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

Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

    Probably the only people that are going to either understand or appreciate what I’m about to say are going to be either old or appreciate rock guitarist.

    Now after watching Danny play seven games and watching how he has progressed in each of the games, minus that dreadful performance in Brooklyn, it has become apparent to me that he is becoming the Eric Clapton of our team.

    For those who don’t know Eric’s nickname is slow hand (or God if you get the reference) and I’ll try and put it in comparison.

    He always hits the right notes, he always makes the right sound he just doesn’t waste any excess energy in doing it and some don’t like him because he doesn’t burn up the strings with fast finger taps, hammer-on’s and pull off’s. In other words he is not Eddie Van Halen or Kirk Hammett. But what he is simply put is a maestro of the guitar.

    Danny in his short time back to me is strikingly similar. He is always in the right spot, he has only really taken the open shot and he has done a very good job of keeping the ball moving. On defense I think he has been almost amazing considering where his stamina and knee should be at. But have you watched his hands? I swear today he had at least 3 deflections on top of the one steal he was credited with. But the one thing that impressed me today was his rebounding and gaining position for his rebounds. There were a couple of times that he didn’t get the rebound because the shot went in but his positioning was such that had the ball gone out the only person that could have gotten it was him.

    In short what I’m trying to say is that while Danny is not the flashiest he is a solid veteran who knows how to get the job done. Paul & Lance are the Eddie’s and Kirk’s of our team and they provide a lot of sizzle and show but it is almost a ridicules luxury to be able now to go to the bench and bring in a player of this caliber and oddly enough he’s not even 1/8 of the player he used to be and still not probably ½ the player he can become again.

    I say all of that to say this.

    Our bench, which I was plenty pleased with prior to his return, is now almost obscene. Danny Granger & Luis Scola could be a starting front court for a lot of teams in the NBA, even good winning teams. They both are that good.

    Then throw in C.J. Watson, who is better than any starting point guard we have had on our team before George Hill and since Anthony Johnson and well you can see that we have gone from the worst bench in the NBA to one of the very best and like I said about Scola early in the season and was right, Danny Granger is only going to get better. Unless there is some medical set back you can see Danny getting better each and every game.

    Now is there a potential downfall to any of this?

    Yes.

    Lance has played very well, phenomenal in fact. Actually Lance almost by himself tonight in the 3rd brought us back in that game. Lance deserves his minutes.

    Lance also is a very emotional player and wears his emotions on his sleeves. He does not like being taken out of games and yes the other night when Frank put Danny in for that last second shot Lance was very upset on the bench about it, walked away from the huddle while it was still going on and had to be calmed by Rasual Butler.

    Well tonight Danny was playing very well in the first half and it came time for him to come out and much to my surprise Danny grumbled going to the bench to Frank.

    This is only after 7 games and he is not in anywhere near the shape he will be in. Come the end of February and he is back almost 100% what is it going to be like then. Now I did come to learn after the game that Danny is on a min. restriction so he may have been upset because he hit a time limit but even if he wasn’t he had hit that time in the game where it was time for Paul George to come back.

    Now again understand I am saying potential, I am not saying there is a sure fire problem here.

    But we have several things going in our favor here.

    1. This isn’t a bad problem to have really. We have so much talent that we have to make time.
    2. Trust in Frank, he has never steered this ship in the wrong direction
    3. Trust in the character or our players, this isn’t the Artest & O’Neal Pacers this is the Stephenson & George Pacer with solid veterans to help guide the way

    Oh yea, also since Danny has been back Ian has been playing better. One probably has nothing to do with the other but so far it’s just worked out that way.

    Moving on.

    I would just like to point this out for everyone. Al-Farouq Aminu was drafted # 8 in the 2010 NBA draft. That’s right the same draft that saw Paul George go #10 and Lance Stephenson go # 40. It’s okay to laugh.

