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

Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

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

  • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Probably not possible, but I would like to see us acquire a Crawford/Barbisa type guy, get Kaman, and put Hill at the starting 1.
    DC+Tyler for Felton/Crawford should get it done, maybe throw a second round pick or something.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      DC+Tyler for Felton/Crawford should get it done, maybe throw a second round pick or something.
      This plus Kaman and we'll be scary...

      Comment


      • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

        I feel like everyone talks like we already have Kaman locked up.
        "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

        Comment


        • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          DC+Tyler for Felton/Crawford should get it done, maybe throw a second round pick or something.
          I doubt they even consider it

          Comment


          • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

            Originally posted by rock747 View Post
            I feel like everyone talks like we already have Kaman locked up.
            Breaking News: A man who was being kept in a cage inside of Banker's Life Fieldhouse is on the loose. Families are being warned to stay indoors as the very gruff, hairy man is known to have a devastating left hook. An eye witness shared that he was "looking for that guy using my likeness to begin the game threads." Twitpics at Eleven.
            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

            Comment


            • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

              I went to the game tonight and the only two players I thought played well coming out of it were West and Hill. That probably goes for the majority of the board.

              The real problem is our point guard play makes a lot of the players look worse than they really are. DC and GH both have a shoot-first court vision mentality, and it drives me nuts. I'll cut Hill some slack since he's a combo guard, but DC has to realize that he's out to put the four other guys in position to score. I've been joking most of the week with my friends about a trade involving Granger and Rondo, but at this point, I honestly wouldn't be against it.

              And really, what is up with Roy Hibbert? His effort on boxing out and pulling down rebounds with some hard authority is laughable. Actually, no one on this team pulls down rebounds with some toughness. Hell, let's expand it. No one on this team shows any toughness at all.

              I guess I'm just venting, but it was a painful game to watch tonight. This team won't compete with any of the playoff contenders if they're going to play like this every night.

              Comment


              • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                I missed the game tonight, luckily I forgot to record it. First game I've missed all year. It's probably a good thing though because I would have posted something "negative", and it seems some people have been getting their panties in a bunch over my posts. (yeah not too classy... but I'm smashed )

                I just have two questions, then I'll go back to my hole... how did Roy get only 6 shots in 40 minutes? And who was (or wasn't) guarding Pargo?

                p.s. Have yourself a Goose Island beer (i prefer Sofie). You'll be glad you did.

                Comment


                • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                  I wonder a tad bit about all the criticism of DC. He has pluses and minuses. He is a very decent shooter. He's fast. He generally handles the ball OK (although there were some conceded lapses last night).

                  His minuses are he's undersized a lot of the time. Sometimes he has a great deal of difficulty defensing the pick and roll (he seems to have a lot of trouble particularly getting around Roy when Roy comes out to hedge or temporarily switches off the pick & roll when DC gets picked). I also question his peripheral vision. Lance, for example, has more (maybe because Lance is taller, maybe because when DC drives he has his head down too much. I dunno). His timing sometimes with his passing is bad (DC's sometimes slow to recognize an open man -- a problem with a lot of guys on the Pacers and not just DC). It's frustrating sometimes to see DC hesitate to dump down to Roy or West or PG, for example when they're open for a couple of instants posting low, and then only belatedly try to make the pass when the defense has already recovered and the momentary window of opportunity has closed and his target is covered up again.

                  I've also noticed, however, that the Pacers, generally, can't (or don't) fast break. How many times do we pull down a rebound, outlet to DC, and then have DC speed upcourt only to be the only Pacers player on the opponent side of the midline and then facing a 1 on 2 or a 1 on 3? DC then invariably does the only sane thing - circle back and wait for the rest of the team to come up, and get into a half-court set. It happens over and over again - like Groundhog Day.

                  We're simply a pretty slow team and we don't fast break well and your point guard can't pick up an assist on occasions when there's simply no one up there to pass to. Then we're always faced with a half-court situation. Roy moves up, sets the pick and DC then is expected to dribble off the pick and make something happen. But usually, then, he's only got the choice of attacking the basket as an undersized guard taking on all the opposition's big men inside (which DC does or tries to do sometimes - usually with poor results) or stopping and taking the pull up J (which he usually opts for, often with pretty good results) or kicking out to someone outside (which he opts for a lot too - usually to Danny or PG (who are typically behind the 3-point stripe and not cutting to the hoop). About the only time we fast break is when we generate a defensive turnover. There's nothing about our offensive scheme geared to a point guard running fast breaks.

                  I guess what I'm saying here is that DC doesn't dole out a lot of assists because of his own limitations sometimes. But also because we don't or can't seem to run much. We're really not very good in offensive transition. I kind of wonder sometimes if a Rashon Rondo would be doling out many assists if he (and not DC) was playing for our team.
                  Last edited by IndyHoya; 03-07-2012, 09:48 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                    Originally posted by Asher99 View Post
                    When he gets the ball as often as other 6th man contenders he scores like they do. He's 12th in the NBA in bench points. But he's 39 shots and 18 points behind 11th then 75 behind 10th and 100+ behind the others in Top-10 with a amazing 221 attempts behind the leagues leader in bench points. As bad as Tyler's percentage is it's not far off many of those players who are in front of him.
                    First of all, continually beating this drum of trying to force feed shots, to a scorer who is so woefully inefficient, will never make sense. It is ridiculous. Maybe if he was able to make more shots, he'd be getting more shots. As it is now, the fewer attempts he's getting, the better it is for the team.

