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

I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

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

  • #46
    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

    OK Naptown Seth I get all what you are saying but you know that the Pacers never won a championship with that team and only made it to the finals one time right? is that the goal?
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

      Detlef was never the Pacers best player. He was a great 6th man, but without Reggie Miller that team was paralyzed.

      Also, looking at the team's best players...Smits was a #2 pick. Miller #11. You will not see another pick at that level unless we bring Jim O'Brien back in.

      ...and this team certainly does not have the talent it needs to contend. There is still no PG on this team and we are not that strong in the front court.

      Bottom line is, this team will need to win as a team, not a few super stars. So I think I agree on that point with you. But the problem I see is that Granger and George are 7 years apart in age. In contrast, James and Bosh are both 27 and DWade is 30. Having guys grow up and peak at the same time is quite important if you really want that ring...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

        I might add that another cog in that team was Dale Davis...picked at #13. Let's just say that he started and Antonio backed him up for a reason.

        See, the extreme talent on that team WAS actually picked in the draft by the Pacers. Those were the horses this team rode on in the 90's....

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          OK Naptown Seth I get all what you are saying but you know that the Pacers never won a championship with that team and only made it to the finals one time right? is that the goal?
          I think the point is it was a championship-caliber team, even if it never won a title. The '98 team in particular could have easily been a championship team in many other seasons.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

            So, if we trade Danny PG is going to start dribbling a lot better, finishing in traffic, and he'll also stop bowling over someone in the paint for a charge 1-2 times per game?

            Great, sign me up!

            PG is not ready, folks. His sometimes laid back/not aggressive enough demeanor is a thing that scouts talked about with him going into the draft. There have always been questions about whether or not PG has that "killer instinct." It's not new, nor is it caused by Danny. If we trade Danny and try to thrust PG into a new position with the mantle of "that dude," this season I think we will be a bottom dwelling team again. We could miss the playoffs. PG has great talent but is still pretty inconsistent. We're a year or two away from knowing what we really have there.
            Last edited by gummy; 02-19-2012, 02:08 PM.
            "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

            "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

            "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

              Originally posted by Smits Happens View Post
              I think the point is it was a championship-caliber team, even if it never won a title. The '98 team in particular could have easily been a championship team in many other seasons.
              Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.
                I don't think so either, but I was merely referring to the earlier team that you pointed out never won anything. My point was simply that they were good enough to be a championship team, and that's about all you can ask of management is to put together a team that's good enough to win it all.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                  Danny is basically the emotion of this team. If a teammate gets in a fight Danny is there to stick up for his guy. If someone talks about our team publicly Danny isn't afraid to say something publicly right back. If somebody upsets Danny he goes off for 30+ points. If we trade him we will lose that and who knows if the guy we bring in will bring that same mentality? Danny has been loyal and has never asked to leave or complained about playing in a small market. I think he'll be here his whole career whether everyone likes it or not. I just hope there isn't a point where he gets traded in a similar scenario that Jermaine did.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    Are you sure about that? Danny has regressed every year in almost every category, if he keeps regressing at the rate he has he is going to be shooting a low percentage while averaging way less ppg that he is getting now or in 5 or 6 years.

                    I would like to know why you are saying that "Danny has returned"
                    He's "returned" because of his defensive intensity, which is clearly higher. As for his "constant regression", that's not really statistically true. He did decline during the JOB years, but what he's doing this year is pretty much in his normal range or just slightly below his top level. His BLK% is at his recent norm which runs well below his peak, but his STL% is his all-time high this year.

                    Using PER as the compilation of various stats...

                    14.7 - Rick
                    13.9 - Rick
                    16.7 - JOB
                    21.8 - JOB (4 years of growth to his peak)
                    19.8 - JOB
                    17.8 - JOB to Vogel
                    18.1 - Vogel

                    Danny's 5 game average has trended up on FG%, FTAs, and Points all year. For the last 10 games or so Danny's FTA rate is way above his career high even (above 8, career 4.9), and despite a couple of lower FTA outings recently the 5 game average remains higher than his career average as does his season average.

                    His 5 game FG% took a hit in recent games, but had climbed into the upper 40s. It dipped back below 40 for a few games (the 5 game avr, not single game) and has now rising back to the high 40s.