    These next set of games scare me to death. We don’t really face another major team until the Clippers in the middle of the month and now with Paul being gone I don’t think you can consider them a major team either. It scares me because if we play this right we can put real significant distance between us and everyone else. But because we have started out taking these teams lightly or maybe they are just overly hyped to play us or a combination in between I can’t say. But we only played a good second half tonight, played horrid in Toronto and played bad for 3 of the 4 quarters vs. the Cavs. We have got to start taking these teams seriously and put our foot on their throats early and put them to be by the 3rd quarter.

    BTW, I can’t begin to describe how fun it is to be the team that now can look down at almost every other team other than elite teams and nobody is more elite than we are.

    One more thing that I want to point out. Sell out # 11 already. We had 10 all of last season.

    I know I’m all over the place with this. Let’s do some grades.

    Paul George: A- How ridicules is it to say that a guy who scores 24 and grabs 10 boards and plays good defense and you can say that this wasn’t one of his better games. Paul right now is in a shooting slump. It happens so we won’t harp on it but honestly that is why we have struggled a little the past few games, because shots that were automatic for him just a couple of weeks ago are now not finding their mark. No worries though, he’ll get through it and we’ll move on.

    David West: B Solid yet unspectacular. Davis is kind of a hard matchup for him, the same is true in reverse though as well. Davis length bothers West some and God knows that West’s physical nature bugs the crap out of Davis. I got to set in different seats tonight so I could see up close and personal how much West puts that forearm deep into the chest of Davis.

    Roy Hibbert: B- You know I appreciate the blocked shots, I do. But rebound the ball and for the love of God stop missing these damn bunnies at the rim. He played much better in the second half but that first half was brutal, he was totally outplayed by Ajinca. But then he hit a few shots in the second half and grabbed some boards.

    Lance Stephenson: A Ironically Tyreke Evans was the player I always thought Lance reminded me the most of, now Evans just dreams that he were half the player that Lance is. When he sets his mind to it he is virtually unstoppable going to the rim and tonight in the 3rd quarter he decided he was going to the rim. He’s kind of slipped a little the past few games on his defensive assignments but overall I will reiterate what I said above, he took over in the 3rd and willed us to the lead.

    George Hill: B Like West solid yet unspectacular. He held Holiday in check so he has that going for him and he was aggressive so there is that as well. Didn’t really screw anything up but I wish he would have driven the lane a little more in an attempt to draw fouls, but when you have the leagues leading shot blocker there I can understand pulling up.

    Danny Granger: A- Considering where he is at in terms of his conditioning I think he played a pretty outstanding game. I like the fact that he is very selective in his shooting knowing that he is only taking shots in the flow of the game. I also love that he gets to the free throw line and then once there he makes them pay. His offense is a little ahead of where I expected it to be but his defense has been much higher than I thought it would be. He spent a lot of time tonight on Evans and that is not an easy task for someone with a bum leg. Did you see him reach in there and force that jump ball? That should have counted as a block but it didn’t.

    Luis Scola: B+ My only complaint with Luis tonight was not with him but with Frank and it’s not really a complaint but just a shrugging of the shoulders understanding that this is a problem we have. I think he should have played more min. but then I ask myself were should the min. come from? You aren’t really going to take that many more min away from West so it is about were he is going to have to work with. His ability to hit that face up jumper has saved our asses so many times this season. His rebounding though has been superb lately.

    C.J. Watson: B+ There are guys that just know how to play basketball and right now our three main bench players all know how to play. The best compliment I can give him is that when Hill goes to the bench I don’t even care. Watson has a very high basketball I.Q. and he shows it every game.

    Ian Mahinmi: B- Second best French player on the floor today. He didn’t play bad at all really and he did a very good job of clogging up the middle. Now that Danny is here any offense you get from Ian is just gravy at this point so we really can’t hold him just scoring 2 points against him.

    Now on to Cleveland for the kill storm 3000 game.

    Yes it is decided, we need to hear Kirk Hammett.



    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

    Missed the game so thanks for the excellent follow up.

    I'll accept your guitar metaphor. I've Seen EC at least three times and some people can't understand why I love him so much.
    Maestro indeed. You don't need a lot of flash when you are god-like in your control.

    To expand your idea that is much the identity of our team too. We do not need some spectacular offensive firework display. We play best when we just settle into a nice offensive rhythm, and take control on defense.
    Execute and throttle.
    Or as you said "step on their neck".

