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

4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 27
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 27 template Next
  • #1

    4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks


    PLUCK THE HAWKS


    -VS-


    Game Time Start: 7:30 PM ET
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: K. Mauer, E. Malloy, S. Wright, G. Zielinski

    Television:
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WCNN 680 AM, 93.7 FM
    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Atlanta Notes
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you


    1
    50-32
    Home: 31-11
    0
    44-38
    Away: 19-22
    Apr 27
    Apr 29
    May 01
    May 03
    7:00pm
    7:30pm
    TBD
    TBD
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    HORFORD
    SMITH
    KORVER
    HARRIS
    TEAGUE


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee surgery (out)



    HAWKS
    Zaza Pachulia - sore right Achilles (out)
    Josh Smith - sprained right ankle (probable)
    Lou Williams - torn ACL, right knee (out)




    Jared Wade: The Paul George Triple-Double Game

    Paul George probably just played the best playoff game of his career while missing 10
    of the 13 shots he took. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to convince people that shot-
    making and playing great are two different things, but nothing I have ever written can
    show that as well as George’s did today.

    He was brilliant. It wasn’t just the numbers: 23 points, 12 assists, 11 rebounds, 18 free-
    throw attempts.

    It was the approach.

    He was such a joy to watch because he was aggressive while still letting the game come
    to him.

    Wait. What?

    That seems contradictory, but for George those two outlooks are one in the same.

    Tim Donahue, the other editor of this site and a guy who has spent a lot more time
    around these players than I have, has been struck by how Paul George discusses his
    approach to the game. Earlier in the season, when he first started to rise to another
    level of play, George would often say that he was trying to be more aggressive while
    still letting the game come to him. Then he would just sort of laugh to himself, knowing
    how silly that sentence sounds. But he just had no other way to describe what he was
    trying to do.

    This game was that.

    He was super aggressive at the times when he should be aggressive. See, if Larry Drew
    is going to put Kyle Korver on Paul George then Paul George should drive by him every
    time he catches the ball. Finding himself in that matchup and then being super aggressive
    when he has Korver on an island is letting the game come to him.

    But the most important part is that, even when the game came to him and whispered in
    his ear, “pssst... just go right by this slow-footed offense-only player,” he did not force
    the issue.

    George wasn’t bulldozing his way into the lane and throwing up low-percentage attempts
    just because he got into the paint. He has done that in the past. A ton of NBA players do
    it. There seems to be an entitlement factor to it. It’s as if the player thinks they have
    earned the shot attempt — the opportunity to put an extra 2 points in their personal stat
    column — because they made a nice move to get into the lane. It isn’t so different from
    the big man who will get an offensive board and then toss some lackluster shot towards
    the rim, thinking that “Hey, I earned this extra possession — I’m going to use it.”

    In the regular season, George would fall into that trap a little bit. He didn’t seem to be
    simply trying to score just for his own personal desires, he just seemed like an
    inexperienced penetrator. He legitimately just hadn’t been in the situation enough where
    he was moving forward with the ball and sort of open but not really. So he would take a
    little dippy do fling towards the rim.

    Today, he did none of that. He was a dart to the rim when he went. And when he was
    cut off mid-drive, he dished it to an open teammate.

    It was a beautiful approach to behold...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Jason Walker: Larry Drew voluntarily fouled out Al Horford in Game 1

    Al Horford played 28 minutes in a playoff game that the Atlanta Hawks could have won,
    but didn't. Something has to change.

    In the second quarter of Game 1 in the case of Atlanta Hawks v. Indiana Pacers, Al
    Horford jumped to catch a pass over Lance Stephenson, snagged it and spun to the hoop
    to jam it home, screaming with power as he completed the sequence.

    It was Horford's fourth basket in two and a half minutes of game play and the Hawks
    had narrowed the host Pacers' lead to five points. Momentum was shifting. All four of
    Horford's baskets came within five feet of the hoop, gashing the Pacers huge front line
    with his ability to take the slower Pacers off the dribble.

    The Hawks best player and the heart of the team was rolling and the rest of the Hawks
    was coming back behind him.