                    His PPG 5game average got up to 25 after starting the year below 15 through 9 games. It, like the FG%, dipped recently to below 20 but has recovered back to almost 23.


                    What the 5 game average is doing is monitoring trends in behavior but with a bit of a low pass filter to remove single game bounces. These things all show that week by week Danny's offensive game has been improving in general, and that the good/bad game ratio is getting higher. And not just higher, but heading into the area of output that would be on par with as good as Danny has done in general.


                    WHY SOME OF THE PAST STATS...
                    Offensively JOB ramped up the 3pt shooting and leaned on Danny especially to shoot the 3 in very high volume, thus he hit a PER peak with JOB. But as the JOB method continued on and made the situation worse and worse we saw Danny start to decline.

                    Vogel seems to have stabilized Danny overall and actually inspired him on the defensive end.

                    Danny's Win Shares per minute is way up and is currently the 2nd highest in his career. His TOs are way down (on a team that's not been good at protecting the ball) and his fouls are way down as well. He's playing smarter, more aggressive ball in the more structured Vogel strategy.


                    And all of this is in spite of a terrible shooting slump at the beginning of the season. Apart from changes due to strategy pace and that poor run of 2P% he's dead-center in being what his normal game is.



                    EVALUATION OVERALL...
                    I'm not calling him a regular all-star, but I am saying that Reggie Miller was also not a regular AS, he sporadically made the team and made his biggest contributions as a playoff hero. In that way, regular season Danny is equal to regular season Reggie in terms of a guy that can "get you there". Reggie worked in conjunction with several other guys and Danny can and is doing the same.

                    People want him to be something he's not, just like those same people (or people like them) thought Reggie wasn't enough right up until the point when he suddenly was enough.

                    If you don't have a clear #5 guy then you don't really need a clear #1 guy either. If your 3,4,5 guys are winning every night then they can easily offset the losses at the 1,2 level. If Danny and Paul lose to Lebron and Wade they can still win overall if West, DC and Roy win their matchups. I admit they haven't done that the first two times, but there is reason to expect them to be able too. Chalmers should not be > DC, Bosh should not be > West (not by much) and Roy > any Miami center.

                    They weren't, but they can be. And that's why you don't have to trade Danny to "fix" the situation. It's not broke, not talent-wise at least. Chemistry and effort...yes, that was broken for 4-5 games, but we hope maybe it's mending now.
                    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-19-2012, 02:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                      Originally posted by Smits Happens View Post
                      I don't think so either, but I was merely referring to the earlier team that you pointed out never won anything. My point was simply that they were good enough to be a championship team, and that's about all you can ask of management is to put together a team that's good enough to win it all.
                      Yes...they were good enough. However, the pieces were close to the same age and they peaked together. That's my main point with Granger. Unless you have a Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant on your team...good luck winning at all. When neither of your best players peak at the same time, you can pretty much forget it. Sure, they'll be good and fun to watch. Certainly above .500 once this team grows up. But as presently constructed this isn't a contender.

                      The team in the 90's, although it did not have a superstar, it was built far better and its best players were closer in age than 7 years. Miller and Jackson were born in 65. Smits and McKey in 66. The Davis's in 68 and 69. This is not an unimportant issue when you consider Granger's future on this team...and the value he might bring in trade.

                      Edit: ...and if someone brings up Jalen Rose...consider this. Reggie Miller was a serious odd ball in terms of longevity....
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 02-19-2012, 02:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                        Very nice post, Seth .
                        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.
                          That's a ridiculous standard though. They were LEADING the 98 Bulls in Chicago, late in the 4th. That was the same as the Colts vs Pats. If the Colts lose that game to the Pats in the AFCCG, they don't go on to beat the Bears and go down as a "non elite team" by these standards.

                          The Bulls could have lost that game, and we KNOW they were championship level elite. They were losing Jordan's ONLY game 7, at home, with just 4-5 minutes left. And considering the caliber of talent of the Bulls vs Jazz, the Bulls were the toughest opponent in the path (thus the Pats/Bears metaphor).

                          The Pacers went to 4 ECF game 7s in 7 years. Not just the ECF, but "in 48 minutes you might be in the Finals" games. That's it. That's elite. It was actually basically better than everyone but the Bulls and Rockets, and in an overall number of elite seasons it was better than the Rockets in that era.