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Now again understand I am saying potential, I am not saying there is a sure fire problem here.
      For sure. This is the very reason all those "Danny-Lance" threads have been taking place since before the season began. It was quite predictable.

      As a Lance advocate, you know where I fall on the debate. Lance should get full starter minutes and finish the games. However, I'm not ready to agree with Lance that he should be in on the last shot. Not until he improves his free throw shooting (although it does seem to be getting better).
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

        I went to the game after the Colts game but it was almost over and I spent the entire time on my phone because I was in so much shock. Thank you for the recap as always! Last night was an excellent for Indy sports. IU, Colts and Pacers all had sellouts. Is there any city with each a pro football team and an NBA team that has more combined wins?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

          Good write-up.

          One way for both Scola and Danny to get at least a couple more minutes per game would be for Frank to pull the starters earlier in a blowout. We were up 16 and had a timeout at the 2:56 mark and Frank put the starters back in. Baffled me.
          This space for rent.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

            Yeah I heard about the minutes restriction thing yesterday(I forgot about that) and I can see a problem coming up, where are those minutes coming from? Vogel would have to be stupid to **** Lance or PG by reducing their minutes even more, lets hope that Vogel knows how to deal with those egos.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Yeah I heard about the minutes restriction thing yesterday(I forgot about that) and I can see a problem coming up, where are those minutes coming from? Vogel would have to be stupid to **** Lance or PG by reducing their minutes even more, lets hope that Vogel knows how to deal with those egos.
              This team has bragged about there being no ego's in the locker-room and how nobody is bigger than the team. This may get put to the test to a slight degree. I don't think it'll be a huge problem but somebody grumbling a little bit about reduced playing time could have an effect on chemistry. It's a good problem to have especially if you look at a team like the Bulls who have a ton of talent but Tibs played their guys a lot of minutes and they seem to always have injuries.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
                This team has bragged about there being no ego's in the locker-room and how nobody is bigger than the team. This may get put to the test to a slight degree. I don't think it'll be a huge problem but somebody grumbling a little bit about reduced playing time could have an effect on chemistry. It's a good problem to have especially if you look at a team like the Bulls who have a ton of talent but Tibs played their guys a lot of minutes and they seem to always have injuries.
                Vogel is watching this closely I am sure. If necessary, the Pacers will move a player if they need to do it. Me-first attitudes will not be tolerated.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                  Hopefully it was just disappoint from Danny, about having his first pretty good game back and then having to come out. It's not a new experience, but it's not something that's happened to him for almost a decade. Last time he played regular minutes, he was the guy, now he's just a guy. I'd imagine it takes a bit of getting used too.

                  With that said, Lance or Danny was a valid question at the beginning of the season, but not almost half way through. I think Danny will cope with it pretty well, Scola has which has been really nice and should be considered a luxury in today's ego-driven era, but if he doesn't then he either needs to or you actively start shopping for any kind of deal and hope it comes with a SF bench piece, or a more scoring center type player, you can use.



                  But I was with Anthem, I figured Frank would allow the bench to close out the game considering they were on the first night of a back to back in a blow out. Not to mention that the bench played well last night. I know he's trying to get other guys some minutes, but I think you hope you can put away the Cavs and get starters and your main bench unit some rest there.
                  “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    As a Lance advocate, you know where I fall on the debate. Lance should get full starter minutes and finish the games. However, I'm not ready to agree with Lance that he should be in on the last shot. Not until he improves his free throw shooting (although it does seem to be getting better).
                    Although I now like Lance, I don't particularly label myself a Lance advocate.

                    But I will take exception to your comment. The ball absolutely should be in Lance's hands at the end of each quarter. And I'll tell you why.

                    If the Pacers come up the court with less than 24 seconds left on the game clock and the ball is in Paul George's hands, no one else is going to see the ball, and far more often than not George is going to miss a poorly taken shot.

                    In the same situation with the ball in Lance's hands, with the instruction from Vogel for Lance to do whatever the hell he has to do to get us a score, probably 8 times out of 10 the ball will end up in someone else's hands with a pretty darn good shot at the basket.

