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

ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

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

  • ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...ason-questions

    Danny Granger stands as the cornerstone of the Indiana Pacers franchise, even as his field goal percentage and PER again declined from his performance in the 2008-09 season.


    Will the Pacers' complementary pieces improve, giving the Pacers hope for advancing past the first round for the first time since 2004-05?

    We continue our Central Division tour with a look at the youthful Indiana Pacers, the No. 8 East playoff seed last April that impressed with a spirited effort in a five-game, first-round exit at the hands of the regular-season champ Chicago Bulls.

    Fact or Fiction: Darren Collison is the answer at PG.

    Tim Donahue, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Darren Collison may be an answer at the point, but not the answer. His offensive game suffered greatly from the lack of a quality pick-and-roll/pick-and-pop partner, but the permanent problems are his size and his defense. That being said, a Collison/George Hill combo is good enough to allow the Pacers to focus on other needs first.

    John Hollinger, ESPN.com: Fact, sort of. Teams have won big with worse point guards, and I certainly wouldn't call him a liability. But Collison by himself isn't a difference-maker, even if the Pacers can convince him to convert some of those 22-foot 2s of which he's so fond into 3-pointers -- he's small and doesn't see the floor well.

    Jonathan Santiago, Cowbell Kingdom: Fiction. If the Pacers were completely sold on Collison, would they have traded for George Hill? Probably not.

    Danny Savitzky, Nets Are Scorching: Fact. Collison is a perfect complement to a rebuilding project like the Pacers. He's an excellent passer and can score to some degree, but he's unselfish enough that there isn't going to be any Russell Westbrook thing going on when he gets better. Playing under Chris Paul did him a world of good.

    Jared Wade, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Collison struggled until Jim O'Brien was canned so I do expect improvement. But he is a young, quick point who should have flourished running a fast-paced offense for a team devoid of leadership. Instead, during his second season, he dropped off statistically in all the categories that matter and tallied double-digit assists in just four games.

    2. Fact or Fiction: Paul George is the answer at SG.

    Tim Donahue, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fact. Strictly speaking, Paul George is the answer at something -- not necessarily the 2, but, close enough. He showed a lot in terms of defense and maturity, but he needs to find an offensive identity. Frank Vogel's offense cannot ignore him the way it did down the stretch last season. George needs to be given a prominent, defined role.

    John Hollinger, ESPN.com: Fact, sort of. George is absolutely the answer to something -- I think he's one of the best young wings in the league -- but at 6-8 he's stretched both defensively and as a ball handler at the 2; his future is more likely to be at small forward. Which is a bit problematic given that Danny Granger already plays there.

    Jonathan Santiago, Cowbell Kingdom: Fact. There's consensus among observers that George played phenomenal defense for the Pacers in their first-round playoff appearance. The Pacers have witnessed their other defensive wings fizzle out (Dahntay Jones, Brandon Rush), but it seems that George may buck that trend.

    Danny Savitzky, Nets Are Scorching: Fiction. When the Pacers nearly nabbed O.J. Mayo at the trade deadline, it was an indication that they aren't totally content with George as a major part of the future. Even after a subpar first season, though, he still has the time to convince Vogel and the rest of management that he can be a reliable rotation player.

    Jared Wade, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fact. He is an excellent athlete who takes pride in defense. He is dangerous in transition and refined enough to score in the half court. He can handle the ball from both wing spots and guard three positions. Nationally, a lot of people took notice of the way his defense disrupted Derrick Rose in the playoffs. People in Indiana knew before that.


    3. Fact or Fiction: Tyler Hansbrough is the answer at PF.

    Tim Donahue, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Tyler Hansbrough is the type of player every team should want, but he has very real limitations that make him a less-than-ideal starting 4. Still, Tyler has spent his life defying expectations. If he proves me wrong, I expect him to shape a career and game that looks a lot like David West's -- with a mean streak.

    John Hollinger, ESPN.com: Fiction. I like what he brings but I think he's stretched as a starter given his lack of length and aversion to passing. As an energy backup who also provides an underrated source of second-unit scoring? Love him in that role.

    Jonathan Santiago, Cowbell Kingdom: Fiction. Hansbrough would be a solid energy guy off the Pacers' bench. As a starter, I'm not sold. This is a position they could address in free agency, with a forward like West available.

    Danny Savitzky, Nets Are Scorching: Fiction. Hansbrough might work hard, but he doesn't provide the scoring or defense at the 4 that the Pacers need to make the jump to the top of the East. The Pacers will likely go hard after West and Kris Humphries to fill that spot.

    Jared Wade, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Hands Bro can be an excellent first big off the bench for a championship team and perhaps even a productive starter in the right frontcourt. But to look at him as an "answer" on a roster so removed from contention, no matter the question, is overstating his ability to individually affect a game.


