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

The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

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

  • #46
    Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    I begin to wonder exactly what some people mean by "getting a pass". I seem to remember a heck of a lot of PDers who came down on Tins like a ton of bricks. If that's "getting a pass" I'd hate to see what "getting a hard time" looks like.
    Tinsley didn't get a pass. He was mocked for having a headache, allergies, you name it. When he was told by the pacers not to show there was a hell of a negative reaction especially because no one knew for certain why and imagined the worst.

    Tinsley is #2 or 3 (along with Jackson) on the most hated pacer list with Artest clearly #1. Even Jackson had more supporters because he was more of a team player.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      I think the Lance supporters are far more vocal and have FAR stronger feelings than the Lance "haters". I assume I am lumped into the hater group, but I didn't hate Lance. He just scared me. I enjoyed watching him, appreciated his talent, but wasn't sad to see him go for reasons I previously mentioned. I think the vocal supporters are so strong that anyone who disagrees with them is lumped into a group that is seen as the polar opposite. It's really why I don't see Lance as all that polarizing.
      That may be true. His supporters saw potentially the second best NBA Pacer ever (after Paul George). If others saw that too, they would be more vocal.

      Think about the best NBA Pacers. Here is a list:

      1) Reggie Miller
      2) Jermaine O'Neal
      3) Ron Artest
      4) Danny Granger
      5) Paul George

      Guys like Rik Smits, Dale Davis may well fit into the top 5. I am sure there are others but the point is, Lance might just be better than everyone on this list except Paul George and maybe Jermaine and Reggie. I think he's definitely better than Granger because Lance has great court vision and the ability to make his team mates better ala Jason Kidd and Magic Johnson. He can really draw the defense...more than one defender. To defend Granger all you had to do was guard the 3 point line because he wasn't going to beat you off the dribble. Fast breaks? Are you kidding me? Then there is the passing. No other NBA Pacer in the history of this franchise with the exception of Mark Jackson comes close. We are literally talking Magic Johnson level court vision.

      I guess it depends on what you value. I think Lance might be capable of doing just about everything on the court. While Danny was an excellent spot up shooter, he simply lacked many of the skills the make basketball players great. Yet Danny was still one of the very best NBA Pacers of all-time.

      Lance has shored up his shooting leading the team in FG%. He rebounds with the best guards leading the entire team on the boards. He has great play-making skills leading the team in assists. He has tremendous fast break ability. He can power through most guards because he can both handle the rock and he's very physical. He is a very good defender and he's capable of being a great defender.

      No other Pacer has ever had all these attributes. Jermaine's body failed him. Rik Smits could not defend anyone and couldn't rebound. Ron was very good but didn't rebound like this or see the floor like Lance. He also wasn't nearly as effective with the ball on a fast break. Dale Davis could not shoot and had few offensive moves (Sorry Peck). Reggie was a mediocre defender. Danny is mediocre handling the ball and while Lance is no skywalker Danny can barely touch the rim. Lance is immature and does silly stuff. I fully understand. But he has more skills than some of the greatest NBA Pacers on this list...many who took years to get to where Lance is right now.

      Where am I wrong here? This thread is about Lance Stephenson. What can Lance not do in terms of basketball?
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 08-09-2014, 08:47 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

        I think polarizing is the right word when you have people mentioning him with the best of the best to play Pacers basketball, and others glad he's gone.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I think polarizing is the right word when you have people mentioning him with the best of the best to play Pacers basketball, and others glad he's gone.
          "Glad" that he is gone and "okay" with the fact that he is gone are very different things. I'm okay with the fact that he's gone. Find me someone who is glad.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            I think polarizing is the right word when you have people mentioning him with the best of the best to play Pacers basketball, and others glad he's gone.
            I think most believe Granger is arguably a top 5 NBA Pacer. Not Reggie level. Maybe not Jermaine. But he was up there with Artest. Can we agree on that?

            If so, consider the fact Granger made 1 all-star game. Lance was knocking on that door at the age of 23. Didn't get in, but he truly was right there. Keep in mind that Granger got his all-star nod after putting up big numbers on a bad team. In contrast, Lance has played on good teams and has had to share scoring opportunities with none other than Paul George...not to mention David West.

            The point is, Danny was a pretty good franchise player yet Lance, given the chance to reach his prime which is still a solid 3 years away, could easily be better than Granger. His trajectory is indicating that he is better but we all shall see.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              That may be true. His supporters saw potentially the second best NBA Pacer ever (after Paul George). If others saw that too, they would be more vocal.

