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

Things we learned from the playoffs

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

  • #16
    Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

    Originally posted by RWB View Post
    I still have really mixed feelings on Vogel as coach. My heart says yes because of his dedication the last part of the season. But if Frank doesn't plan on bringing in a veteran coach to help on the bench then I'm not satisfied with his decision making.

    That would be one of my questions I would ask Frank in the interview.

    As Kravitz said in his column this morning if Bird is out, then the new GM needs to bring hin his own coach, I will say that is 100% true, nothing worse then having a coach and GM not working together especially if the coach isn't the GM's choice.

    I think right now I am of the opinion to build our team around Granger and George, I think they can play together at the 2 and the 3. if George can guard rose, then George can guard any two guard.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-27-2011, 09:24 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

      Granger played like an all star, George was a great defender, Jeff did some dirty work, Price played pretty fair... the rest were inconsistent
      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


      • #18
        Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

        I've learned that Vogel saved Bird, now is his decision and not Simon's for him to come back.

        I've learned that we need an starting point guard, we need to move DC to the bench and maybe keep price as a back up.

        I also think we need an starting center, just like UB said, we need to find a way to trade him for another center, maybe Al Jefferson or Nene.

        I think we are fine at SG and SF but still need to get better backups.

        At PF I think is expected for Tyler to get better now that he is healthy and can workout in the summer, if we can upgrade fine but I don't see PF as priority.

        At the end of the day I think we need an starting PG and Center and better backups at SG,SF,PF and Center.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          This was the best performance in the playoffs by our club that I have ever seen based on the talent & experience available. That includes the great years of 94-2000.
          Thanks Peck for a fantastic post. In the interest of debate, I would argue that in terms of fighting against a superior opponent and trying to pull every ounce of talent from an over-matched roster, there was one other time a Pacers team did it better than this year's team: 1991 Pacers vs. Celtics.

          http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/bird_person_game5.html

          Though the Pacers didn’t break through into the NBA elite until reaching the Eastern Conference Finals for the first time in 1994, they very nearly made their big move three years earlier. Coming off a 41-41 regular season, they entered the playoffs as the No. 7 seed against the No. 2 seeded, Atlantic Division champion Boston Celtics. Though they were aging, the Celtics still had Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish up front and a rising star named Reggie Lewis in the backcourt. The Pacers were led by Chuck Person, Reggie Miller and Detlef Schrempf. The teams produced one of the most thrilling first-round series in NBA Playoff history, with Boston surviving to win Game 5, and Person and Bird were center stage. Those two principles, reunited in the Pacers’ front office – Bird as President of Basketball Operations, Person as Assistant to the President/Player Relations – reflected on that memorable series as the Pacers prepared to face the Celtics in the first round of the 2004 Playoffs. The story is told in their words.

          Chuck Person and Larry Bird enjoyed a fierce rivalry through the late 1980s and early '90s.

          Chuck Person: ”We were young and inexperienced. Boston had the great leaders in Larry, Robert and Kevin. But we were young, fast and brash. With Micheal Williams running the point and Detlef and myself and Reggie, we had a lot of guys who could push and really score the ball. Defensively, we weren’t very good so we played a style that we thought we could win with.”

          Larry Bird: “They scored a lot of points. They were a run-and-gun type of team. They got the ball out and pushed it up the court. When they got into their set offense, they ran a high pick and put either Reggie or Chuck in the corner. Micheal Williams would come off a pick and when you came to give help, they hit the corner and scored. They almost beat us with that one play, but it was a tough play to defend.”

          Bird and Person enjoyed a fierce rivalry throughout their careers. Person was a brash, outspoken, trash-talker who wanted to get in Bird’s face. Bird was a quiet assassin who generally let his actions speak for him – although he could talk trash with the best of them. On one legendary late December night, Bird told Person before a game that he had a present for him. In the fourth quarter, after hitting a clutch 3-pointer, Bird turned to Person, who was seated on the Pacers’ bench, and said, “Merry Christmas.” Such was the nature of their rivalry.