    4. Fact or Fiction: Roy Hibbert is the answer at C.

    Tim Donahue, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Hibbert's PER was over 18 against lottery teams, under 15 against playoff teams, and just over 12 in the playoffs. He does not handle defensive adjustments or adversity well. He is prone to go into a funk when his offensive game isn't working, which is an all-too-common occurrence.

    John Hollinger, ESPN.com: Fact. He proved that last season, with the key unappreciated stat being that he cut his foul rate enough to stay on the floor long enough to be a legit starting center. He's still getting better, and while he'll never make all-defense he's evolving into a great half-court post weapon.

    Jonathan Santiago, Cowbell Kingdom: Fact. I've said it numerous times now on previous 5-on-5s: The center position is thin on talent. Hibbert isn't an elite, game-changing center. But he's serviceable and that's really all you need at that position these days.

    Danny Savitzky, Nets Are Scorching: Fact. Hibbert still has a lot of room to improve on the offensive and defensive ends, but he's a good rebounder and he can block shots -- it also doesn't hurt that he's 7-foot-2. A great center is a rare enough commodity in the NBA these days that the Pacers aren't going to give up on Hibbert, who's certainly in the top half of 5s right now at the young age of 24.

    Jared Wade, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fact. With so few traditional centers left, a guy this big, with this skill set, is an asset. His inconsistency is baffling and his mental makeup seems enigmatic, but he has touch in the paint and can pass out of the high post. He won't provide a reliable 35 minutes every night, but his positives should outweigh his limitations. Should.

    5. Fact or Fiction: The Pacers are on their way to the East elite.

    Tim Donahue, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Danny Granger remains head and shoulders above his teammates in terms of NBA value, and that does not make for an elite team. To get there, the Pacers will need to add two players as good as or better than Granger -- probably a scorer and a quality big. Paul George is the only young player capable of making "the leap."

    John Hollinger, ESPN.com: Fiction. They have a ton of cap space this summer, but it's not clear how they'll lure good players to the corn belt, nor, for that matter, who will be the GM making the decisions on how to utilize the space. They've given themselves a chance, but much work remains.

    Jonathan Santiago, Cowbell Kingdom: Fiction. They're a team that's good, perhaps better with the acquisition of George Hill. But what other moves can they make to improve without giving up the key pieces on their team? Unless they can find someone looking to dump star talent for cap relief, they're stuck in a holding pattern.

    Danny Savitzky, Nets Are Scorching: Fiction. The Bulls exposed that even with very good coaching and great effort, the Pacers aren't quite ready to make the jump into the East's upper echelon. They're still one key player short of making that a worthwhile conversation.

    Jared Wade, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Last season can be considered a success for a franchise climbing its way out of an abyss so deep, but let's remember that Indiana still won only 37 games while playing in one of the worst divisions I have ever seen. There is no reason the Pacers can't win 45 games next season, but "elite" is a faraway adjective for this squad.
    Last edited by 90'sNBARocked; 08-23-2011, 01:17 PM.
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

    My own answers would be:

    1. Darren Collison is the answer at PG - Fiction
    2. Paul George is the answer at SG - Fact
    3. Tyler Hansbrough is the answer at PF - Fiction
    4. Roy Hibbert is the answer at C - Fact
    5. The Pacers are on their way to the East elite - Fiction

    Like others, I think Paul G is the answer at something, but not necessarily SG. Long term, I think his best position is SF. But we'll see.

    My Roy answer also needs qualification. Big guys who can play are so rare that Roy becomes the answer at C almost by default. Hopefully he can get more consistent, but if not then I'd want a very good backup playing behind him.

    Interesting that so many analysts are down regarding Collison. I mean it's very nice that we "stole" him in a trade for Troy Murphy. But for myself, while I think he's a nice enough player, certainly much better than what we've had in the past, but in a league full of superstar point guards he looks kinda average. And for a guy who doesn't bring superlative scoring or playmaking, you'd like to have at least passable defense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

      Nice work by PacersDigest's own. Great work fellas!
      "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


      • #4
        Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

        If we are giving our answers....

        1. Darren Collison is the answer at backup PG. I think he could be the best backup PG in the league.

        2. Paul George is the answer at SG. His length needs to be paired with Granger and Hibbert to make our defense better. That's the biggest reason we need a long, athletic, rebounding big. It's a vision of what our defense should be. Let Granger score more.

        3. Hansborough is the answer at backup PF. He is capable of being the sixth man on a championship level team. He will play big minutes over his career, but I think his absolute ceiling is Carlos Boozer. As a sixth man we can keep him by not having to overpay for him.

