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

Teams on the Rise

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Teams on the Rise

    John Hollinger wrote a Per Diem article today about a few NBA teams on the rise. Pacers are mentioned.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...PERDiem-110215

    Before the season started, I doubt anybody was too excited when looking at Tuesday night's Philadelphia-Memphis matchup on the schedule. As it turns out, it's the best game of the night, featuring two likely playoff teams that much of the nation has been slow to warm up to.

    Don't sleep on these guys, however. Not only are Memphis and Philly young, improving teams that are poised to keep rising if they don't screw it up, but each is a pretty darned good team at present as well. Each ranks in the top half of the Power Rankings, with Philly moving up to No. 8 after blasting Atlanta earlier this week and the Griz locked in at No. 11 -- a perch they've more or less held for more than a month.

    Although the Griz are one game behind Denver for the eighth spot in the West (file this possibility under scenarios nobody envisioned: Denver keeping Carmelo Anthony and missing the playoffs anyway), they've played more road games than any other team in the West and have a closing schedule tilted in their favor. Philly, meanwhile, leads Charlotte by 2½ games for an Eastern playoff spot. Today's playoff odds gives Memphis a 66.5 percent chance of making it and sees Philly as a near lock at 96.2 percent.

    As a result, these probable playoff party crashers are two of the four teams I'd like to look at Tuesday -- young teams on the rise that are playing better basketball of late and have yet to grab much national attention.

    For that, blame the Bulls and Thunder. Clearly any discussion of teams on the rise needs to focus on those two -- both seem poised to win 50 games and survive at least a round in the playoffs, and the sky's the limit for each in terms of the future.

    These next four teams aren't anywhere close yet, but they're showing flashes and battling to get into that conversation. A year from now, if they make the right moves, we could be talking about any one of them the way we speak of the Bulls and Thunder now.

    Let's take a closer look:



    Memphis
    The story: The Grizzlies have quietly become the league's most fascinating NBA League Pass squad, from the Rudy Gay aerials to the Tony Allen box of chocolates to the "He did WHAT?" in-game decisions from Lionel Hollins. The Grizzlies somehow transitioned from an offensive team last season to a defensive team this season, even though they kept all the same players.

    With owner Michael Heisley periodically parachuting in to sabotage the franchise, the parallels between the Grizzlies and the movie "Major League" are growing difficult to ignore. Zach Randolph is definitely the Wild Thing. Gay is Roger Dorn, the guy who put up good stats for years and is finally playing defense. Mike Conley is Willie Mays Hayes. Allen, of course, is Cerrano; nobody would be shocked if he sacrificed a chicken in the locker room. We're still casting Tom Berenger's character, but the other parallels are there.

    If this were the movie, right now would be the part when the guys at the construction site say, "These guys aren't so @#$%& bad." Memphis is 16-7 in its past 23 games, roughly coinciding with Hollins' discovery that Allen was on the team, and could end up seeded as high as sixth in the West.

    The good: Memphis leads the NBA in forcing turnovers and has cracked the league's top 10 in defensive efficiency as a result. Allen, the lone addition from the offseason, has been a huge factor, but the bench in general is much stronger -- Darrell Arthur's emergence has solidified the frontcourt rotation, and Sam Young has shown strong improvement in his second season. Meanwhile, Gay watched his Team USA teammates this past summer and realized he couldn't play just one end of the floor, Conley has improved as a floor general, and Randolph remains a beast on the blocks.

    The bad: The Grizzlies would be a lot more "up and coming" if they'd taken Stephen Curry instead of Hasheem Thabeet with the second overall pick in 2009 and not locked themselves into an extension for Conley this past offseason. Recent draft picks Xavier Henry, Greivis Vasquez and DeMarre Carroll aren't exactly lighting up the league, either.

    Although the rest of the team is young, Randolph is 29 and about to be a free agent; without him, it's back to Lotteryville. Finally, Heisley still owns the team and periodically inflicts his bizarre judgment on the franchise, with the Thabeet pick being a prominent example.


