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

Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

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

    Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

    http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/08...and-have-nots/

    We now know that the deal sending Kevin Love to Cleveland will go down Saturday. Andrew Wiggins, Anthony Bennett and Miami’s 2015 first-round draft pick will go to Minnesota, and in a side deal Thaddeus Young will be sent from the Sixers to the Wolves for Luc Richard Mbah a Moute and Alexey Shved.

    Minnesota comes out with the last two overall No. 1 picks, Philadelphia comes out with an even worse team than before, and Cleveland comes out with ….

    In another edition of the Three-Man Weave, our staffers take a look at how these events will shape the East this season.

    1. True or false: Cleveland’s trio of LeBron James, Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving is the best three-headed monster in the NBA.

    CHRIS SHERIDAN, PUBLISHER: This is quite true, but that does not mean that the Cavs should be the favorites to win the title. Three-headed monsters are nice and all, but the San Antonio Spurs would take these guys out quite easily. The Cavs’ monster has to learn how to play together, and it will not be an easy adjustment for Irving to have the ball in his hands much less than he is used to. Remember, LeBron is pretty much a point forward. Kyrie is a pure point guard. That could be a structural flaw.

    CHRIS BERNUCCA, MANAGING EDITOR: The Cavs have an argument, but I will say false for now. Based on familiarity with each other, I would take Oklahoma City’s trio of Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka, who have been together for five years and still all reaching for their individual ceilings. A Ibakatrio of superstars certainly puts you in championship contender category, but you need more than three guys to win a title, as the Thunder, Heat and even the Spurs have shown in falling short in recent years.

    JAMES PARK, DEPUTY EDITOR: True. This one’s relatively easy to say because quite frankly, there aren’t a whole lot of trios out there considered a “three-headed monster.” The closest thing to a “Big Three” is in Oklahoma City with Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka. Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan may also be considered, and you always have to include Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Kawhi Leonard (replacing Manu Ginobili). James, Love and Irving are three players who have been the unquestioned go-to player on their teams. There is no other team right now that has such a combination of players. Of course, the level of success for each player in that role has varied, but that’s a whole different topic.

    2. True or false: The Miami Heat are still a top-four team in the Eastern Conference.

    SHERIDAN: True. The Cavs and the Bulls are the class of the conference, and the Wizards are knocking on that door. After that, it is a mishmash of mediocre teams and very bad teams. The Heat will have to play a completely different style than what they had grown accustomed to, with LeBron dominating the ball. But Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh can continue to be two of the most efficient offensive players in the league, and Luol Deng will be solid. I’ve got Miami as a strong No. 4.

    BERNUCCA: False. Miami is going to take a huge step backward without LeBron James. Mario Chalmers is going to have to do more as a point guard than pass to the wing, cut through the defense and stand in the corner. Dwyane Wade, Danny Granger and even Luol Deng are going to have to prove they can stay healthy for an entire season. Who is actually going to rebound on this team? In addition to Cleveland and Chicago, I believe Washington and Toronto both are better than Miami, and Atlanta and Brooklyn are both right there if healthy.

    RELATED: Five Points of Impact Kevin Love Will Have on Cleveland’s Offense

    PARK: True, assuming Wade doesn’t have to take off a quarter of the season for maintenance purposes. Dwyane WadeDespite losing their best player, the Heat still managed to keep a strong roster intact by re-signing Wade, Chalmers, Chris Bosh and Chris Andersen. They also signed Deng, who is no James but is a borderline top-10 player at his position. Bosh and Wade will look to carry a bigger load as primary options – something both have been capable of in the past. It’s no “Big Three,” but not many teams have two go-to players of their caliber, either. Erik Spoelstra is still around, so the overall schemes and philosophy shouldn’t change much on either end. Essentially, the team downgraded some with the loss of James but has the personnel to stay strong in the still-anemic East.

    3. True or false: The Indiana Pacers are still a playoff team in the Eastern Conference.

    SHERIDAN: False. Aside from the four teams mentioned above (Cavs, Bulls, Wizards, Heat), the Raptors, Bobcats, Hawks and Nets should be considered playoff locks, which takes up all eight spots. Somebody else could jump in. The Knicks will be better with Jose Calderon and Sam Dalembert replacing Ray Felton and Tyson Chandler, and the Celtics will have Rajon Rondo healthy for the entire season, The Pacers lost their two best players (apologies to David West). You don’t recover from that.

    BERNUCCA: False. Let’s see – no Lance Stephenson, who was their best player at creating for himself or others, shot 35 percent from deep and was an awesome defender. And no Paul George, who was their Miami Heat v Indiana Pacers - Game Foursecond-best player at creating for himself or others, shot 36 percent from deep and was an awesome defender. And even with those guys, Frank Vogel’s offense often looked like it was playing in sand. Indiana
    will be playing a boatload of 85-80 games and won’t win enough of them to play in May.

