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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    The purpose of this thread seems to be regarding some comparison between Lance Vs. GH at the starting PG spot...and not your favorite topic at hand...Lance Vs. Granger.
    There was no comparison between Lance/Hill the suggestion is to start Lance at point guard to open space for DG so he can start because he deserves it and nope that is not my favorite topic, I would actually love to talk about something else but the people with the mancrush won't let it go and keep opening threads about it(note that I'm not the one opening the threads).
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      That's probably the one big reason that comes to mind why I might still prefer Danny starting over Lance, even if Lance is shooting this well: Both would fit well with the other starters, but I think Lance helps the bench crew more than Danny could.

      To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?
      Lance has arrived, and will not slow down. After playing well last season as basically a rookie, the improvement this year was quite obvious to see coming. If anything, lance will get even better as the year goes on, not regress
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        I'd rather trade Copeland for an Expiring than trade GH if there was a need to clear Capspace ( $3mil off the books in 2014-2015 should do it ). This offense requires ball movement that GH is more than capable of facilitating. I have no idea why we'd eliminate that skillset from the lineup.

        I'll say this is where we disagree. The only reason I believe Lance needs to start is because I believe GH is deficient in ball handling and passing. He's a very good player, but would be much better suited as a backup. IMO he's a perfect backup guard because he can play either the one or the two, but he doesn't have the skillet I want to see in a starting pg - even considering we don't run a ball dominate system. He doesn't need to be Steve Nash but he has to be able make teams pay for pressuring him full court. And he can't - he doesn't have the vision or ball handling skills to make teams pay. Instead we run our offense against a shorter clock.

        I find the suggestion that the offense needs GH to facilitate, but it can do without Lance (a much better passer and ball handler) to be ....... confusing.

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          I think some of you are looking too much in what the "experts" predicted about Lance. He wasn't ranked in the ESPN top 100, which was and is still laughable. I implore everyone to watch him play, enjoy it. Who cares if you thought he couldn't excel at this level. Being drafted in the second round means nothing 3 years later
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
            Lance has arrived, and will not slow down. After playing well last season as basically a rookie, the improvement this year was quite obvious to see coming. If anything, lance will get even better as the year goes on, not regress
            How exactly was he a rookie last year?

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              rm1369 is right, things have changed a lot since DG played in 2011-12. In 11-12, Paul was fourth in FG attempts (Granger, West, Hibbert) with 639 attempts. Granger shot the ball 941 times, which was 302 more times than PG. West was second in FG attempts with 716, so Granger shot the ball 225 more times than the next highest player.

              Now Paul is leading the team in FG attempts and has morphed into one of the best players in the NBA. Lance is also getting a ton of attempts. We don't need Granger to shoot the ball at a ratio that is drastically higher than the next highest player. That's just not who we are anymore. Granger is facing a significant change when he returns.

              http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2012.html
              Why are shot attempts so important for some people? For me, it's about who is handling the ball. If the ball is in Paul's and Lance's hands and also goes to our bigs in the post a lot then I don't care who is taking the shots.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                How exactly was he a rookie last year?
                It was his first year he got minutes every game. His first two years, he rarely got to play. I consider last year Lance's rookie season.
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  Why are shot attempts so important for some people? For me, it's about who is handling the ball. If the ball is in Paul's and Lance's hands and also goes to our bigs in the post a lot then I don't care who is taking the shots.
                  Handling the ball is important, but it's still just one aspect of the game. Who shoots is still pretty important. Never again will Danny get 200 more shot attempts than the next highest player like he did in 2011-12. Never again will he shoot the ball 300 more times than PG. My point was that Danny's role with the team will be very different than it was in 11-12 when he last played.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    There was no comparison between Lance/Hill the suggestion is to start Lance at point guard
                    You are partially correct....the suggestion by Hicks was that Lance should be the Starting PG.

                    Here is the original Post by Hicks:

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    IF Lance continues to demonstrate improved decision-making with the ball in his hands.

                    IF Lance can adequately guard the position.

                    IF Lance proves to be more consistent than last season.

                    IF, and this is the biggest question mark to me, Lance shows more growth in regards to his maturity....

                    I think I want him to be our starting point guard later on this season. I think FOR THIS TEAM and HOW THIS TEAM PLAYS OFFENSE, he could be a killer upgrade at that position.

                    Of course, in this scenario, new questions and problems would present themselves now and during the summer... primarily regarding George Hill.
                    Where does Hick's OP...in any way...references Granger?

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    to open space for DG so he can start because he deserves it and nope that is not my favorite topic, I would actually love to talk about something else but the people with the mancrush won't let it go and keep opening threads about it(note that I'm not the one opening the threads).
                    Yes, this thread has typically devolved into the regular Lance Vs. Granger debate. Hicks would have to speak for himself, but for me.... there is a difference between starting Granger because "one thinks that he deserves it" as opposed to Lance simply being a better fit with the 2nd Unit.