    30 seconds later, with 5:29 left in the first half, Stephenson would put himself in the
    path of a transitioning Horford around midcourt in an effort to slow the Hawks big man
    down. Horford would put his arm on the Pacer wingman and then Stephenson flailed
    wildly, enticing referee David Jones to call an offensive foul away from the ball.

    It shouldn't have been a foul. I certainly shouldn't have cost Al Horford the rest of the
    half, but that's what it did.

    It was Horford's second personal foul and Larry Drew decided the risk of Horford
    picking up a third foul in the first half was too great to his team's success and he
    benched him for the rest of the half.

    Oh, the fallacies of such fraidy-cat strategery.

    Some might say that, score-wise, it wasn't a big deal. Horford left down seven and
    the Hawks ended the half down eight. I counter by asking would the Hawks have
    been in an even better position with their best player on the floor instead? Horford
    was dominating out there and Drew acted as if nothing was happening.

    As the second half played, despite the extended rest his big man had received
    thanks to such a careful foul accrual policy, Drew didn't change his substitution
    pattern at all for Horford. Horford came out with almost four minutes left to play
    in the quarter and only three personal fouls and the team down 14 points -- as if
    this were a regular season game in December instead of Game One of a playoff
    series.

    Drew continued to keep his best defender and rebounder on the bench despite being
    down and needing defense and easier baskets inside. As the fourth quarter began,
    Horford had played only 22 minutes to that point. To play him the entire quarter
    would have meant at total of 34 minutes. Still, Drew kept Horford seated with his
    seat belt securely fastened and his tray table in the upright position until there was
    six and a half minutes left in the game.

    The game was lost...CONTINUE READING AT PEACHTREE HOOPS

    Kelly Dwyer: Pacers grab series lead as Paul George notches a triple-double

    Just three years removed from the since-vetted scout hype that labeled him as perhaps
    the finest product in the 2010 NBA draft    , Indiana Pacers All-Star Paul George used his
    significant all-around gifts to lead his squad to a 1-0 advantage in his team’s first-round
    series with the Atlanta Hawks. The Pacer swingman notched a triple-double (23 points,
    11 rebounds and 12 assists) in the 107-90 Game 1 win, Indiana’s first postseason trip-
    dub since current Golden State Warriors coach Mark Jackson notched one nearly 15
    years ago    , while providing the needed spark in an odd game that Atlanta just didn’t
    seem up for.

    The Pacers struggle offensively, ranking 20th out of 30 NBA teams in offensive efficiency
    during the regular season (the second-lowest mark amongst the 16 playoff squads), but
    Atlanta’s defense allowed quick hits and good positioning in both the first and third
    quarters as the Pacers compiled a surprising 60 points during that combined turn. The
    Hawks also were a step slow on their rotations, leading to a series of hacks around the
    basket that allowed Indiana to take 34 free throws in the win, a huge boon to a Pacer
    team that struggles to top 80 points on some nights.

    Worst of all was the malaise that the Hawks seemed to be working through. Larry
    Drew’s team did well to start with an inside-out attack early on, a surprising sight
    considering that Atlanta started two point guards in Jeff Teague and Devin Harris, but by
    the second half the Hawks just weren’t up to trying to counter Indiana’s significant
    defensive pressure.

    And nothing typified this more than George’s play, when Indiana’s actual plays broke
    down.

    Pacer scoring swingman Danny Granger’s absence remains an under-reported story in
    this postseason, mainly because George doesn’t really offer the same sort of production
    that Granger came through with for years. PG just doesn’t work as an easily identifiable
    replacement, which could be a blessing in disguise for both players, considering their
    differences. Paul George is an athlete, and Danny Granger tends to take what the
    defense gives him. George is an iffy shooter from the field, while Granger often looks
    smooth as silk from long range. Granger turned the ball over once a month, while
    George turned it over on 15 percent of the possessions he used this regular season.

    George is a brilliant defender...CONTINUE READING AT BALL DON'T LIE

    Zach Lowe: Playoffs Winners and Losers - The First 3 Days

    After an all-chalk weekend, we look at the rise of Paul George, the importance of
    shooters, and Chris Paul's clutch play

    We're 10 games into the NBA playoffs, and home teams are already 9-1. There's still
    plenty of time for drama, with six teams trying to tie their series at 1-1 and the feisty
    Grizzlies heading home with a real chance to get back into things against the Clippers.
    Let's pause, step back, and take a look at the early winners and losers from the first
    three days of the NBA's postseason.

