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

Andrew Bynum 13-14 General Discussion

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

  • Re: So what was Andrew's Bynum's conduct detrimental to the team??

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    I honestly think Brown's just way too nice. The guy's a pushover and lets the inmates run the asylum, he commands zero respect.
    Why respect a coach that stands away from the huddle at the scorer's table while his assistant coach comes up with offensive plays? One of the most comical moments I've ever seen as an NBA spectator was during the Lebron years, and in a heated contest (with I believe the Celtics) in the final moments, the camera cut to Mike Brown looking like a deer caught in the headlights, with the image of his entire team behind him in the huddle while the guy whose name escapes me (went on to coach the Pistons) drew up the final play. My brother, who at the time, was a giant Mike Brown supporter, even took the time to let out a small chuckle. Mike Brown would make a great defensive minded assistant coach. But when you lack the ability to control a locker room, or understand a basic rudimentary offensive system, you're essentially a glorified assistant with a title of Head Coach. One of the main reasons his tenure in La La Land was so short.

    Comment


    • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Comparing Isaiah to Vogel is pretty hilarious. Comparing Artest to Bynum is almost as hilarious. Bynum has had his incidents, but he's no Artest. Plus, Artest was a starter... Bynum is a cheap backup.
      Funny that you and Hicks jumped on the Isiah example and ran away from the FRANK VOGEL LOST THE TEAM, WENT ON A SERIES OF BLOWOUTS THAT ENDED IN A LOCKER ROOM FIGHT...all over chemistry issues of introducing a player to backup minutes in the 2nd quarter, a player that's still on the team.

      That s*** isn't ancient history and that's not some other coach. That team was on-track and winning games post-JOB and for a window of about 2 weeks looked like the worst team in the freaking NBA. Gnome and I traveled to see those games so they are ingrained in my mind. Gnome talked to Foster the night the locker room fight happened and you know what his mood was like? Depressed and frustrated.

      mid-game as Foster stood next to us to rest his back
      Gnome: "Tough night?"
      Foster: "You have no idea"


      The only thing you have now is West and some bonding experience. But don't tell me that Jeff Foster wasn't a mature vet with some say on the team. There were guys on that team that were mature and many that are still on this team that have always been considered good guys.

      Lance had ZERO profile in the national media sense and the Pacers weren't trying to fend off Miami and OKC for the #1 NBA record. So all that maturity and the West addition is offset by the fact that this team is in a much more precarious position in terms of how much fall off they can take in relation to their goal (a title) and how much more distracting a Bynum failure now would be vs the Lance experiment a couple seasons ago.

      When Lance failed no one outside of Indy, and even most media within Indy, even noticed. Just more losing by a team that was losing yet again with some unknown temp coach. When (if) Bynum fails EVERYONE will notice, reporters will fly to Indy to interview people specifically about the failure and how it is affecting the team. You won't be able to cleanly cut the cord because Bynum is a national story of interest in the same way Tebow or even Kim Kardashian are - people are curious about the failure as much as the success.

      And that team could take 3-4 game blowout losses with virtually no impact on their current position. 8th seed and playoffs was a borderline goal and achievable even with a serious losing record. 3 weeks of bad ball and frustration over trying to wedge a new guy into the mix could mean giving up home court in the only 2 series you care about - Miami and the Finals.





      The point with Isiah's team was that no one on Pacers Digest or elsewhere thought that team was about to be a first round out epic meltdown. Even the fans that didn't like the defensive brand or were annoyed by Artest's weirdness had to admit that the team was seriously making it work. They were winning A LOT of games, they were the best team in the East just like they would be the following year when they didn't meltdown in the 2nd half.

      In fact Isiah's season followed by Carlisle's season is my point - chemistry is more important than talent, period. No amount of talent could savage Isiah's season and he even had Brad Miller to help even if Ron lost it. Carlisle lost Brad which meant he had to rely on Ron much more, not less. Carlisle put Tinsley on the bench to start the season as well. So he 100% had less overall talent to work with but had a much better result because he coaxed some buy-in out of everyone.

      It's that delicate.



      And while Hicks may not have been one to worry about Granger's return, it was a big story. I'd have to look to see if Montieth did an article on it, but certainly lots of other sports journalists did. So this "what are we worried about" angle rings false as h*** to me. Granger was a proven teammate of ALL the main guys. He was a key guy with West, Roy, Hill and Paul. It's like people forget he already had played with those guys and had winning chemistry with them (6 games vs Miami playoff run).

      And yet we are supposed to worry that a proven guy who has teammates giving him hugs and high 5s on his first bucket after his return in Detroit might be a chemistry problem, and we aren't supposed to worry that this exact same group of players/coaches can easily tolerate an outsider with a known track record of chemistry issues.