          Chuck Person: “I don’t know if Larry remembers, but my first game in the pros was against him in Terre Haute and he said, ‘Young fella, when you come out to play, play hard every night or you’ll get embarrassed – especially by me.’ That gave me extra incentive to play hard against Larry. My first regular-season game against Larry he had something like 40 points, 20 rebounds and 15 assists, so I told myself I had to come out and play as hard as I possibly could every night.”

          Larry Bird: “The thing about Chuck, no matter if it was the regular season or the playoffs, he came to play. I think he played harder against me than anybody else, but it was good. In this league, a lot of times the players don’t give you any resistance. But when you played against Chuck, you knew you had to play and you had to play hard – and if you didn’t play well, they’d probably beat you.”

          Boston won a tight Game 1 at home, 127-120, with Bird struggling to a 6 of 20 shooting night but nonetheless producing a 21-point, 12-rebound, 12-assist triple-double. Person scored 23 points with eight rebounds and seven assists. Then came the stunner, with the Pacers winning Game 2 in Boston Garden 130-118 as Person racked up 39 points, including a team playoff record of seven 3-pointers. With a chance to take control of the series at home, however, the Pacers dropped Game 3 in Market Square Arena, 112-105, as Person attempted just eight shots and scored six points. Facing elimination, the Pacers got big games from both Person (30 points) and Miller (27) to rally in the fourth quarter to win Game 4, 116-113. That set the stage for the deciding Game 5, on May 5, 1991 in Boston Garden.

          Chuck Person: “I felt, obviously, going into a short series, anything could happen if we could go into their building and get a win – and maybe two. The most important thing was to go get one and we did. But we came back and laid an egg in Game 3 – particularly myself by having only six points and taking a limited amount of shots. But we had the big Game 4 and went back (to Boston) for Game 5. I thought we played well but, obviously, the dramatics with Larry going down and coming back and the Garden crowd never sitting down after that had a major impact in the outcome of the game. Larry pretty much dominated that series.”

          Boston led by 10 after the first quarter, but the Pacers tied it at 58-all by halftime. Late in the second quarter, Bird crashed to the floor in pursuit of a loose ball and his head bounced hard off the fabled parquet. He stayed down for what seemed like an eternity to Boston fans before heading straight to the locker room. When he did not return with his teammates for the start of the third quarter, the drama began mounting about when – or if – he would re-enter the game.

          Chuck Person: “As soon as he went down, we went into a timeout shortly after that and (Coach Bob Hill) said, ‘When the guy comes back, and the fans are going to get into it and Larry’s going to try to take over the game.’ He came back and missed his first couple of shots but then he got on a roll, got the fans and his teammates into it. They made a run but we kept our composure, came back and made a run at them.”

          Larry Bird: “Going into the series, I was having a problem with my back and didn’t know if I was going to be able to play in all the games. In the last game, right before halftime, I took a spill and hit my head and went back to the locker room and really debated whether I should go on. The doctor told me I probably had a concussion and they didn’t think I should go out there with both the back and the damage I did to my brain – I rattled it a little bit.”

          The Pacers took an 82-79 lead in the third period but when Bird came jogging through the tunnel, the Garden crowd erupted.

          Chuck Person: (When Bird came through the tunnel) “I thought, ‘Well, here’s the second coming.’ He definitely played ungodly the rest of the way. For a guy who could’ve broken his neck or fractured a jaw or something, he really came out and performed at a level he’s accustomed to playing at.”