                    If he was able to help out in other ways beyond scoring, the minutes he's getting would be justifiable. Unfortunately, that is far from the case. Right now, Vogel being forced to stick with Tyler in such a big role, is becoming a real issue. He has done nothing to deserve the rotation spot he's been given. Vogel just doesn't have any other options. I hope Bird is able to alleviate that issue by adding a big man in the next 2 weeks.

                    Second of all, where are you getting these numbers? You'd be well served to actually post a link to show some proof of your arguments. As best as I can tell, this argument that you continue to harp on, not only has no basis, but the evidence you are using to back it up, isn't even accurate. Are you just making these figures up?

                    You're giving all of us who like to use statistical measures, in conjunction with observation, a bad name.

                    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...r_by=pts_per_g

                    Right now, Tyler is 16th in bench scoring. The leader, James Harden is taking about 2.6 more shots per game. Those additional attempts are netting him about 7.3 more points per game. Perhaps the reason why he is getting more attempts, is due to the fact that he is so much more efficient. If Tyler was able to score like Harden, nobody would have any issue if he was getting a couple more shots every game.

                    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...rder_by=fg_pct

                    Percentage-wise, he's 53rd out of the 61 qualified bench players. 53rd out of 61. Again, why should we try to force shots his way when he makes so few of them?

                    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...der_by=efg_pct

                    He is also one of only 11 of these players who have not attempted a single 3 pointer. When you factor in where he's getting his shots from as a power forward, he is 58th out of 61 in eFG%. He's not just slightly behind the league leaders off the bench. He's nearly the worst.
                    Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 03-07-2012, 09:50 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                      Originally posted by IndyHoya View Post
                      I've also noticed, however, that the Pacers, generally, can't (or don't) fast break. How many times do we pull down a rebound, outlet to DC, and then have DC speed upcourt only to be the only Pacers player on the opponent side of the midline and then facing a 1 on 2 or a 1 on 3? DC then invariably does the only sane thing - circle back and wait for the rest of the team to come up, and get into a half-court set. It happens over and over again - like Groundhog Day.

                      We're simply a pretty slow team and we don't fast break well and your point guard can't pick up an assist on occasions when there's simply no one up there to pass to. Then we're always faced with a half-court situation. Roy moves up, sets the pick and DC then is expected to dribble off the pick and make something happen. But usually, then, he's only got the choice of attacking the basket as an undersized guard taking on all the opposition's big men inside (which DC does or tries to do sometimes - usually with poor results) or stopping and taking the pull up J (which he usually opts for, often with pretty good results) or kicking out to someone outside (which he opts for a lot too - usually to Danny or PG (who are typically behind the 3-point stripe and not cutting to the hoop).

                      I guess what I'm saying here is that DC doesn't dole out a lot of assists because of his own limitations sometimes. But also because we don't run much. We're really not very good in transition. I kind of wonder sometimes if a Rashon Rondo would be doling out many assists if he (and not DC) was playing for our team.
                      I think this is an error of cause and effect. The reason we're not very good in transition, is largely because DC is really bad in transition. He's bad for a variety of reasons, but they all essentially fall back on the same overarching theme: Darren Collison has a low basketball IQ.

                      He rarely makes the right play in the open court, and when he does it is almost never on time. He almost always passes it far too late, and when he doesn't, he frequently passes it too early. Obviously, more often than not, he doesn't even look to pass. He'd rather take the ball, on his own, into a wad of defenders and try to get his own layup. Because he's such a poor passer on the break, that's probably the best option really.

                      He never makes an effort to get the ball into the middle of the court. He always tries to take it up one of the alleys outside the lane. This is a major violation of basketball 101. By doing this, he allows defenders to multiple players and shut down our fast break.

                      There was a good example last night that epitomized the DC-led fast breaks all too well.

                      The first one was an example of him passing too early, we had a three-on-one with Collison leading the break down the right hand side. Again, why he didn't try to get to the middle is beyond me, because by doing this he forced Paul George to fill the lane in the middle of the court, and Danny Granger was on the left. I can't remember who the lone Hawks' defender was, but he was able to effectively guard all 3 Pacers due to the way Collison refuses to use the middle of the court.

                      He never made the defender commit to him, and he dumped it back to George trailing down the middle. He was able to draw a foul and get to the line, but it should have been an easy layup if he had drawn the defender to him before passing it. I don't remember if he made both free throws or not, but it was an absolutely awful fast break, even if we got the 2 points out of it anyway.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                        in the 4th qtr last night we seen Tyler Hansbrough actually excute a baseline drive where he sealed off his defender giving him an open baby hook about 5 feet from the basket only to see him instead hop step into another defender, hesitate, giving his original defender time to recover and then of course he gets his shot blocked in typical flailing of the arms fashion.

