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

Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

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

  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
    Do you think it is possible you have fallen victim to the "what have you done for me lately?" syndrome?
    More like "what kind of surgery have you got done on your knees lately"? you guys need to stop acting like last year didn't happen and that Danny was sleeping for a year ala "Demolition Man".

    Was Frank Vogel overrating Granger when he designed his smash mouth offense because it fit his personnel, including their best player and top scorer Danny Granger?
    Vogel didn't design his offense around Granger not sure were you got that from, I'm not even going to comment on the "smash mouth" crap.

    Was Larry Bird overrating Granger when he repeatedly refused to trade him despite rumors flying around constantly?
    YES, not trading him is biting the Pacers in the a**, paying 14mil a year for a cheerleader is a huge mistake, the Pacers probably win a championship if they could have got somebody good for that kind of money and nope I don't give a crap about his "leadership and soul"(if you are going to argue that his "leadership and soul are worth 14mil")

    Was Donnie Walsh overrating Granger when given the opportunity to trade him he did not?
    Yes he was overrating him just the same way he overrated Artest, Tinsley, JO and many others.
    Last edited by vnzla81; 09-21-2013, 09:42 PM.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

      Training camp in nine days!

      Comment


      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

        I just have to say that Lance is not infallible. Game one of the Heat ECF in overtime he messed up twice. Big time.

        First the Pacers could have gone up 4 with a little over two minutes when West short arms it. If West hits that then it doesn't matter, but Lance is pumping his fist instead of getting back as the safety in out transition defense.

        Second we are up 3 and David West gets the ball on the pin down. The Heat is caught doubling and shifting and Lance moves correctly to the extended elbow 3 and fires it right away. He should have driven it in and hit the open mid range at worst. Not the sweeping curling shot that is not his shot.

        A more mature Lance should look at the film and adjust his play. He doesn't have to hit that three. But he does have to play the transition.

        That was a huge swing. And we all know that Hibbert being taken out and George over pursuing was the nail.

        But West going 0-2 for the field and 0-2 from the line hurt. These were young players and a young coach mistake.

        Comment


        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
          I just have to say that Lance is not infallible. Game one of the Heat ECF in overtime he messed up twice. Big time.

          First the Pacers could have gone up 4 with a little over two minutes when West short arms it. If West hits that then it doesn't matter, but Lance is pumping his fist instead of getting back as the safety in out transition defense.

          Second we are up 3 and David West gets the ball on the pin down. The Heat is caught doubling and shifting and Lance moves correctly to the extended elbow 3 and fires it right away. He should have driven it in and hit the open mid range at worst. Not the sweeping curling shot that is not his shot.

          A more mature Lance should look at the film and adjust his play. He doesn't have to hit that three. But he does have to play the transition.

          That was a huge swing. And we all know that Hibbert being taken out and George over pursuing was the nail.

          But West going 0-2 for the field and 0-2 from the line hurt. These were young players and a young coach mistake.

          Hmmmm.

          I'd say Hill and West made a lot more mistakes in that stretch than Lance.

          And why did you make me watch those last 24 seconds where Lebron TWICE gets a layup because Vogel benched Roy?

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

          Comment


          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            More like "what kind of surgery have you got done on your knees lately"? you guys need to stop acting like last year didn't happen and that Danny was sleeping for a year ala "Demolition Man".

            Vogel didn't design his offense around Granger not sure were you got that from, I'm not even going to comment on the "smash mouth" crap.

            YES, not trading him is biting the Pacers in the a**, paying 14mil a year for a cheerleader is a huge mistake, the Pacers probably win a championship if they could have got somebody good for that kind of money and nope I don't give a crap about his "leadership and soul"(if you are going to argue that his "leadership and soul are worth 14mil")

            Yes he was overrating him just the same way he overrated Artest, Tinsley, JO and many others.
            It's not "acting like last year didn't happen," it's "inability to have an actual conversation without assuming that a person will be better than a stationary object."

            Vogel didn't design his offense around Granger? He didn't design a 3-pt heavy inside-out post-up offense around a SF whose best skills are shooting the 3, posting up smallers SFs? Who received more FGA's than any other player, often when his shot still wasn't falling?

            The Pacers went to game 7 of the Eastern conference finals. Which means only two teams (the grizzlies got swept) advanced farther than the Pacers in the entire league. Cost them a championship? Possible but if Granger hadn't been injured and had played and we lost to the Heat in 7 games I'm sure you would have blamed the loss on Granger's shot selection anyway. And who could we have traded an injured Granger for that would have put us over the hump for beating both the Heat and the Spurs? (Or is this where you say you saw the signs and knew this was coming all along and they should have traded Granger years ago because injuries are a certainty?"
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              It's not "acting like last year didn't happen," it's "inability to have an actual conversation without assuming that a person will be better than a stationary object."
              We got to see him for 5 games last year so is not like we didn't see how bad he looked, I mean even Young was better than him.