      Give me a break. Maybe Hicks is above having to pick a side, but a lot of people around this city are not. Either Bynum is a worry and a bigger one that Granger, or Granger was easily going to fit back in because we don't even have to worry about Bynum.




      I am NOT SAYING BYNUM WILL FAIL. I'm not discussing that at all. I'm saying that an addition like this is always a risk, no matter how strong the team bond already is. Adding some D-League bench guy that no one has heard of, no big deal. But adding a "celebrity" player now as famous for his failures as his successes? Yes, that will always be a risk, even to Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers.

      I am also NOT SAYING IT MIGHT NOT BE AN EPIC WIN. This very well could be our Rasheed Wallace, it's got a lot of similarities. Best defense in the NBA adds a very tall, very long big man to play with a team that already features a DPOY frontline star type? Added on a buyout deal on the cheap. And the player has a history of chemistry issues?

      It's identical to me. The potential impact could be a reduction in PPG allowed on a level similar to those Pistons, or certainly it could impact the team overall in that way. Bynum working hard and healthy enough to do what is asked of him? Good lord.


      But the risk is higher than people think, and it ties to his health and national attention more than it does to whether Roy or West can handle dealing with him.

      Comment


      • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

        The one seemingly noticeable difference between Sheed and Bynum is that Sheed was thought to be liked and even respected by pretty much all of his teammates everywhere he played...Im not really sure you can say that regarding Bynum to this point...lets hope it turns out hes liked and respected by the team here...
        The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

        Comment


        • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

          Frank takes over 17-27 Pacers

          They go 9-5 with 2 of the losses coming in OT (just missing an 11-3 run). Only the final game of this stretch, an OT loss to PHX, features any Lance PT (he gets 4 minutes).

          Then Lance starts getting his regular "development" minutes. They beat GSW then go on the road to lose to OKC, DAL and HOU by 24, 8 and 17 (and the DAL game was never that close). The fight happens at the HOU game. They return home and lose to PHI by 10 and then @MIN by 26 and Lance time ends (a few mop up minutes in blowouts after that).
          GSW +9
          OKC -24
          DAL - 8
          HOU -17
          PHI - 10
          MIN -26

          The 9-5 team just went 1-6 with Lance put into the bench rotation, mostly 1st half only, and none of the losses were even close. OKC was good but not the elite team, DAL was the better team at that time. HOU was .500 (ie, no better than the Vogel version of the Pacers) and PHI was sub-500. MIN that won by 26 in Indy was one of the worst teams in the NBA (16-50 then)



          They go 10-8 the rest of the way including an OT win over the #1 seed Bulls. They make the playoffs thanks to a 20-18 run that was 19-12 outside the Lance experiment. They misssed the #7 seed by 4 games and made the playoffs by 2 games. They had some buffer that could absorb a 1-6 run instead of a 4-3 run. Do the current Pacers have that buffer over OKC and MIA?


          UNKNOWN BENCH PLAYER. LOW MINUTES. VOGEL COACH. CHEMISTRY.

          Comment


          • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

            You're worried about a two-week stretch at the beginning of Vogel's tenure. And they recovered and got it worked out.
            Apples, oranges, and all that, plus you're just going way too far with it, lol...
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Maybe, but then again isn't that normally when players and coaches alike who aren't involves in ASW go on vacation?
              Yeah, I guess my point was that it *could* have been a perfect opportunity for some of the coaching staff and Bynum to forego a bit of time off and instead work him into the system at a convenient time in the schedule.

              Not saying that if they choose instead to take the week off I would be upset at them or anything, but with our 'win now' mindset, it also would not have surprised me to see the coaches sacrifice the time off if they felt it gave Bynum and the team a chance to be more successful.

              Comment


              • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Funny that you and Hicks jumped on the Isiah example and ran away from the FRANK VOGEL LOST THE TEAM, WENT ON A SERIES OF BLOWOUTS THAT ENDED IN A LOCKER ROOM FIGHT...all over chemistry issues of introducing a player to backup minutes in the 2nd quarter, a player that's still on the team.

                That s*** isn't ancient history and that's not some other coach. That team was on-track and winning games post-JOB and for a window of about 2 weeks looked like the worst team in the freaking NBA. Gnome and I traveled to see those games so they are ingrained in my mind. Gnome talked to Foster the night the locker room fight happened and you know what his mood was like? Depressed and frustrated.
                As far as this current team is concerned, something that happened three years ago is about as ancient as Columbus sailing the ocean blue. There were no West and Hill back then. The team had a losing record and had never made the playoffs together. Several key players were still very young. The stench of O'Brien still loomed large. Plus Vogel was still basically a brand new coach who was still earning the respect of the team and figuring out how to run things.

