasn't worked.



                        It doesn't matter whether or not Tyler was getting the job done. The fact is, Posey was not the best option to take those minutes. The fact that JOB is unable to realize this, says a lot about him.



                        By saying this, you are making the same classic mistake that those people complaining about Josh's offense were making. It isn't his job to try to get himself buckets. It is his job to help his teammates on offense, to play defense, and run the floor. That was his role, and when he was allowed to play that role, the team was winning.
                        Ok let me make sure I got everything: you blame small ball for Roys issues (5 fouls 12 minutes, poor shooting, ext), You think Mcroberts is a guy you bring in to jump start an offense, you think it doesn't matter if Tyler can get the job done, and you think your opinions are facts). I can honestly say I just about disagree with everything you said.

                        On a side note thanks for putting effort into your post and not acting like the children in Kesters thread( no offense meant to Kester, his thread has just been high jacked .

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: In defense of Posey

                          Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                          Ok let me make sure I got everything: you blame small ball for Roys issues (5 fouls 12 minutes, poor shooting, ext), You think Mcroberts is a guy you bring in to jump start an offense, you think it doesn't matter if Tyler can get the job done, and you think your opinions are facts). I can honestly say I just about disagree with everything you said.

                          On a side note thanks for putting effort into your post and not acting like the children in Kesters thread( no offense meant to Kester, his thread has just been high jacked .
                          Yeah, you pretty much got nothing right. Reading comprehension for the loss.

                          Hater.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: In defense of Posey

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            I would like to thank spazzxb for making this post.

                            Obviously I am not in favor of the way that Posey is being used or the amount of time he is getting, but that is not the issue of my post.

                            I appreciate the fact that you started a post and put it out there. So many times people go around just responding to other people's post and eventually trying to brow beat each other into submission.

                            You have an opinion, you put it out there and you are leading the conversation.

                            Two thumbs up to you for doing this. This is refreshing.

                            Honestly what is refreshing is that the guys taking cheap shots at me in the linked thread stayed away from this one. This link is an example of alot of what is wrong on pacersdigest.

                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=60446

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: In defense of Posey

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              Yeah, you pretty much got nothing right. Reading comprehension for the loss.

                              Hater.
                              Hmm but you don't try to respond to one thing in my post? What did I get wrong?

                              I reread your post and am still confused what your upset about.
                              Last edited by spazzxb; 01-19-2011, 02:10 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X