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

Granger out for three weeks

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

  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    The issue I'd see as the counter would be that if you think Danny is sliding as a player and think he's dealing with an injury that means he's never going to be All Star Danny Granger again, then inserting him into the starting lineup hurts the potential growth of last year's ECF starting lineup. Ideally, you want a team playing as one unit, a well oiled machine. The more games they can play together and learn each other's game until they are able to just play without thinking and can finish each other's sentences, the better.

    If you believe Granger will be in and out of the lineup and/or not bringing what another starter brings then you likely believe his insertion into the lineup, and in/out nature of injuries means the starting lineup we have at the end of the year won't be the group that could've played and developed together over the course of the year.

    If you believe Granger will soon be back to form and again be "All Star Granger" then you likely believe that he benefits the starting lineup to get him out there and gelling with the team ASAP for cohesiveness reasons at the end of the season.

    I don't think we're talking fights in the lockerroom when the conversation turns to 'chemistry' in this case. Instead it's about what gives the starting lineup the best chance to develop as a unit physically and mentally for the stretch room.

    I'm in the 'Start Lance' group because we went 7 games in the ECF with him in the starting unit. Our starting unit isn't why we lost. Don't fix what isn't broken. They should naturally get better because they have shown no signs of peaking. Add that to I haven't seen 'All Star Granger' in some time. He's older and has injury concerns. The 2nd unit could more handle a disruption in flow with a player limited in time. And an 80% Granger in the 2nd unit could still be an upgrade to the bench. I don't see it as an upgrade to the starting unit.

    And looking to the future, Lance stands a much better chance of being our future than Granger at this point. So we'd gain a year of starting unit development with Lance as a starter. Whereas with Granger it would be a blip in the road.

    But this assumes Granger is never going to be "All Star Granger" again.
    Technically he hasn't been "All Star Granger" since 2008-2009. Are we really going to assume he can't be 2012 Danny?

    Comment


    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

      A 80% Danny that moves well enough to guard and shoot open jumpers is good enough to start, but Lance would get more burn. And maybe finish.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

        Tonight the Pacers have slow played us all year. Danny Granger descends from the ceiling of the BLF like an angel coming down from the Heavens. When he landshe gets another "minor injury" and is out for the season
        Sorry I couldn't resist why would you want somebody with bad knees to land from the ceiling anyways
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Technically he hasn't been "All Star Granger" since 2008-2009. Are we really going to assume he can't be 2012 Danny?
          I don't think 2012 Danny meshes as well with this starting lineup as Lance.

          Danny was a chucker for most of 2012. He was off track to begin the season, found his touch, then lost it again at the end of the year. He spent a lot of time hanging out behind the arc and his defense was more about picking his spots than being anything extra special. We debated all year if O'Brien had ultimately negatively impacted Granger's game turning him into this.

          Lance is not a chucker and brings an entirely different element to the starting lineup with his speed, athleticism, strength, size, intensity and willingness to play within the role that's been carved out for him. ...And his rebounding from the guard spot is refreshing to see.

          Honestly, you've made my point... If it's about 2012 Danny Granger versus Lance then Lance wins in my opinion. The question I have is if 2012 Danny Granger was so limited by his knee that 2012 Danny Granger isn't really indicative of what a post surgery and rehab Danny Granger will be and that it allows him to be closer to All Star Danny Granger.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            The issue I'd see as the counter would be that if you think Danny is sliding as a player and think he's dealing with an injury that means he's never going to be All Star Danny Granger again, then inserting him into the starting lineup hurts the potential growth of last year's ECF starting lineup. Ideally, you want a team playing as one unit, a well oiled machine. The more games they can play together and learn each other's game until they are able to just play without thinking and can finish each other's sentences, the better.

            If you believe Granger will be in and out of the lineup and/or not bringing what another starter brings then you likely believe his insertion into the lineup, and in/out nature of injuries means the starting lineup we have at the end of the year won't be the group that could've played and developed together over the course of the year.

            If you believe Granger will soon be back to form and again be "All Star Granger" then you likely believe that he benefits the starting lineup to get him out there and gelling with the team ASAP for cohesiveness reasons at the end of the season.

            I don't think we're talking fights in the lockerroom when the conversation turns to 'chemistry' in this case. Instead it's about what gives the starting lineup the best chance to develop as a unit physically and mentally for the stretch room.

            I'm in the 'Start Lance' group because we went 7 games in the ECF with him in the starting unit. Our starting unit isn't why we lost. Don't fix what isn't broken. They should naturally get better because they have shown no signs of peaking. Add that to I haven't seen 'All Star Granger' in some time. He's older and has injury concerns. The 2nd unit could more handle a disruption in flow with a player limited in time. And an 80% Granger in the 2nd unit could still be an upgrade to the bench. I don't see it as an upgrade to the starting unit.