    PARK: False. The Pacers struggled to score last season, even with George and Stephenson. With both gone, Indiana could become the worst offensive team in the league. The team desperately needs a playmaker, but all it has is George Hill, a backup two-guard masquerading as the starting point guard. Newly acquired Rodney Stuckey can score but is generally inefficient and doesn’t have the range to space the floor. David West will take on a bigger role offensively (a good thing), but he’s turning 34 this month. Roy Hibbert can finally get all the touches he could ever ask for, but his confidence comes and goes. Bench production looks close to no-nexistent. The defense also will take a major dive. George’s irreplaceable defense will be handled by some form of C.J. Miles, Rasual Butler and Chris Copeland. Yikes.


    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

    I love when people expect nothing from us.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

      9th to 10th place in the Eastern Conference....here we come!
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

        Lance was not an awesome defender - not at all. BERNUCCA, must not have watched any games.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

          It's weird, but I don't agree with all the "experts" who think our offense would be bottom of the league bad. Indeed our offense was bad last year, but that's in part due to Paul G and Lance not being particularly efficient offensive players. They're both better defensive players than offensive ones at this point in their careers, IMO.

          So I'm thinking guys like Stuckey and Miles can make up for their offensive contributions. Obviously, we can't play the same style on offense as we did last year, but if we leverage all the shooters we now have on the team, I think our offense should be somewhat ok, or at least not worse than last year's (not that last year's offense was anything to be proud of, LOL).

          It's the defensive side that I think is going to be a disaster. We went from a wing rotation that featured an All-Defensive forward and an above average guard to... Stuckey and Miles. Yeah, that's a huge downgrade on defense. We still have Hibbert of course but Hibbert isn't a guy who can go out and guard anyone, we need to have a proper scheme in place around him and that includes wing players who can defend. So I guess we're all pinning our hopes on Solo turning into a defensive beast.

          If I had to guess right now, I think we're going to end the year around 20th on offense (slight improvement from last year) and maybe 15th on defense (big downgrade from last year). Obviously we haven't seen how the team will be yet so it's just more or less a wild guess.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

            Lance does have to be one of the most if not the most polarizing guy in terms of how good you think he is in the NBA. HEre you have pretty much a universal consensus placing him as the second best player on a 56 win team and conference finalist. ESPN runs top 10 shooting guards in the NBA and places him 10th behind guys like Jimmy Butler. And then you have his contract which comes in at significantly less than guys like Hayward and Parsons. One thing is for sure, no one knows for sure just exactly how good or bad Lance is right now.


            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              It's weird, but I don't agree with all the "experts" who think our offense would be bottom of the league bad. Indeed our offense was bad last year, but that's in part due to Paul G and Lance not being particularly efficient offensive players. They're both better defensive players than offensive ones at this point in their careers, IMO.

              So I'm thinking guys like Stuckey and Miles can make up for their offensive contributions. Obviously, we can't play the same style on offense as we did last year, but if we leverage all the shooters we now have on the team, I think our offense should be somewhat ok, or at least not worse than last year's (not that last year's offense was anything to be proud of, LOL).

              It's the defensive side that I think is going to be a disaster. We went from a wing rotation that featured an All-Defensive forward and an above average guard to... Stuckey and Miles. Yeah, that's a huge downgrade on defense. We still have Hibbert of course but Hibbert isn't a guy who can go out and guard anyone, we need to have a proper scheme in place around him and that includes wing players who can defend. So I guess we're all pinning our hopes on Solo turning into a defensive beast.

              If I had to guess right now, I think we're going to end the year around 20th on offense (slight improvement from last year) and maybe 15th on defense (big downgrade from last year). Obviously we haven't seen how the team will be yet so it's just more or less a wild guess.
              The question to me is how Vogel will run the offense this season.

              I have NO CLUE whether Vogel will continue his "outside/in" ( or whatever you called our offense that flowed primarily through GH/Lance/PG13 and less through West/Hibbert ) or if he will actually build a new ( or old...if you think about it ) offense through GH/West/Hibbert that actually makes sense.

              You'd certain think that he'd have no choice but to do so.....but I can totally see Vogel put Stuckey ( a Player that is a WAY BETTER On-The-Ball Player than Off-The-Ball Player ) in the Starting lineup next to GH/West/Hibbert ( especially if Stuckey is encouraged to practice his 3pt shot ). I'm a strong advocate of building a smarter more efficient run offense with Players that complement each other and playing to their strengths as opposed to simply inserting a scorer into the lineup and letting him "do his work" regardless of how it affects the Team ( Stuckey would be a good example of this if he were paired up IMHO with GH/West/Hibbert ).