    Winner: Paul George, Modern Superstar

    George is growing into the kind of star who can thrive in a league of smarter defenses
    that clog the lane     and make it difficult for any player, even a superstar, to hold the
    ball up top and go one-on-one to the rim — or even to get there via a slow-developing
    pick-and-roll. George minimizes his dribbles, choosing instead to fly off one screen,
    catch the ball up high, and then take one dribble directly into another screen for a fast-
    moving pick-and-roll. He can post up, survey the encroaching defense, and make the
    correct pass:


    He rarely forces the issue off the dribble, in part because he tried to do so early in the
    season and found himself coughing up a heap of turnovers while attempting to navigate
    defenses loading up against his dribble penetration. About a month into the season,
    Frank Vogel placed a blanket prohibition on George trying to split defenders, Dwyane
    Wade–style, on the pick-and-roll, and then worked hard to vary the way George got
    his touches.

    A national audience got to see George's maturity in full bloom on Sunday. He attacked
    judiciously, even against an overmatched defender in Kyle Korver, catching the ball on
    the move for quick-hitting pick-and-rolls and going one-on-one only when the defense
    wasn't quite prepared...CONTINUE READING AT GRANTLAND




    Pacers
    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows


    Hawks
    Chris Vivlamore @ajchawks
    Co Co @cocoqt81
    Jason Walker @JasonWalkerSBN
    Kris Willis @Kris_Willis
    This is the darkest timeline.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Absolutely hilarious to me that Korver is starting again.


    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Absolutely hilarious to me that Korver is starting again.
      Whaaaa?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Absolutely hilarious to me that Korver is starting again.
        Their coach makes me appreciate Vogel more everyday.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Absolutely hilarious to me that Korver is starting again.
          Who would be a better option at this point? Stevenson maybe, but I think they need Korver's shooting to open up things inside for them.

          After having to miss game 1 due to work, in excited to be at game 2. Booing Korver and loudly berating him for his awful defense will only make my experience more fun.

          Comment

          • #6
            ,1 hour to Indy

            Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Absolutely hilarious to me that Korver is starting again.
              Attached Files

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                Who would be a better option at this point? Stevenson maybe, but I think they need Korver's shooting to open up things inside for them.

                After having to miss game 1 due to work, in excited to be at game 2. Booing Korver and loudly berating him for his awful defense will only make my experience more fun.
                DJ should be the better option to guard PG or Lance.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                  I'll be missing the game from being at school studying fml

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                    Originally posted by DJVendetta View Post
                    I'll be missing the game from being at school studying fml


                    STUDYING? During the PLAYOFFS???
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                      Does anyone know if anyone is picking this up locally? Or is it purely on NBATV?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                        These early games are tough for West Coast Pacers fans (with jobs). I can either skip meetings, sneak out early, or hope to catch them later on DVR while going into a spoilerfree bubble.

                        I don't think any of those are an option today, so I hope this is the most boring blowout Pacer win of the year. I look silly fist pumping to a box score on my phone while in an ecommerce infrastructure meeting.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                          Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                          Does anyone know if anyone is picking this up locally? Or is it purely on NBATV?
                          Pacers.com lists it being on FSI as well as NBATV
                          Super Bowl XLI Champions
                          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Who would be a better option at this point? Stevenson maybe, but I think they need Korver's shooting to open up things inside for them.

                            After having to miss game 1 due to work, in excited to be at game 2. Booing Korver and loudly berating him for his awful defense will only make my experience more fun.
                            The best option is going big up front with Ivan Johnson/Horford/Smith/Harris/Teague.
                            Pacers,baby!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: 4/24/2013 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                              Im also expecting Ivan Johnsons mins to go up. he was like the only guy to grab offensive rebounds against us last game. from what ive seen hes pretty good in the minutes he get.

                              LETS GO PACERS!!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 27 template Next
                              Working...
                              X