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

  • #91
    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    IDK, I don't see a future HOF'er in Danny....and to be sure, when the chips are on the table I'd pick Reggie to shoot it 100 out of 100 times.
    Yes, but you'd pick Danny to get the defensive stop 100 out of 100 times too.

    Reggie was more unbalanced in favor of scoring/shooting. Danny is not the same shooter, but is clearly a better defender.

    Peck and I aren't trying to be jerks, we just happened to be fans of the team BEFORE Reggie and lived through the development. We heard the fans and saw the empty arenas prior to the playoff run. Reggie going for 24 ppg and being an AS didn't bring the fans out and didn't have anyone talking "HOF" at the time.

    Even one NYK series wasn't enough. He had 25 in the 4th, he had 8 in 8.9, he had the shot against Mike, he had the dunk and shot vs NJ.

    Reggie Miller 100% does NOT TRACK as a HOF on box scores alone. Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith....these are similar guys for sure.


    And until Reggie had those moments no one thought he was going to have those moments. This is why CHUCK PERSON was the man when they went 5 games vs Boston, not Reggie. And it wasn't freaking close. Chuck was the star, Chuck was the interview, Chuck was getting the final shots which he did in game 5 going against Bird.



    The similarities of the squads is actually remarkable to me, the amount of general talent balance I mean. You expect 5-6 guys to have almost identical impacts on most nights.



    BTW, it was Reggie's approach to the game as a team sport that made me like him so much. His low volume, high quality shot selection made him great to watch and root for. He wasn't Jordan and didn't try to be.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

      This successful team has brought back the old Naptime Seth. He brings it strong to the hole and goes hard in the paint. He's cut off the fat and has returned leaner and maybe a bit meaner. I approve.


      Comment


      • #93
        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Yes, but you'd pick Danny to get the defensive stop 100 out of 100 times too.

        Reggie was more unbalanced in favor of scoring/shooting. Danny is not the same shooter, but is clearly a better defender.

        Peck and I aren't trying to be jerks, we just happened to be fans of the team BEFORE Reggie and lived through the development. We heard the fans and saw the empty arenas prior to the playoff run. Reggie going for 24 ppg and being an AS didn't bring the fans out and didn't have anyone talking "HOF" at the time.

        Even one NYK series wasn't enough. He had 25 in the 4th, he had 8 in 8.9, he had the shot against Mike, he had the dunk and shot vs NJ.

        Reggie Miller 100% does NOT TRACK as a HOF on box scores alone. Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith....these are similar guys for sure.


        And until Reggie had those moments no one thought he was going to have those moments. This is why CHUCK PERSON was the man when they went 5 games vs Boston, not Reggie. And it wasn't freaking close. Chuck was the star, Chuck was the interview, Chuck was getting the final shots which he did in game 5 going against Bird.



        The similarities of the squads is actually remarkable to me, the amount of general talent balance I mean. You expect 5-6 guys to have almost identical impacts on most nights.



        BTW, it was Reggie's approach to the game as a team sport that made me like him so much. His low volume, high quality shot selection made him great to watch and root for. He wasn't Jordan and didn't try to be.
        Even Quinn Buckner knows that great offense beats great defense. The only thing is, the only thing great when you're talking about Reggie and Danny is Reggie's offense. Danny is just good. There's nothing spectacular at all about his game, including his 37% FG%.

        The reality is, they are different players and Reggie is better at shooting the ball than Danny is at anything. I think given an opportunity to trade Danny for Reggie Miller in his prime, I have no doubt that Miller is more valuable.

        BTW, I've watched the Pacers since the late 1960's...

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Manning and Elway? The equivalent to Jordan/Lebron compared to Danny? I guess everybody hates Danny because he is not Manning
          Really? Give me a break on this, you can't possibly think this was the point being made.


          The question that was brought up was about the 90's Pacers and how since they never won it all they weren't a good example of how to build an elite team.

          So stay on point and keep your arguments consistent.

          1) Danny fits with this squad in a way that Reggie did with his - overall talent balance rather than 1-2 elites leading a rag tag pack of also rans.

