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

Improving Our Wings

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

  • Improving Our Wings

    The offensive stats of the wings we are discussing trying to acquire are not much, if any, better than those of the wings we already have.

    Per 36 minutes scoring:

    D. Granger 20.9
    D. Jones 19.2
    P. George 15.3
    M. Dunleavy 15.1 (out for two months)
    B. Rush 13.2

    J. Crawford 17.6
    W. Chandler 17.3
    O. J. Mayo 15.5


    FG%

    D. Jones .511
    P. George .451
    M. Dunleavy .441
    B. Rush .438
    D. Granger .435

    W. Chandler .463
    J. Crawford .423
    O. J. Mayo .409

    3P%

    B. Rush .420
    D. Granger .386
    M. Dunleavy .362
    D. Jones .357
    P. George .286 (Just think what his overall shooting percentage would be if he were hitting threes at Granger's percentage!)

    W. Chandler .364
    J. Crawford .351
    O. J. Mayo .342

    We can expect Paul George to improve his numbers dramatically as soon as he finds the NBA 3 pt range.

    As many have noted and as the stats bear out, the problem is getting more quality shots for Brandon Rush. If he were taking five to seven more good quality shots per game, half of them threes, and getting a few more free throw attempts in consequence, his scoring would be in the Granger range or higher.

    Leaving Dunleavy out of the picture, with imaginable improvements from George and Rush, we would have four wings with potent offense and, with maturing from George and a little more consistent effort from Granger, fairly formidable defense.

    So, are Collison and Price up to the task of helping Rush find more shots? Can Rush learn to put himself in position to get them?

    Stats-wise, O.J. Mayo, W. Chandler, and J. Crawford, for example, do not stand out relative to the wings we have.

    In fact, if we can boost P. George's and B. Rush's stats a bit, I would say that those other guys we are considering acquiring would have to compete hard to make the rotation.

    It's worth a concentrated effort.

  • #2
    Re: Improving Our Wings

    Originally posted by johndozark View Post
    The offensive stats of the wings we are discussing trying to acquire are not much, if any, better than those of the wings we already have.

    Per 36 minutes scoring:

    D. Granger 20.9
    D. Jones 19.2
    P. George 15.3
    M. Dunleavy 15.1 (out for two months)
    B. Rush 13.2

    J. Crawford 17.6
    W. Chandler 17.3
    O. J. Mayo 15.5


    FG%

    D. Jones .511
    P. George .451
    M. Dunleavy .441
    B. Rush .438
    D. Granger .435

    W. Chandler .463
    J. Crawford .423
    O. J. Mayo .409

    3P%

    B. Rush .420
    D. Granger .386
    M. Dunleavy .362
    D. Jones .357
    P. George .286 (Just think what his overall shooting percentage would be if he were hitting threes at Granger's percentage!)

    W. Chandler .364
    J. Crawford .351
    O. J. Mayo .342

    We can expect Paul George to improve his numbers dramatically as soon as he finds the NBA 3 pt range.

    As many have noted and as the stats bear out, the problem is getting more quality shots for Brandon Rush. If he were taking five to seven more good quality shots per game, half of them threes, and getting a few more free throw attempts in consequence, his scoring would be in the Granger range or higher.

    Leaving Dunleavy out of the picture, with imaginable improvements from George and Rush, we would have four wings with potent offense and, with maturing from George and a little more consistent effort from Granger, fairly formidable defense.

    So, are Collison and Price up to the task of helping Rush find more shots? Can Rush learn to put himself in position to get them?

    Stats-wise, O.J. Mayo, W. Chandler, and J. Crawford, for example, do not stand out relative to the wings we have.

    In fact, if we can boost P. George's and B. Rush's stats a bit, I would say that those other guys we are considering acquiring would have to compete hard to make the rotation.

    It's worth a concentrated effort.

    I think you are on to something there. We do need some wing help but from where? Mayo could have benefited from a change of scenery, I don't know. He is young and may have his off-court issues behind him.

    I like the increase in production Paul George could have with increased minutes. He is the answer to our wing issue. The question is, will he be the answer "next" year or the year after that?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Improving Our Wings

      You're leaving out that OJ Mayo, Wilson Chandler and Jamal Crawford are on good teams and they can create their own shots and Brandon Rush, Mike Dunleavy,and Dahntay Jones are on bad teams that can't create their own shots*.

      *Dahntay sometimes can create his own shot.

      We need a closer. If Jamal Crawford, OJ Mayo, or Wilson Chandler came here, their numbers would greatly increase because they'd play 35-36 minutes a night and they'd be our number one option. We want to give one of these guys the green light.

      These guys are huge improvements over Rush and Mike.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Improving Our Wings

        I link mango habinero sauce on my wings. I think it provides the kick we need.
        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Improving Our Wings

          You're also leaving out the fact that mayo and Chandler still have room to grow.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Improving Our Wings

            Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
            You're leaving out that OJ Mayo, Wilson Chandler and Jamal Crawford are on good teams and they can create their own shots and Brandon Rush, Mike Dunleavy,and Dahntay Jones are on bad teams that can't create their own shots*.

