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

Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 14
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 14 template Next
  • #1

    Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

    Notice the title of this thread is not a question but a statement.

    IMHO, Danny has the ability to be a "number 1 guy" not in the mold of a Lebron, Wade, Kobe, or Rose but in the mold of a Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson type of key player.

    I'll admit that for most of this season he hasn't played as consistently as the aforementioned players. A lot of that has to do with the former coach letting him jack up more 3-pointers than free throws. Under Vogel he has been attacking the basket more. His rebounding, assists, and free throw attempts are up as well. Those are the key areas that were lacking from his game... preventing him from being a "number 1 guy".

    However, I think that many of us have different opinions on what makes a player a "number 1 guy" on a good team. Some think it just means being a leader. Others say the player has to be able to take over a game in the clutch. Others say it to mean that this guy is a superstar that wins championships/Finals MVP guys. The phrase really needs defining.

    Let's look at the key ingredients for being a "number 1 guy".

    1. The player is the best player on the team.
    2. The player is considered to be the leader/go-to guy of the team.
    3. The player is hard to guard and consistently gets to the free throw line.
    4. The player has the ability to elevate the play of his teammates.
    5. The player is an exceptional scorer for his position.
    6. The player is an above average rebounder for his position.
    7. The player can step up his defensive intensity/make key stops when the game is on the line.
    8. The player can consistently score or assist others to score during the clutch.
    9. As the talent level around him increases, so does his assists and efficiency.
    10. The player can create his own shot.


    With those traits in mind, I think that Danny Granger is close to being a #1 on a good team. He's shown many more of these traits during the last 15 games under Coach Vogel.

    The areas he needs to improve upon are his ability to score or assist others to score during the clutch. I don't just mean taking the last shot of the game. This would include points scored, free throws made, and assists gained during the fourth quarter. This doesn't have to happen every single game but it needs to improve to the point where on average he is a known fouth quarter performer, particularly during close games. The Golden State game is a very good example of him being able to step into the role of being a "number 1 guy". He just now needs to do it consistently and he needs to have the ball in his hands during the fourth quarter.

    That takes me to the next area that he needs to improve - ball handling and the ability to create his own shot. He needs to be more more decisive with the ball in his hands. He needs to be able to catch and drive more often. He's at his best when he does this. During a close game, his mentality should be to drive and either score on a layup or get to the free throw line. I've noticed him doing this more often during the new coaching regime but to really become the player he CAN be, he needs to do it every game whether it succeeds or not (some nights the refs will swallow the whistle, the opponent will be great defensively, or his shots simply won't fall). Either way, if he can develop this aspect of the game, good things will happen for the Pacers.

    One last area of improvement might be one he has limited control over - improving the play of his teammates. We probably really won't know how good Danny Granger really is until the talent level of his teammates really improves, either through player development or roster upgrades. At any rate, during the present, he needs to help Roy and whoever is on the court with him improve their level of play. In 7 of the past 15 games he's had 2 or less assists and he's only averaging 2.7 assists on the season. That's not going to cut it in the long run and this is probably the biggest knock on him and why people say he's not an elite-level player. He has the ability but he's woefully inconsistent in this area.

    For those that say Danny will never be more than a solid #2 on a contending team, I think that you are selling him short. I think that he can be a number 1 player but he needs some improvement. I happen to think he can improve given the proper coaching, motivation, and experience. I think he's just now starting to get that from coach Vogel. Only time will tell if I'm right but I think the Pacers should add talent around him and wait and see.
    131
    Yes Danny can become a #1 player on a contending team!
    16.03%
    21
    No, Danny's just not that type of player.
    72.52%
    95
    Danny's already a #1 player!
    3.82%
    5
    Uncertain
    7.63%
    10

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by naptownmenace; 03-02-2011, 10:55 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

    He has been clutch in the fourth quarter of recent games. Period.
    DG for 3

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

      Absolutely not.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        Absolutely not.
        Even if he improves in the 3 areas I highlighted in the OP? I didn't say I think he is one right now. Emphasis should be on whether or not he CAN become that type of player.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

