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 Hicks View Post
    And some of you couldn't be happier if it takes that long, right?

    By the way, he looked anything but rusty in the preseason game @CHI. I don't think it will take that long.
    Admittedly, I did not see the preseason games. I don't discount what you saw at all. At the same time, I greatly fear that he will play this season for awhile and go down at the wrong time. I simply don't want to risk it. If I KNEW or really believed he would be healthy I would be taking an entirely different approach. But I don't expect this to turn out well. Call me a skeptic from the Jermaine O'Neal era. So, if he's not going to be healthy, he will either hurt us at the end of the season or he will hurt us with home court. THAT is why I want him to be "gravy". The fact is, if he is healthy being the gravy...we might just get a ring this year. We already have a young and improving starting unit that was already stellar last year. Why break that and bring in the risks that come with Granger being a key piece?

    Comment


    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Admittedly, I did not see the preseason games. I don't discount what you saw at all. At the same time, I greatly fear that he will play this season for awhile and go down at the wrong time. I simply don't want to risk it. If I KNEW or really believed he would be healthy I would be taking an entirely different approach. But I don't expect this to turn out well. Call me a skeptic from the Jermaine O'Neal era. So, if he's not going to be healthy, he will either hurt us at the end of the season or he will hurt us with home court. THAT is why I want him to be "gravy". The fact is, if he is healthy being the gravy...we might just get a ring this year. We already have a young and improving starting unit that was already stellar last year. Why break that and bring in the risks that come with Granger being a key piece?
      What's the difference between Granger being a "key piece" and Granger being "gravy?" Are you talking about his place in the rotation or his role on the court?
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Admittedly, I did not see the preseason games. I don't discount what you saw at all. At the same time, I greatly fear that he will play this season for awhile and go down at the wrong time. I simply don't want to risk it. If I KNEW or really believed he would be healthy I would be taking an entirely different approach. But I don't expect this to turn out well. Call me a skeptic from the Jermaine O'Neal era. So, if he's not going to be healthy, he will either hurt us at the end of the season or he will hurt us with home court. THAT is why I want him to be "gravy". The fact is, if he is healthy being the gravy...we might just get a ring this year. We already have a young and improving starting unit that was already stellar last year. Why break that and bring in the risks that come with Granger being a key piece?
        Who said that Granger is going to be a key piece? He is the definition of gravy as he is a guy that we could really use last year but he was unavailble. He is available now so why not use him?
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          What's the difference between Granger being a "key piece" and Granger being "gravy?" Are you talking about his place in the rotation or his role on the court?
          Gravy is a guy who comes in, off the bench of course, to give the starters and finishers a break. Put up some quick points and upgrade that bench. It's more about the rotation.

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          Who said that Granger is going to be a key piece? He is the definition of gravy as he is a guy that we could really use last year but he was unavailble. He is available now so why not use him?

          Agreed. I want him to play, say 20-25 minutes and put up points while the starters and finishers rest.

          Comment


          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Agreed. I want him to play, say 20-25 minutes and put up points while the starters and finishers rest.
            That's the role I want him to play as well. I just believe that it is better for the team if he does that role as a starter since I don't think that he's going to be a good fit with the bench.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

              Man you guys make it sound like Granger is going to be Gerald Green or something, dude is a smart guy, he will figure out how to gel with the team, I mean come on he did engineering and basketball at the same time, no easy feat.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                That's the role I want him to play as well. I just believe that it is better for the team if he does that role as a starter since I don't think that he's going to be a good fit with the bench.
                Why exactly do you think he will operate better with the starting unit? Let's look at this closely.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                  If Hill continues to acclimate well to the pro game I'm growing on the idea of both Danny/Lance coming off the bench by seasons end. Perfect glue guy skill set.