          Larry Bird: “I kept hearing the crowd oohing and aahing, and I kept asking what the score was. I had this massive headache on the right side of my head but finally I decided, ‘This could be your last game ever, so you’d better get out there and give it all you can.’ ‘’

          Though the Pacers had been prepared by Hill for what was coming, they didn’t handle it well. Boston outscored the visitors 33-14 to take a 112-96 lead before Indiana re-gathered itself for one last push. They cut the lead to 120-118 in the final seconds, setting up the game’s most memorable shot. Person initially posted up but Vern Fleming couldn’t get an angle for the entry pass, so Person popped to the 3-point line to take the ball. With Derek Smith and Bird both in his face, Person shot a 26-foot turnaround trey with 10 seconds left. Fleming was in perfect position in front of the rim to grab the rebound, but Parish jumped in and pushed the point guard under the rim, allowing Brian Shaw to get the ball. He was fouled and made both shots. Though Person tossed in a desperation 3-pointer from 35 feet out to cut it to 122-121, Shaw was fouled after the inbounds pass and made both free throws to finish the scoring. Bird, who had averaged 18.0 points on 36.9 percent shooting in the first four games, scored 32 and went 12-of-19 in the finale.

          Chuck Person: “The play was for me. Reggie was supposed to curl, pop out and give it to me. I couldn’t quite get into position like I wanted and Reggie couldn’t get it. Vern had the ball, so I came out to get it. I knew if I popped out behind the 3-point line, I was going to take it. After I received the ball, I saw an opening. It probably was not such a good shot, but I took it. On tape, it looked like Vern was open and I probably should’ve gotten it to him. But I wanted to take the shot because I didn’t think we could go into overtime and beat these guys with the momentum they had and the energy we had wasted trying to catch up. (The shot) didn’t feel good but I knew I was shooting the ball well the entire series, especially in Boston, so I thought it had a chance to go in. But it didn’t.”

          Larry Bird: “I thought they’d go for the tie. I thought they’d go down low to the big man and kick it out, try to get something off the drive. At that time we were older and what they did best against us was take us off the dribble and make plays. But what happened was they were having trouble getting the ball to Chuck in the post so he came out and got it. When he took the shot I was a little surprised. He had the 3-pointer, but he was more or less going away from the basket when he shot it. I always thought they would go inside-out, but they didn’t do that.”

          Chuck Person: “At any one given time in a game or during a person’s life, I think you have one chance at greatness. For this franchise, I thought that time was then. We could’ve put something together and had a great run for a long time with the team we had intact. If we could’ve added a couple of pieces and kept Detlef, I think things could’ve really been great for this franchise for a long time, but it didn’t work out that way. But we’re fortunate this franchise has Donnie Walsh, and the franchise has been pretty good since that time.”

          Immediately after the game, Bird made clear how impressed he had been by the Pacers. “If they don’t win 50 games next year,” he said, “something’s wrong.” The immediate future didn’t work out as expected for either team. After a disappointing 1991-92 season that produced 40 wins and a first-round sweep at the hands of the Celtics, Person was traded to Minnesota. The Pacers had to wait until the 1994-95 season to reach 50 wins. The Celtics didn’t make it past the second round in either ’91 or ’92 and Bird retired in ’92, McHale in ’93 and Parish left Boston in ’94. That turned out to be the beginning of the end of Boston’s reign of dominance, and marked the rise of the Pacers to elite status. They reached the Conference Finals five times in seven years beginning in 1994, culminating in a trip to the NBA Finals in 2000.

          Chuck Person: “I think it was the youth of our team, how everybody wanted to have it all at once. We had Rik Smits, who was coming into his own, and myself and Reggie (Miller) and Detlef Schrempf. Those four guys alone, we all had a lot of talent, we all had the opportunity to become great players but, obviously, we didn’t have enough minutes and enough balls to go around so some changes had to be made. I was the one that got traded.”

          Larry Bird: “There’s no question about it, they gave us all we wanted. We thought we were playing pretty good. We played Game 4 in Indianapolis and went right down to the wire. The quickness they had to take us off the dribble, I know Kevin McHale and Robert were saying, ‘Maybe it’s time to quit because these young guys are starting to take over the league.’ The only thing that beat the Pacers that was probably the years we had been in playoff situations. We knew where to get the ball at the right time. But from that point on, we always felt like the Pacers were an up-and-coming team and they’d probably win 50 games every year.”

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

            I think it is evident that Danny should remain a Pacer unless we get back a more proven player. Coupling him with an equal talent, would force teams to not focus on Danny so much.

