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

Why I don't like Tinsley

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Why I don't like Tinsley

    I watched the game in Atlanta this weekend, which has not much to do with this thread. It just always helps to add that for a little extra credibility.

    Although I do think AJ and Gill both had decent games. I've watched Tinsley in person (which also doesn't matter) and I've watched nearly every game on satellite the past two years.

    Yes, I like Tinsley's savvy passing intuition.

    Yes, I like Tinsley's smooth offensive moves. Sometimes he is just beautiful when he weaves around inside and scores.

    Yes, I like his skillful ballhandling and his great hands which lead to many steals.

    Yes, I like his overall attitude. I've seen nothing that really shows him to be anything other than a hard worker and someone who really desires to win.

    Yes, I love it when he's got a hot shooting hand. When that happens, he's nearly unstoppable.

    So. Why don't I like him? (I do like him personally, but I don't like what he brings, ultimately, to the team.)

    I don't like Tinsley's game for the Pacers for two reasons. One, he is streaky and inconsistent with his shooting and two, he controls the ball too much.

    I view Tinsley as almost like a drug for the Pacers. We get addicted to his single-handed efforts to create offensive opportunities and this prevents us as a team from moving to the next level with offensive motion, good passing, and spreading out the scoring.

    With Tinsley, we can pretty much survive by Tinsley creating and/or JO doing ISO's. This works well until two things happen: 1. Tinsley stops his streaky shooting or 2. We get to the playoffs or a big game like Detroit where the serious screws of hard defense get placed on us. Then the two-man show just isn't quite good enough for us to win, well intentioned as Tinsley may be.

    Tinsley reminds me a bit of John Stockton. I loved Stockton in many ways, but I felt he held on to the ball too long and Utah had similar problems of not being able to advance beyond a two-man show. The analogy breaks down since Stockton was a consistent shooter but couldn't create as well as Tinsley, but there is still a decent analogy there.

    As much grief as AJ and Gill get on this board, there is a part of me that feels more secure when they are on the floor, because they can both nail an outside shot when we need it, and when the game is on the line. They can both hit pressure free throws. I still don't trust Tinsley on the free throw line.

    Before you start throwing tomotoes at me for preferring AJ or Gill to Tinsley, I'm not exactly saying that. What I am saying is that I wish we had a different style point guard -- more like Billups or Parker or Bibby. That is, someone who is consistent from the outside, perhaps not so sometimes brilliant with personal offensive moves, and who is quicker and better at getting an offense moving with several passes from several players in the first few seconds of the halfcourt set.

    Now, it may be that much of the criticism here should be directed at Rick and the coaching staff. Perhaps they should be riding Mel's a$$ to get the offense going more quickly, getting more players involved quickly, etc. But that is why I said at the beginning of this that he is like a drug. I think he may sort of lull the coaches away from disciplining the team to have its own way of creating offense through complex, disciplined movement and passing because he is able to just making things happen so easy on a personal basis by dribbling, penetrating, then scoring or dumping it off. Again, I admit it is a beautiful thing to watch, and that Tinsley is very, very good. I just don't think that it can take us to a championship level at the end of the day.

    If I had my preference, I would like to see Tinsley traded while he has very high trade value for a different style point guard. No, I don't think our current backups are good enough to get us to the next level either. I just think their style is more suited to what we need, and I think their normalness wakes up the coaches and the other players that we better have an offensive plan and some disciplined rotations to win a game. This may possibly explain why we won the past two games.

    I guess its been frustrating for me watching our offense the past two years. Its seems like good teams we face get down the floor quickly, whip the ball around a few times, create space and oppurtunities, and often get good percentage shots. We either have a very slow-starting half court set led by AJ or Gill which inevitably leads to an ISO with JO or perhaps a three from Croshere, Reggie, or a Jones. If Tinsley is in, then we have him driving and perhaps scoring, creating a little more space but still not that much, and any shot taken, whether by Tinsley or someone he passes to, is still pretty well contested. Once in while, it is true, Mel makes a very nice pass for an easy shot. But not enough to make the rest of the 48 minutes worth it.