              Vogel didn't design his offense around Granger? He didn't design a 3-pt heavy inside-out post-up offense around a SF whose best skills are shooting the 3, posting up smallers SFs? Who received more FGA's than any other player, often when his shot still wasn't falling?
              JOB designed his offense around Granger Vogel didn't not sure were you are getting this myth from? if anything Vogel gave more power to Roy and the other guys.

              The Pacers went to game 7 of the Eastern conference finals. Which means only two teams (the grizzlies got swept) advanced farther than the Pacers in the entire league. Cost them a championship? Possible but if Granger hadn't been injured and had played and we lost to the Heat in 7 games I'm sure you would have blamed the loss on Granger's shot selection anyway. And who could we have traded an injured Granger for that would have put us over the hump for beating both the Heat and the Spurs? (Or is this where you say you saw the signs and knew this was coming all along and they should have traded Granger years ago because injuries are a certainty?"
              Yep anybody with a brain knew the writing was on the wall regarding his knees, all the signs were there just some people didn't want to see them.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                We got to see him for 5 games last year so is not like we didn't see how bad he looked, I mean even Young was better than him.
                Who's living in the past now? You think with a surgery and 6 months of rehab he will be no better off than when he played last season? Plus, I don't think that invalidates my point. You have to start a comparison from somewhere, and you can't make any comparison with an injured guy. If he plays like he did then, it's because he is still injured and the minutes (and the contract) will go to Lance.

                JOB designed his offense around Granger Vogel didn't not sure were you are getting this myth from? if anything Vogel gave more power to Roy and the other guys.
                We went from a top 10 offense efficiency-wise two seasons ago to dead last through the first month+ of last season. If nothing else, that at least says that Granger was an important, central part of what we did. There was an interview where Vogel mentioned that they were having a hard time adapting without him somewhat near the beginning of last season because the offense was based on Granger, but I don't remember his exact wording and I can't find the interview.

                Yep anybody with a brain knew the writing was on the wall regarding his knees, all the signs were there just some people didn't want to see them.
                Do you have a notepad file with your favorite baits stored in them so you don't have to worry about typing them out?

                Bottom line, there's no certainty Granger will get back to his former self or even a shell. There's no certainty he won't either. If that happens I believe his skillset is more important than Lance's at this time for our team.
                Last edited by aamcguy; 09-21-2013, 11:17 PM.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Yep anybody with a brain knew the writing was on the wall regarding his knees, all the signs were there just some people didn't want to see them.
                  Find me a time (before last year's preseason) when you predicted knee problems for Danny. I've challenged you on this twice (after which you put me on ignore) so this really isn't for your benefit as much as the other people reading.

                  Your beef with Danny has been consistent, but the knee injury thing is a recent addition. Go back and find all of the conversations where you wished we could trade Danny for Monta Ellis and find one time where you said "Plus, we should trade him because he's gonna have bad knees."

                  This post hoc propter hoc stuff is ridiculous. If anyone with a brain knew the writing was on the wall, why did you miss it?
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                    If that happens I believe his skillset is more important than Lance's at this time for our team.
                    This is the core of our disagreement. The fact is, we could use a better perimeter shooter with the starting unit. I get that. You get that. Not a single person in this thread wouldn't or shouldn't agree with it. But there is more to the game than shooting the basketball.

                    The starting unit also needs better ball movement. As good as Hill is, he is not a pass first PG. Last year, Lance was already pretty good at delivering the ball to guys in scoring position...far better than anyone on the team. He is bound to get better at that.

                    The starting unit also needs better ball penetration. Lance has the ability to dribble the basketball without putting his head down and steamrolling like Granger. He is a serious threat and puts a lot of pressure on the interior defense. He will only get better at that.

                    The starting unit could use better rebounding. People, Lance is breaking out before your eyes and some don't recognize it. He is a big, aggressive guard with long and strong arms...who goes after rebounds. Then you have Paul, a SF, who racks up boards too...and pulling him out to the perimeter to play an unnatural position is going to hurt his ability to rebound.

                    The starting unit needs to retain its defense. It's not just about the fact Lance/Paul defends the wing better than Paul/Danny. It's that pulling Paul out to the perimeter prevents him from helping on D. Roy is left more vulnerable to fouling because Granger isn't going to be nearly quick enough to move into position to help stop penetration.