          2) The 90's Pacers were elite because even though they didn't win it all they competed consistently right at the edge of winning it all, moreso than just about any other team not names the Bulls in fact.


          And since you don't want #2 to be correct because it would then support keeping Danny per #1, you and a few others dismiss the idea of them being elite because they didn't win it all.

          So I dismissed the idea of Win it all or Fail using two guys who famously didn't win it all several times, but who were kept around rather than traded for "something better" and went on to stop "sucking" simply by "not losing the big game" finally, without actually doing much of anything better than they had in the years they didn't win.


          YOU DID THE LEBRON=DANNY from that argument, not me. I can't help if you can't follow the basic logic.


          I'm so tired of people that can't differentiate the comparison of RELATIONSHIPS from the comparison of the examples used to show those relationships.

          ME: Jordan=basketball as Ruth=Baseball

          YOU: So you are saying Jordan was as good with the White Sox as Ruth was with the Yanks, that's pathetic. So I guess some minor league baseball games make you Babe Ruth now. Whatever, your talking crazy, and Babe Ruth didn't even play basketball anyway.

          And we wonder why some of these debates go round and round.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

            All I hear around here is that we have a balanced team and I agree. We don't have a single superstar in our starting 5. But what we do have is 2 all star caliber vets in Danny an D West, a budding all star Center in Roy and an athletic freak in PG. What we have with DC is an undersized inconsistent point guard who is not capable of carrying this team.

            I fully understand that PG is inconsistent and unable to carry the team as well but he is a mismatch problem on both ends of the floor with the ability to play shut down, stat stuffing basketball.

            DC is a liability on both ends of the court. He cannot guard his position and honestly cannot beat defenses. Dude is fast and I like speed in a point guard but how often does that speed equate to dribble penetration, drive and kicks or just plain old coming around the pick and roll with some effectiveness. Not often.

            As far as trading Danny goes, honestly I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the team or franchise as a whole. He's one of the more identifiable players we've had for a while. As far as DC is concerned however, I'd be willing to take just about any point guard who is obviously better than him just as long as we wouldnt be sacrifising any more than DC, a pick, or cap room. I'll even throw in Tyler for the right man.

            Point is were not moving Danny unless their is an extreme upgrade. That's not likely to come along. So we need to just scrap that thought for the moment. All we need to do is make a significant upgrade to the point guard spot, then add extra bits and pieces with cap room.
            Last edited by LA_Confidential; 02-20-2012, 04:40 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Even Quinn Buckner knows that great offense beats great defense. The only thing is, the only thing great when you're talking about Reggie and Danny is Reggie's offense. Danny is just good. There's nothing spectacular at all about his game, including his 37% FG%.

              The reality is, they are different players and Reggie is better at shooting the ball than Danny is at anything. I think given an opportunity to trade Danny for Reggie Miller in his prime, I have no doubt that Miller is more valuable.

              BTW, I've watched the Pacers since the late 1960's...
              Well I agree with your point that Reggie as a clutch shooter, a tough shot maker, had a skill that is greater than any single skill Danny has. This is by far the most reasonable "anti-Danny" argument I've heard put forward.

              This does take us into "is there anything Danny does that can put you over the top". But I still think that we didn't really know if Reggie had that either given the general poor outings in the playoffs prior to the breakthrough (not his box score, but the loss and no particular heroics in those games). So it's possible that Granger could have moments like that ahead of him.


              I strongly think that people using the trade Danny logic now would have put forth that exact same argument in the 1992-93 era. In fact the team DID trade Chuck to get a "big time playmaker" at PG with Pooh.

              So we actually have 2 pretty good examples of them giving up a key piece to improve overall and having it not work out. (Jax for Rose, Chuck for Pooh)


              If we trade Danny for "PG with 1 specific great skill but not a total higher talent level" ala your Reggie vs Danny point that could work. But how do you know that guy, which guy is that? (sub in SG instead of PG if you'd like)

              It's like trying to know Lin is about to go Lin. What made Reggie great is something that it's hard to be certain about. I'm not sure who I think is an available "the man" type of shooter that is lights out when it counts without being a big volume chucker in total (which would wreck chemistry and result in Paul deferring all over again).


