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

Post-Game: Sixers win

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

  • #76
    Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

    Originally posted by kellogg
    Also, I remember a few years ago some stat that if a team lost games it was on them, but if they lost games consistently by less than 3 points (or something like that) it was on the coach...I wonder how many games we've lost this year in OT, less than 3 or 4 points?
    This is somewhat nitpicky, but that's not a stat, it's an opinion, a speculation as to the cause.

    Also, this has been discussed before in some detail. This year's Pacers are 5-10 in games decided by 4 points or less in regulation, and 1-4 in OT games, for a combined 6-14 in "Close" games. Over O'Brien's tenure, the team has gone 11-16 in games decided by 4 points or less in regulation, and 2-6 in OT games, for a combined 13-22, or .371.

    However, there are two other things to note:

    First, in his previous stops in Boston and Philly, O'Brien's teams won about 60% of their close and OT games, (60-39).

    Second, in the two years prior to O'Brien coming here (Carlisle's last two years), the Pacers were 8-24 in regulation games decided by 4 or less, and 2-3 in OT games, for a combined 10-27, or .270 record.

    Originally posted by kellogg View Post
    In keeping with my philosophy that it can always be worse...

    In watching the JOB rotations this year, I was thinking the last time I saw anything like this was when Isiah was here.

    A few have posted here commenting how Hibbert was having a decent game but was benched for most/all of the second half...the last time I saw something like this was during Jeff Foster's rookie year, when he had a game against San Antonio where he got 10 pts/14 reb. His reward? Isiah benched him for the next 4 games...now that's good for a rookies confidence.

    How many here bet JOB benches or limits his minutes the next game?
    I agree with this to some degree. JOB is starting to flail around. He's getting more desperate to try to make things happen, and, as a result, he's committing the single biggest sin that any coach can make: over coaching.

    This happens to virtually every coach at some point in time, some more than others. Isiah is the classic example of the guy who was a bad coach from day one. He constantly thought he could out-coach the game, and often seemed to believe that the game was won in the huddles and not on the floor.

    When solid-to-good coaches get desperate, they start to push. It happened to Carlisle, and it's happening to O'Brien. Couple that with the over-engineered defensive scheme and things start to spiral. If he stays on the path that he started a couple weeks ago, I believe should and will be fired.

    What he needs to do is tighten the rotation back up, and make it relatively rigid. I think it will help the team both now and in the future.

    However, he needs to resist the instinct to go old. My rotations would be based on three groups:

    Point Guard: Ford, Jack, & Diener
    Wings: Granger, Dunleavy, & Rush
    Bigs: Murphy, Foster, and Hibbert

    Rasho, Daniels, Baston, Graham, & McBob generally only get a taste for fouls or injuries. Rasho, Daniels, and Baston are gone at the end of the season. Graham has basically been this year's Kareem Rush - a guy who more or less came out of nowhere to contribute, but has reached his diminishing returns. McBob is a marginally interesting young prospect. They will probably both be back next year simply because they'll be cheap.

    Play the rotations tight, play them strict. Dumb down the defense and play more straight up. You're not going to make the playoffs by trying to make the playoffs. The best shot, at this point, is to have Hibbert and Rush give you what they gave you last night.

    Also, if we drop the game tonight, we should probably shut Danny down until after the All-Star break (and I'm including him not participating in All-Star weekend, as well. If he doesn't play in real games, he shouldn't play in some dumbass exhibition.)

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

      Originally posted by PugdOut View Post
      Nicely said, I would love to know how true Boston/Philly fans felt about OB during his tenure with those clubs
      I think a more interesting thing would be what were their thoughts after he left and both franchises really suffered. O'Brien maxed out both of those teams - I think the evidence shows that clearly. Who knows about with the Pacers, won't know until or unless a new coach is brought in

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
        Because two months ago playoffs was still an option. Now I am leaning towards playing the rookies and Mcbob. And not for the sake of tanking. This team needs more energy and the casual fans need to see the direction of the future. Daniels, Jack, and Rasho are not in the future (I hope I don't eat those words).
        Well said.

