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

2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

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

  • #16
    Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

    ...because nobody looks at a shooting guard's blocks per game. Great to have, but that isn't how you judge guards.

    I've already noted George is a very good 1-on-1 defender. One of the best in the whole league.

    However, as you saw in the playoffs, you could drive a truck through the holes in his defense in the 2-man game, or trying to keep up with catch-and-shoot players.

    George's efficiency partly comes from the fact he is a #4 option on a deep starting 5, and he's smart enough to know that.

    As a result, he's mainly a finisher and spot-up shooter, both things he's good at. He also has the luxury of not ever having to create his own offense.

    Quick question: Who's the better offensive player: George or Granger?

    So why is George's eFG% so much better than Granger's? Why is his A/TO better? Why are his shooting numbers so much better?

    I'm not sure why I have to point this out in a Pacers forum, of all places: Paul George was the #4 option on his own team last year. His efficiency numbers are going to be better because he never had to do things he couldn't do, like dribble or pass.

    If you made George the #1 option on last year's pacers team, and made Granger the offensive safety valve, his numbers would plummet. I know it, you know it, even Boomer knows it.

    -very good man to man defender, quality finisher and a good spot shooter.
    -awful PnR defender, shaky off-ball defender, non-existant post game, poor mid-range game, can't dribble or create for others.

    I'm calling George an average at best starting shooting guard right now, because I watched him play a lot last year. Maybe he improves this year, but as of now that's what he is.

    The point of my initial post is that George is too early in his development stage to be considering olympic berths when he can't even be a leader on his own team yet.
    Last edited by Kstat; 08-06-2012, 10:03 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

      To go in a different direction, if Mike K calls it quits, I think Doc Rivers should be the new coach.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        ...because nobody looks at a shooting guard's blocks per game. Great to have, but that isn't how you judge guards.

        I've already noted George is a very good 1-on-1 defender. One of the best in the whole league.

        However, as you saw in the playoffs, you could drive a truck through the holes in his defense in the 2-man game, or trying to keep up with catch-and-shoot players.

        George's efficiency partly comes from the fact he is a #4 option on a deep starting 5, and he's smart enough to know that.

        As a result, he's mainly a finisher and spot-up shooter, both things he's good at. He also has the luxury of not ever having to create his own offense.

        Quick question: Who's the better offensive player: George or Granger?

        So why is George's eFG% so much better than Granger's? Why is his A/TO better? Why are his shooting numbers so much better?

        I'm not sure why I have to point this out in a Pacers forum, of all places: Paul George was the #4 option on his own team last year. His efficiency numbers are going to be better because he never had to do things he couldn't do, like dribble or pass.

        If you made George the #1 option on last year's pacers team, and made Granger the offensive safety valve, his numbers would plummet. I know it, you know it, even Boomer knows it.

        -very good man to man defender, quality finisher and a good spot shooter.
        -awful PnR defender, shaky off-ball defender, non-existant post game, poor mid-range game, can't dribble or create for others.

        I'm calling George an average at best starting shooting guard right now, because I watched him play a lot last year. Maybe he improves this year, but as of now that's what he is.

        The point of my initial post is that George is too early in his development stage to be considering olympic berths when he can't even be a leader on his own team yet.
        I agree with everything you said basically (cept I think PG has a good mid-range game, he just never shoots it because of his role within the offense like you said.) I think if PG was our number 3 option (there's normally a big difference in being 3rd and 4th option on the floor) I think his efficiency is still there. I'd like to argue that he's an above average starter at the 2, but reading that list from earlier, he's about 9th-11th-ish. Lol 15 SG's that are better though?! Ouch Kstat, that's just hurtful.

        Edit: it's FAR too early to try and determine who will be on the 2016 team.

        4 years ago:
        Anthony Davis was a 6'3 guard
        K. Love was about to be a rookie who'd average 11 and 9 and Russel Westbrook 15 and 5
        T. Chandler was barely an above AVG starter on NO who just caught oops from CP3, and protected the rim
        KD had yet to play a game in OKC (he was a rookie in SEATTLE)
        Harden was about to be a junior at ASU..