                        After seeing that I am really unsure if this guy knows what he is doing out there.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                          Arguably neither one is a true PG, but at least Jack brings leadership, passion, moxie and consistent scoring ability. DC IMO hasn't brought squat in terms of consistency in any area.

                          At this point you have a bundle of cap space an nobody untouchable. I'd be very active seeing what's out there unless there is a very quick turn around.

                          The team is not bad, but it's not clear how good they are. And I don't think it has the pieces to develop into ECF/NBAF contenders even with more seasons involved. So there's no reason not to see if some of that reshaping process can't start now.

                          You basically said in a post I put together last night in a rebuttal, but by error deleted while posting it. I was too tired to do it again.

                          Collision has no leadership abilities, none. He couldn't lead a group of starving homeless people to the dinner table.

                          He has little if any court vision. He doesn't understand when to pass the ball to others.

                          Collision doesn't have Jack's tuffness nor his fire.

                          Jack is bigger and stronger than Collision, but not as quick.

                          Jack plays better "D". He can get physical and Collision can't.

                          Since leaving the Pacers Jack has become a better player. I haven't seen Collision get better. I know umpteen coaches in his short career.

                          Viewing both players stats they shoot 43% FG, Collison has the better 3 pt %, where Jack has the better FT%. Jack PPG is 14.5 and Collision PPG is 11. Jack asts are 1 ast higher than Collison, and a half reb higher. "It's the things previously stated that really makes Jack the better PG."

                          Jack isn't the long term answer, but I feel he is the better answer at the present time. I'd love to have D'will but then there is reality. Jack's contract is only another year at 5 mil. 5 mil for a starting PG not on a rookie contract is extremely reasonable. 5 mil is reasonable for a "good quality" b/u PG that procduces like Jack does.

                          I brought up Jack b/c Kaman is a player I'd like to see Bird acquire, and while he's doing so why not Jack as well? It's not like the Pacers couldn't use a fresh approach at PG.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                            Free throws (or missing them) killed us tonight, and I'd argue it hurt more than the allowed o-reboundings and Pargo.

                            Yes, it hurt. If the Pacers had hit 60% of their missed FT last night they would have won. But at the same time letting Pargo shoot 3's, not playing "D" the paint, poor rebing, poor shot selection, and not getting loose balls didn't help either.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                              Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                              Your talking about Tyler right? Minus the turnovers, Roy had a pretty solid game tonight. Him, West, and Hill were the three reasons we were in this game at all. Roy doesn't have the highest PER (19.48 - 45th in the NBA) on the entire team by mistake, he hardly has played like "crap" this year let alone every game like you say.
                              But 2 straight poorly played games against good teams doesn't bode well and gives credence to his disappearing.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hawks/Pacers postgame thread 03/06/12

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                You know what, I didn't watch the game tonight. Sucks that they lost.

                                Instead, I watched the Big East women's tournament.

                                The Uconn team is young. They've struggled this season. They're likely to finish the season with more losses than the last four years combined (they have to win the tournament not to) They lost to an unranked opponent, on their home floor (something they haven't done in probably 20 years) the lost the Big East regular season title, something they haven't done in a LONG time (at least 8 years) Notre Dame had beaten them three times in a row, something a Big East opponent hadn't done in 20 years..

                                They won tonight. They beat Notre Dame. They grew up. Instead of not being able to score in the last 8 minutes of the game, 2 players stepped up and scored. Instead of loosening up the defense because they were tired, they got tougher. Instead of letting Notre Dame get offensive rebound after offensive rebound, our little shooting guards (forced to play PF) went in and battled an All American PF.

                                It was all about maturity. Notre Dame is a significantly more talented team than they are. Not impossible for my girls to beat, better, but still significantly better. They just weren't mentally able to handle those games earlier in the season. They aren't completely developed, so they aren't consistent.

                                People are all into the here and now. Well I'll tell you something, I've enjoyed watching this Uconn team more than any team in the past probably 8 years (whenever the heck Taurasi's senior season was). Because I've got the patience to understand that young players screw up..and they lose games they aren't supposed to lose. And they struggle to score at the end of games, particularly against better more mature teams. And they aren't consistent.

                                But when something clicks, and they finally do grow up. That's a heck of a lot more fun than buying a great team. And if this team, as it stands now, gets better and more consistent, and say..makes it to the ECF, that'll be a heck of a lot more fun for everyone who watched them.

                                Do players on this team have their faults, absolutely. I would never say their only problem is youth and inexperience. But you'd be surprised at the huge difference it makes.

                                And I've watched it happen for teams at every level. (WCBB, MCBB, WNBA, NBA)

                                So call it an excuse, enjoy being pessimistic, whatever. This team is talented and good, and much improved from last season - flaws and all.

                                I like your new avater. Not sure what it is or represents, but it's nice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X