        I don't think it would hurt the Pacers playoff aspirations to play the rooks more. It certainly won't hurt them any more than the veteran lineup.

        Losing games to teams ahead of you in the playoff chase is no way to make the playoffs.

        On a side note, I really appreciate these postgame threads, as I'm unable to watch most Pacers games because I live in Florida (although I will get to see them play tonight - woohoo).

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

          Everybody has a right to discuss how they feel on this forum. I do not blame JOB for our horrific FG shooting in the third quater. I am not upset at him for picking up a tech when the refs had a no-call on Dalembert in the fourth quater. That was a clear moving screen.
          My thoughts are this: Our organization has 13 days to the deadline. Let's get active. It is now win time. If we continue to lose in these coming days then we should look to move some players. I am all for using Rasho, Maceo, in a package with Tinsley. I would also have zero problem having Granger sit out for a few weeks in order to evaluate Rush. I am not saying we tank untill is it 100% clear we will not make the playoffs.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

            Originally posted by ESB View Post
            Even Chris Paul won't be able to run this static team. Blame JOB for not utilizing TJ well.
            Chris Paul is a superstar. Match him with Granger you have a playoff team in the EAST. Comparing Ford to CP3 is like comparing Lebron to Bobby Simmons. Ford lacks a killer instict it was proven in the Timberwolves game.

            I watched a lot of the Celtics and Lakers game and both teams are better at almost every position than the Pacers. Watch more NBA games than just the Pacers and then evaluate how talented our team is.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

              ya, but just because JOB was minorly sucessful at his previous 2 stops , record-wise, doesn't mean he is able to again ... Ya know, even a dog has the sun shine on his a$$ every once in awhile..



              For every 2 good things JOB does as a coach, he does 3 bad things .. as far as his decision making process on rotations, subs ..
              Another BIG thing which is my main thing with him , is recognizing WHEN and WHERE to make changes on the fly in game... in regards to reading each of his player's game-time effectiveness... in order to suceed and get a win ...

              JOB is just not cutting the mustard.. in those regards..
              We have enough talent to be a good coachable team .. regardless of what some of you may think...
              But you cannot put losses totally on the players, when you have a coach, who doesn't seem to know how to "UTILIZE" the guys we have to work with on our team..

              .
              .
              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                Originally posted by kellogg View Post
                Also, I remember a few years ago some stat that if a team lost games it was on them, but if they lost games consistently by less than 3 points (or something like that) it was on the coach...I wonder how many games we've lost this year in OT, less than 3 or 4 points?

                it is my opinion that it is the exact opposite. Talent is needed and more important than coaching to win close games. (besides JOB had an excellent record as coach oif the Celts and Sixers in close games when he had two proven closers. Iverson and Pierce) at the end of games you need a difference maker defensively and a close offensively to win close games. Granger is getting there, but he's not there yet

                Thanks count55 - excellent analysis - and your stats seem to back up the theory I'm proclaiming
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-06-2009, 09:54 AM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  A select few of us have been saying that for over nearly 2 months and have routinely been criticized for it. Glad to see you've joined us. It gives us some cred.
                  ME ME ME!!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                    I heard Jeff Van Gundy talking about when teams win its the players who are talented, but when a team loses it's the coaches. He said there are so many situations where the talent just isn't there and the coach takes the fall.

                    Now this is obviously coming from a coach, but I think it has some merit.

                    Now with Obie, I think he can coach, but I don't agree with the way he's coaching this team because I'll be a fan long after he is gone. So my mindset is the longterm, his has to be right now.

                    I'm sure he's up nights worrying about what I think though!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                      Count55 - Thank You. I read through 4 pages of game thread and the whole time I'm wondering why I even bother, then I get finally see a reasonable post and I remember why.