            Danny had a greater series than his numbers indicate. Except for Roy in a couple of games, the Bulls defense solely had plans to stop Danny. And they couldn't. Deng could not stop him. Bogans could not stop him.

            Hibbert needs to add strength. He needed to do that last offseason. But instead he got quicker, laterally. It still takes him forever to make a move. And it might always take that long. But add strength and power to those slow methodical moves and I think Roy's consistency goes up.

            PG and Tyler should start their off season next week. Hit it hard and come in changed. They need a consistent offensive arsenal. PG I know can have that, but Tyler I doubt.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

              After this series I:
              1. gained a lot of respect for Danny
              2. have become worried, rather quickly, about Big Roy's lack of aggression.
              3. am very excited for paul george's future
              4. think it is clear that Mcbob really isn't a "valuable asset."
              5. believe D. Jones showed he belongs in the rotation
              6. am very frustrated by the comments made by josh after game 5 regarding his ejection

              http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nb...ory?id=6434456
              McRoberts appeared to catch an elbow to the neck when he and Noah battled near the lane. He then tried to return a shot, for which he was assessed a flagrant 2 foul and ejected. But McRoberts didn't agree with Granger's assertion that the play was dirty.

              "I'm not mad about it," McRoberts said. "He got a good hit on me. They caught me trying to hit him back.

              "It's part of the game. I'm not going to say it's dirty. That's Game 5 of a playoff series. You can't say it's dirty, it's part of basketball."


              Kind of a slap in the face to Danny if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't be happy if I stuck up for one of my teammates in a situation like this and they say something like Josh did.

              Anyway, I am way excited about the future of our team.
              Coach Vogel on the Chicago crowd in game 4 : "I only heard pacers fans. I didn't see any red, I saw Pacers fans I saw yellow and blue, and I heard Pacers chants. That's all I heard the whole game."

              http://www.cacawebdev.com

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                I learned...

                We need to explore giving Foster a 1 or 2 year deal, if he still wants to play.

                Paul George has elite defensive skill and if he fine tunes his offensive game, he will be an All Star.

                Danny Granger doesn't disappear in the playoffs, he raises him game.

                Aj Price is pretty horrible a lot of times

                Frank Vogel deserves a contract. I was on the fence, but now I'm convinced.

                Roy still has a lot of work to do. He needs to get more fierce at the rim.

                This team can be a contender next season depending on what they do with there cap room

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                  I learned...

                  I'm getting too old for watching games till 5am due to time difference and going to work the next day...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                    Originally posted by cgehlhausen4 View Post
                    Couldn't have said it better myself. I think we should have went with a different strategy though. Since the whole team have a skill they are good at and none of them are stars, why not start brandon rush and dahnte jones over Granger and George. Sound crazy? Well you have Jones on Rose and Rush on Deng. Jones harrased Rose, Rush is a pretty good defender. He could keep deng under control. That isnt the point tho. Once Rose and Deng come out thats when you bring in Danny And George. Danny wouldnt have to defend Deng and he wouldnt have deng guarding him. He would have had an advantage and would have probibly scored more points. If rose didnt come out, which he doesnt alot George still could have guarded him. Im half asleep so this probibly isnt coming out right, but basically I feel like Jones and rush are good enough on defense to keep the bulls from scoring alot and both of them can score good enough. Between DC, Jones, Rush, Hibbert and Tyler I see it as they could end the 1st quarter of games close. Something like 22-20 thus bringing in granger and george against the bulls second unit, still having good defense on the court and more offense...Over all tho we played alot better than anyone expected. Everyone had the broom out and we could have easily swept them if we can close the game. The whole series all i could think about was the Josh Mcbob for OJ Mayo trade that didnt go down. If that would have went down, I think we win this series...good play pacers.
                    Two major problems with your theory:

                    1) Rose and Deng play over 40 minutes per game. Rose comes out at the beginning of the second quarter, Deng midway through it: if you wait for them to be on the bench, you're not gonna see Danny and Paul on the floor for more than a handful of minutes.
                    Besides, the Bulls' second unit isn't out there alone ever, there's always a starter or two mixed in. We've never seen Watson/Brewer/Korver/Gibson/Asik on the floor together, not in the regular season, nor in the playoffs until the final minutes of game 5.

