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

Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

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

  • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    You are still not proving anything, the fact is that Rashard Lewis has accomplished more things in the NBA than DG.
    How has he accomplished more than DG? He went to the finals once carried by Dwight and the KG was injured during their run. In that finals run they got demolished as he could not hit any threes. After that he did nothing, and is now a ring-chaser. He barely played for the Heat when it mattered. A player being payed 20 million a year should not be the 4th option on a contending team. I don't really understand your point, are you saying after 4 preseason games, DG should retire from the NBA, just because he looked bad? Man the entire Pacers team should retire because everyone has looked out of form in the preseason.

    I could care less who starts, as long as we win games, we have the option of starting one or another depending on the matchups

    Comment


    • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      Nope I think he is going to get better I just don't think he is going to be good enough to be the second option or even the 4th option, I also don't think he is going to be good enough to start, or be back to be an all star or the Pippen to Jordan or any of the other dreams some of you guys are talking about.

      I think Danny is a role player from now on(2013), I think he could be our Rashard Lewis/Mike Miller type of player(in Miami) not a
      bad thing to have but I see that anybody that suggest that is pretty much trashing Danny and want him dead.

      And I'm sorry to disagree but yeah he has looked really bad in preseason against a lot of garbage players too, I expected him to look bad but not this bad.
      People tend to think that you're bashing a player when you argue that

      1) The player will be constantly aggravating an injury
      2) Even if he doesn't aggrave it, he still isn't good enough

      and when you've been saying that he should be traded because you don't think he's very good for years prior.

      The Manilla game is on youtube. I'm watching the second quarter right now and in the last 5 minutes he's made two athletic drive and wrap-around passes, hit a nice jumper off of a screen, and I just saw him dig down and help on a post up but get back out to the perimeter in time to contest the 3 pointer.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        *Peeks into this thread to see if it hasn't devolved into usual Danny thread, sees that it has, sighs and leaves*
        Unfortunately it's not going to change until The season begins...and even then the pre-determined ideas and thoughts of both players will probably continue.

        Comment


        • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          People tend to think that you're bashing a player when you argue that

          1) The player will be constantly aggravating an injury
          Well he has a degenerative injury in his knee that is never going to heal(according to many doctors) and him not playing in preseason anymore because he is injured is making my point right?

          2) Even if he doesn't aggrave it, he still isn't good enough
          Not anymore.

          and when you've been saying that he should be traded because you don't think he's very good for years prior.
          I wanted him traded because I saw him declining every year and because I was worried about him losing trade value if the teams draft predictions came true, I guess we know the answer to that.

          The Manilla game is on youtube. I'm watching the second quarter right now and in the last 5 minutes he's made two athletic drive and wrap-around passes, hit a nice jumper off of a screen, and I just saw him dig down and help on a post up but get back out to the perimeter in time to contest the 3 pointer.
          Yep he looked decent at times I even said it on the game thread, that doesn't mean that I didn't get to see the bad either, I mean even Copeland had his moments lol
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Well he has a degenerative injury in his knee that is never going to heal(according to many doctors) and him not playing in preseason anymore because he is injured is making my point right?



            Not anymore.



            I wanted him traded because I saw him declining every year and because I was worried about him losing trade value if the teams draft predictions came true, I guess we know the answer to that.



            Yep he looked decent at times I even said it on the game thread, that doesn't mean that I didn't get to see the bad either, I mean even Copeland had his moments lol
            My one caveat with this post is that he is sitting out as a precautionary measure for a separate injury than the one he missed the season with. It is probably not completely independent of his knee injury, but one that is much more easily treated.

            Other than that, you agreed with everything I said with the exception of qualifying the one positive comment I had with a negative. If you wanted, for everybody but LeBron you could make a strong case against any player in the NBA that they are a bad player based solely upon what they cannot do if you ignore the positives in your assessment.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              My one caveat with this post is that he is sitting out as a precautionary measure for a separate injury than the one he missed the season with. It is probably not completely independent of his knee injury, but one that is much more easily treated.
              He is sitting because he is injured and sure we don't know if that is related to his knee or not.

              Other than that, you agreed with everything I said with the exception of qualifying the one positive comment I had with a negative. If you wanted, for everybody but LeBron you could make a strong case against any player in the NBA that they are a bad player based solely upon what they cannot do if you ignore the positives in your assessment.
              Well if I was evaluating the 12th man on the team I wouldn't be as critical but we are talking about a player that guys like Eleazar think he can be the number one option and not worse than the 2nd option, you guys also love to talk about his offense but nobody talks about the other parts of the game, somebody even said that his "team defense" was great, if there is something I've learned in PD is that when somebody says that a player plays good "team defense" that means that that player is just not that good on defense(see Dunleavy and Murphy).
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                I didn't know all those guys were out for the season and had knee surgeries thanks for letting me know that ....
                Oh, wait, I'm so shocked: You're changing the parameters of the discussion because the narrative no longer works.