                    I look at it this way:

                    Option 1 ) Put the Best Lineup on the floor with Lance playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Granger will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an average 2nd unit:

                    - Play GH/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
                    - Have Granger play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

                    Option 2 ) Put the 2nd Best Lineup on the floor with Granger playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Lance will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an above average ( and IMHO a far more effective ) 2nd unit:

                    - Play GH/Granger/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
                    - Have Lance play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

                    I can see the argument for putting the "best lineup on the floor as much as possible" but I have no problem with putting the 2nd best lineup on the floor ( which I don't think is a HUGE dropoff with Granger in the starting lineup compared to Lance ) and creating a much more effective 2nd unit with Lance leading the way while ensuring that Lance ( not Granger ) finishes the game.

                    What I want to do is to have Lance be utilized the same way that Manu ( when he was healthy and relevant ) was used by Pops....as a 6th Man that got Starter minutes but played as much with the 2nd Unit as he did with the Starters and ultimately finishing games.

                    Keeping in mind that I want Lance to finish games......I am inclined to create an overall effective Team on the floor that can compete for 48 minutes a game, as opposed to one that can only effectively do that for 30 mpg.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Why are shot attempts so important for some people? For me, it's about who is handling the ball. If the ball is in Paul's and Lance's hands and also goes to our bigs in the post a lot then I don't care who is taking the shots.
                      The shots were brought up as an indication that you can't just look at the 2011 lineup and say everything will operate the same. It won't and shouldn't. It's especially a consideration for DG because he became a volume shooter. Any suggestion that that isn't a concern for his reintegration into the starting lineup is naive, IMO. Players mentality is hugely effected by touches etc. That's a big part of chemistry. I'm on record as saying I have concerns about Lances reverting back to a ball dominate guard if that is what he is asked to do for the team. Some have agreed with that concern - and I believe you did as well. The mentality to shoot isn't much different, IMO.

                      Are you suggesting you wouldn't have a concern if the Pacers lost a couple games where Lance or GH lead the team in shot attempts instead of PG?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        Where does Hick's OP...in any way...references Granger?

                        He doesn't have to mention Granger by name for Granger to directly be involved in his idea. If you're starting Lance at PG, benching Hill, and bringing Danny in to start at SF, then Danny is very involved in this scenario. The discussion just shifts from Danny vs. Lance to Danny vs. Hill.

                        It gets to a point where it just seems like people are trying to come up with any idea to get Danny back into the starting lineup. Lance is playing great, so let's try to move Hill out of the lineup instead. What has Hill done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup? He's been a clutch stud since moving into the starting position late in the 2011-12 season. Hill is a better player than Granger right now until proven otherwise. So even if Lance by chance became the PG (I don't see that happening), Hill should still be his back court mate with Paul staying at SF.

                        Is this about doing what's best for the team, or is it about trying to come up with any possible way to get Danny back into the starting lineup? It's fair to wonder.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013, 05:39 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          You are partially correct....the suggestion by Hicks was that Lance should be the Starting PG.

                          Here is the original Post by Hicks:


                          Where does Hick's OP...in any way...references Granger?


                          Yes, this thread has typically devolved into the regular Lance Vs. Granger debate. Hicks would have to speak for himself, but for me.... there is a difference between starting Granger because "one thinks that he deserves it" as opposed to Lance simply being a better fit with the 2nd Unit.

                          I look at it this way:

                          Option 1 ) Put the Best Lineup on the floor with Lance playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Granger will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an average 2nd unit:

                          - Play GH/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
                          - Have Granger play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

                          Option 2 ) Put the 2nd Best Lineup on the floor with Granger playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Lance will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an above average ( and IMHO a far more effective ) 2nd unit:

                          - Play GH/Granger/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
                          - Have Lance play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

                          I can see the argument for putting the "best lineup on the floor as much as possible" but I have no problem with putting the 2nd best lineup on the floor ( which I don't think is a HUGE dropoff with Granger in the starting lineup compared to Lance ) and creating a much more effective 2nd unit with Lance leading the way while ensuring that Lance ( not Granger ) finishes the game.

                          What I want to do is to have Lance be utilized the same way that Manu ( when he was healthy and relevant ) was used by Pops....as a 6th Man that got Starter minutes but played as much with the 2nd Unit as he did with the Starters and ultimately finishing games.