                    2) Who's gonna score early to keep up with them? Jones and Rush may make their lives tough, but you know they aren't gonna be completely stopped...so you have a lineup of DC/Jones/Rush/Hans/Hibs, where is the scoring coming from regularly?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      If I were running the team, I would look hard at trading Roy. Not get rid of Roy, but trade Roy, and by trade I don't mean for a second round draft pick in 2029. But he probably has some pretty high trade value - likely third behind Danny and George. So package Roy with Brandon and see what we could get. Someone will ask me who do I have in mind? I don't know yet.

                      So while I would see what we could get for Roy, I would do everything I could to trade Brandon. He brings nothing to our team that is unique, plus we have traded him twice already, so I would be shocked if he is back next season.


                      Foster I would guess might be back, maybe 50/50. Dunleavy will not be back, he was a better fit with JOB's system, so he is gone.


                      Tyler's best role? I don't know if you listened to Steve Kerr last night discuss what Vogel told him about Tyler, that is the whole team feeds off Tyler's energy - if you believe that and I do, in order for that to have a big influence on the team Tyler needs to start. Although in theory he would be great as an energy guy off the bench. But if we do trade Roy and bring in a more athletic big guy, I think Tyler can start.


                      Danny and George I am fine with. Collison is the biggest question im my mind. He is only a second year player so he will get better, but the question is does he have the necessary upside to be what we need. if you assume Danny and Paul are locked in at the 2 and 3 - is Darren what we need? I have my serious doubts.


                      So if we aren't going to get a player better than Danny, the bottonline is in order to be a championship contender, I think we need players better than Roy and darren. if somehow we can get a player better than danny, then sure Roy and Darren might be good enough. >>


                      I am only looking at our top 8 players or so, players 9-12 I don't spend too much time worrying about -besiudes those players are not our problem. Josh coming off the bench for 15 minutes a game is fine. I will say I really don't want Price on the team next season - he's just not very good. Lance has talent, but too much baggage. Jones is fine for 15 minutes a game, if Jeff comes back and can play some that is fine.


                      Ok, that is my off-the-top of my head evaluation of this team.


                      I think Vogel deserves to be our coach, although if I were in charge I would go through the process, see who else is interested and also I would want to know what Vogel plans to do with this team when he has a full traning camp - what didn't he have time to install that he wanted to.


                      Pretty much sums it up. I said in a thread last night in order for this team to beat the Bulls in game 5 both Hibbert and Collison had to step up and have good games which neither did.

                      I have no longing to see Rush or Dun back, nor would I be disappointed if McBob and Price aren't back either. I'd probably give Hibbert and Collison another year b4 I'd cut the umbilical cord unless some unbelieveable trade comes along that can't be turned down that would have to include them.

                      I'm not sure this team needs a Batman for Granger, but another Robin plus George might be all that's needed. The Pacers need a scorer who can play "D" who is capable of hitting a big shot when needed.

                      I'm not opposed to Vogel being the HC next year, but like many others I feel you need to look at all the options. Rick Adelman is one of those experienced options. As far as non-experienced possibilities, my feeling is Vogel is at the top of the list.

                      I'll go into players who I'd like to see the Pacers look into getting at another time. I will say OJ Mayo isn't presently on that list, and may never be.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                        The biggest thing I learned was that if you took Derrick Rose and put him on the Pacers roster, the Pacers would be a 62-win team.

                        Seriously, the Pacers and Bulls teams are so similar. Granger showed he can defend, score, and pass like Deng. Noah was more consistent than Roy but they play a similar type of game. I think the PFs of both teams were up and down all series but overall they were pretty even. Paul George and Keith Bogins are excellent defenders who each had a game or two where they had a positive offensive output.

                        The Pacers need a player like DRose that is quick enough and strong enough to get in the lane and cause havoc. Having an extra shooter like Korver would help a lot as well.