        My long-winded point was: we have NO idea who will break out within the next 4 years.
        Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 08-06-2012, 10:28 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

          Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post
          Let's say Johnson, Ray Allen, Kobe, Wade, Ellis, Gordon, Harden, Matthews, Ginobili, DeRozan are better (I know some of these can be debated about, just making a point). That would put him in the upper half. It's up to him to improve and make sure he gets in the top 5. Let's hope he will!
          DeRozan is useless.

          that said, my list would be bigger.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

            QUOTE=Kstat;1491033]...because nobody looks at a shooting guard's blocks per game. Great to have, but that isn't how you judge guards.

            I've already noted George is a very good man defender.

            However, as you saw in the playoffs, you could drive a truck through the holes in his defense in the 2-man game, or trying to keep up with catch-and-shoot players.

            George's efficiency partly comes from the fact he is a #4 option on a deep starting 5, and he's smart enough to know that.

            As a result, he's mainly a finisher and spot-up shooter, both things he's good at. He also has the luxury of not ever having to create his own offense.

            Quick question: Who's the better offensive player: George or Granger?

            So why is George's eFG% so much better than Granger's? Why is his A/TO better? Why are his shooting numbers so much better?
            So you're saying because he plays guard we're supposed to dismiss his shot blocking? What about rebounding and steals? Do they impact the game?

            And how does Paul benefit from having a low usage rate? It's not like we have players on our team drawing double teams or creating wide open looks for Paul. I'd argue having less reps makes it harder for him to get into a rhythm offensively. If he had more responsibility he might faster learn how to draw fouls and get to the line more often which would only boost his efficiency ratings.

            Danny never would have been this Danny had he not been forced to be the man beginning his 3rd year. The extra work load didn't lower his efficiency. Why exactly are we supposed to assume Paul's would?

            I'm calling George an average at best starting shooting guard right now, because I watched him play a lot last year. Maybe he improves this year, but as of now that's what he is.
            I'm still waiting for that list...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

              i didn't want to to this, but ah **** it.

              No-brainers:

              Kobe
              Wade
              Joe Johnson
              Harden
              Terry
              Ray Allen
              Ellis
              Manu
              Evans

              debatable but I'd take them over George right now:

              Stuckey
              Afflalo
              Derozen
              EJ

              Ok, so objectively, George would be #14 on my list, just ahead of Tony Allen. I'd still take him over KMart, Mayo, both Crawfords, Matthews, Klay Thompson and Landry Fields.
              Last edited by Kstat; 08-06-2012, 10:32 AM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                [QUOTE]
                Originally posted by ballism View Post
                DeRozan is useless.
                I have Paul ahead of him too.

                that said, my list would be bigger.
                Fair enough... but can you get to a comfortable 15 is the question.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  i didn't want to to this, but ah **** it.

                  No-brainers:

                  Kobe
                  Wade
                  Joe Johnson
                  Harden
                  Terry
                  Allen
                  Ellis
                  Manu
                  Evans

                  debatable but I'd take them over George right now:

                  Stuckey
                  Afflalo
                  Derozen
                  EJ

                  Ok, so objectively, George would be #15 on my list. I'd still take him over KMart, Mayo, both Crawfords, Klay THompson and Landry Fields.
                  I stand corrected.

                  I'd actually place Afflalo in that list of no-brainers. They essentially do the same things, but Afflalo is far more consistent, just less athletic. I know I'm in the minority but I think George is better than the Jet (he offers nothing defensively, and if his J isn't falling, he provides nothing else) PG is better than Derozan. It's debatable with Stucky, but I'd give Stucky an edge right now. So that makes PG 11th-ish. --least in my book.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                    It's hard for me to forget what Jason Terry did in the last few games of last year's finals. Even if he's pretty 1-dimensional, what separates him from other guys like crawford or Mayo is that he makes them when it really counts. I have to respect that.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      i didn't want to to this, but ah **** it.

                      No-brainers:

                      Kobe
                      Wade
                      Joe Johnson
                      Harden
                      Terry
                      Ray Allen
                      Ellis
                      Manu
                      Evans

                      debatable but I'd take them over George right now:

                      Stuckey
                      Afflalo
                      Derozen
                      EJ

                      Ok, so objectively, George would be #14 on my list, just ahead of Tony Allen. I'd still take him over KMart, Mayo, both Crawfords, Matthews, Klay Thompson and Landry Fields.
                      Very debatable list you got there. Including your no brainers. I can see you value offense quite a bit more then defense. To each his own I guess...at least you backed off saying he was below average.