            *Dahntay sometimes can create his own shot.

            We need a closer. If Jamal Crawford, OJ Mayo, or Wilson Chandler came here, their numbers would greatly increase because they'd play 35-36 minutes a night and they'd be our number one option. We want to give one of these guys the green light.

            These guys are huge improvements over Rush and Mike.
            I dont know that I would want to build a team that relied on Mayo being the number 1 option. He has never showed that he is up to the challenge. Chandler and Crawford would be upgrades but I dont think they would be our number 1 option ahead of Granger. They are both solid 2 guys like DG is (imho).

            I do agree that we need a strong first option - you called it a "closer". I just dont think any of the names mentioned are good enough to be that even if they were upgrades over Rush and Mike - thats not saying a lot!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Improving Our Wings

              What do Mike and Rush do that OJ, Chandler, and Crawford can't?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Improving Our Wings

                I understand that we need to see Rush perform with higher offensive productivity if he is to remain as a major factor for the Pacers.

                However, I also see that he was in an offensive system that did not work for him under the previous coach, and he has not had the playing and practice time to become thoroughly incorporated in the Vogel approach.

                Pretty much, it is now or never for him in Indpls.

                I remember Collison's confidence on his arrival that he could help Rush find his shots. Has that been given a thorough try and found wanting? Or has it been thought wanting and not thoroughly tried? Alternatively, has it just not had its turn yet? I don't know.

                Thirteen games into the Vogel era, with very limited practice times, we can only expect to have instituted a limited amount of new stuff, but, providing Rush is staying away from marijuana, I would like to see some Rush experiments get high priority for a reasonable test period.

                I do understand the desire for a shot creator for select occasions, provided that the shot creator knows how to be selective about when those occasions have arrived. I wonder if Paul George has that potential to be developed over time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Improving Our Wings

                  Bare with this, I will get to the point.
                  First off, to be able to choose wing players, one has to know how the team will be coached. Either bring players in that fit the system or fit the system to the players.

                  For example, coach O' tried to spread the floor to take pressure off center and pf position cause the paint is our weak area. So, the wings shot alot of 3's and allowed Collison to slash to the basket with the floor spread, yet this was hard for Danny cause he isn't fast enought to cover the real estate (very seldom drove).

                  Coach Vogel is not spreading the floor as much therefore less 3's are attempted. However, this is actually causing problems right at the moment for Collison, because the spread has collapse quite abit, he is driving into smaller lanes and running out of real estate. This is creating bad shots and turnovers. Danny on the other hand can gain from this sometimes because he is much stronger and taller and is inside the 3 pt. line when receiving the ball and this also fits D.Jones's strong points of his body strength, height and mid range JUMP shot. Now, If you notice the paint area is alittle more clustered when the ball is fed. This is also causing problems for the C and PF position, like getting dominated in the paint by Utah, with the exception of Josh squeezing the baseline for acouple Slams, Boom Baby!

                  My Point of all this is what i've seen posted for player FG% makes little difference in the manner posted. Dunleavey shoots long 2's and 3's where Chandler is not a good shooter at mid to long 2's and a terrible 3pt shooter. Mayo FG% is not created by the same type of shots of Dunleavey or Granger. Believe it or not Dunleavey is one of the better pure long range shooters in the league. He has had 40/40 seasons which most good shooters may never achieve. It's all about shot selection.

                  For us to really know what type of player could help us out in the wing position, we need to know how our coach is going to coach. If he keeps this scheme then adding a Mayo or (JR Smith my choice) would be perfect at SG. Chandler is actually a SF and Granger is much much better. With this said, Pacers really need to address the PF and C position with this coaching scheme. Pacers got to get bigger, stronger PF and C.

                  If, they want to go back to spreading the floor like coach O' then my suggestion is do what it take to get Eric Gordon SG and Channing Frye SC and Troy Murphy PF that can shoot 3's. Keep Granger, Josh and Dunleavey and have one the very best perimeter shooting team in the league, But our defense will suffer and will be spotty on offense at times.

                  One more thing, Coach Vogel ( just my opinion) is running like the Pacers of old with the Davis Boys, this is a good thing. I don't like the spread offense.

                  Take us to Victory
                  Tyson Chandler (fa)/ Roy Hibbert / Jeff Foster
                  Paul Millsap (trade)/ Tyler Hansbrough / Josh McRoberts PF,SF
                  Danny Granger / Paul George
                  JR Smith (fa)/ Dahntay Jones
                  Darren Collison / AJ Price / Lance Stevenson PG, SG

                  Trade: Brandon Rush, Posey, 2011 for Millsap
                  Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Improving Our Wings

                    Well for one thing, the 3 guys the op mention in comparison to our wings is that those 3 guys are all on winning teams. Huge upgrade in my opinion.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Improving Our Wings

                      But you don't put Crawford on a muscle team and you dont' put Chandler on a shooting perimeter team. The players listed are so different and you can't look at FG% with Chandler vs Dunleavey cause Chandler couldn't ever think to do what Dunleavey does. ya know.
                      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Improving Our Wings

                        Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                        Bare with this, I will get to the point.
                        First off, to be able to choose wing players, one has to know how the team will be coached. Either bring players in that fit the system or fit the system to the players.