                        I look at this as a positive. The Pacers aren't that far away from being a contending team. A player like a healthy Baron Davis (not that such a thing really exists) would really go a long way.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                          While Dun was not effective this postseason, I'd love to see what he's capable of with an offense built from training camp around the other guys with him as a piece.

                          I would not chase him or anything, but he is still the only guy on the team willing to catch and shoot, so if he comes back at a reasonable price (same with Foster) I'd be hesitant to dump him.

                          I think we really need a player with a consistent shot that doesn't require teammates to get him space. Whether it is a post shot, a midrange, or a long jumper doesn't matter, I just want someone who, when he gets the ball, I have a reasonable chance of thinking "that ball is going in the hoop".

                          I don't like the idea of a raw coach plus a raw team, but Vogel is more than just an assistant who got lucky. He's a hard worker and will spend the summer learning from his mistakes. His biggest challenges if he gets rehired will be working with a shortened training camp after a lockout AND handling adversity in the team if they come out of the gate badly.

                          I learned that having Charles Barkley say nice things about the Pacers is the Kiss of Death...
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                            Sadly, I agree on Roy as well.

                            I think he is what he is, which isn't necessarily bad. He's better than quite a few centers in the league. But I don't think he'll ever improve. He's about as soft of a big man as you could ever find, both mentally and physically. His hands are awful. He gets happy feet every time he touches the ball. And is a horrid, horrid rebounder considering his size.

                            Yes, some of that can be fixed. But will it get fixed? I doubt it.

                            Others:

                            DG: Really brought me back on board to his game, with the exception of last night. He was awful so many times. As a series though, I really liked what I saw.

                            DC: Still like the kid, but not sure he's the answer. However, I'm willing to wait it out.

                            PG: Absolutely love this kid. Has a really good motor, shows excellent defensive skills, and will be a stud once his shot starts to fall and he tightens up his handles.

                            Tyler: As Peck said, I didn't think his season was great, but I want him back. Toughness like that is hard to find.

                            Jeff: Always loved him, still do. Tough as nails, and if he hangs it up, I'll certainly miss him. If he wants to come back, he's always got a roster spot if I were running the team.

                            Brandon: Awful. Like usual. No surprise here. Sorry Rush fans, but he still sucks.

                            Dunleavy: I could take him or leave him, but I lean towards leaving him. If he shot isn't falling, he doesn't do much for us. Yes he's smart offensively, but man was he non existent in this series.

                            AJ: Agree with Peck. Either needs to re-learn to play PG, or get off this team. Just horrid play, but I have family that follows UCONN heavily, and I know he can play PG. He was good at PG. Hopefully he can fix whatever the hell happened this year.

                            Josh: Still not very impressed with him, but I want him around simply because of his age. Could still develop into something good.

                            TJ: I add TJ in for only one reason. To thank him for being such a classy professional. When DC went down, he was ready to step right in no questions asked and actually played pretty well. He's never once complained to my knowledge, and just seems like one of those genuine, great people. I'm not a big fan of his play, but I can't thank him enough for how well he handled his time here. A true class act, and guys like that are hard to find.
                            Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                              Originally posted by MTM View Post
                              Thanks Peck for a fantastic post. In the interest of debate, I would argue that in terms of fighting against a superior opponent and trying to pull every ounce of talent from an over-matched roster, there was one other time a Pacers team did it better than this year's team: 1991 Pacers vs. Celtics.

                              http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/bird_person_game5.html
                              Thank you and I agree!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                                I want Jordan Williams of Maryland or another wide low post presence.

                                I want time for this team to grow together and mature.

                                I want someone to step up to slow down DRose in the next couple years.

                                I also want Jeff back, in anything, just to give the Bulls fans something to moan about next year.

                                I want another 15-20 pounds of muscle on Roy... in the legs and butt. And for him to learn to turn right.

                                I want PG and Rush to develop, esp. PG to become our #2 scorer, work on his handles, and have the confidence in creating his shot...

                                I want Vogel to be up late at night over obsessions with the last 5 minutes of games.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X