                    Look, I understand there's a lot to chew on. But people need to get this straight in their heads. The starting unit doesn't need to change. It just needs more time to develop. Paul, Roy, Hill and Lance should all be a little better next year. Just add Granger, Copeland, Scola and Watson to the bench and watch this team get much better. We can use Danny. He can play a lot of minutes off the bench and when match ups are favorable. We can use his shooting. But with that knee being an unknown all year, why risk him going down and hurting our starting units development? He's a great shooter. We all know that. But it is not the right decision to change this starting unit.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      As good as Hill is, he is not a pass first PG. Last year, Lance was already pretty good at delivering the ball to guys in scoring position...far better than anyone on the team. He is bound to get better at that.

                      The starting unit also needs better ball penetration. Lance has the ability to dribble the basketball without putting his head down and steamrolling like Granger. He is a serious threat and puts a lot of pressure on the interior defense. He will only get better at that.
                      It was not uncommon last year for Vogel to put the ball in Lance's hands at the end of games. Hill does pretty well, but when defenses really clamp down at the end, he struggles, but Lance can handle it.

                      We will be missing that option next year if Lance does not finish games.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        This is the core of our disagreement. The fact is, we could use a better perimeter shooter with the starting unit. I get that. You get that. Not a single person in this thread wouldn't or shouldn't agree with it. But there is more to the game than shooting the basketball.

                        The starting unit also needs better ball movement. As good as Hill is, he is not a pass first PG. Last year, Lance was already pretty good at delivering the ball to guys in scoring position...far better than anyone on the team. He is bound to get better at that.

                        The starting unit also needs better ball penetration. Lance has the ability to dribble the basketball without putting his head down and steamrolling like Granger. He is a serious threat and puts a lot of pressure on the interior defense. He will only get better at that.

                        The starting unit could use better rebounding. People, Lance is breaking out before your eyes and some don't recognize it. He is a big, aggressive guard with long and strong arms...who goes after rebounds. Then you have Paul, a SF, who racks up boards too...and pulling him out to the perimeter to play an unnatural position is going to hurt his ability to rebound.

                        The starting unit needs to retain its defense. It's not just about the fact Lance/Paul defends the wing better than Paul/Danny. It's that pulling Paul out to the perimeter prevents him from helping on D. Roy is left more vulnerable to fouling because Granger isn't going to be nearly quick enough to move into position to help stop penetration.

                        Look, I understand there's a lot to chew on. But people need to get this straight in their heads. The starting unit doesn't need to change. It just needs more time to develop. Paul, Roy, Hill and Lance should all be a little better next year. Just add Granger, Copeland, Scola and Watson to the bench and watch this team get much better. We can use Danny. He can play a lot of minutes off the bench and when match ups are favorable. We can use his shooting. But with that knee being an unknown all year, why risk him going down and hurting our starting units development? He's a great shooter. We all know that. But it is not the right decision to change this starting unit.
                        Agreed here. It's kinda odd for me when I see people think the Pacers need to change their starting lineup. I think if they (let's say it again) were one game away from the finals with that great defensive starting lineup, why would you want to change it up without knowing what's going to happen? Nothing wrong with relying on the perimeter shooter(s) to come off of the bench. The starting unit is so great that to change it up would be somewhat silly (based on a Danny vs. Lance argument). I can't blame someone for wanting more firepower...but when people mention that, I don't think they realize what it could do to the defensive, old-school, "smash-mouth" mentality that the starting lineup has.

                        If it's not broke, don't fix it. I certainly wouldn't say the starting line-up is broke. Don't fix it. The bench last year was dead broke...hopefully Danny, Scola, Watson & Co. can fix it.
                        "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          This is the core of our disagreement. The fact is, we could use a better perimeter shooter with the starting unit. I get that. You get that. Not a single person in this thread wouldn't or shouldn't agree with it. But there is more to the game than shooting the basketball.

                          The starting unit also needs better ball movement. As good as Hill is, he is not a pass first PG. Last year, Lance was already pretty good at delivering the ball to guys in scoring position...far better than anyone on the team. He is bound to get better at that.

                          The starting unit also needs better ball penetration. Lance has the ability to dribble the basketball without putting his head down and steamrolling like Granger. He is a serious threat and puts a lot of pressure on the interior defense. He will only get better at that.

                          The starting unit could use better rebounding. People, Lance is breaking out before your eyes and some don't recognize it. He is a big, aggressive guard with long and strong arms...who goes after rebounds. Then you have Paul, a SF, who racks up boards too...and pulling him out to the perimeter to play an unnatural position is going to hurt his ability to rebound.

                          The starting unit needs to retain its defense. It's not just about the fact Lance/Paul defends the wing better than Paul/Danny. It's that pulling Paul out to the perimeter prevents him from helping on D. Roy is left more vulnerable to fouling because Granger isn't going to be nearly quick enough to move into position to help stop penetration.