                        For example, coach O' tried to spread the floor to take pressure off center and pf position cause the paint is our weak area. So, the wings shot alot of 3's and allowed Collison to slash to the basket with the floor spread, yet this was hard for Danny cause he isn't fast enought to cover the real estate (very seldom drove).

                        Coach Vogel is not spreading the floor as much therefore less 3's are attempted. However, this is actually causing problems right at the moment for Collison, because the spread has collapse quite abit, he is driving into smaller lanes and running out of real estate. This is creating bad shots and turnovers. Danny on the other hand can gain from this sometimes because he is much stronger and taller and is inside the 3 pt. line when receiving the ball and this also fits D.Jones's strong points of his body strength, height and mid range JUMP shot. Now, If you notice the paint area is alittle more clustered when the ball is fed. This is also causing problems for the C and PF position, like getting dominated in the paint by Utah, with the exception of Josh squeezing the baseline for acouple Slams, Boom Baby!

                        My Point of all this is what i've seen posted for player FG% makes little difference in the manner posted. Dunleavey shoots long 2's and 3's where Chandler is not a good shooter at mid to long 2's and a terrible 3pt shooter. Mayo FG% is not created by the same type of shots of Dunleavey or Granger. Believe it or not Dunleavey is one of the better pure long range shooters in the league. He has had 40/40 seasons which most good shooters may never achieve. It's all about shot selection.

                        For us to really know what type of player could help us out in the wing position, we need to know how our coach is going to coach. If he keeps this scheme then adding a Mayo or (JR Smith my choice) would be perfect at SG. Chandler is actually a SF and Granger is much much better. With this said, Pacers really need to address the PF and C position with this coaching scheme. Pacers got to get bigger, stronger PF and C.

                        If, they want to go back to spreading the floor like coach O' then my suggestion is do what it take to get Eric Gordon SG and Channing Frye SC and Troy Murphy PF that can shoot 3's. Keep Granger, Josh and Dunleavey and have one the very best perimeter shooting team in the league, But our defense will suffer and will be spotty on offense at times.

                        One more thing, Coach Vogel ( just my opinion) is running like the Pacers of old with the Davis Boys, this is a good thing. I don't like the spread offense.

                        Take us to Victory
                        Tyson Chandler (fa)/ Roy Hibbert / Jeff Foster
                        Paul Millsap (trade)/ Tyler Hansbrough / Josh McRoberts PF,SF
                        Danny Granger / Paul George
                        JR Smith (fa)/ Dahntay Jones
                        Darren Collison / AJ Price / Lance Stevenson PG, SG

                        Trade: Brandon Rush, Posey, 2011 for Millsap
                        Utah GM at Larry Bird and hangs up.


                        Chandler is gonna get paid by Cuban.
                        JR Smith really? Smash mouth lol

                        Paul George will start next year. Unless we get a major upgrade. In this scenerio JR would come off the bench.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Improving Our Wings

                          Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                          You're leaving out that OJ Mayo, Wilson Chandler and Jamal Crawford are on good teams and they can create their own shots and Brandon Rush, Mike Dunleavy,and Dahntay Jones are on bad teams that can't create their own shots*.

                          *Dahntay sometimes can create his own shot.

                          We need a closer. If Jamal Crawford, OJ Mayo, or Wilson Chandler came here, their numbers would greatly increase because they'd play 35-36 minutes a night and they'd be our number one option. We want to give one of these guys the green light.

                          These guys are huge improvements over Rush and Mike.
                          Chandler creates his own shot about as good as Granger which = fail

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Improving Our Wings

                            ..Which is still better that Dun/Rush.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Improving Our Wings

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              Utah GM at Larry Bird and hangs up.


                              Chandler is gonna get paid by Cuban.
                              JR Smith really? Smash mouth lol

                              Paul George will start next year. Unless we get a major upgrade. In this scenerio JR would come off the bench.
                              Chandler can be had for the right price possibly. Have to try anyways!

                              JR Smith is a really good SG. Can shoot from anywhere. create his own shot. Can take it to the hole and brings toughness, which we don't have in that position. He don't bring baggage like Mayo. And who's a bigger smash mouth then Reggie Miller.

                              Rush, Expiring contract of Posey and 2011 1st rnd pick is perfect for Millsap, Utah needs a SG and Posey can bring outside shooting in Sf position which they lack. I think that is a really good offer.

                              Also, sorry to bust your bubble but George is not a SG and the only way he'll start is if Granger is traded or there is injury.
                              Last edited by Pacer Fan; 02-28-2011, 08:17 AM. Reason: added a line and typo
                              Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X