                  Lance/Danny/Luis would be one incredibly mean 2nd unit to bring in.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Why exactly do you think he will operate better with the starting unit? Let's look at this closely.
                    Because the starting unit is NOT going to put the ball in Granger's hands. The bench will do it, though. I have said several times that I want the ball to be in Paul's and Lance's hands. I want Danny to be used as 4th/5th option and a spot up shooter. This will not happen if he comes off the bench since the bench will probably rely on him to create shots since it lacks creators.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Because the starting unit is NOT going to put the ball in Granger's hands. The bench will do it, though. I have said several times that I want the ball to be in Paul's and Lance's hands. I want Danny to be used as 4th/5th option and a spot up shooter. This will not happen if he comes off the bench since the bench will probably rely on him to create shots since it lacks creators.
                      Of course any starter would have the ball more playing with the bench. So on one hand you are correct. I also agree that using Granger for spot up shooting is a good use of his skills. I get all that, but I've factored in a lot more things.

                      The starters are weak with ball movement at the guard position. It might be this team's greatest weakness on offense. Paul turns it over all the time. George protects it but does not facilitate ball movement well. Granger has very limited passing skills. That leaves both Hibbert and West accepting a lame pass into the post and fighting for every single shot. Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game. He would allow our superstar...yes I said it...play his natural position which is SF. Lance is even proving he can spread the floor too. Also, our starters were great defensively last year and the bench needed the upgrade. Why fix what is clearly not broken? Why break that all for a Jim O'Brien strategy? That is exactly what you are doing pulling Lance from the starting unit.

                      Then you have a player coming back after almost a year and a half off. He is very unlikely to be effective let alone consistently effective. It takes a good month to get in game shape and we don't want his warm up to lose home court.

                      If you want to say Granger starts and Lance finishes, I simply don't understand that logic. If Lance is better because he finishes, why should he not also start?

                      Then finally, you are rolling the dice, very possibly disrupting the starting unit at the wrong time. Imagine if that tendon builds up more scar tissue in March...losing months of development time for Lance as the starter. Lance is a young player and the more time he has with the starting unit, the better.

                      Finally, Granger is nothing but a rental. In 7 months he's probably gone. Let him help win games by contributing his talents without disrupting the starting lineup with another part of his body causing a DNP. We don't need to risk it. We already have a young squad that can get it done, particularly with a greatly improved bench.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Of course any starter would have the ball more playing with the bench. So on one hand you are correct. I also agree that using Granger for spot up shooting is a good use of his skills. I get all that, but I've factored in a lot more things.

                        The starters are weak with ball movement at the guard position. It might be this team's greatest weakness on offense. Paul turns it over all the time. George protects it but does not facilitate ball movement well. Granger has very limited passing skills. That leaves both Hibbert and West accepting a lame pass into the post and fighting for every single shot. Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game. He would allow our superstar...yes I said it...play his natural position which is SF. Lance is even proving he can spread the floor too. Also, our starters were great defensively last year and the bench needed the upgrade. Why fix what is clearly not broken? Why break that all for a Jim O'Brien strategy? That is exactly what you are doing pulling Lance from the starting unit.

                        Then you have a player coming back after almost a year and a half off. He is very unlikely to be effective let alone consistently effective. It takes a good month to get in game shape and we don't want his warm up to lose home court.

                        If you want to say Granger starts and Lance finishes, I simply don't understand that logic. If Lance is better because he finishes, why should he not also start?

                        Then finally, you are rolling the dice, very possibly disrupting the starting unit at the wrong time. Imagine if that tendon builds up more scar tissue in March...losing months of development time for Lance as the starter. Lance is a young player and the more time he has with the starting unit, the better.

                        Finally, Granger is nothing but a rental. In 7 months he's probably gone. Let him help win games by contributing his talents without disrupting the starting lineup with another part of his body causing a DNP. We don't need to risk it. We already have a young squad that can get it done, particularly with a greatly improved bench.
                        Man you worry about some strange stuff. Chemistry with the starters and Lance just wont be a problem, even if Lance comes off the bench. He's still gonna play with them daily between practice and games. Not to mention all of last year. I think you are really worrying about chemistry waaaaaaay too much. Granger coming back isn't like Rose coming back. He's not going to dominate the ball. The team doesn't expect this, neither does Granger.

                        Starting Granger this year will not disrupt a single thing for next year either. You are acting like things are so rigid. And it makes little sense. Its basketball.