              I have no doubt that we will likely see a 9 man rotation of GH/Miles/Solo/West/Hibbert/Watson/Stuckey/Scola/Mahinmi ( maybe with Rudez or Copeland to fill out a 10 man rotation ). But I think that it's a matter of matching up the right Players in the right combination to yield the most efficient Offense.

              And that's the problem....I'd like to believe that he's smart enough to rebuild the offense to suit his roster and Players strengths ( as Grimp has tirelessly championed ) but I really have no idea what he will do or ( worse ) that he's not capable of recognizing and remaking the lineup to suit his roster.
              Last edited by CableKC; 08-22-2014, 04:08 PM.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                Though awesome defender? Let's be real, Dwyane Wade's corpse beat him to hell and back in 5 of the 6 conference finals games last year. Lance is an average defender. He gambles too much and falls asleep constantly away from the ball.


                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Lance was not an awesome defender - not at all. BERNUCCA, must not have watched any games.
                  An NBA Beat Writer that doesn't watch the Pacers......surprise surprise surprise.

                  I'm not directing this comment at you, UB....I just hate it when NBA Writers assume a lot of things on Small Market Teams that aren't as mainstream as the Heat or the Knicks.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                    I believe the offense will be better but the defense will suffer. The result is a big drop in standings. Historically teams that lose their best player do not make the playoffs, much their first and second best players. Now Chicago did it. I think the Pacers could. I am prepared at looking at pick 10-16.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Though awesome defender? Let's be real, Dwyane Wade's corpse beat him to hell and back in 5 of the 6 conference finals games last year. Lance is an average defender. He gambles too much and falls asleep constantly away from the ball.

                      1) Dwyane Wade averaged 19 PPG on 54.5% shooting last season. He was very good when he actually played.

                      2) Wade average 19.8 PPG against the Pacers, a miniscule increase from his season average. That's not too bad considering good players usually elevate their level of play in the playoffs. Yes, he had plenty of success against Lance, but he was hitting a lot of tough jumpers throughout the series. They were the shots that we wanted him to take, but he was draining them and all you could do is tip your cap. I do agree that Lance's biggest problem is that he falls asleep away from the ball. Overall, Lance's D wasn't too bad on Wade though. He was fine on him 1 on 1 and forced him into tough jumpers that Wade was able to make.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Lance does have to be one of the most if not the most polarizing guy in terms of how good you think he is in the NBA. HEre you have pretty much a universal consensus placing him as the second best player on a 56 win team and conference finalist. ESPN runs top 10 shooting guards in the NBA and places him 10th behind guys like Jimmy Butler. And then you have his contract which comes in at significantly less than guys like Hayward and Parsons. One thing is for sure, no one knows for sure just exactly how good or bad Lance is right now.
                        And at the bottom of the page you see a link to the other article and they all said Lance was the biggest off-season acquisition outside of LeBron
                        Sittin on top of the world!

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                          Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                          I love when people expect nothing from us.
                          The problem is, they are right.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            It's weird, but I don't agree with all the "experts"
                            No one associated with Chris Sheridan's site is an "expert." The guy's a hack who hires other hacks who has name recognition because he used to work for ESPN. Then they fired him, because he's a hack.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Three-Man Weave: Cavs and Have-Nots (Pacers Mentioned)

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              1) Dwyane Wade averaged 19 PPG on 54.5% shooting last season. He was very good when he actually played.

                              2) Wade average 19.8 PPG against the Pacers, a miniscule increase from his season average. That's not too bad considering good players usually elevate their level of play in the playoffs. Yes, he had plenty of success against Lance, but he was hitting a lot of tough jumpers throughout the series. They were the shots that we wanted him to take, but he was draining them and all you could do is tip your cap. I do agree that Lance's biggest problem is that he falls asleep away from the ball. Overall, Lance's D wasn't too bad on Wade though. He was fine on him 1 on 1 and forced him into tough jumpers that Wade was able to make.
                              Games 1-3 he scored 27, 23 and 23 on 60+% shooting. Those were 3 of his 4 highest scoring games during the playoffs. After game 3 we switched PG to Wade and he wasn't heard from again.

                              Some believe we switched Lance to.Lebron because he did a good job but the truth is a big part of why we switched him off Wade was because you can't have Wade shooting 60% and scoring so efficiently. Lebron is going to get his regardless.

                              I actually think Lance can be a pretty good defender, but Wade was eating him alive--potentially playing revitalized because of Lance's comments before game 1 about his kness

                              Just my two cents
                              Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 08-22-2014, 06:43 PM.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X