              And one of the original points was that Danny holds Paul back and that's just not true IMO. One of the things I'm saying here in regards to "the man" is that Paul may very well end up being the man to Danny's Chuck Person, so to speak. Except we don't need to trade him for Pooh.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Well I agree with your point that Reggie as a clutch shooter, a tough shot maker, had a skill that is greater than any single skill Danny has. This is by far the most reasonable "anti-Danny" argument I've heard put forward.

                This does take us into "is there anything Danny does that can put you over the top". But I still think that we didn't really know if Reggie had that either given the general poor outings in the playoffs prior to the breakthrough (not his box score, but the loss and no particular heroics in those games). So it's possible that Granger could have moments like that ahead of him.
                It is an unknown whether Danny can perform at a high level beyond the first round, but the Chicago series was a good sign. I will give him that much. But it was only one series.

                To me, greatness cannot be achieved in the regular season. The playoffs are at an entirely different level and that's where the great ones make their mark. That's why guys like Dominique didn't get much respect...until he finally did show it. Same with Danny. He's earned some respect from the Chicago series. Problem is, he's been digging himself out of a hole since Jim O'Brien left town.

                Personally, I valued Reggie's ability to convert extremely difficult shots under pressure...guys were hanging all over him 25 feet from the basket...chasing him everywhere...not a few times...but on a pretty regular basis. If he were guarded like Granger, he'd be completely unstoppable. That is a critical high level skill needed for success in the playoffs.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                  Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                  As far as trading Danny goes, honestly I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the team or franchise as a whole. He's one of the more identifiable players we've had for a while. As far as DC is concerned however, I'd be willing to take just about any point guard who is obviously better than him just as long as we wouldnt be sacrifising any more than DC, a pick, or cap room. I'll even throw in Tyler for the right man.
                  Thanks to Jim Rome, I think Danny's Bat Cave has done more to promote the team nationally than anything the Pacers marketing dept has accomplished.

                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Really? Give me a break on this, you can't possibly think this was the point being made.


                    The question that was brought up was about the 90's Pacers and how since they never won it all they weren't a good example of how to build an elite team.

                    So stay on point and keep your arguments consistent.

                    1) Danny fits with this squad in a way that Reggie did with his - overall talent balance rather than 1-2 elites leading a rag tag pack of also rans.

                    2) The 90's Pacers were elite because even though they didn't win it all they competed consistently right at the edge of winning it all, moreso than just about any other team not names the Bulls in fact.


                    And since you don't want #2 to be correct because it would then support keeping Danny per #1, you and a few others dismiss the idea of them being elite because they didn't win it all.

                    So I dismissed the idea of Win it all or Fail using two guys who famously didn't win it all several times, but who were kept around rather than traded for "something better" and went on to stop "sucking" simply by "not losing the big game" finally, without actually doing much of anything better than they had in the years they didn't win.


                    YOU DID THE LEBRON=DANNY from that argument, not me. I can't help if you can't follow the basic logic.


                    I'm so tired of people that can't differentiate the comparison of RELATIONSHIPS from the comparison of the examples used to show those relationships.

                    ME: Jordan=basketball as Ruth=Baseball

                    YOU: So you are saying Jordan was as good with the White Sox as Ruth was with the Yanks, that's pathetic. So I guess some minor league baseball games make you Babe Ruth now. Whatever, your talking crazy, and Babe Ruth didn't even play basketball anyway.

                    And we wonder why some of these debates go round and round.
                    The point is that the comparisons you came up with are horrible ones though, you are saying that I would trade Manning or Elway before they won anything because they were "losers", those guys were great, one in a lifetime players, is like having Lebron or Kobe in your team, why would you trade either one of those guys if you know you are not going to get an upgrade? is the same as Utah having Malone/Stockton, who was a better duo than that duo? MJ/Pippen of course.

                    I'm sorry but I don't think Danny is a one in a lifetime type of player, there are like 15 players in the NBA that are better or similar than him, he is not as irreplaceable as many of you think, nobody here is suggesting to trade Danny for a bag of cheetos all people are saying is that if we have a chance to upgrade any position on the team we should at least consider it.