    I think this rut we have found our ourselves in for a long time was not quite as frustrating with Artest around. It still bothered me then, but Ron could also create and he provided two ISO options. This year, the fact that we have no effective offensive sets is really glaring and really frustrating.

    I would enjoy feedback on my opinion. I want to know what the rest of you think on the following:

    Can Mel improve with his shooting? Or will he always be streaky? Is this surmountable for us to get to the championship?

    Can or will the coaching staff ever move us into a good passing offense instead of this one-man Tinsley show and/or ISO's with JO (and Ron when he's around)?

    Do you agree that Tinsley's personal and extraordinary abilities make it easy for the coaching staff not to improve the TEAM's offensive creativity?

    Would you entertain a trade of Tinsley for another high-caliber point guard?

    -- McKeyFan
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Why I don't like Tinsley



    Trade Tinsley? You've got to be kidding.....

    I admire your bravery, though.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

      I don't think our team would do so well moving to the offense you desire. I am right there with you, I wish it was different, but our players, well our good players, don't play that way. Jermaine and Ron like to hold the ball, and aren't the quickest and crispest passers in the world. Letting Tinsley do his thing and iso's iwould be the most effective offense for us.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

        Just waiting for Ragnar, don't mind me.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

          Correst me if I was wrong, Kstat or any pistons fans in here, I have both Billups and Tinsley on my fastasy team and I wouldn't say Billups is shooting much more consistent from outside than Tinsley in this season. While Paker and Bibby are not any better 3 point shooters than Tinsley. In my mind, the few starting PG who is shooting well and consistent would be Jason Terry and Steve Nash.



          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

            Originally posted by McKeyFan

            I would enjoy feedback on my opinion. I want to know what the rest of you think on the following:- McKeyFan

            Can Mel improve with his shooting? Or will he always be streaky? Is this surmountable for us to get to the championship?


            He can improve, and it's how much he improves that determines if he's streaky or not. If someone is hitting 50% from the floor like Hoilberg you don't think of them as streaky. So if Tins improves enough we won't think of him as streaky. How much can he improve is the question. The 50% was just to make a point, I don't think Tins will ever hit that high for a season.

            Of course it could happen if the Pacers keep improving and have good players around him he won't have to shoot as much and his percentage will go up.

            It's arguable that if JO and Tins were healthy last year that we would have played for the championship.

            Can or will the coaching staff ever move us into a good passing offense instead of this one-man Tinsley show and/or ISO's with JO (and Ron when he's around)?

            Good question. It looks like the NBA is headed for the European style of play with a lot of ball movement. Witness Phoenix and Seattle this year. Next year there will probably be a a handfull of teams playing that way. The year after half the league, etc. Both the fans and players like that style better. Can Carlisle coach that style? Probably. If not the NBA will pass him by.

            Do you agree that Tinsley's personal and extraordinary abilities make it easy for the coaching staff not to improve the TEAM's offensive creativity?

            Well yeah, but Jackson can get his own shot as well as Artest. When we get them both back the team will look better.

            Would you entertain a trade of Tinsley for another high-caliber point guard?

            Like who? Probably not, he's a top ten point now and he's young and will get better. Hmmm . . . I wonder which team would benefit most if we traded Tinsley for Parker of San Antonio?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

              Originally posted by Hicks
              Just waiting for Ragnar, don't mind me.
              Anxiously waiting for Ragnar...

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                Originally posted by Blizz
                Correst me if I was wrong, Kstat or any pistons fans in here, I have both Billups and Tinsley on my fastasy team and I wouldn't say Billups is shooting much more consistent from outside than Tinsley in this season. While Paker and Bibby are not any better 3 point shooters than Tinsley. In my mind, the few starting PG who is shooting well and consistent would be Jason Terry and Steve Nash.
                As outside shooters go, Billups is a lot more reliable than Tins, I'd say. Billups wont go 5-5 from 3 point range, but he wont have many 0-5 nights, either. Billups is going to be reliable 9 out of 10 games, wheras Tins runs very hot and cold.