                So, now we're supposed to make judgments based of incredibly small sample sizes only in the case of players coming off of injury?

                Ok. This is like the kid that refuses to acknowledge a good counterpoint...in a few days, you're going to say: "Sure, look only at a small handful of games if the guy is coming off of knee surgery and played college ball in New Mexico and is considered a 3 point shooting specialist that once had his teeth knocked out and is from New Orleans."

                Keep changing the criteria to support the narrative.

                Comment


                • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                  Originally posted by Derek2k3 View Post
                  Oh, wait, I'm so shocked: You're changing the parameters of the discussion because the narrative no longer works.

                  So, now we're supposed to make judgments based of incredibly small sample sizes only in the case of players coming off of injury?

                  Ok. This is like the kid that refuses to acknowledge a good counterpoint...in a few days, you're going to say: "Sure, look only at a small handful of games if the guy is coming off of knee surgery and played college ball in New Mexico and is considered a 3 point shooting specialist that once had his teeth knocked out and is from New Orleans."

                  Keep changing the criteria to support the narrative.
                  Well I'm not the one putting my head in the sand acting like 12/13 didn't happen, I'm glad we didn't sign Oden or some of you would be telling me about his numbers of 3 years ago ignoring the years he was off(no comparing DG to Oden so stop it)

                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                    I was actually much higher on Lance last year than most were and was arguing for people to not give up on him. And I don't know what you mean by "integral" part of the team, but he was easily the fifth most important starter on our team and pretty much gave us a very average player's production at the spot. He did rebound extremely well in the playoffs against three small ball teams and changed the dynamic of a few games, but so did all of the other starters. He also lost efficiency dramatically as his USG rate increased.
                    We're not making it to game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals without Lance Stephenson. He wasn't just along for the ride. No one else on the roster gives us what Lance did last year. I don't really care about the average numbers because he was a basically a rookie.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                      Originally posted by Sherlock View Post
                      Keep Lance on bench.

                      Reason: Keep his amount of exposure. It will make us easier to sign Lance at a smaller contract.

                      /green
                      You joking, but this has crossed my mind. If Lance's usage were to spike and his game improves we may not have a chance to sign him.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                        You are correct that the improvement made by George was far more apparent because Granger was not in the starting lineup. However, the improvement made by George had nothing to do with Lance being in the lineup. Not trying to be a smart-arse or taking anything away from what Lance accomplished last year, but we could have had OJ or DJ in the starting lineup instead of Lance, and George still would have emerged. His better performance came about through a greater reliance upon him for scoring and a much greater utilization.

                        I've also been of the opinion that players on their rookie contracts seem to show their greatest jump in improvement/performance in their third season. By that time, they have learned the ropes, adjusted to NBA life and have earned a shot at much more playing time. Last year, with Granger's injury, you could say the stars aligned perfectly for the emergence of George. And voila! A star in the making.
                        I'm not trying to give Lance credit for Paul's ascension, although I believe he makes his teammates better unlike Danny, but my point is people can't assume we'd have been an even better team with Danny on the floor. Paul and Lance's vast improvement was a direct result of receiving more opportunity because of the Danny injury.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          I'm not trying to give Lance credit for Paul's ascension, although I believe he makes his teammates better unlike Danny, but my point is people can't assume we'd have been an even better team with Danny on the floor. Paul and Lance's vast improvement was a direct result of receiving more opportunity because of the Danny injury.
                          I'm in the camp that believes "the cream rises to the top." Paul is way too talented to have not made a huge step forward last season. Would he have been on the cusp of superstardom is anyone's guess, but I certainly believe he was headed towards a huge step in that direction whether Danny was playing or not.

                          As for Lance making his teammates better he is certainly a more dynamic ball handler and a willing yet somewhat erratic passer, but it's not as if he's out there dishing assists left and right (a lot of it due to his role within our offense where he's relegated to spot up's, backdoor cuts, and open court opportunities).

                          Lance also demonstrated that he was going to be a part of the team starting with the second game of the year against the Bobcats. He ended up becoming the starter because Gerald Green stunk up the place, but Lance was coming off the bench and was giving us good production and demonstrated his improvement way before he became the full time starter. He averaged close to the same numbers as both a starter and a reserve (though his time as a reserve was a small sample size--6 games)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            Yes, but that also doesn't necessarily mean that he himself is the one actually scoring. Ian averaging 8ppg because Lance/Danny gets him the ball in an excellent position to score a lot is just as good as Lance/Danny scoring it themselves. It wasn't Lebron driving and scoring that were the most difficult to defend and efficient plays, it was Lebron driving and dishing to Birdman that were the most difficult to defend and most efficient offense.
                            I love Granger as much as the next guy, but he's never gotten anyone in an excellent position to score. He's way too busy trying to get his own shots and passing may be his greatest weakness. Even greater than his mechanical right handed dribble.

