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

Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

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

  • #46
    Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

    One thing that should be said that I'm not sure everyone understands in this thread....IF Bird thinks that there should be an upgrade to the Wing Spots....especially the Starting SG spot...by signing a FA Wing or trading for one....it does not mean that the FO won't look to upgrade the Frontcourt by signing a FA PF or adding an additional Backup Big Man like Foster.

    We all know that the Frontcourt needs to be upgraded....but that doesn't mean that the SG spot can't be upgraded at the same time. We have the means and the resources to do so....the question more is whether Bird thinks we need to do that or not.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      One thing that should be said that I'm not sure everyone understands in this thread....IF Bird thinks that there should be an upgrade to the Wing Spots....especially the Starting SG spot...by signing a FA Wing or trading for one....it does not mean that the FO won't look to upgrade the Frontcourt by signing a FA PF or adding an additional Backup Big Man like Foster.

      We all know that the Frontcourt needs to be upgraded....but that doesn't mean that the SG spot can't be upgraded at the same time. We have the means and the resources to do so....the question more is whether Bird thinks we need to do that or not.
      Not anymore now that he aquired Hill.


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
        Not anymore now that he aquired Hill.
        I know that it's a matter of opinion...but I don't think that GH was acquired to be our Starting SG but the type of Guard that can run the Point as a Backup to DC that can also provide some solid defense at the PG spot. To me, he's the type of Player that Bird is looking for when it comes to having a really "strong and deep" bench....especially when it comes to adding depth as a Backup PG while playing some Backup SG minutes.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          ...IF Bird thinks that there should be an upgrade to the Wing Spots....especially the Starting SG spot...

          Then my answer would be no Bird doesn't think so and I'd agree. I'd give the keys to Paul George and see where he goes as the starting 2 guard. To me, its time well invested.

          I see Paul as the best perimeter defender, a very smart and intuitive defender at such a young age. I like his shot, just needs to extend range. I like his demeanor, not cocky, but very confident. I like his ability with the ball, just needs to tighten handles quite a bit. I like his willingness to pass and rebound and run the break. I like that he listens to coaches and players giving him advice. I like his athleticism, work ethic, persona in an interview....

          I think you need to spoon feed Paul major minutes and responsibility and see what he can do, since his ceiling is high, imo. I guess if Jason Richardson wanted to come in and work for cheap you'd for take a talented player, but even in that scenario, I'd want PG to get 24 plus minutes a night.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Then my answer would be no Bird doesn't think so
            Noone here knows what Bird is thinking.
            We can only wonder and speculate what he should think.

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            I guess if Jason Richardson wanted to come in and work for cheap you'd for take a talented player, but even in that scenario, I'd want PG to get 24 plus minutes a night.
            The key is that it's completely realistic. Those are the minutes that Rush/Dahntay/Lance would get in current rotation at 2 and 3.

            PS: I wouldn't think Bird would target J-Rich, but that's beside the point.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

              Originally posted by ballism View Post
              Noone here knows what Bird is thinking.
              We can only wonder and speculate what he should think.



              The key is that it's completely realistic. Those are the minutes that Rush/Dahntay/Lance would get in current rotation at 2 and 3.

              PS: I wouldn't think Bird would target J-Rich, but that's beside the point.
              Absolutely, I was just speculating. I picked J Rich as an example since he's a free agent right now, but insert any vet starting caliber guy.

              I guess to clarify, I'm okay to get a vet starter at 2 guard, I just don't think you need to. If you do, I wouldn't spend much and therefore probably another reason I'm good with investing in Paul George at that spot.

              Its a fluid thing, though.

              I felt like Paul made huge strides over the course of last season, maybe not statistically, but overall game play. I think he developed faster than any young Pacer I've seen in years. If we start to see that he's tapering off and you start to see a ceiling or things he's incapable of improving on, then I'd revisit a need for a starting 2 guard.