                        And are you just baffled by Manu coming off the bench in SA or by Harden coming off the bench when he was in OKC? Just because you come off the bench, it doesn't mean all the starters on the team are better players than you. Its just about creating the best team, units, and match ups.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          Man you worry about some strange stuff. Chemistry with the starters and Lance just wont be a problem, even if Lance comes off the bench. He's still gonna play with them daily between practice and games. Not to mention all of last year. I think you are really worrying about chemistry waaaaaaay too much. Granger coming back isn't like Rose coming back. He's not going to dominate the ball. The team doesn't expect this, neither does Granger.

                          Starting Granger this year will not disrupt a single thing for next year either. You are acting like things are so rigid. And it makes little sense. Its basketball.

                          And are you just baffled by Manu coming off the bench in SA or by Harden coming off the bench when he was in OKC? Just because you come off the bench, it doesn't mean all the starters on the team are better players than you. Its just about creating the best team, units, and match ups.
                          You say it's about creating the best team but say nary a word about my largest paragraph which is about that very point...ignoring more than half my post. Btw there are 5 situations to the contrary for every Ginobili but you all ignore that too.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                            BnG, I'm sorry for the late response but I was watching the Rockets - Clippers game and fell asleep at halftime.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Of course any starter would have the ball more playing with the bench. So on one hand you are correct. I also agree that using Granger for spot up shooting is a good use of his skills. I get all that, but I've factored in a lot more things.
                            Glad that we're on the same page here.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            The starters are weak with ball movement at the guard position. It might be this team's greatest weakness on offense. Paul turns it over all the time. George protects it but does not facilitate ball movement well. Granger has very limited passing skills. That leaves both Hibbert and West accepting a lame pass into the post and fighting for every single shot. Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game.
                            Here lies a basic difference between you and me. You believe that the team's biggest weakness on offense is passing. I disagree with that notion. I believe that our biggest weakness is shooting.

                            We were tied at 23rd along with Toronto in 3 point percentage in the 12-13 RS -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...ate=2013-06-20

                            Our 3 point percentage was only 34.3%.

                            In the playoffs, we shot 32.7% and we were 9th out of 16 teams -> http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...3/seasontype/3

                            The two teams that went to the Finals shot 38.1% (Miami) and 37.8% (SA) from 3.

                            As you can see our shooting has been consistently below par. However, it's also true that we have been a team that tends to turn the ball over. That's also true. So, why do I believe that our biggest weakness is shooting and not turnovers? Well, I'll explain why.

                            It's because I believe that our problematic 3 point shooting contributes to our turnovers. That's why.

                            Our team averaged 15.4 turnovers per game last season. How many of those turnovers were caused because our bigs were doubled in the post?

                            Let's add up the mistakes of our bigs:

                            David West: 2.2 Turnovers per Game

                            Roy Hibbert: 2.1 Turnovers per Game

                            Ian Mahinmi: 1.2 Turnovers per Game

                            Tyler Hansbrough: 1 Turnover per Game

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2013.html

                            Adding them all up and the result that we get is 6.4 Turnovers. Those turnovers are committed [i]exclusively[/u] by our bigs every game. Out of those players the only one that was bobbling passes left and right was Ian. The turnovers that were committed by the rest of them were either travels, offensive fouls or bad passes out of the double team. Excluding the offensive fouls which are par of the course the other two causes are eliminated if the opposition does not use doubles.

                            And how do we force the opposition to stop doubling our bigs? We hit the open 3. That's what we failed to do last year. That's why our bigs turned it over. Our spacing was below par because not all our perimeter players were dead-eye shooters. LeBron was able to play free safety every time that Young was on the floor and Wade was leaving Lance open a lot of times as well without paying for it (Lance only shot 30.4% from 3 in the ECF).