    Philadelphia
    The story: They looked terrible after a 3-13 start, but the Sixers are 23-15 since and 9-3 in their past 12 -- with seven of the wins by double figures. Like Memphis, they very well could grab their conference's No. 6 seed.

    As with Memphis, a rapid defensive improvement is the cause. The Sixers were tied with the Grizzlies for 23rd in defensive efficiency last season; with largely the same personnel this season, they're ninth. Philly remains a devastating open-court team with athletic finishers like Andre Iguodala, Thaddeus Young and Jrue Holiday, but under the exacting Doug Collins, they're a lot more solid in other phases than they were last season.

    The good: Philly doesn't have a go-to star but an ensemble cast. Iguodala and Elton Brand are the headliners, with Brand having a retro season at the offensive end, but the reasons for long-term excitement in Philly are Holiday and Young. The latter has quietly been among the league's most effective reserves while rotating between the two forward spots and has a strong case for the league's sixth man award.

    Meanwhile, Holiday could be truly special. He has been inconsistent from game to game, but the big-picture result is that The Jruth is a solid NBA starting point guard at just 20 years old. He's big, athletic and a better shooter than advertised; he just needs to figure things out. Defensively, especially, his potential is enormous.

    The bad: Like Memphis, the Sixers have a second overall pick who is struggling. Evan Turner has been brutal thus far but is averaging 24 minutes per game anyway. Although he's shown some mild signs of improvement lately, the Sixers would have a few more wins if they'd gone in a different direction.

    Also like the Grizzlies, Philly is hampered by ownership's lack of deep pockets and a coaching question. In the case of Doug Collins, it's not his short-term impact -- he'll be near the top of the coach of the year voting this year -- but his history of burning out in two to three years. Hopefully an older, wiser Collins can ease up on the nitpicking just enough to keep this team's attention for longer.


    Indiana
    The story: The Pacers have won seven of eight since Frank Vogel replaced Jim O'Brien as head coach and now project as a strong bet to make the playoffs -- today's Playoff Odds gives them a 76.5 percent probability. The theme under Vogel has been younger and more offensive-minded -- Josh McRoberts, Dahntay Jones and Paul George are in the rotation; James Posey and Solomon Jones are out. Notably, Vogel has been more consistent, too. O'Brien would change his rotation from game to game and at times from quarter to quarter depending on matchups; Vogel has kept the same 10-man mix thus far.

    The biggest difference has been Roy Hibbert's resurrection. He had a great first month but was awful the next two, triggering Indy's slide and O'Brien's exit. Hibbert scored 24 points in the first game under Vogel, the first time he'd had more than 20 in two months, and 29 in a crucial win over Charlotte that gave the Pacers breathing room in the standings.

    The good: Those of you who follow the Future Power Rankings of Professor Ford and me know that Indiana is in pretty decent shape going forward. It's as deep as any team in the league, it'll have a bunch of cap space after this season, and it has a lot of solid, young players who should keep improving: Hibbert, McRoberts, George, Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, Darren Collison and A.J. Price all are 25 or younger, and go-to guy Danny Granger isn't exactly a fossil at 27.

    Additionally, Indy's precipitous slide -- a 6-17 stretch in December and January after a solid start -- was largely due to an offensive meltdown. The Pacers have the size and talent to defend; they just need a headliner who can carry the mail offensively.

    The bad: Only one of the seven teams that Indy has beaten in the Vogel era had a winning record; the list includes four of the six worst records in basketball. And of course, we don't want to get too giddy about a short-term bounce under a new coach.

    But the biggest question mark with the Pacers is the simplest one: Who's the star here? Granger is a nice No. 2 but out of his depth as a leading man. Otherwise, the Pacers have a lot of decent young players who would form very good complementary pieces around a superstar. Unfortunately, this isn't New York or Miami, so although the Pacers have cap space, it's not clear how they can lure a difference-maker to the Heartland. Without such a player, this team's ceiling is a first-round speed bump for the East's elite.


    Golden State
    The story: After being shed of the bumbling ownership of Chris Cohan, the Warriors have embarked upon a plan to end a pathetic 16-season streak in which they have not finished in the top half of the Western Conference standings once. The best they finished was eighth in a 15-team conference in 2007.