                      Now that I've given up hope for the playoffs, I really didn't see this as the terrible awful no-good very bad game that everyone else seems to have watched. Sure, there were some frustrating things, some bad plays by players and some decisions by O'Brien that I felt were questionable, but on the whole it was an infinitely better game than Tuesday's game against Minnesota. I'll try to put together a few cogent thoughts to prevent this thread from being merged with the "Fire O'Brien" thread.

                      1. I'm totally on board with the shut Danny down for a while bandwagon, but I can understand him wanting to play in the All-Star game (even though I agree with Count's words about it's nature). It's an honor. It's something he's worked very hard to earn. No one can guarantee he'll ever have another opportunity. If he wants to play, let him as long as his knee's not going to get worse. It's not like we're going to make the playoffs anyway.

                      2. I was fully intending to stay true to my words and not DVR this game. I was watching it off and on while making dinner and I happened to see Roy on the floor and catch the huge 2nd quarter run. At that point I knew I had to watch the rest of the game.

                      3. Hibbert was flat-out dominant during that run. He scored 6 points, blocked at least 2 shots (I think he got 3, but the box score says 2), and forced a turnover by trapping Louis Williams out beyond the 3-point line. It was the best stretch of basketball I've seen him play. When he played in the 2nd half, he was back to being a rookie.

                      4. It should be clear by now that I don't think Stephen Graham should ever play, but his performance last night was awful. He was almost single-handedly responsible for destroying our momentum at the end of the 2nd quarter. He came in for Danny with 4:56 left in the quarter. Over the next five minutes the play-by-play contains the following: SG defensive rebound, SG lost ball, SG shooting foul, SG defensive rebound, SG missed jumper, SG shooting foul, SG misses 3 point jumper, SG misses layup, Shot-clock violation (due to SG's overdribbling, IIRC).

                      5. Brandon Rush was fantastic. I truly hope he never gets another DNP-CD. It did take him a couple minutes to get acclimated, but once he hit that 3 he became a really positive force. He made a couple very tough shots, drove aggressively to the bucket, got teammates wide open shots at least twice with great passes, and played good defense.

                      6. You can ride Bird's eye for talent all you want, but I think both rookies proved last night that they have the potential to be very impactful NBA players.

                      7. We had some bad defensive breakdowns, but on the whole I thought we played a pretty good defensive game. We held them to 40% shooting and 99 points. If we did that every game we'd be above 500.

                      8. The reason we lost this game was poor shooting in the 3rd quarter. We had a number of open shots that just didn't fall. Philly played decent defense, but we shot 4-21 in the quarter. Many of those shots were open shots that we'd normally hit at least 50% of the time.

                      9. I didn't have too much of a problem with O'Brien's rotations. I was ecstatic that Hibbert and Rush got some decent minutes. I was very happy that Graham didn't play in the second half. I was glad that Travis was playing at the end of the game. The only thing I really didn't like was that it was obvious about 4 minutes into the 3rd that the lineup we had in wasn't working. It took him another 2 minutes to make a substitution.

                      I'm looking forward to watching the game tonight, but I'm going to be very upset if we don't see Rush and Hibbert again.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                        1. I'm totally on board with the shut Danny down for a while bandwagon, but I can understand him wanting to play in the All-Star game (even though I agree with Count's words about it's nature). It's an honor. It's something he's worked very hard to earn. No one can guarantee he'll ever have another opportunity. If he wants to play, let him as long as his knee's not going to get worse. It's not like we're going to make the playoffs anyway.
                        Yes, let me clarify. I do not wish to diminish Danny's honor, nor deny him what has to be a very rare beam of sunlight in an otherwise miserable season.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                          JOB is the reason why Dunleavy & Murphy have never made the playoffs as pros. JOB is not the problem. We have an extreme lack of talent.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                            4. It should be clear by now that I don't think Stephen Graham should ever play, but his performance last night was awful. He was almost single-handedly responsible for destroying our momentum at the end of the 2nd quarter. He came in for Danny with 4:56 left in the quarter. Over the next five minutes the play-by-play contains the following: SG defensive rebound, SG lost ball, SG shooting foul, SG defensive rebound, SG missed jumper, SG shooting foul, SG misses 3 point jumper, SG misses layup, Shot-clock violation (due to SG's overdribbling, IIRC).

