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

Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

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

  • Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

    Last night the Pacers defended Rose many different ways and I thought it was effective at times.

    Obviously George defended Rose almost the entire game, but that is not what I am discussing here.

    4 different ways and I am curious as to which one you liked the best?

    1) Although they only did it probably 3 or 4 times they did double team Rose as soon as he got across halfcourt. I thought it was effective as a surprise tactic, and I would use it again especially at home.

    2) Pacers in the 4th quarter especially switched the pick and roll. This did put Granger on Rose and overall I thought this was the least effective strategy. The benefit is that it doesn't get our defense so out of position, but then again if Rose blows right by Danny, it does.
    I would only do this again on the very end of game situations.

    3) Pacers also trapped Rose in the pick and rolls, I mean a hard trap. You cannot do this with Roy, but I thought it was effective a few times with Tyler, Jeff and I think even Josh. Problem of course if the pacers are not used to doing this, and they aren't really good at coming out of the trap and matching back up.

    4) the 4th way was the pacers standard defense, on pick and rolls the big guy hedges. This might be OK quarters 1-3, but in the 4th, I don't think it is good enough.


    On the play where Korver got the wide open three late in the 4th. The problem is Tyler came over late after the Pacers waving him over, so the Bulls knew it was coming and it was just too obvious. it did get the ball out of Rose's hands, but AJ did a very poor job of rotating out of the double instead of just sort of filling in the lane he should have been out on Korver. (disclaimer - I probably need to watch that again to make sure it was AJ's fault)

    I would probably do our normal defense on pick and rolls for 3 quarters, although on Iso's and transitions, the pacers need to build a wall to keep Rose from getting too deep. But in the fourth I would do a little bit of trapping Rose at midcourt and trapping hard the pick and rolls. And also in the 4th I would if Rose is Iso at the top, I would bring a second defender, to get the ball out of Rose's hands

    Liked hearing that Vogel watched the film of the Sixers defending Rose from earlier this season.

    Overall I thought the pacers did a better job on him in game #2
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-19-2011, 09:54 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

    I liked the quick hard trap as a change of pace move. The only time it failed was a biggie- the ball rotation inside to Noah then out to Korver for 3. When Korver isn't on the court I would opt for this on occasion, or leave specific instructions not to shade too far off of him.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

      I hated the simple switch putting Danny on rose, I did like the hard trap with Josh/Jeff and paul because there all so active and long. My favorite tactic we used was paul simply sliding under the screen when they set it out by the 3 point line, with the way rose is shootin jumpers so far this series I'm content with a somewhat contested drose jumper as the bulls shot

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

        the simple switch was horrible - that is exactly what the Bulls wanted and we were giving it to them.

        I liked the hard traps which we were doing but you can't play that way for a whole game...specially now that the cat is out of the bag...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

          The trapping approach was nice. Even though the TNT post-game crew hated it, I also liked having our bigs come out and hedge Rose along with George on screens. It reminded me of Butler's defense. Only change I would make is for the Pacers' to position themselves in a way that forces Noah to take a midrange jumper when he's on the court instead of letting someone like Korver wide open.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

            It's easily when we allow George and whoever is guarding Noah to bring a quick hard trap well outside of the 3 point line.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

              The traps were very effective because the Bulls had little warning that they were coming. Occasional use of them will be effective in an effort to keep them honest offensively, but if they are used frequently they could easily leave us in poor defensive position, especially with Rose having the vision that he does.

              Switching up the defense is important in both containing Rose to a small extent, and limiting the Bulls' ability to get into an offensive rhythm. The Pacers are doing an excellent job of that so far.

              So, what is the most effective defense against Rose? Making sure to leave Rose in positions where he either has a contested jumper or is forced to drive into traffic with limited passing lanes, and the way to do that varies from one play to the next. In other words, there may not be one best way to defend against Rose as much as there is a goal of limiting him somewhat while gumming up the remainder of the Bulls offensive continuity by concentrating on cutting off passing lanes while attempting to limit Rose's driving lanes somewhat.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                3) Pacers also trapped Rose in the pick and rolls, I mean a hard trap. You cannot do this with Roy, but I thought it was effective a few times with Tyler, Jeff and I think even Josh. Problem of course if the pacers are not used to doing this, and they aren't really good at coming out of the trap and matching back up.
                BINGO!!!

                This was by far the most effective defensive strategy the Pacers employed against Rose. I think they should do it much more often along with...

                4) the 4th way was the pacers standard defense, on pick and rolls the big guy hedges. This might be OK quarters 1-3, but in the 4th, I don't think it is good enough.
                If Roy Hibbert or any of our Bigs, i.e., Foster, would stay out on Rose when they hedge against the PnR - just another second or two - and extend their arms to widened the distance he has to manuevery around that would slow Rose down just enough to allow the primary defender, i.e., Paul George, to recovery defensively and force Rose to either pass the ball or take jump shots behind his screener. He hasn't knocked down many shots from the field. So, if you can force him out of his comfort zone which is to get into the heart of the defense and get to the rim, you stand a far better chance of beating the Bulls.

                On the play where Korver got the wide open three late in the 4th. The problem is Tyler came over late after the Pacers waving him over, so the Bulls knew it was coming and it was just too obvious. it did get the ball out of Rose's hands, but AJ did a very poor job of rotating out of the double instead of just sort of filling in the lane he should have been out on Korver. (disclaimer - I probably need to watch that again to make sure it was AJ's fault)

                I would probably do our normal defense on pick and rolls for 3 quarters, although on Iso's and transitions, the pacers need to build a wall to keep Rose from getting too deep. But in the fourth I would do a little bit of trapping Rose at midcourt and trapping hard the pick and rolls. And also in the 4th I would if Rose is Iso at the top, I would bring a second defender, to get the ball out of Rose's hands

                Liked hearing that Vogel watched the film of the Sixers defending Rose from earlier this season.