        4. Hibbert is the answer at center. Sorry Count, I disagree. Hibbert needs to develop consistency. All young players typically lack consistency in their earlier years. That is especially true for bigs. Hibbert is the foundation of what we do offensively and defensively. You gameplan around what you can get from him. His strengths are blocks and deep post moves. You may not agree, but his offensive game will get better. His length forces other players to be aware of him coming to the hole. If we can get another player who compliments Hibbert with size and length, we will be on to something. I hope we have the longest starting lineup in the league, which will benefit us defensively.

        5. Fact. As the statement reads... "on their way". I think we are on our way to the elite in the East. The picture is certainly not complete, but the foundation is there. And the cap space, too. I think there will be one or two significant transactions that will get us over the hump into that bunch, we just don't know what those transactions will be.

        Overall, pretty good article. I think our direction is towards being more competitive. If we look at our starting five of the future, Stephenson or Hill, George, Granger, TBD, and Hibbert, we have a ton of total length. I think that will make our defense tenfold better than it has been. Our offense will improve as the younger guys get comfortable. Hibbert gets more efficient, George a bit more prolific, Granger more efficient, plus we have three PGs who can all score the ball, but which one will play the best defense? I don't want to leave out Hansborough, because he will be an integral part of our rotation, providing toughness, rebounding, and hopeful efficiency.
        "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


        • #5
          Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

          Originally posted by JayRedd
          Jared Wade, Eight Points, Nine Seconds: Fiction. Hands Bro ...
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

            Question # 5 as framed to the bloggers/writers responding:

            5. Fact or Fiction: The Pacers are on their way to the East elite. Note: We mean that eventually this group will get there.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

              Roy: fact
              Paul: fact
              Tyler: fiction
              Contenders: fiction, but getting there
              DC: fact, I think Pacers fans have always been too tough on pgs. He showed he's a starter with all star potential talent when he was in NO. I think in time he will be turning some heads.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                Couldn't resist.

                Collison: likely fact. People have short term memories. Collison had stretches where he looked pretty damn good while in NO. If we move towards more PnR / PnP basketball, he'll shine. Last year will likely be seen in the future as a career aberrancy.

                George: fact at SF or SG. My guess is that we'll eventually move Granger for a younger, Eric Gordon-type of scorer, leaving George to man the 3. To upgrade, we're going to have to trade our way there, as free agency isn't going to be particularly kind to us.

                Hibbert: fact. He's young and still NBA immature. Can't teach height though, and he's got a good head on his shoulders, overall. I predict he'll be with us a long time, as our starting C and will get it done (in a year or two).

                Hansbrough: fiction. Love this guy, but we need a true post/defensive monster to truly complement Hibbert. Agree with those who said he'd make an awesome 6th man, which is often times as important of a role as the starting 5.

                Elite: fiction. Based on the current roster, we aren't anywhere near elite. A trade or three and some free agents later, it might turn into fact.

                Pluripotent: definite fact. We at least have control of our own team's destiny now, with almost 0 bad contracts, and good young players. Not many teams have this luxurious position at this point.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                  I really liked everyone's responses, but I got the feeling the Nets guy didn't watch many Pacer games last season.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    Question # 5 as framed to the bloggers/writers responding:
                    How does that work? Do they send you guys emails with those questions or something?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      How does that work? Do they send you guys emails with those questions or something?
                      Yes, a day or two before post time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        Question # 5 as framed to the bloggers/writers responding:
                        I guess then, Count, that you are interpreting "The Pacers" as "the collection of players as currently comprised." I think PG2 is interpreting "The Pacers" as "the organization as currently strategically positioned." We agree that the team needs an infusion of (veteran) talent. Can we lure/acquire that talent? Therein lies the focus of speculation.

                        Nice to "see" you, by the way.


                        "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                        - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                          Hollingers view of DC last year is spot on im very impressed.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                            I disagree with anyone who says we are not on the right path to Elite of the Eastern Confrence

                            Stud SF
                            above average C
                            decent PG
                            nice role players
                            2nd most cap space in the NBA

                            Haters gonna hate
                            Sittin on top of the world!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN 5on 5 with the Indiana Pacers

                              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                              I disagree with anyone who says we are not on the right path to Elite of the Eastern Confrence

                              Stud SF
                              above average C
                              decent PG
                              nice role players
                              2nd most cap space in the NBA

                              Haters gonna hate
                              cap space means nothing if we cant get good players to come to indy or there arent good free agents that fit a need. I define elite as a top 3 team in the east and that is 50+ wins every year I don't see us doing that anytime soon. I mean the Hawks are a very good team and win a lot but I don't consider them elite.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X