                          Or am I supposed to believe that over 15 years there were only 4 elite teams, and only 1-2 at any given moment? Sorry Jazz, Sonics, Knicks, Pacers, 90's Lakers...you SUCK. Try again. Maybe trade Stockton and Malone for elite players than can put you over the top and win a title.

                          I just hate that #2 = #LAST view. It makes people do desperate, panic moves as they chase after unrealistic goals. If Denver had that attitude they never would have won a Super Bowl with Elway...and neither would the Colts with Manning. How many blown chances to you give Peyton before you realize he's good, but not good enough? By the measure you put forth here you wouldn't have given him enough to get to the Super Bowl season.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-19-2012, 02:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Yes...they were good enough. However, the pieces were close to the same age and they peaked together. That's my main point with Granger. Unless you have a Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant on your team...good luck winning at all. When neither of your best players peak at the same time, you can pretty much forget it. Sure, they'll be good and fun to watch. Certainly above .500 once this team grows up. But as presently constructed this isn't a contender.

                            The team in the 90's, although it did not have a superstar, it was built far better and its best players were closer in age than 7 years. Miller and Jackson were born in 65. Smits and McKey in 66. The Davis's in 68 and 69. This is not an unimportant issue when you consider Granger's future on this team...and the value he might bring in trade.

                            Edit: ...and if someone brings up Jalen Rose...consider this. Reggie Miller was a serious odd ball in terms of longevity....
                            But Rose is to Reggie as Paul is to Danny in terms of age.

                            Maybe when they win it all it's with a vet Danny who's not the top player anymore but still very good. Was Reggie really ever the top guy on those playoff teams? His best year by far was year 3, well before the perennial ECF teams. On his famous 8 in 8.9 night he stunk for 47 minutes and the team lived on Smits the entire time. Other guys often did that. Reggie was "one of the" best, but not "the" best much of the time. Only in the critical moments did he typically own the situation.



                            I'm not against the jist of the idea, trading a vet to get younger or trading to adjust the talent disbursement across positions. But to me this is like trading Mark Jackson for Jalen Rose, and actually fits very well. Vet vs young, adjust where your talent is.

                            That's the season that shall not be named. So the last time they really tried to make a move like this it destroyed offensive chemistry and resulted in a VERY LUCKY "undo" for the Pacers when Denver gifted Jax right back to us.

                            Getting Rose was great, but ultimately it was great because it ended up not being Jax for Rose but rather "various deep bench" for Rose.*


                            If the team was cap locked this might be different, or if they had a 3rd guy behind Paul and Danny who was on par with them (in terms of length, Hill can't go to the SF ever). But this team does not have too many wings of that caliber. They have 2 of them.





                            *I will concede that another part of the issue was that moron Brown stubbornly chose to make some random point to Rose that was akin to setting himself on fire as a way to clean the clothes he was wearing, and they were counting on Workman who proceeded to get basically career-ending injured right after that.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-19-2012, 02:56 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.
                              I say this for the sake of your own sanity.

                              If this is the only goal for you then you need to either A.) become a bandwagon fan and just follow great teams/players around. B.) stop watching the NBA.

                              Pray tell what team in the NBA right now is built to beat a team that got two of the top players of their generation and another great player to come on board?

                              OKC? Maybe, we'll see.

                              Chicago? Didn't work out so well last year.

                              Remember this is Indiana, we are not going to be able to build a team of Dwight Howard, Daron Williams & Carmellow Anthony.

                              What we are doing now is what we have to do, the way we will have to build.

                              We may get lucky and get a star player this summer who decides he wants to win and doesn't care about the sun & sand and bright lights to come here as a free agent, but I doubt it.

                              I think some of you guys forget how far we have come in just one short year. Remember just a year and a month ago we were one of the worst teams in the NBA with a coach who had no clue.

                              Now, even with recent struggles, we are at the very least one of the good teams in the NBA (even if not elite).

                              Also as to comparing the 90's teams to now. I think what people are forgetting is that this team did not come together overnight. We started drafting these players in the late 80's and got a few trades in the early 90's and kept on drafting.

                              Seth is actually saying it, but I want to re-emphasize it.


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                                I might be in the minority here, but I trade PG before I trade Granger

                                Granger is by far and away our most consistent player. West is probably second.

                                If we were to get Rondo, I would rather a package of DC/PG and picks
                                Sittin on top of the world!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X