                    Personally, I think the Pacers are more likely to get quarter-ending points with the ball in Lance's hands than with the ball in the hands of any other player on the roster. The only disclaimer is that Vogel must assert to the team that it is Lance's responsibility to make certain that the team scores and that Lance will be held accountable for creating a good scoring opportunity.

                    I think the days of wasting nearly all of our quarter-ending scoring opportunities should have been long gone by now. Although Lance may not be consistent or steady enough to handle this responsibility throughout an entire game, there is no one else on our roster that would be more reliable to handle it for one trip down the floor when we want or need points.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Good write-up.

                      One way for both Scola and Danny to get at least a couple more minutes per game would be for Frank to pull the starters earlier in a blowout. We were up 16 and had a timeout at the 2:56 mark and Frank put the starters back in. Baffled me.
                      It's easy to boost the # of minutes for Granger. Granger is averaging 20 mpg now. Lance and PG24 are averaging 35 mpg.....Personally, I think that both of them playing 35 mpg is too much over the long run. As you said...pull them out earlier and reduce their payload of minutes to 33 mpg ( a difference of 2 mpg for each of them ) and Granger is up to 24 mpg.....reduce them to 32 mpg and Granger goes up to 26 mpg.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                        Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
                        This team has bragged about there being no ego's in the locker-room and how nobody is bigger than the team. This may get put to the test to a slight degree. I don't think it'll be a huge problem but somebody grumbling a little bit about reduced playing time could have an effect on chemistry. It's a good problem to have especially if you look at a team like the Bulls who have a ton of talent but Tibs played their guys a lot of minutes and they seem to always have injuries.
                        Danny might grumble a little, but I highly doubt it will actually turn into any kind of chemistry problem with him. Lance is the one I would worry about since he is a much more emotional individual.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                          This is probably going to derail the thread, but what if we can't afford Lance without decimating the team, and Granger is willing to sign for 4-5 mil? Is that [signing Granger] the best move to keep a 2-3-4 year window open?

                          Also, along the same lines, it is becoming clear that this year is the single best chance for the Pacers to win it, no matter what happens going forward.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                            Although I now like Lance, I don't particularly label myself a Lance advocate.

                            But I will take exception to your comment. The ball absolutely should be in Lance's hands at the end of each quarter. And I'll tell you why.

                            If the Pacers come up the court with less than 24 seconds left on the game clock and the ball is in Paul George's hands, no one else is going to see the ball, and far more often than not George is going to miss a poorly taken shot.

                            In the same situation with the ball in Lance's hands, with the instruction from Vogel for Lance to do whatever the hell he has to do to get us a score, probably 8 times out of 10 the ball will end up in someone else's hands with a pretty darn good shot at the basket.

                            Personally, I think the Pacers are more likely to get quarter-ending points with the ball in Lance's hands than with the ball in the hands of any other player on the roster. The only disclaimer is that Vogel must assert to the team that it is Lance's responsibility to make certain that the team scores and that Lance will be held accountable for creating a good scoring opportunity.

                            I think the days of wasting nearly all of our quarter-ending scoring opportunities should have been long gone by now. Although Lance may not be consistent or steady enough to handle this responsibility throughout an entire game, there is no one else on our roster that would be more reliable to handle it for one trip down the floor when we want or need points.
                            I think you overestimate how often Lance would pass it, and underestimate how often Paul would pass it. Lance would probably pass it more often, but not by much. The difference between the two is Lance is more likely to try and get a shot at the rim, while Paul likes to settle for 3's and long 2's.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: breaking the beaks of the Pelicans

                              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                              This is probably going to derail the thread, but what if we can't afford Lance without decimating the team, and Granger is willing to sign for 4-5 mil? Is that [signing Granger] the best move to keep a 2-3-4 year window open?

                              Also, along the same lines, it is becoming clear that this year is the single best chance for the Pacers to win it, no matter what happens going forward.
                              In such a situation it would be highly unlikely there would be a better option than Granger. $7 million is a more realistic number though.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X