                Since this locker room spat occurred three years ago:

                - The team got it's playoff cherry popped by the Bulls.
                - It added West and George Hill, who instantly brought their winning attitudes and professionalism to the team.
                - There was a massive turnaround in the 11-12 season in which we had the 5th best record in the league, won a playoff series, and took the Heat to 6 games. Hibbert is an all-star.
                - With Granger out last year, PG becomes an all star and the team takes the Heat to 7 games.
                - This season, they have had the best record in the league for most of the year. PG turns into a legit superstar, Hibbs an all-star, Lance is out of his mind.
                - Most importantly, multiple people who cover the Pacers/NBA say that this is as close of a locker room as you'll ever see.

                So yeah, I have just a tiny tiny tiny bit more faith in this team's locker room maturity now than I did three years ago. Just a tiny bit more.....

                There aren't going to be any sides taken here. It will be 14 to 1 if Bynum tries to pull any stunts. I'm sure that Vogel and Bird made all of this very clear to Bynum.

                Comment


                • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                  So you're pretty comfortable with the last 2 weeks? I mean it's only a 2 week stretch of bad losses to PHX and DEN and nearly a bad loss to SAC and BRK. They only fell behind OKC for the top seed so really it had no impact on their title chances.

                  And that's not even due to any Bynum issue. That's just regular basketball.



                  Yes, for a team that's not just playing "wouldn't the 4 seed be nice" basketball and really just building for next year I am pretty darn worried about a 1-6 stretch of chemistry disaster. I'll be happy to apologize when they beat Miami in game 7 in Miami and then win game 7 in OKC too, even though my worry wouldn't have been wrong because I'm worried about losing the seeding rather than whether they can win a road game or not.

                  I'm debating the idea that literally nothing can possibly be negatively affected by signing Bynum, it's just all for free with no possible consequences. I think that view is very naive.

                  This team doesn't have the safety net of "just happy to be here" that the 10-11 team did. And Lance was truly a zero-risk guy, unknown nationally, 2nd round rookie, who cares if he doesn't produce. Lance failing then cost the team 10 times less than Bynum failing now. No one noticed outside of Indy and Lance wasn't even getting cheap signing Bynum money. The team expectations were very low, they weren't even in the playoffs at that point.

                  If a team with zero pressure can be almost instantly derailed by a rotation change then why can't a team with no margin for error succumb to a similar change?



                  My point is not "this WILL happen". My point is "oh, there is nothing to worry about" is just nuts. Of course things can go wrong, the risk assessment is way off from most circles.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                    Not worried at all. A lull was inevitable. They'll work it out. Better now than right before the playoffs.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      Nice! We didn't even have to give up JO to get him.
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment


                      • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                        Sorry to multi-post but this is for a different debate point with Sollozo, something I think is more reasonable.


                        Sure, I'm not saying this squad isn't more mature and unified. And still they just fell apart starting with the GSW 2nd half without an outside influence. The issue is that the other team had NOTHING TO LOSE. I mean literally nothing. If that team went 1-6 and it mean they stayed at the 9th or 10th seed, so be it. We were just happy that Frank was playing Hibbert and working through the post game and going all smash-mouth.

                        That team could brush off Lance getting 10 minutes or even losing some games because just losing a bit less and playing a bit more inspired was a success.


                        This more mature team has massively higher expectations and therefore much less margin for error. There is no debating that point. The Bynum signing is even viewed as the Pacers going all-in to win this year. Heck, the Scola deal was viewed that way too.

                        This team doesn't get to hold it's head up high if it loses to Miami in the ECF, let alone losing in 5 games in round 1. That other squad did.



                        So yes, it's true this team is better equipped to handle things, but the problem is that the thing they are being asked to handle is tenfold worse than what the previous squad had to deal with. Do I think this team could handle 8 minutes of a Solo Hill in the 2nd quarter experiment that didn't work out? Yes.

                        But who thinks Bynum moving into the Pacers rotation is the same as Solo moving into the rotation, let alone an unknown 2nd round pick that is behind Roy, Tyler and Paul in terms of development plan? What ESPN reporter was asking Danny Granger what he thought about Lance getting 10 minutes vs Dallas? None. No one cared. With Bynum they do.

                        The team is in a better place but the challenge has been drastically raised. No room for error with a lot more eyes on the situation.



                        And I'm pro-Pacers on this of course. If these guys somehow recover Bynum or even shed off a failed attempt without a blip then it says more about them than the off-season work put in to avenge a playoff loss.

                        I think it's a gamble, but I also think/hope they can pull it off. It's enough of a risk that I'll be thrilled about it, whereas most of Pacers nation is treating it like "oh, no big deal, either it works or not, they won't bat an eye either way".