                            Edit: I do appreciate and agree that LeBron's strength is his passing. He's dangerous for many reasons and it's his passing game on offense which might be his greatest strength.
                            Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-23-2013, 10:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                              I think about team building.

                              I wrote down the four we agree upon and think about the best compliment to the group.

                              The largest size difference between any of the four is between Hill and George. Lance's size fits exactly where we need it.
                              Of course we can always play big with DG and make them match up. When we do that we'll leave PG guarding a guy Lance's size more often than not- because Danny's not going to be effective at that- yet he can cover the 3's almost as well as Paul.
                              I'd rather see Paul filling out and finding his real position than trying to fight through screens guarding DWade types (unless it's necessary for a particular game).

                              Also the idea that the "fifth" starter will be the fifth option because we need more out of Hill is wrong headed.
                              We need more out of Hill because he is inconsistent.
                              It's true that he is much better when he's fired up but I think that's pretty human. And "clearing space" for him by 'naming' him the higher option will not prove overly effective.

                              And to the extent that such an argument is worth considering I would draw the opposite conclusion. Not Granger! Because GHill will more likely defer to Danny.Danny just will shoot more than lance and generally step to the fore.
                              Hill will become subdued.
                              Danny's never been fifth option in his life. Unless he starts hopping on one leg this year will not be any different.

                              Lance on the other hand -who I have supported from the start, and suggested (to gufaws) a year or so ago that he may get ten points a game if he were given minutes- WILL defer to George Hill.
                              Hill will more likely feel needed and step up if Danny's not holding his hands out on the corner.

                              I think it's too close to the start of the season for this debate to drag on. Lance is going to start because Danny's still rounding into form.

                              And concerning which we will keep this summer I think it's pretty clear. We picked up Solo AND Cope.
                              We shall feel pretty confident that ONE of them can be an adequate back-up THREE by next year.
                              We've built with one eye on his departure.

                              If Danny "beats out" Lance as the season goes down (which may be a better poll) that will be gravy.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                                Originally posted by solid View Post
                                I think about team building.

                                I wrote down the four we agree upon and think about the best compliment to the group.

                                The largest size difference between any of the four is between Hill and George. Lance's size fits exactly where we need it.
                                Of course we can always play big with DG and make them match up. When we do that we'll leave PG guarding a guy Lance's size more often than not- because Danny's not going to be effective at that- yet he can cover the 3's almost as well as Paul.
                                I'd rather see Paul filling out and finding his real position than trying to fight through screens guarding DWade types (unless it's necessary for a particular game).

                                Also the idea that the "fifth" starter will be the fifth option because we need more out of Hill is wrong headed.
                                We need more out of Hill because he is inconsistent.
                                It's true that he is much better when he's fired up but I think that's pretty human. And "clearing space" for him by 'naming' him the higher option will not prove overly effective.

                                And to the extent that such an argument is worth considering I would draw the opposite conclusion. Not Granger! Because GHill will more likely defer to Danny.Danny just will shoot more than lance and generally step to the fore.
                                Hill will become subdued.
                                Danny's never been fifth option in his life. Unless he starts hopping on one leg this year will not be any different.

                                Lance on the other hand -who I have supported from the start, and suggested (to gufaws) a year or so ago that he may get ten points a game if he were given minutes- WILL defer to George Hill.
                                Hill will more likely feel needed and step up if Danny's not holding his hands out on the corner.

                                I think it's too close to the start of the season for this debate to drag on. Lance is going to start because Danny's still rounding into form.

                                And concerning which we will keep this summer I think it's pretty clear. We picked up Solo AND Cope.
                                We shall feel pretty confident that ONE of them can be an adequate back-up THREE by next year.
                                We've built with one eye on his departure.

                                If Danny "beats out" Lance as the season goes down (which may be a better poll) that will be gravy.
                                Judging from everything Vogel, Lance, and the other non-Granger players have said, I think they actually have Granger slotted in to start. And I think (for this year) that Lance wants to play off the bench if he's guaranteed starter minutes.

                                “It don’t matter,” Stephenson said, then responded to a question about whether he feels more comfortable coming off the bench: “If I can get more options on the second unit, then I feel like that will be the best thing to do.”
                                http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...ing-guard-spot
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X