                    Again I've say this before but people seems to ignore it, IF WE COULD KEEP DANNY/PG/HIBBERT and get a huge upgrade at PF/PG I'm all for it, and by "huge" I mean somebody better than Danny because we don't have anybody like that yet.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                      Having a Star player won't do us any good if we start losing after acquiring that player.

                      We're a GOOD team. Once the team start getting more NATIONAL coverage and appear in the playoffs CONSISTENTLY, the attendance will increase.

                      Too many of you want to keeping making these tweaks to what we have because it's not "perfect". At this rate, we'll break what we have, end up as a bottom dweller team, then we'll be using hindsight to say "DAMN! Had we just left it alone....".
                      It absolutely depends on the player and how he fits our team. You have no idea whether we would start losing or not, nobody does. Nobody is talking about tweaking the team just for the sake of tweaking the team. I am talking about getting a difference maker not just any trade. I have a suspicion that we will learn about our team after we get through this very weak part of the schedule and the schedule has a really tough stretch. Our team is not mentally tough enough to withstand adversity. I think that will show if we struggle during that stretch. Once the team starts getting more national coverage and makes the playoffs consistently attendance will increase. When do think we will ever get serious attention without a star player. It doesn't happen. We don't have the kind of time to wait on this. Good players want to play in full houses and on national TV so we could struggle to even keep the players we have. Same old Pacer fan base. Overvaluing the players we have and just happy to be a little above average. If we can land a true point guard that is a very good player and have to give up DC and something to do it, this team will not become a loser, it will improve. It might get some people excited enough to attend games.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by immortality View Post
                        :'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

                        You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.
                        You cannot be serious. Unless we get Lebron for any one of our starters it is not worth considering a trade. Everyone is not saying that is the truth, nobody but you has said that. Everyone does not agree with your logic and I am absolutely sure the Pacers front office does not agree with you. They did not bring Pritchard in here because he thinks like you. They did not free up all this cap space to think like you. We need upgrades at certain positions, that is absolutely obvious. Our bench is not as deep as everyone said, that is obvious. Matter of fact it is very limited. We have no back up center that we can depend on and no point guard that can run a team. So in the playoffs when the game slows down and we have to depend on set offenses good luck. When Hibbert gets in foul trouble good luck. When we get into one of those periods where nobody can hit an outside shot and nobody can create for someone else good luck.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          No your not crazy, in fact you are dead on accurate here.

                          This is what I've been trying to say all season long to the Paul George posse. They compliment each other. Danny is far stronger and far more physical than Paul.
                          They compliment each other defensively yeah, but there's 2 sides of the court. Can anyone explain to me how they compliment each other on the offensive side?

                          I'm still not convinced Paul George's best position on the court is sg. Can someone find me another sg in the league with worse handles than Paul? Do we really want Paul running around pretending to Kobe or Ray? I'm not sure if that's the best way to use him on offense.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                            They compliment each other defensively yeah, but there's 2 sides of the court. Can anyone explain to me how they compliment each other on the offensive side?

                            I'm still not convinced Paul George's best position on the court is sg. Can someone find me another sg in the league with worse handles than Paul? Do we really want Paul running around pretending to Kobe or Ray? I'm not sure if that's the best way to use him on offense.
                            I'll be happy to answer your question if you will answer mine first.

                            What do you consdier the difference between a shooting guard and a small forward?


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

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              I'll be happy to answer your question if you will answer mine first.

                              What do you consdier the difference between a shooting guard and a small forward?
                              I'd say that SF should be alittle thicker. Certainly there are Guards just as tall as SFs but generally the Forwards are a bit thicker.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                                They compliment each other defensively yeah, but there's 2 sides of the court. Can anyone explain to me how they compliment each other on the offensive side?

                                I'm still not convinced Paul George's best position on the court is sg. Can someone find me another sg in the league with worse handles than Paul? Do we really want Paul running around pretending to Kobe or Ray? I'm not sure if that's the best way to use him on offense.
                                I don't think you need PG or Danny to dribble much if you find a good player to play the point, Danny and George are capable of playing off the ball, they could catch and shoot all day if they had somebody that could find them easy shots.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X