              Think about the best NBA Pacers. Here is a list:

              1) Reggie Miller
              2) Jermaine O'Neal
              3) Ron Artest
              4) Danny Granger
              5) Paul George

              Guys like Rik Smits, Dale Davis may well fit into the top 5. I am sure there are others but the point is, Lance might just be better than everyone on this list except Paul George and maybe Jermaine and Reggie. I think he's definitely better than Granger because Lance has great court vision and the ability to make his team mates better ala Jason Kidd and Magic Johnson. He can really draw the defense...more than one defender. To defend Granger all you had to do was guard the 3 point line because he wasn't going to beat you off the dribble. Fast breaks? Are you kidding me? Then there is the passing. No other NBA Pacer in the history of this franchise with the exception of Mark Jackson comes close. We are literally talking Magic Johnson level court vision.

              I guess it depends on what you value. I think Lance might be capable of doing just about everything on the court. While Danny was an excellent spot up shooter, he simply lacked many of the skills the make basketball players great. Yet Danny was still one of the very best NBA Pacers of all-time.

              Lance has shored up his shooting leading the team in FG%. He rebounds with the best guards leading the entire team on the boards. He has great play-making skills leading the team in assists. He has tremendous fast break ability. He can power through most guards because he can both handle the rock and he's very physical. He is a very good defender and he's capable of being a great defender.

              No other Pacer has ever had all these attributes. Jermaine's body failed him. Rik Smits could not defend anyone and couldn't rebound. Ron was very good but didn't rebound like this or see the floor like Lance. He also wasn't nearly as effective with the ball on a fast break. Dale Davis could not shoot and had few offensive moves (Sorry Peck). Reggie was a mediocre defender. Danny is mediocre handling the ball and while Lance is no skywalker Danny can barely touch the rim. Lance is immature and does silly stuff. I fully understand. But he has more skills than some of the greatest NBA Pacers on this list...many who took years to get to where Lance is right now.

              Where am I wrong here? This thread is about Lance Stephenson. What can Lance not do in terms of basketball?

              Yeah maybe Reggie just might have been better.
              Our opinions on just how good Lance is are so far apart there could be no middle ground. That's polarized but only as to how good Lance is. Lance has became a good player with a lot of negative attributes. He'll never be in the conversation with Reggie IMO. Lance has talent but his talent doesn't effect the game the way you suggest and on many nights his negatives outweigh his talent.
              I wouldn't put Lance ahead of a 26 ppg prime Granger either and I don't see him getting there. I don't want to put that much thought into it but I wouldn't think Lance would crack the top 50 Pacers at this point of his career.
              Last edited by Pacerized; 08-10-2014, 11:01 AM.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Unless Hibbert turns his act around, Lance would have been the second best player on the Indiana Pacers going forward into the next 5 years if he had signed that contract. On one of the best teams in the NBA, I think that pretty much qualifies him as being a great player.

                If you think that's overrating his impact, who exactly is more important? Don't say George Hill for goodness sakes. Even George would agree he's not as good. Don't say DWest because he is on the down hill at this point. Paul? Sure, if he heals up. Hibbert? That's up to Roy. Lance is #3 at the very least and if he were on the Pacers this year, he would probably be #1.
                George Hill in 2012-13 was a 14 ppg 5 assist 4 rebound per game player. almost the same stats as Lance. Lance averaged more rebounds and was a little more efficient, their defensive ratings were nearly identical. I would say Lance is marginally better than George Hill. I think he was our 4th best player last year.

                Everyone hated on Roy, but his enormous defensive impact was a far more important ingredient to our success. And David West is just a flat out more reliable and better player right now. He's getting older, and will start to decline in a couple seasons, but right now? No contest.

                So yes, I view Lance as being a slightly better than a George Hill level player. I think he could still improve a bit, I see his ceiling as a borderline all star level player, 3rd best player on a contending team type level. I don't think he's there yet, and I think maturity issues may or may not hinder his ability to reach his ceiling.

                When you are speaking of Lance as some sort of a all time pacer talent, possibly better than Reggie Miller, I just don't know what in the world you are talking about. I don't see that at all. Guy makes a few flashy passes and all the sudden he has all time Pacer talent? Really?
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                  Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                  George Hill in 2012-13 was a 14 ppg 5 assist 4 rebound per game player. almost the same stats as Lance. Lance averaged more rebounds and was a little more efficient, their defensive ratings were nearly identical. I would say Lance is marginally better than George Hill. I think he was our 4th best player last year.

                  Everyone hated on Roy, but his enormous defensive impact was a far more important ingredient to our success. And David West is just a flat out more reliable and better player right now. He's getting older, and will start to decline in a couple seasons, but right now? No contest.

                  So yes, I view Lance as being a slightly better than a George Hill level player. I think he could still improve a bit, I see his ceiling as a borderline all star level player, 3rd best player on a contending team type level. I don't think he's there yet, and I think maturity issues may or may not hinder his ability to reach his ceiling.

                  When you are speaking of Lance as some sort of a all time pacer talent, possibly better than Reggie Miller, I just don't know what in the world you are talking about. I don't see that at all. Guy makes a few flashy passes and all the sudden he has all time Pacer talent? Really?
                  That is almost exactly how I view Lance too.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                    George Hill in 2012-13 was a 14 ppg 5 assist 4 rebound per game player. almost the same stats as Lance. Lance averaged more rebounds and was a little more efficient, their defensive ratings were nearly identical. I would say Lance is marginally better than George Hill. I think he was our 4th best player last year.