    The Warriors won't finish among the top eight this season, but they are 15-11 in their past 26 games. At 24-29, with 17 of their final 29 games on the road, any playoff talk is absurd, but one can see the pieces coming together. Stephen Curry is a devastating offensive player with his shooting and passing ability; David Lee has been more of a factor now that a gruesome elbow injury has healed; Dorell Wright was the free-agent steal of the summer; and Monta Ellis has improved both his shot selection and accuracy. If the Warriors could just rehabilitate The Guy Who Used To Be Andris Biedrins, they'd have a really good starting five.

    The biggest weaknesses now are a lack of defenders and a paper-thin bench. But the core pieces are in place, and those are the hardest to find.

    The good: The Curry-to-Lee pick-and-roll is something to behold, as Curry's shooting ability and Nash-like ability to fire one-handed bounce passes off the dribble make him among the league's most potent operators. Lee is the perfect complement. He's a phenomenal finisher with either hand, and as a dive man, he throws in the added threat of jump-stopping for a 15-footer that he also reliably makes.

    Around them are other strong pieces. Ellis anguishes with his shot selection and wandering mind on defense, but he also devastates with his end-to-end speed and steady midrange jumper. Rookie Ekpe Udoh is still fairly clueless on offense but provides the type of versatile frontcourt defender this team hasn't had in ages. And second-year pro Reggie Williams is another in a series of great finds from the D-League for the Warriors -- amid all the other turmoil, they've scouted the minors better than any other team in basketball.

    The bad: Golden State still doesn't play any defense, and its best players are the worst offenders. Curry can't guard anybody, Ellis usually gives up several inches at the 2 and spends most of his time gambling and floating, and Lee provides no resistance whatsoever inside. Golden State ranks 28th in defensive efficiency, a stat that will sound familiar to Warriors fans, and until the organization's Don Nelson era mindset on defense changes, it will remain a lottery team.

    But the biggest concerns remain the big-picture things. We know the new ownership group has to be better, simply because it can't be any worse, but worrying signs remain. As an organization, the Warriors are still prone to being more rah-rah than realistic, and there's the worrying fact that former Cohan consigliere and current team president Robert Rowell -- the man most famous for getting played into a contract extension by Stephen Jackson -- has yet to be shown the door.

    We'll know a lot more in the offseason, when the Warriors presumably change coaches and the owners make hard decisions on Cohan era holdovers like Rowell and general manager Larry Riley (who, it must be said, has done solid work thus far). The other big-picture decision looming is whether to keep the Curry-Ellis combo together or to trade Ellis for a more traditional 2 and, perhaps, some frontcourt help.

    In other words, as with the other three teams on this list, the pieces are there ... we just don't know yet whether the skill and resources exist to put them together correctly. That's why these four teams aren't in Oklahoma City and Chicago's orbit yet. But they're knocking on the door.
    He had nice things to say. I know there's a large faction of people around here who hate Hollinger, but I like him and think his Per Diem articles are always interesting.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Teams on the Rise

    Was a good article to read. He is right about the playoffs too. I don't know how we will ever lure in a superstar to put our pieces around. Until that day (or if Paul George ends up being the superstar we all hope he will be) we will be a 1st round surprising team and lose in the 2nd round.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Teams on the Rise

      any chance you could post the rookie top 50 (Thorpe)

      Would love to know if PG is getting some love

      Thanks
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Teams on the Rise

        Interesting that he made no mention of the Fresh Prince of Naptown.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Teams on the Rise

          Originally posted by Day-V View Post
          Interesting that he made no mention of the Fresh Prince of Naptown.


          Thorpes a hater

          Sittin on top of the world!