                          Keeping in mind that I want Lance to finish games......I am inclined to create an overall effective Team on the floor that can compete for 48 minutes a game, as opposed to one that can only effectively do that for 30 mpg.
                          There is absolutely no reason to not have PG or Lance on the floor with the bench. A combination of Watson / Lance or PG/ DG / Scola / Mahimi should be a pretty damn good unit (assuming Granger is good enough to consider starting over Lance) and easily obtainable without moving Lance to the bench. It also: puts what you consider the best lineup on the floor against the other teams best lineup for the first 7-8 mins of the 1st and 3rd quarters and keeps the team from being yoyo'd if Danny has lingering healthy issues. I still don't understand why Lance has to come off the bench to have have an effective bench unit. Lance comes out for a couple mins as you start to bring in the bench, while PG continues to play. You then switch Lance and PG for several minutes until the starters come back in. What am I missing?

                          The only issue is if you want to do hockey line type substitutions - which I am totally against. All five starters shouldn't be off the court at the same time.
                          Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013, 06:14 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            He doesn't have to mention Granger by name for Granger to directly be involved in his idea. If you're starting Lance at PG, benching Hill, and bringing Danny in to start at SF, then Danny is very involved in this scenario. The discussion just shifts from Danny vs. Lance to Danny vs. Hill.

                            It gets to a point where it just seems like people are trying to come up with any idea to get Danny back into the starting lineup. Lance is playing great, so let's try to move Hill out of the lineup instead. What has Hill done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup? He's been a clutch stud since moving into the starting position late in the 2011-12 season. Hill is a better player than Granger right now until proven otherwise. So even if Lance by chance became the PG (I don't see that happening), Hill should still be his back court mate with Paul staying at SF.

                            Is this about doing what's best for the team, or is it about trying to come up with any possible way to get Danny back into the starting lineup? It's fair to wonder.
                            I can't read this thread without honestly wondering would anybody be making these suggestions if it was anybody but DG involved. I highly doubt there would be this many people that thinks its a good idea to to screw with the starting lineup of a team that was so close last year. Especially when the primary target is removing the young up and comer from the lineup to put in a guy that is over 30, didn't play last year, and is currently injured. I just don't get it.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                              I'll say this is where we disagree. The only reason I believe Lance needs to start is because I believe GH is deficient in ball handling and passing. He's a very good player, but would be much better suited as a backup. IMO he's a perfect backup guard because he can play either the one or the two, but he doesn't have the skillet I want to see in a starting pg - even considering we don't run a ball dominate system. He doesn't need to be Steve Nash but he has to be able make teams pay for pressuring him full court. And he can't - he doesn't have the vision or ball handling skills to make teams pay. Instead we run our offense against a shorter clock.

                              I find the suggestion that the offense needs GH to facilitate, but it can do without Lance (a much better passer and ball handler) to be ....... confusing.
                              I'm not saying that the offense NEEDS GH to facilitate the offense when he's on the floor with the Starting Lineup. I'm saying that Vogel's offense ( at least for the Starting Lineup that plays a majority of the game together on the floor ) isn't predicated or based on one single Player ( like GH or even Lance ) facilitating the offense and dominating the ball on the offensive end. After the ball gets past the half-court line...GH sometimes handles the ball, PG sometimes handles the ball, heck...even West and Hibbert handles the ball....all of which are more than capable of initiating the offense. This is because there is no need for the Starting lineup of GH/PG/West/Hibbert to have a single ball distributor where the offense entirely flows through a single Player....all are Players that are very good at ball movement while having enough court awareness/chemistry to find scoring opportunities for each other.

                              There are legit reasons why you don't want Lance to be completely dominating or controlling the flow of the offense or have the ball in his hands for 30+ mpg when he's on the floor with GH/PG/West/Hibbert. However, the same argument can't be applied to the 2nd unit where CJ and OJ are arguably the best ballhandlers/shot creators in that lineup.

                              The bottomline is that we are not fully utilizing Lance his best skill ( creating for others ) when he's playing with GH/PG/West/Hibbert because there simply isn't as much of an opportunity for the ball to be in his hands for the majority of the time that he's on the floor. This isn't IMHO the case when some combination of Scola, Mahinmi, Solo, Copeland, ( and to a lesser degree ) OJ and CH start filtering into the lineup. You need a Player like Lance in that lineup to make them more effective on the offensive end as a whole and why this is one of the main reasons why I advocate Lance running mostly with ( but not exclusively ) the 2nd Unit.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                                With the minutes Lance and PG play, is there any reason for one of Lance or PG to not be on the floor at all times?
                                That's the point. One of Lance and PG should be on the floor at all times. The easiest way to do that without running one of the two into the ground is to start one of the two off the bench. Have you seen what Vogel has been doing in those first 3 games? Lance is the first player to be subbed out and PG plays the whole first quarter. Then Lance comes back in when PG comes out and both of them end the half together. Vogel is trying to have one of them out there at all possible times.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X