              I'm pretty high on him defensively, I think he has size and quickness that really gives guys trouble. I think he merits start based on that alone, but thats not all he brings to the table. I'd almost bet money he comes back with a better 3 shot and shoots a significantly higher percentage. Its one of those things, for me, PG brings really good defense and doesn't take anything else off the table. Thats pretty good, especially for a team who needs two way players. I can see Paul being top 15 in steals as soon as next year, if he gets minutes and I don't even think that glam stat will even tell the whole story on what he brings defensively, imo. BTW, I am not just judging it on him guarding DRose in the playoffs. He did a nice job those last set of games, across the board, imo.

              Right now, though, I'd play him and George Hill every 2 guard minute available and feel good about the position going into next year, big time.

              Another thing, its not only a minute thing for me. I want him to have responsibility to maximize his development. If you bring in a vet starter, I think it might get in the way of that.

              Honestly, I'd look at Point Guard, Power Forward, and maybe even Center starter upgrades before I'd look at starting Shooting Guard going into year two of Paul George. Thats just my opinion, though.
              Last edited by Speed; 08-02-2011, 10:26 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                I agree with that general thinking. And I view George pretty much the same way.

                But I just view Rush and Dahntay as pretty bad players (for a playoff team). And I wouldn't mind us to bench or trade them. Right now they are bound for big minutes.
                To me, this isn't about George at all. George gets big minutes either way.

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                I wouldn't spend much and therefore probably another reason I'm good with investing in Paul George at that spot.
                I don't care about price as much as contract length and remaining cap.
                Just for example. Lets say we get Iguodala's 3 year deal at high salary but we manage to include Posey in the deal. That would be perfect in my book.

                Dahntay&Rush are basically out of rotation. We have one of the best wing rotations in the league. We can be patient with George for 3 years, yet he still gets huge minutes every night. AND we have a ton of cap space to make a run at any FA power forward and fill out the rotation.

                What's not to like.

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Right now, though, I'd play him and George Hill every 2 guard minute available.
                That won't happen though.
                Hill will play a ton at 1 and George will play a ton at 3. Right now PG seems to be by far our best backup for Danny. And there may even be some 4 guard units with George at 3 and Danny at 4.

                In other words, there's no way PG and Hill split all 2 guard minutes. There's realistically some 25 SG minutes left for Dahntay, Rush and Lance right now.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                  With Granger, Paul George, George Hill, Brandon Rush (no, I don't think he will get traded at this point due to the focus being defense and shooting on the wings coupled with his now being a known player with a history of positive drug tests that has shown the effects of it in his play), and the "best player" Lance (a relatively small wing who can throw flashy passes), with Dahntay Jones (no, I don't think he will be traded either unless he is a throw-in on a deal for a PF), and a likely mid level exception (or whatever comes about as a result of the new CBA) type signing of Dunleavy as a second unit passer (somebody has to pass the ball to allow offensive flow, and Dunleavy is the best we have had at that, with McRoberts second), I can't imagine signing another wing unless one of our better wings is traded.

                  So, if he does want wings, either Bird needs to drink some Red Bull (they say Red Bull gives you WIIIIIIIINNNGS!!!!!), or go to Hooters a few times (I hear they have some good hot wings, too!).

                  Otherwise, I think Bird has more of a hankerin' for Wendy's. I can still see the old lady demanding to know "Where's the beef ?!?!?!?!?", or I would guess that the commercial stating "Beef: It's What's for Dinner." would seem to resonate with him. I would say either Bird hopes that Hansbrough turns into the monster 4 that he believes he will, or he wants to go out and get one.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                    Those of us who have high hopes for Lance (which includes Bird) would want minutes remaining for him. As spelled out above, there may be plenty of minutes left for Paul George if we pick up another hot wing from Hooters, but not for Lance.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                      signing of Dunleavy as a second unit passer.
                      The discussion is basically about Dunleavy's spot. Not whether to add Dunleavy AND another wing. That would be 2 wings. And it wouldn't make any sense. For all Dunleavy's faults, he's too good to be 5th wing nor would he want to.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                        interesting reading the discussion. where you stand on the pacer's need of another wing depends on if and where you think lance stephenson ends up playing.

                        i think lance will be the backup PG at the start of the season with a chance to be the starter by the end of the season. similar to what PG did last season at the 2.

                        i think GH will get backup 2 minutes mainly with lance. and depending on how well lance and DC play, he could be some PG minutes also. especially with lance. some cross matching on defense where GH guards the 1 and lance the 2.