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Teams on the Rise

            Originally posted by Day-V View Post
            Interesting that he made no mention of the Fresh Prince of Naptown.
            He has never seemed to be too high on George and I don't know why. I, like many here, would say that if you re-did the draft George would be a top 5 pick. Doesn't get much love though around the league. He will prove them wrong

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Teams on the Rise

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              any chance you could post the rookie top 50 (Thorpe)

              Would love to know if PG is getting some love

              Thanks
              He hasn't really changed anything. His last update on PG was February 1, when he said this:

              Feb. 1: George is rapidly ascending the rookie wall now, scoring in double figures with a solid shooting percentage in four of his past five games. He's asserting himself as an athlete, making plays on defense and earning trips to the line in almost every game.
              He is up to 6th on the Rookie Rankings list.
              http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/players/rookies/rankings

              1 Blake Griffin LAC 21 PF 55 37.0 .509 .500 .615 0.7 0.5 3.5 12.7 22.7 22.43
              Analysis: Feb. 9: LA's big man found out what Orlando's really big ... more

              2 Greg Monroe DET 20 PF 54 25.0 .526 .000 .565 0.9 0.4 0.9 6.4 7.3 14.97
              Analysis: Feb. 5: Monroe hit for a career-high 20 points against New ... more

              3 DeMarcus Cousins SAC 20 PF 50 26.0 .436 .273 .672 0.8 0.7 1.8 8.1 13.9 14.96
              Analysis: Feb. 8: He played poorly against the Spurs but bounced back ... more

              4 John Wall WAS 20 PG 41 36.0 .404 .309 .754 1.7 0.4 9.1 4.2 14.7 15.42
              Analysis: Feb. 2: Wall's incredible speed can sometimes be a curse. He's ... more

              5 Landry Fields NYK 22 G 53 32.0 .515 .390 .767 1.1 0.3 1.9 7.1 10.0 14.06
              Analysis: Feb. 5: It's hard not to love Fields for obvious reasons, ... more

              6 Paul George IND 20 SF 31 18.0 .462 .288 .750 0.9 0.4 1.0 3.2 8.1 15.93
              Analysis: Feb. 1: George is rapidly ascending the rookie wall now, scoring ... more

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Teams on the Rise

                It feels like November again.

                I'm glad Hollinger is actually crediting us and says our odds of making the playoffs are really good.

                There probably won't be much of a battle for teams trying to get the 8th spot. We'll probably battle it out with Philadelphia for the 7th seed.

                Maybe even the Knicks for 6th if we continue to playing well and win 5 or so games above .500.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Teams on the Rise

                  Originally posted by k_lewis93 View Post
                  Was a good article to read. He is right about the playoffs too. I don't know how we will ever lure in a superstar to put our pieces around. Until that day (or if Paul George ends up being the superstar we all hope he will be) we will be a 1st round surprising team and lose in the 2nd round.
                  We didn't have any superstars when we went to the finals in 2000, just a good all around team. This currant team looks like it could have better players.

                  If we can avoid major injury's and the players pricing themselves off the team we should have something.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Teams on the Rise

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    We didn't have any superstars when we went to the finals in 2000, just a good all around team. This currant team looks like it could have better players.

                    If we can avoid major injury's and the players pricing themselves off the team we should have something.
                    reggie miller wasn't a superstar?

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Teams on the Rise

                      A good defense should not be underestimated. And I would be happy with winning in the style that Detroit did, with a very good cast all around. We don't need a superstar, but we do need someone with confidence that the team can go to in crunch time. Granger can still be that guy. Collison, George and Hibbert also come to mind.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Teams on the Rise

                        Originally posted by oz_pacer View Post
                        reggie miller wasn't a superstar?
                        We wasn't Jordan.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Teams on the Rise

                          I wouldn't call Reggie a traditional superstar, but he was an ice-cold finisher. If Granger or someone else on this team could become that go-to guy in the clutch I don't think we'd need a superstar.
                          Danger Zone

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Teams on the Rise

                            Things have changed since 2000. were any of the teams full of superstars like now, or were the stars scattered around different teams? maybe i'm wrong, but I don't recall teams that had 2-3 superstars...
                            Originally posted by Piston Prince
                            Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                            "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Teams on the Rise

                              Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                              Things have changed since 2000. were any of the teams full of superstars like now, or were the stars scattered around different teams? maybe i'm wrong, but I don't recall teams that had 2-3 superstars...
                              yes and no my friend

                              Lakers had Magic, Worthy, Kareem
                              Celtics had Bird, McHale, and Parish

                              other than that, not sure
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X