                            Having a 3rd dead-eye shooter in our starting unit will solve our shooting problem and help our turnover problem as well. That's why I want a shooter out there. And as I have said several times if Lance keeps shooting that well then I am absolutely glad that he's out there with the starting unit.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            He would allow our superstar...yes I said it...play his natural position which is SF.
                            When you see the team out there on the court do you see a difference between SF and SG? I certainly don't.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Lance is even proving he can spread the floor too.
                            And I sincerely hope that he keeps it up. I believe that he can do it as well. That's why I traded Ibaka for him in one of my fantasy leagues. That's how high I am on him.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Also, our starters were great defensively last year and the bench needed the upgrade.
                            I agree that our starters were great. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

                            I also agree that the bench needed the upgrade. That's why I want to put the better player (Lance) there. Lance will make our bench 10 times better. Danny will only make our bench a bit better.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Why fix what is clearly not broken? Why break that all for a Jim O'Brien strategy? That is exactly what you are doing pulling Lance from the starting unit.
                            Seriously? Did I ever insult your ideas? If not then why are you insulting my ideas? Yes, calling it a "Jim O'Brien strategy" is a pretty big insult that I believe that is completely uncalled for.

                            It's not an O'Brien strategy. I don't believe that the 3 point shot is the be-all and end-all of basketball like JOB apparently did. I want to establish our bigs in the paint. I want to take full advantage of their post-up skills. I want to establish a strong inside-outside game. But you cannot establish that game if you lack the shooters that create the outside part. If you only play inside-inside then the opponent will double your bigs, crowd the paint and force you to turn it over.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Then you have a player coming back after almost a year and a half off. He is very unlikely to be effective let alone consistently effective. It takes a good month to get in game shape and we don't want his warm up to lose home court.
                            It is even more unlikely that he is going to be effective as the bench's 1st option. It's a lot easier to be effective as the 5th option that only takes wide open, spot up 3s. A Mike Miller that would get re-injured every time he shot the ball was able to be very efficient in the role of the 5th option that only takes wide open, spot up 3s. You think that he would be that efficient if Miami told him to "here, take the ball and go be the bench's primary creator"?

                            I seriously, seriously doubt that.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            If you want to say Granger starts and Lance finishes, I simply don't understand that logic. If Lance is better because he finishes, why should he not also start?
                            CableKC and I have explained why a lot of times. Here is an older post that answers this question:


                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            4 ) People think that Lance has a skillset that Granger does not possess ( creating offense for others ) where Lance can utilize that skillset to greatly bolster the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit ( something that I do not think that Granger would be very good at doing ) while playing enough minutes with the Starters to Finish/Close games and thus improving the overall effectiveness of the Team while reducing any heavy reliance on the remaining GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( one of the problems that we had last year ).
                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Then finally, you are rolling the dice, very possibly disrupting the starting unit at the wrong time. Imagine if that tendon builds up more scar tissue in March...losing months of development time for Lance as the starter. Lance is a young player and the more time he has with the starting unit, the better.
                            Lance will develop by having the ball in his hands. That's what matters the most and that's why he was excited to be the 6th man.

                            Even if Granger gets re-injured (something that is possible but it's not 100% certain like you seem to believe) it will not disrupt the team any more than it would if he was our 6th man. His minutes are not changing. Lance will still play more and finish games.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Finally, Granger is nothing but a rental. In 7 months he's probably gone. Let him help win games by contributing his talents without disrupting the starting lineup with another part of his body causing a DNP. We don't need to risk it.
                            I don't care if Granger is a rental. He is here and he is helping our chances to win a championship. That's what matters. We're trying to win a title right now!

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            We already have a young squad that can get it done, particularly with a greatly improved bench.
                            The bench is greatly improved only if Lance is out there with them creating shots and making plays. If he is not out there then the bench is still improved but it's no longer a candidate for one of the best benches in the league like it is with Lance.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              You say it's about creating the best team but say nary a word about my largest paragraph which is about that very point...ignoring more than half my post. Btw there are 5 situations to the contrary for every Ginobili but you all ignore that too.
                              Oh the irony.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                                That was a really good post Nuntius. I'm changing my tune.

                                I said in one of the other 17 granger/lance threads that if Lance established himself as the better player, I'd want him starting, but I no longer think so. I'd rather have the shooting.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X