                        it seems obvious that PG will get the starters minutes at the 2. and danny will get the starter minutes at the 3.

                        the real question is not the 2, those minutes will be used up by PG and GH. the question is the backup 3. if PG can play the backup 3, [i.e. if he is strong enough to play the SF] then there will be no need for any more wings. if not, then the pacers have some need of a backup type SF wing. dahntay or brandon both are capable of playing that spot, but neither are as big and strong enough to be desirable there.

                        tell you what would be really nice. if james posey came into next season able to play the backup 3 like he used to. that would be nice.

                        but mainly saying, if lance is able to take rotation minutes, then the pacers do not have any need on another wing. if lance cannot take rotation minutes, then the pacers need a wing to get his minutes at the 2 and 3. GH moves to backup 2. personally i would be OK with brandon getting those minutes. this is a contract year for him, so he should be motivated to play hard. and if he plays hard, then brandon is a decent player.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                          I guess I'm more okay with D Jones or BRush getting back up minutes than most. If Danny plays 36 and Paul plays 30 that leaves 12 at the Small Forward and 18 at the Shooting Guard. I'd be good with George Hill getting the majority of those 2 guard extra minutes.

                          Or if you really tightened the rotation for the playoffs, it could look like this.

                          Point
                          DC 36 mins
                          Hill 12 Mins

                          Shooting Guard
                          Paul George 24
                          George Hill 24

                          Small Forward
                          Danny 36 mins
                          Paul George 12

                          All 4 guys get 36 mins, not ideal in January of a long season, but around playoff time if thats your strongest players, so be it, imo.

                          I like the idea of Hill/Lance combo, but I'm not putting any stock into Lance until we see something stable from him.

                          Otherwise, if you dial back the minutes in a long season, I'd be fine with 16 minutes of BRush or 18 minutes of DJones. I think both are capable of that, easily.

                          I'm not against getting an improvement at any position, I just wouldn't tie up cap space or a chunk of the spendable money on a wing, at this point, with this group.

                          I know its not the intent of this thread, but if you get another wing, it does by default impact what you can do in the frontcourt. The team needs a defensive minded rebounding tough frontcourt player, another scoring threat in crunch time, and better play from the Point guard spot.

                          Allocating money away from those more dramatic needs, hurts the ability to improve, imo, at least where things stand at this moment.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                            The way I look at it....we could run a 9 man rotation with more then adequate minutes for anyone of consequence ( aka, Players that we care about ).

                            Messy version:

                            PG - DCollison ( 30 mpg ) / GHill ( 18 mpg )
                            SG - New_SG_SF ??? ( 30 mpg ) / PGeorge ( 12 mpg ) / GHill ( 6 mpg )
                            SF - Granger ( 30 mpg ) / PGeorge ( 18 mpg )
                            PF - New_PF_C ??? ( 24 mpg ) / Hansbrough ( 24 mpg )
                            C - Hibbert ( 30 mpg ) / New_PF_C ??? ( 6 mpg ) / Foster_or_New Backup_C??? ( 12 mpg )


                            Cleaner version:

                            Starters:

                            1 ) DCollison ( 30 mpg )
                            2 ) New_SG_SF ??? or PGeorge ( 30 mpg )
                            3 ) Granger ( 30 mpg )
                            4 ) New_PF_C ??? ( 30 mpg - 24 mpg as PF / 6 mpg as Center )
                            5 ) Hibbert ( 30 mpg )

                            2nd Unit:

                            6 ) PGeorge ( 30 mpg ) or New_SG_SF ??? ( 30 mpg )
                            7 ) GHill ( 24 mpg - 18 mpg as PG / 6 mpg as SG )
                            8 ) Hansbrough ( 24 mpg )

                            9 ) Foster_or_New Backup_C??? ( 12 mpg )

                            The only way that Players like Inferno or BRush could get minutes is if there is no new Starting SG acquired/traded/signed and having PG start at the SG spot. But honestly, I'd prefer to get a new Starting Wing Man and have a 4-man SG/SF rotation of Granger/JRich/PG/GH ( or Granger/PG/Reggie Williams/GH ) instead of a 4-man SG/SF rotation of Granger/PG/GH and some amalgamation of Inferno/Lance/BRush.