                Billups has also hit more clutch shots in a piston uniform than any Piston I've ever seen not named Isiah or Joe.

                I have no illusion that Billups is a great PG. He's not a great shooting guard either. He's slow, stocky, he has limited court vision, and little to no explosion to the basket. Other than his shooting touch, there isn't much about his talent that stands out in any way.

                Still, he just finds ways to win us games. I don't know how he does it sometimes, but if it aint broke, dont fix it.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                  You're right, though, that Tinsley's a drug. His passing and court vision make the offense run easier. There's an obvious difference between the offense when Tins is on the floor and anybody else.

                  You know who else is like a drug? Jermaine O'Neal. The only other player as dangerous in single coverage in the post is also named O'Neal. TD's more fundamentally sound, and KG has the better all around game, but JO can score with any big man in the NBA. What happens when we lose him? It's dangerous to rely on him.

                  You know who else is like a drug? Ron Artest. His ability to lock down his man, regardless of what else happens on the floor, makes any team defense look better.

                  You know who else is like a drug? Kevin Garnett. He's kept terrible teams afloat for years. If not for him, those teams would have been in the lottery every year.

                  You know who else is like a drug? Ben Wallace. The man's a terror in the lane, and every coach he's had has depended on him to shore up the defensive inadequacies of the perimeter. Somebody gets by? No problem, Ben's there.

                  You know who else is like a drug? LaBron James. The man can sell out any arena, even when his team's not playing well. And even if his team's not playing well, they still could win. LaBron can do a little of everything and a whole lot of scoring.

                  You know who else is like a drug? Dwayne Wade. Shaquille O'Neal. Steve Nash. Dirk. Ray Allen. Amare. CWebb. TMac. Take your freaking pick. I could go on, and on, but I hope I've already made my point. Pick a great NBA player that's not "a drug" to use your language.

                  All you're saying is that Tinsley is a great NBA player. I can go along with that. I probably wouldn't put him at Stockton's level yet, but if you want to, I guess I won't dispute it. I'd kill to have John Stockton on my team. Luckily, I've got the closest thing in the NBA: Jamaal Tinsey.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                    Mckeyfan, some very interesting points you made.

                    Let me first say the only think that still bothers me about Tinsley is his one-on-one man to man defense. He has improved so much from two seasons ago, but he is still only average. He has to play containment defense and can't really pressure up court like I wish he could.

                    Yes, he will always be a streaky shooter because his form is not very good, he pushes the ball, and he often misses shots very badly. He airballs a lot and bangs the ball off the backboard often.

                    I love his post up game, just wish he was taller, because right now he can only post about about 25% of the other point guards.

                    As to your question, would the Pacers be better with a diffferent type of point guard. Two years ago, I would have screamed, YES. But I think he is just the type of point guard the Pacers need, they need a pass first, creative point guard.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                      And his shooting has improved. The team just cannot function well without him. And it is fine for him to have the ball, he creates plays. Remember, when this team was whole, he was the glue. This team was fun to watch when Tinsley was running it with everyone.
                      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        I watched the game in Atlanta this weekend, which has not much to do with this thread. It just always helps to add that for a little extra credibility.
                        Interesting that you would mention a game he was in street clothes for. So much for the credibility. :shakehead

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        Although I do think AJ and Gill both had decent games. I've watched Tinsley in person (which also doesn't matter) and I've watched nearly every game on satellite the past two years.
                        Are these also games he missed?


                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        So. Why don't I like him? (I do like him personally, but I don't like what he brings, ultimately, to the team.)

                        I don't like Tinsley's game for the Pacers for two reasons. One, he is streaky and inconsistent with his shooting and two, he controls the ball too much.
                        If by streaky you mean he can score at will when the game is on the line and is our most clutch player then yes he is streaky . He does not seem to shoot as well when we are way ahead or easily controlling the game. I dont know why this is but if the game is close his shots are deady. As far as controlling the ball, You do know he is the POINT GUARD dont you?