            And looking to the future, Lance stands a much better chance of being our future than Granger at this point. So we'd gain a year of starting unit development with Lance as a starter. Whereas with Granger it would be a blip in the road.

            But this assumes Granger is never going to be "All Star Granger" again.
            This is all fine and dandy, but I don't think your chemistry worries match up with reality.

            The biggest reason being they have all played together before this season. That time playing together doesn't just disappear because there is a new season, or because of an injury. People have memories longer than 1 season. Just look at the preseason, the starters + Danny looked to have pretty good chemistry still.

            Finally skill trumps chemistry. For all of the chemistry people have said we have had the past two seasons, we still lost to the Heat both times. Last season the most dangerous combination for the Heat was Lebron to Birdman, and they didn't even have Birdman until half way through the season. The reason being, good players just know how to play. You don't need to give them 82 games to figure out how to play with each other. Give them 5 games, and they will figure it out.

            Don't fix what isn't broken, is just a way of saying you don't like change. It may not be broken, but it doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. For example, in most big budget movies or games, they have playable versions that work and are good well before they are finished. Instead of saying it works and is good therefore it is done, they keep working on it because while it might be good it can still be better. This is usually called polish. Yes the line-up worked last year, but it can still be polished. That is what Granger is, he can come in and make it even better. The core to last years success was Hill, George, West, and Hibbert, not Lance. Lance was good, but that line-up wasn't good because of him. That line-up was good because of the other 4 players. If you plug in someone who is a better fit for that line-ups style, and who has at least a year's worth of experience playing with them already you are only going to make it better. The cherry on top of this is that Lance's style really fits in well with many of our back-ups, and being the main guy with the bench players really allows Lance to be the best he can be.

            I said this a few months back, Lance's potentially isn't as a starter with all-star aspirations like some think. His potential is as a sixth man of the year type. So when we have a player who is more than capable of filling Lance's role last year, than we should use him where you can get the most out of him.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I don't think 2012 Danny meshes as well with this starting lineup as Lance.

              Danny was a chucker for most of 2012. He was off track to begin the season, found his touch, then lost it again at the end of the year. He spent a lot of time hanging out behind the arc and his defense was more about picking his spots than being anything extra special. We debated all year if O'Brien had ultimately negatively impacted Granger's game turning him into this.

              Lance is not a chucker and brings an entirely different element to the starting lineup with his speed, athleticism, strength, size, intensity and willingness to play within the role that's been carved out for him. ...And his rebounding from the guard spot is refreshing to see.

              Honestly, you've made my point... If it's about 2012 Danny Granger versus Lance then Lance wins in my opinion. The question I have is if 2012 Danny Granger was so limited by his knee that 2012 Danny Granger isn't really indicative of what a post surgery and rehab Danny Granger will be and that it allows him to be closer to All Star Danny Granger.
              Danny will never be asked to be the primary scorer again. This is Paul, David, and Roy's team now when it comes to primary offense.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                The biggest reason being they have all played together before this season. That time playing together doesn't just disappear because there is a new season, or because of an injury. People have memories longer than 1 season. Just look at the preseason, the starters + Danny looked to have pretty good chemistry still.
                Not only that, but we're saying chemistry is important so Danny shouldn't play with players that he's already played with for at least one season (West), two seasons (PG/GHill), and even more with Roy, and think that the better option is for him to play beside 4 other players that he's never played with.

                If chemistry is such a question mark, then shouldn't we want him to be with people he actually knows rather than strangers?
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  This is all fine and dandy, but I don't think your chemistry worries match up with reality.

                  The biggest reason being they have all played together before this season. That time playing together doesn't just disappear because there is a new season, or because of an injury.
                  No, but the time missed by not utilizing your ultimate starting lineup together at every possible game can never be reclaimed. If Lance was the starter last year and excelled in his role, and will be the likely starter next season, then there's no use messing up that continuity this season. The team will never get that lost opportunity for continuity back.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Danny will never be asked to be the primary scorer again. This is Paul, David, and Roy's team now when it comes to primary offense.

                    Again, another point that I consider that points to Danny moving to the 2nd unit and keeping Lance in the starting lineup.

                    So I agree with you in part but it leads me to a different conclusion.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      No, but the time missed by not utilizing your ultimate starting lineup together at every possible game can never be reclaimed. If Lance was the starter last year and excelled in his role, and will be the likely starter next season, then there's no use messing up that continuity this season. The team will never get that lost opportunity for continuity back.
                      The ultimate starting unit is with Danny. That is the best group of 5 we can get together.