                          Look, I understand there's a lot to chew on. But people need to get this straight in their heads. The starting unit doesn't need to change. It just needs more time to develop. Paul, Roy, Hill and Lance should all be a little better next year. Just add Granger, Copeland, Scola and Watson to the bench and watch this team get much better. We can use Danny. He can play a lot of minutes off the bench and when match ups are favorable. We can use his shooting. But with that knee being an unknown all year, why risk him going down and hurting our starting units development? He's a great shooter. We all know that. But it is not the right decision to change this starting unit.
                          I thought you were intentionally creating a straw man of Granger where his only useful skill is shooting the ball, but based on this thread I think you may have actually forgotten how Granger plays the game. He doesn't "put his head down and steamroll." In fact, he's more likely to shoot a pullup or a little turnaround hook than he is to try to go through his man. He draws fouls because he executes his moves with his man on his back hip so his only options become letting Granger to shoot relatively unhindered or fouling.

                          The starting unit doesn't really need ball movement, we have better than average passers at every spot but point guard (and wing if Danny is in), but they aren't atrocious passers. They're both about average for their positions. It is true Hill is not a pass-first point guard, but he was not signed to be one. Since we're on the subject, Lance isn't pass first either. What Hill does is run the offense well without turning it over. We don't find shooters on drive-and-kick situations as much because we've always got a big or two playing the post. We pass the ball inside and the receiver then looks to score or passes it back out. That's OUR form of penetration. Also Hill is the ONLY player on our team who handled pressure well. In fact, he's one of the least turnover prone players in the league.

                          And if you're looking for Lance to have the ball in his hands more, why do you want him in a lineup where the ball is going to be in the hands of Hill and Paul George more often? He's not going to get precedence over those two. If you're imagining a LeBron/Wade dynamic where Paul and Lance take turns working isolated PnR action or running 4 out, 1 in sets you are mistaken. That's not our style of offense, and George/Lance aren't good enough to pull it off right now. In our offense, if Lance plays with Hill and Paul George his job is to stand in the corner.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            It was not uncommon last year for Vogel to put the ball in Lance's hands at the end of games. Hill does pretty well, but when defenses really clamp down at the end, he struggles, but Lance can handle it.

                            We will be missing that option next year if Lance does not finish games.
                            Am I the only one who does not recall Vogel 'commonly' putting the ball in the Lance's hands at the end of games?

                            The guy I recall typically getting it was David.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Find me a time (before last year's preseason) when you predicted knee problems for Danny. I've challenged you on this twice (after which you put me on ignore) so this really isn't for your benefit as much as the other people reading.

                              Your beef with Danny has been consistent, but the knee injury thing is a recent addition. Go back and find all of the conversations where you wished we could trade Danny for Monta Ellis and find one time where you said "Plus, we should trade him because he's gonna have bad knees."

                              This post hoc propter hoc stuff is ridiculous. If anyone with a brain knew the writing was on the wall, why did you miss it?
                              I would be curious to know if he, or anybody else for that matter, was talking about the writing on the wall regarding Danny and his knees prior to last preseason.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                                Originally posted by RobRoy317 View Post
                                Agreed here. It's kinda odd for me when I see people think the Pacers need to change their starting lineup. I think if they (let's say it again) were one game away from the finals with that great defensive starting lineup, why would you want to change it up without knowing what's going to happen? Nothing wrong with relying on the perimeter shooter(s) to come off of the bench. The starting unit is so great that to change it up would be somewhat silly (based on a Danny vs. Lance argument). I can't blame someone for wanting more firepower...but when people mention that, I don't think they realize what it could do to the defensive, old-school, "smash-mouth" mentality that the starting lineup has.

                                If it's not broke, don't fix it. I certainly wouldn't say the starting line-up is broke. Don't fix it. The bench last year was dead broke...hopefully Danny, Scola, Watson & Co. can fix it.
                                Do you think Granger will play defense with the mentality of a ballet dancer? The defense didn't improve because Granger left and Lance came in. In fact, our lineup with Gerald Green starting was better than our defense last season. I'm sure you would agree it wasn't because of anything special Green did on defense. It's the other 4 guys who improved both on individual and team defense. The defense will be terrific as long as we have Hibbert back there, or at least Paul George and a rim protector.

                                "If it's not broke, don't fix it" is the rallying card for mediocrity everywhere. At what point does something become "not broke?" It's completely subjective and when you're talking about team sports there are too many variables to think in terms of "broke" or "not broke." Plus, anybody who says our team doesn't need to be "fixed" is really using it as a blanket excuse because the proposed alternative isn't quite good enough to override the rule. If OKC called and offered Kevin Durant for David West and Lance, that would be a major shakeup of our lineup which "isn't broke." But it probably becomes an "exception" that's good enough to ignore the rule. With that trade, we would then be "fixing" what was "not broke." It's hypothetical, sure, but so is plugging Granger into the lineup with their current skills.

                                It's not about fixing anything, it's about improving.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X