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        I view Tinsley as almost like a drug for the Pacers. We get addicted to his single-handed efforts to create offensive opportunities and this prevents us as a team from moving to the next level with offensive motion, good passing, and spreading out the scoring.

                        With Tinsley, we can pretty much survive by Tinsley creating and/or JO doing ISO's. This works well until two things happen: 1. Tinsley stops his streaky shooting or 2. We get to the playoffs or a big game like Detroit where the serious screws of hard defense get placed on us. Then the two-man show just isn't quite good enough for us to win, well intentioned as Tinsley may be.
                        Clearly you have not watched us play Detroit with Tinsley. They cant ball pressure him. That is the main weapon in their arsenal. Its why they have a hard time with NJ because Kidd like Tinsley picks them apart when they try and pressure the ball. We can not beat Detroit or Miami without Tinsley. If you think the team plays better ie. more passing and scoring distribution then you need to look at the games we have played without him more closely.

                        Rick decides how the game will be played not Jamaal. He goes to a more free and open game plan when we are short on players. When Jamaal was the only player we had we were winning games playing this style on a regular basis. Dont blame Jamaal for the game plan being dump it into Jermaine.

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        Tinsley reminds me a bit of John Stockton. I loved Stockton in many ways, but I felt he held on to the ball too long and Utah had similar problems of not being able to advance beyond a two-man show. The analogy breaks down since Stockton was a consistent shooter but couldn't create as well as Tinsley, but there is still a decent analogy there.
                        On this part I am just speechless. I dont even know how to respond. Stockton could not create? WTF??? Have you ever watched Stockton?

                        Originally posted by McKey
                        FanAs much grief as AJ and Gill get on this board, there is a part of me that feels more secure when they are on the floor, because they can both nail an outside shot when we need it, and when the game is on the line. They can both hit pressure free throws. I still don't trust Tinsley on the free throw line.

                        Before you start throwing tomotoes at me for preferring AJ or Gill to Tinsley, I'm not exactly saying that. What I am saying is that I wish we had a different style point guard -- more like Billups or Parker or Bibby. That is, someone who is consistent from the outside, perhaps not so sometimes brilliant with personal offensive moves, and who is quicker and better at getting an offense moving with several passes from several players in the first few seconds of the halfcourt set.
                        Wha??? Getting and offense moving with several passes in the first few second? I thought the knock on Tinsley was that he got them into the offense too quickley and that with Rick wanting to use the entire clock he has had to reign in Tinsley and his ability to score before AJ could get it across the time line. Man I am seriousley questioning if you have ever seen a game coached by Rick in Detroit or Tinsley play when he is turned loose.

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        Now, it may be that much of the criticism here should be directed at Rick and the coaching staff. Perhaps they should be riding Mel's a$$ to get the offense going more quickly, getting more players involved quickly, etc.
                        Ok now you just have to come out and admit you have not watched a game since Satan retired have you. Come on its ok admit it.

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        But that is why I said at the beginning of this that he is like a drug. I think he may sort of lull the coaches away from disciplining the team to have its own way of creating offense through complex, disciplined movement and passing because he is able to just making things happen so easy on a personal basis by dribbling, penetrating, then scoring or dumping it off. Again, I admit it is a beautiful thing to watch, and that Tinsley is very, very good. I just don't think that it can take us to a championship level at the end of the day.
                        Lets be very clear we lost to Detroit last year because Tinsley was injured. I have no doubt in my mind we would have won a title if he had been healthy. Now that is a legit concern, can he be healthy for an entire playoffs? I dont know I sure hope so. But if you go back and watch the games where he played he took Detroit apart. Go look at the game in Nov. Tinsley had 8 Steals EIGHT! 8 assists shot 50% and controlled the game.

                        Try and understand this. Tinsley would rather not score at all. He would rather get 50 assists and no points than 50 points and no assists. The problem is that right now he is having to score because of the suspensions.

                        Go back and look at the games he played in the playoffs he shoots 67% from the 3 point line in the playoffs. Thats a damn fine number.