          I could only seriously consider it if he flipped a switch in his brain and gave 100% effort on defense at all times. He just doesn't seem like he'll ever do that.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

            Yes and No, yes if you want to be a team like the pacers and never make the playoffs and No if you don't want to be like the pacers make the playoffs and compete for championship.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
              Even if he improves in the 3 areas I highlighted in the OP? I didn't say I think he is one right now. Emphasis should be on whether or not he CAN become that type of player.
              The things he needs to improve on, namely shot selection, ball handling, and effort, are the same things he's needed to improve on for the last 4 years. I don't think those lightbulbs are suddenly going to light up. He's done improving in my opinion.

              When is the last time an established player's ball handling or passing drastically improved? I can't think of any.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                The only way I would even consider considering him as a #1 type of player is if he devoted more time and energy to defense...a lot more time and energy. On top of what you mention, his defense is a glaring weakness right now, not because he doesn't have the ability, but because he doesn't seem to put any priority or devotion towards it...which is even worse, in my opinion.

                Paul Pierce, Joe Johnson and Ray Allen are all much better defenders than Danny. He didn't put any priority on it in the Olympics and didn't see much time on the court as a result. If he doesn't step it up in that notch in that department, the best he can hope for is an Adrian Dantley type of reputation.
                Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  The things he needs to improve on, namely shot selection, ball handling, and effort, are the same things he's needed to improve on for the last 4 years. I don't think those lightbulbs are suddenly going to light up. He's done improving in my opinion.

                  When is the last time an established player's ball handling or passing drastically improved? I can't think of any.
                  I guess you have to define established. Is that just a tenure thing or is it also a production thing? I mean Billups had been in the league for a while before he suddenly got a lot better in Detroit.

                  Anyway, I'd have to say, No. But that's not a huge knock on Danny. How many true number 1s are there in the league right this second? 10-15? Maybe? And two of those guys are on the same team. That's about it IMO.

                  I mean you've got on my list...
                  Kobe
                  Lebron
                  Wade
                  Dirk
                  Carmelo
                  CP3
                  Durant
                  D-Rose
                  Dwight Howard

                  That's the top 9 in some order IMO....
                  Then you've got a group of...
                  Deron Williams
                  Russell Westbrook
                  Amare

                  That are sort of on the edge. Those are really the only true number 1 "if you have one of these guys you can compete" people in the league IMO. I might be forgetting one or two people.


                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                    There's just something about when he is on the floor that I can't quite put my finger on. Attitude? The way he tends to start out games? Maybe it is defense, but I don't know.

                    I've been trying to watch before I really said anything, because the stats don't show it (though defense is harder to do stats on because you don't really have 1-on-1 or team stats as such).
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                      The word CAN is key... far away yes...but he has the potential...
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                        If we are throwing "Joe Johnson" into this mix than yes, I think Granger qualifies. As it stands, I don't think Joe Johnson is leading any team to the promise land as their best player. At the very least, he isn't putting any team on his back.

                        On a team with equally distributed talent such as the Detroit Pistons of the last decade? Sure, if you have near equal talent at nearly every other position, it is possible.

                        In an ideal situation, Granger is a number 2 guy, but I generally hate questions like this... too many variables.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I could only seriously consider it if he flipped a switch in his brain and gave 100% effort on defense at all times. He just doesn't seem like he'll ever do that.
                          I would like to see what happens if another player emerges (Paul George?) to supplant him as our #1 scoring option. I hope that with that pressure off of him he might completely refocus himself on the defensive end. At least that is what I hope, because he has the potential to be elite on the defensive end.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                            naptown menace:

                            it seems to me like you are trying to convince yourself that he can be a number one type of player on a contender.
                            "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA

                              I mean Reggie wasn't even a "#1 Guy" in the NBA as far as I'm concerned.


                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 14 template Next
                              Working...
                              X