                        Comment


                        • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          You're worried about a two-week stretch at the beginning of Vogel's tenure. And they recovered and got it worked out.
                          Apples, oranges, and all that, plus you're just going way too far with it, lol...
                          That, and since then Lance grew up, Hill and West came in and made a huge impact on the culture of the team, Paul George is growing into another Hill/West kind of guy in the locker room (according to someone who is occasionally inside said locker room, per private conversation), not to mention the presence of the other players who have never been known to be drama-makers, and the rest of this coaching staff, and Bird. There are many reasons to not be alarmed about what Bynum might or might not do to this team and its chemistry. And this is all assuming Bynum's going to **** with things in the first place, which he has every reason NOT TO DO right now for the sake of his career, and because he's been known to be on best behavior on strong, title-contending teams, AND we have at least some talk from Cleveland saying he wasn't a bad guy up there.

                          I feel like this is a massive overreaction to a disturbing hypothetical that seems, to me at least, very unlikely to happen in the first place.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            That, and since then Lance grew up, Hill and West came in and made a huge impact on the culture of the team, Paul George is growing into another Hill/West kind of guy in the locker room (according to someone who is occasionally inside said locker room, per private conversation), not to mention the presence of the other players who have never been known to be drama-makers, and the rest of this coaching staff, and Bird. There are many reasons to not be alarmed about what Bynum might or might not do to this team and its chemistry. And this is all assuming Bynum's going to **** with things in the first place, which he has every reason NOT TO DO right now for the sake of his career, AND we have Cleveland players saying he wasn't a bad guy up there.

                            I feel like this is a massive overreaction to a disturbing hypothetical that seems, to me at least, very unlikely to happen in the first place.
                            Paul George's demeanor suggests he is becoming less mature, not more mature. And Lance, although he can focus it better most times, is still a loose cannon at many times.
                            There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Not worried at all. A lull was inevitable. They'll work it out. Better now than right before the playoffs.
                              There was talk last night from Candace and the team that everyone's basically long-term tired right now and needs a break. I'd almost bet money that the source of our problems right now. I think they'll be recharged by the end of the month after most of them have a week off.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Frank takes over 17-27 Pacers

                                They go 9-5 with 2 of the losses coming in OT (just missing an 11-3 run). Only the final game of this stretch, an OT loss to PHX, features any Lance PT (he gets 4 minutes).

                                Then Lance starts getting his regular "development" minutes. They beat GSW then go on the road to lose to OKC, DAL and HOU by 24, 8 and 17 (and the DAL game was never that close). The fight happens at the HOU game. They return home and lose to PHI by 10 and then @MIN by 26 and Lance time ends (a few mop up minutes in blowouts after that).
                                GSW +9
                                OKC -24
                                DAL - 8
                                HOU -17
                                PHI - 10
                                MIN -26

                                The 9-5 team just went 1-6 with Lance put into the bench rotation, mostly 1st half only, and none of the losses were even close. OKC was good but not the elite team, DAL was the better team at that time. HOU was .500 (ie, no better than the Vogel version of the Pacers) and PHI was sub-500. MIN that won by 26 in Indy was one of the worst teams in the NBA (16-50 then)
                                Yeah Dallas was the better team at the time. Better as in THEY WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP THAT SEASON. And Oklahoma City absolutely was an elite team by that point. They won 55 games that year and lost to Dallas in the WCF's. Durant and Westbrook were already firmly entrenched as elite players by 2011, particularly Durant. So we're going to blame blowout losses on the road to the two Western Conference Finalist teams on the "Lance Experiment"? That's a pretty narrow way of looking at it and is absolving too many other players of blame. Look, Born Ready clearly wasn't ready at that point, but those two losses were against SUPERIOR OPPONENTS.....superior as in eventual NBA champion and other Western Conference Finalist. Losing on the road in Houston? Well, Houston did actually win more games than the Pacers that year, even though they missed the playoffs in the tough West. These were tough road games in the West that a young inexperienced team like the 2011 Pacers are supposed to lose

                                The truth is that the 2011 Pacers were still an extremely young team and them getting drilled on the road by a couple of superior opponents was hardly a surprise. It also wasn't even a complete surprise when we lost to Minny and Philly at home. These sorts of things happen when you are an 8 seed team, which is what those Pacers were. There was a reason that everyone was excited when we competed hard and lost 4-1 to the Bulls. The expectations were not high that season. It was still a young team that was nowhere near ready to take the next leap, but they at least showed something big by competing against Chicago. Then Bird added West and Hill, and the team matured greatly. The rest is history.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-02-2014, 03:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X