                      Continuity is another one of those nice buzz words that really isn't all that meaningful when you are talking about players who by then have played together for 3 seasons. If you are making these kind of decisions based on what may or may not be true next year you are not making the decision for the correct season. For all we know Lance won't be on this team next season.

                      I know it can be hard to remember cause it has been so long, but we are a title contender. We are not rebuilding anymore, so stop thinking like a rebuilding team, and start thinking like a team that is competing for a championship. Teams that are contending for a championship aren't worried about doing things based on what may or may not happen next year, they are worried about doing what is best for this season. If this was a lottery team, I would understand, but we are not.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                        I haven't heard anything from Danny saying he is going to come back and do what he did before he got injured (aka be THE scorer). The dynamic of the team is so different and I really don't see that happening. He can play off of West, because he has done it. I have no fear that Danny will come in a try to take over games. He is a team player. I think he had to be THE guy because there was no one who could score consistently (and this is huge) prior to West. NO ONE.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          The ultimate starting unit is with Danny. That is the best group of 5 we can get together.
                          How can you say that when we haven't seen him play in quite a while ???? Let's just toss the feeble, failed 5 game effort from last year. (If that's the Granger that comes back this year, he's 8th, 9th, 10th man ...... but I digress). Let's see 1) WHEN he's ready to go and then 2) give him time off the bench to see what he's got going on and then 3) it will be clear where he belongs.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                            How can you say that when we haven't seen him play in quite a while ????
                            Larry Bird has, and he say's it would be ideal to have Danny as the starter. Vogel has, and he was planning to start Danny. Lance has, and he was looking forward to coming off the bench and was disappointed when he found out he'd be a starter.

                            This exercise is fun and all for those of us who have nothing better to do than jibber-jabber back and forth about our feelings, but the FO, the coaching staff, and Lance have all given their opinions and they all seem to agree Danny is best served as the 5th starter.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                              Here's Larry saying it.
                              Bird made no bones about it: He likes his team best with Granger starting and Lance Stephenson leading the second unit as a point guard.

                              “That’s what I prefer,” Bird said. “I’ve always respected Danny’s game. Like everybody else, I see his good and his bad, but I think the good outweighs the bad by a large margin. I like his toughness. And I’ve always said you never lose your position through injury; somebody’s got to beat him out. Now, if Lance comes in and he’s a better player, that’s (coach Frank Vogel’s) decision.

                              “But I think we’re a different type of team when he starts. ... I think Danny and Paul (George, who signed a long-term extension Tuesday) are interchangeable. This makes us a better all around team. We’ll score more points with Danny and it’ll take pressure off the bench.

                              “My thing is, Danny can’t come back and think he’s a 20-point scorer. We don’t need that. We just need him to come back and play, hit the open shot, be tough. They (Granger and George) can co-exist; I don’t worry about that.”

                              The season-long question, then, will not only be how the pair plays together, but whether Bird tries to move Granger before the trading deadline. Here was my takeaway from a half-hour conversation: If Granger is playing well and the Pacers are winning, Bird will hold onto Granger and try to win a title this year. If he’s struggling and the Granger-George duo isn’t quite working, he won’t hesitate to pull the trigger on a deal by the trade deadline.

                              “I’ve talked to Danny about it; we definitely want to keep him,” Bird said. “But we’ve got to find a way to do that and it’s not going to be easy. I saw this coming four years ago. When we started getting better, I thought, eventually, somebody’s got to go. We signed Roy (Hibbert), David (West), Paul (George) and George (Hill), and we’re never going to go over the luxury tax, so you add it up, eventually, somebody’s got to go. Right now, we’re strapped a little bit. But I would like to see it through the year. If it’s working good, I’m going with it (keeping Granger).”
                              http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...S15/309240072/

                              So saying that the conclusion can't be reached, because we haven't seen him play, when people who have seen him play much more than anyone that's watched all the preseason games says the exact same thing, it shouldn't be so casually dismissed. Especially when that someone is Larry Bird, the architect of this team, and someone who has solidified their place in basketball history with his playing, coaching, and GM resume.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                You know full well that I'm not comparing Solo to Gerald Green. My point is that not just anyone can come in and START on a top 3 NBA team whose entire identity is wrapped up in defense, much less a rookie with zero NBA experience.
                                You are putting too much meaning into the word "start". It is never about who is starting. It is about who finishes. OKC used to start Thabo Sefolosha instead of James Harden for purely defensive purposes. Who was finishing the games? It was Harden.

                                No one suggesting that Solo / OJ should start ahead of Lance and play 30+ MPG. What some people are suggesting is that it could be a good idea to start Solo / OJ for the first 5 minutes in order for Lance to play more minutes with the bench allowing him to have the ball in his hands. Lance will still play starter minutes and finish games, of course.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X