                Overall I thought the pacers did a better job on him in game #2
                Agreed on all 3 counts above.

                What truly surprises me is that Vogel hasn't gone w/Dahntey Jones in either game. I think his ability to cut through the defense, ala, Quisy-style, can have a dramatic impact. The only players who thus far have been effective for the Pacers in that area are Collison and Granger to a limited extent. Give Danhtey some of either Dunleavy or Georges minutes and you may see the Pacers get to the foul line alot more and some of the Bull's bigs stay on the bench longer.
                Last edited by NuffSaid; 04-19-2011, 12:03 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                  Late the Bulls switched Danny onto Rose with a pick and roll. Is our counter to this going to be having Danny and Paul trap Rose, forcing him to pass, or hesitating long enough for us to switch Paul back onto Rose?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                    I think what ever got the ball out of Rose's hands the quickest. It was combination of all our tactics. Paul George gave them fits when it came to trying to pass the ball back to Rose. Rose out juked his own teammates multiple times and it resulted in a turnover. I do not understand why we got away from this late in the 4th. Its like all the sudden we just dared Rose to beat us one vs one. I understand the ISO clear out for Rose made the trap distance alot more to cover though.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                      Also, I didn't like when we started switching on Rose. I liked it a lot more when we just let George chase. Switching Granger onto Rose seemed to calm Rose down a bit and allow him to make plays.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                        I think you gotta have a mixture. They need to do a hard trap, but then fall out of it once George recovers. If the big can force DRose to take a couple of steps backwards, and not just hedge out forcing him sideways, I think that would give George enough time to get through the screen and back into a good defensive position.

                        Once he's back, Josh/Tyler/Jeff need to retreat and cover their man getting back into a one-on-one situation everywhere.

                        Rose isn't going to turn the ball over like he did again, and the Pacers shouldn't expect it. If it happens, then gravy, but the focus should be on keeping George in front of him, because his length makes it difficult to drive.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                          While the "tactic" itself can be examined.....but has anyone given some thought to swapping out BRush for Inferno at some point to have him hound DRose?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                            From the bird's eye view I had in Section 324 last night, I found it interesting the way they switched it up. Although, given Rose's production, and also his willingness to distribute the ball when the defense over-commits to him, I'm not sure anything is working all that well.

                            There were a couple of traps at half court - one off a pick-n-roll, and the other just as he crossed the timeline, that he got himself in trouble but the trouble was only temporary. We're best off if we use Danny, Brandon, Mike, etc. in the trapping role. He's a good enough passer that he just doesn't require much daylight to pass, either.

                            I thought Brandon did a better job on him one-on-one than Paul did. Paul's length may have taken away the jumper, but Paul isn't quick enough to take away the dribble penetration. I'd rather he shoot jumpers than drive into the lane. Brandon's size and quickness are a better fit at taking away both the dribble penetration and jumper - if anyone can really do it.

                            This one happened right in front of my seat, and it was a bit unusual in how it unfolded but I liked it. I'm referreing to the defensive play where Rose was holding the ball in front of the Pacers bench ball to set up an isolation play. He was trying to bait the Pacers into a defensive three seconds. At a set time in the shotclock, Tyler came across the lane, fully committed to the double team. When Rose went into his move, the double team was timed perfectly and it came from a place that he couldn't make a pass. However, they tried this again later in the quarter and I think that was the play that led to Korver's three.

                            Unfortunately, though, the Bulls scored on most of those plays, no matter what the Pacers did. They've got a go-to guy, a closer, and we've got a team full of "second options." Balance isn't going to win many playoff games, but it will keep us in the game so let's acknowledge it for what it is. These are playing out right to the script - our roster full of second options is competitive, but their #1 guy and a bunch of spectators is enough to make the winning plays in crunch time.

                            Once Rose splits the defense, he's a great finisher at the rim and he hits his FTs. He's like the anti-Ford/ anti-Travis in that situation.

                            Y'all know I'm not a big fan of Dhantay Jones, but this is exactly the scenario to use him. When DC went down, I told the Bulls fans sitting around me that I expected Dhantay to play some in the second half, but obviously Vogel chose to go with Price and Ford.

                            I hate to say it, but Mike has been underwhelming so far. I'd think about playing Dhantay instead of Mike because of defense. And like George Karl would do, I'd play Dhantay - as the first sub - with the rest of the starters so he's less likely to hog the ball at the other end of the court.

                            It was an interesting case study, but UB's leading question assumes there is a impactive (you know I wasn't going to try affective/effective) way to defend Rose. Sometimes, good offense beats great defense.

                            The best thing to do to Rose is make him work hard on defense. Don't let him take plays off at the defensive end of the court. Price is a nice backup PG, but he's not going to put that kind of pressure on Rose. If Collison can get back onto the court (and he really hobbled back into the tunnel after trying to warm up at halftime), we've got to run more pick-and-rolls so that DC's speed puts pressure on Rose at the other end of the court.

                            Our inability to defend Rose isn't the reason we're down 0-2. Our inability to counterpunch with a similar quality playmaker is the reason we're down 0-2. Meanwhile, variety is the best approach as he will eventually break down whatever we throw at him.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Defending Rose - what has been our most effective approach??

                              Wow, a ChicagoJ sighting! I was hoping you'd come back for this series.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X