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        If I had my preference, I would like to see Tinsley traded while he has very high trade value for a different style point guard. No, I don't think our current backups are good enough to get us to the next level either. I just think their style is more suited to what we need, and I think their normalness wakes up the coaches and the other players that we better have an offensive plan and some disciplined rotations to win a game. This may possibly explain why we won the past two games.

                        I guess its been frustrating for me watching our offense the past two years. Its seems like good teams we face get down the floor quickly, whip the ball around a few times, create space and oppurtunities, and often get good percentage shots. We either have a very slow-starting half court set led by AJ or Gill which inevitably leads to an ISO with JO or perhaps a three from Croshere, Reggie, or a Jones. If Tinsley is in, then we have him driving and perhaps scoring, creating a little more space but still not that much, and any shot taken, whether by Tinsley or someone he passes to, is still pretty well contested. Once in while, it is true, Mel makes a very nice pass for an easy shot. But not enough to make the rest of the 48 minutes worth it.

                        I think this rut we have found our ourselves in for a long time was not quite as frustrating with Artest around. It still bothered me then, but Ron could also create and he provided two ISO options. This year, the fact that we have no effective offensive sets is really glaring and really frustrating.

                        I would enjoy feedback on my opinion. I want to know what the rest of you think on the following:

                        Can Mel improve with his shooting? Or will he always be streaky? Is this surmountable for us to get to the championship?

                        Can or will the coaching staff ever move us into a good passing offense instead of this one-man Tinsley show and/or ISO's with JO (and Ron when he's around)?

                        Do you agree that Tinsley's personal and extraordinary abilities make it easy for the coaching staff not to improve the TEAM's offensive creativity?

                        Would you entertain a trade of Tinsley for another high-caliber point guard?

                        -- McKeyFan
                        If they traded Tinsely for a non point guard guard like you want within a few weeks you would be weeping in the streets and nashing your teeth for the return of Tinsley. Remember when they traded Jax and HAD TO GET HIM BACK. Same thing only far far more so.

                        Clearly we have different views on how the game should be played. You think it should be slow and crappy I think it should be fluid and beautifull. To each his own. I am just happy we have Tinsley and not what you want.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                          I see a certain logic to this argument - I just don't buy it.

                          First, the thought that the offense would get started quicker with AJ or Gill running the offense is a joke. All anyone needs to do is watch the games.

                          I do however see some reason to agree with the fact that when Tinsley is in the team can reduce their movement without the ball because he's able to penetrate and break down the defense. However that hasn't really happened either - until a few games ago the team didn't move whether he was in there or not. They did move well without him vs Philly but vs Atlanta they were back to just standing around - if it wasn't for JO having a monster game and that it was the Hawks, that game would have been an L.

                          There's just not a lot of sense to this - particularly since the Pacers are 1-6 without Tinsley in the lineup. Hard to argue the team's better off without him.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick

                            There's just not a lot of sense to this - particularly since the Pacers are 1-6 without Tinsley in the lineup. Hard to argue the team's better off without him.
                            Actually it is worse.

                            Orlando Loss
                            Clippers Loss
                            Golden State (Tinsley tips in the basket to give us the lead that was lost while he was on the bench coming down on another players foot taking him out of the game we go on to lose.)
                            Bucks Loss
                            Bucks Loss
                            Sacramento Loss
                            Celtica Loss
                            3rd Philly Game Tins goes down Loss
                            Toronto Loss

                            Thats 9 games we lost to 2 we won without him.

                            So we have 9 of our 24 losses without Tins. A lot of the losses where he played there was no Jermain, No Jack and early on no Reggie, Jeff, and off and on Pollard would play.

                            And on the other side only 2 of our 22 wins without him.







                            1st and second Sixers games were with Tins but he fouled out of both on totaly bull**** calls. We won the first game regardless of what the NBA says.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Why I don't like Tinsley

                              Originally posted by Ragnar
                              Clearly we have different views on how the game should be played. You think it should be slow and crappy I think it should be fluid and beautiful.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X