                            That would allow us to run a rather solid 9 man rotation where the Starters get at least 30 mpg ( which can be tweeked with +/- 2 mpg among the Starters and 6th Man ), the 2nd unit Players like GH and Hansbrough would get 24 mpg ( again can be tweeked by a few minutes by reducing the minutes of some of the Starters ) with a Backup Center ( likely Foster ) that would fill out the rest of the minutes and roster.

                            This is also why I would want to get a Frontcourt Starter that is more of a Starting Quality PF that can play some backup Center minutes, why I would be "ok" ( but would mainly be disappointed for the above reason ) with going after a PF like David West and why I would strongly advocate going after Nene to fill out the rest of the Frontcourt.
                            Last edited by CableKC; 08-02-2011, 03:34 PM.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                              I really don't think we want or need another wing. I think George Hill was the addition that we wanted. We have a roster loaded with efficient style players and I love that. BRush should get some minutes between SG and SF. I would like to see Hill start at PG, but I think that Collison is a better fit with George and Granger on the starting unit. Hill would be great next to Stephenson, Rush, or Jones. Stephenson from what I know has been a faily inefficient player that can score and create with the ball in his hands. I think Hill and Rush are better at playing off the ball on the second unit without needing the ball in their hands. We just have too many guys to split minutes as it is and we don't really have a need for another body. A two-for-one type of deal where we take on more money for a better player is what we need, but you typically don't see those trades. The only way that would happen is if we give up George or Collison. I would be ok with Collison, but not George.

                              We need front court players. We need bodies, which is how we will use our roster spots. I really would focus on bringing in a solid starting caliber big so that we can upgrade next year at PG. No matter what, AJ Price and James Posey seem to be the odd men out. One of either Rush or Jones will probably lose most of their playing time as well. We cannot possibly play 9 people across 3 positions in any kind of rotation. Honestly a five man rotation is ideal across the three positions, but six makes sense with our roster. That would leave us with a four or five man rotation in the front court to leave us with anywhere from 9-11 guys in the rotation. I prefer a nine-man rotation.

                              We seem to be building a team of efficient players. Hill, Granger, Rush, and Hibbert are all very efficient. Collison is not as much, but he is the one explosive speed guy. I think George could be insanely good if he works on being more efficient. If we pick up a player like Nene, it bolsters our front court with another guy who doesn't need a lot of touches to be effective. A lot of this has to do with good ball movement across all positions. I feel like being the most efficient team is the key to our long-term success. Granger is the veteran that leads by example. I would love to see him average 20 points on 12-13 shots per game and get to the line ~5 times per game.

                              We have no room for another player between PG-SF. It is and should be all about the bigs for us this off-season.
                              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                The way I look at it....we could run a 9 man rotation with more then adequate minutes for anyone of consequence ( aka, Players that we care about ).

                                Messy version:

                                PG - DCollison ( 30 mpg ) / GHill ( 18 mpg )
                                SG - New_SG_SF ??? ( 30 mpg ) / PGeorge ( 12 mpg ) / GHill ( 6 mpg )
                                SF - Granger ( 30 mpg ) / PGeorge ( 18 mpg )
                                PF - New_PF_C ??? ( 24 mpg ) / Hansbrough ( 24 mpg )
                                C - Hibbert ( 30 mpg ) / New_PF_C ??? ( 6 mpg ) / Foster_or_New Backup_C??? ( 12 mpg )
                                That sounds about right to me. We can reverse the names around in case it's a backup not a starter.

                                I'd expect Hill to play around 30 total MPG as he used to in San Antonio.

                                I'd also expect Granger to play a bit as a small ball PF. This year he averaged around 25 MPG at SF and 10 at PF last i checked. I'd expect him to play less overall and especially less at PF.
                                But I'd be surprised if he doesn't play small ball 4 at all.

                                Keep in mind that in reality every player misses a couple games due to broken toe nails, etc. People have to step up. So you can add a minute or two to each of those numbers.
                                What looks like "30 MPG" will end up more like "32 MPG over 78 games" in most cases.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X