                    Everyone hated on Roy, but his enormous defensive impact was a far more important ingredient to our success. And David West is just a flat out more reliable and better player right now. He's getting older, and will start to decline in a couple seasons, but right now? No contest.

                    So yes, I view Lance as being a slightly better than a George Hill level player. I think he could still improve a bit, I see his ceiling as a borderline all star level player, 3rd best player on a contending team type level. I don't think he's there yet, and I think maturity issues may or may not hinder his ability to reach his ceiling.

                    When you are speaking of Lance as some sort of a all time pacer talent, possibly better than Reggie Miller, I just don't know what in the world you are talking about. I don't see that at all. Guy makes a few flashy passes and all the sudden he has all time Pacer talent? Really?
                    I don't think the stats tell you much. Troy Murphy was a 14ppg player who grabbed almost 13 boards a game. He also shot 45% from three that same year. It meant nothing. You have got to look beyond that.

                    As for Roy, he would be far more important if he played well or at least if his game hadn't been figured out. There's a reason the Pacers are trying to ship him out and it's because he's expendable. If he was so important to this team's future, that would not be happening, right?

                    You see his ceiling as borderline all-star level player but I am pretty sure he was knocking on that door at the age of 23. Do you think he's hit his ceiling or do you think he was not close to becoming an all-star last season?

                    Could it be that people think Lance Stephenson, at 23 years of age, already hit his ceiling? That would certainly explain the differences of opinion. If he is indeed at his ceiling (which includes maturity), I actually don't think that highly of him.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                      He hasn't hit his ceiling, but he's pretty close to be the player he's going to be (I think next season will be the last major development year for him, minus small refinements, a player usually is who he is roughly in the 4th year)As far as the all star thing? There was a lot of talk about that last year but ultimately he didn't make the team and I never believed he deserved too.

                      I think he could make an all star team or two in the right situation on a successful team. But I don't think he will ever be a "perennial" all star like player who makes it every year or anything.

                      I seriously doubt he makes it next year either, unless Charlotte becomes a top 4 team in the East... Which I don't think will happen. They will probably have 1 all star tops and it will be Jefferson. He certainly isn't beating out any of Rose, Wade, Beal, or Wall unless Charlotte is a major surprise team, and I'm not even totally convinced he'd beat out Kemba in that scenario.
                      Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 08-10-2014, 05:44 PM.
                      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                      - ilive4sports

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                        He hasn't hit his ceiling, but he's pretty close to be the player he's going to be (I think next season will be the last major development year for him, minus small refinements, a player usually is who he is roughly in the 4th year)As far as the all star thing? There was a lot of talk about that last year but ultimately he didn't make the team and I never believed he deserved too.

                        I think he could make an all star team or two in the right situation on a successful team. But I don't think he will ever be a "perennial" all star like player who makes it every year or anything.

                        I seriously doubt he makes it next year either, unless Charlotte becomes a top 4 team in the East... Which I don't think will happen. They will probably have 1 all star tops and it will be Jefferson. He certainly isn't beating out any of Rose, Wade, Beal, or Wall unless Charlotte is a major surprise team, and I'm not even totally convinced he'd beat out Kemba in that scenario.
                        Do you agree Danny Granger is one of the top 5 players in NBA history for the Pacers? Only one all-star game. If you think he could make an all-star team or two, do you think he's going to be as good as Granger? If so, why wouldn't we care more about losing a player. Isn't it more the baggage and not the talent level?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Do you agree Danny Granger is one of the top 5 players in NBA history for the Pacers? Only one all-star game. If you think he could make an all-star team or two, do you think he's going to be as good as Granger? If so, why wouldn't we care more about losing a player. Isn't it more the baggage and not the talent level?
                          Yes. It always has been.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            As for Roy, he would be far more important if he played well or at least if his game hadn't been figured out. There's a reason the Pacers are trying to ship him out and it's because he's expendable. If he was so important to this team's future, that would not be happening, right?
                            Do you have any credible source about Hibbert being offered in a trade?

                            Basing your argument on something that cannot be verified is not a very good idea.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              Do you have any credible source about Hibbert being offered in a trade?

                              Basing your argument on something that cannot be verified is not a very good idea.
                              I don't think Hibbert is untouchable but I don't think Larry has ever tried to trade him. Larry sees Hibbert as part of our long term core along with PG.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The Most Polarizing Pacer Of All: Lance Stephenson?

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                Do you have any credible source about Hibbert being offered in a trade?

                                Basing your argument on something that cannot be verified is not a very good idea.
                                NBC is reporting that he was offered to Detroit. That is a link on yahoo right now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X