                            5. Brandon Rush was fantastic. I truly hope he never gets another DNP-CD. It did take him a couple minutes to get acclimated, but once he hit that 3 he became a really positive force. He made a couple very tough shots, drove aggressively to the bucket, got teammates wide open shots at least twice with great passes, and played good defense.

                            Excellent post. And please don't take my response as criticism and I'm not really directing this at you, although I would be interested in your thoughts.

                            I found it interesting to read those two paragraps that I quoted above.

                            Yes Graham had a bad game - but he's had good games. Rush had a good game, but he's had some bad games. So I wonder why you are suggesting two young players should be treated differently. Graham benched forever for a bad game and Rush played always no matter if he has a bad game. In fact if you add up all the good and bad from both players, Graham has outplayed Rush this season. So should one game decide who plays. I don't get it
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-06-2009, 01:04 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                              Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                              Chris Paul is a superstar. Match him with Granger you have a playoff team in the EAST. Comparing Ford to CP3 is like comparing Lebron to Bobby Simmons. Ford lacks a killer instict it was proven in the Timberwolves game.

                              I watched a lot of the Celtics and Lakers game and both teams are better at almost every position than the Pacers. Watch more NBA games than just the Pacers and then evaluate how talented our team is.
                              You didn't get my point. I'm not trying to directly compare Ford against CP3. No doubt CP3 is a better scorer.
                              My point is that CP3 does not spoon-feed his teammates, in terms of making plays as a PG. His teammates cut here and there, screen and so on... Our players? They just stand still, not even active as spectators! Danny is no exception. He just waits to be spoon-fed too. Matching Danny with CP3 will lead to automatic success ??? I don't buy that until our Danny and Co. develop some basketball IQ.
                              I don't expect complex Princeton offense or any other fancy fast-paced offense implemented by JOB (I can't believe he is a NBA coach). But if our players move a little more diligently without the ball, then Ford has a better chance to shine as a PG. Well not only TJ, but also Jack and Diener! TJ proved his court vision as a Longhorn and Raptor.

                              BTW, TJ was #8 pick of the incredible 2003 draft class and it speaks volume on his potentials. If that damn spinal cord injury had not occurred, he could have been more deadly. Don't judge him just by his performance at the game against Wolves. It's the team as a whole that is choking the entire season so far!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Post-Game: Sixers win

                                Originally posted by ESB View Post
                                You didn't get my point. I'm not trying to directly compare Ford against CP3. No doubt CP3 is a better scorer.
                                My point is that CP3 does not spoon-feed his teammates, in terms of making plays as a PG. His teammates cut here and there, screen and so on... Our players? They just stand still, not even active as spectators! Danny is no exception. He just waits to be spoon-fed too. Matching Danny with CP3 will lead to automatic success ??? I don't buy that until our Danny and Co. develop some basketball IQ.
                                I don't expect complex Princeton offense or any other fancy fast-paced offense implemented by JOB (I can't believe he is a NBA coach). But if our players move a little more diligently without the ball, then Ford has a better chance to shine as a PG. Well not only TJ, but also Jack and Diener! TJ proved his court vision as a Longhorn and Raptor.

                                BTW, TJ was #8 pick of the incredible 2003 draft class and it speaks volume on his potentials. If that damn spinal cord injury had not occurred, he could have been more deadly. Don't judge him just by his performance at the game against Wolves. It's the team as a whole that is choking the entire season so far!
                                I understand you're a fan and I commend you for it but TJ has been terrible far more often than not. He had a great start to the season. He's dropped off faster than an anvil on a cliff.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X