                      I like your list for the most part, but I'd take Derozen out and add in Marcus Thornton.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                        ....I placed several players behind George that are better offensive players. I'm not how you get that from my list.

                        Do I value really elite offensive players? Sure. Just because I would take Ellis over George doesn't mean I value offense more than defense. It's just that Ellis's offense gives him a greater impact on a game than George's defense at the moment.

                        If George was a more complete defensive player, he'd be up in my "no-brainer" group, even with his offensive limitations.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 08-06-2012, 10:51 AM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                          Originally posted by ballism View Post
                          DeRozan is useless.

                          that said, my list would be bigger.
                          Last week I went through and readjusted the ratings for all players on 2K12 projecting for next season... I've got PG down as a 79 to start the year (he finished last season rated 77 by 2K)...

                          SGs

                          1. Kobe 94
                          2. DWade 93
                          3. EGordon 86
                          4. JJohnson 84
                          5. MEllis 83
                          6. JHarden 82
                          7. KMartin 81
                          8. MGinobili 81
                          9. TEvans 80
                          10. PG 79
                          11. OJ Mayo 79
                          12. BRoy 78
                          13. NYoung 78
                          14. LWilliams 78
                          15. DDeRozan 78

                          SFs

                          1. LeBron 98
                          2. Durant 96
                          3. Melo 91
                          4. Iggy 84
                          5. Gay 83
                          6. Danny 82
                          7. GWallace 82
                          8. NBatum 81
                          9. Deng 80
                          10. PPierce 79
                          11. Kidd-Gil****** 79
                          12. DGallinari 78
                          13. WChandler 78
                          14. MBeasley 78
                          15. SMarion/CButler/SJackson 77

                          And yes... I know this list isn't perfect but I think it's pretty close...
                          Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                            Originally posted by J7F View Post
                            Last week I went through and readjusted the ratings for all players on 2K12 projecting for next season... I've got PG down as a 79 to start the year (he finished last season rated 77 by 2K)...

                            SGs

                            1. Kobe 94
                            2. DWade 93
                            3. EGordon 86
                            4. JJohnson 84
                            5. MEllis 83
                            6. JHarden 82
                            7. KMartin 81
                            8. MGinobili 81
                            9. TEvans 80
                            10. PG 79
                            11. OJ Mayo 79
                            12. BRoy 78
                            13. NYoung 78
                            14. LWilliams 78
                            15. DDeRozan 78

                            SFs

                            1. LeBron 98
                            2. Durant 96
                            3. Melo 91
                            4. Iggy 84
                            5. Gay 83
                            6. Danny 82
                            7. GWallace 82
                            8. NBatum 81
                            9. Deng 80
                            10. PPierce 79
                            11. Kidd-Gil****** 79
                            12. DGallinari 78
                            13. WChandler 78
                            14. MBeasley 78
                            15. SMarion/CButler/SJackson 77

                            And yes... I know this list isn't perfect but I think it's pretty close...
                            No Way in he** the truth is below Rudy Gay, DG, Deng, GERALD WALLACE, Nic Batum, and on the same level as Kidd-Gi******. Just no way. It just cant be. Just not possible.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              No Way in he** the truth is below Rudy Gay, DG, Deng, GERALD WALLACE, Nic Batum, and on the same level as Kidd-Gi******. Just no way. It just cant be. Just not possible.
                              I am anticipating him to start next season like he did last year... And he's just another year older now... I'm just projecting... Not stating fact...
                              Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

                                Fair enough... but can you get to a comfortable 15 is the question.
                                probably, he's somewhere right in that middle. do i have to account for health risks? if not, then it depends on preferences and how hard you try.
                                e.g. Thornton is solid, he's a much more versatile offensive player than PG right now, but there's a similar gap defensively.
                                Kobe, Wade, Johnson, Harden, Gordon, Ginobili - tier 1. that's 6.
                                Ellis, Martin, Terry, Afflalo, Tony Allen, Stuckey, Ray Allen - tier 2. that's 13.
                                George, Thornton, Tyreke, Matthews, JRich, Lee, Mayo, Crawford, Lou Williams - that's imo the mid tier, probably forgetting someone. Maybe some of these guys should belong in tier 2. Either way, George is somewhere in the middle.
                                Last edited by ballism; 08-06-2012, 04:06 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X