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

Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

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

  • #61
    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    I'll provide the same answer to this question that I provide everytime ( during this Playoff drought ) when this question comes up:

    Put the best lineup ( regardless of who the Player is...vet or rookie ) that we can to win games simply to make the Playoffs. But when ( and if ) we are eliminated from making the Playoffs, I want to see a lineups that include maximum playing time for DC/BRush/Granger/Hansbrough/Hibbert/George/AJ/Magnum/Lance/McRoberts while minimizing the # of minutes for TJ/Dunleavy/Foster. The only vets that I would possibly include in the regular rotation ( but with minimal minutes ) is Posey and Inferno as we are stuck with him for 2 seasons.

    We are not a Team like the TWolves or Kings where we are flush with very young talent in "rebuilding" mode....we are a Team that is a mixture of vets and young Players that should have enough talent to be considered a "Playoff Bubble" team.

    Before we are bounced from the Playoff picture, it is critical to win games to make the Playoffs. Having a winning environment and Playoff Experience for a young Team is critical to properly develop them....even if it means losing in 4 blowout games against the Heat. But the second that we are eliminated from any Playoff hopes, I think it is more important to develop the Players and build Team Chemistry among the players that will likely be the future core of this Team. Add in ( as Seth will point out ) that we would need to properly evaluate Players like Magnum ( much like what we should have done with McRoberts a season or two ago ) to see if they are worth keeping for the long term.

    BTW...assuming that PG and Lance aren't "blowing JO'B away" ( a la Iggy as a rookie when JO'B was in Philly ) and therefore does not truly deserve regular rotation minutes....I have ZERO problem if PG and Lance play very limited minutes during the season when there is still a chance that the Team is trying to make the Playoffs. But once we''re out...I want to see them playing regular minutes.
    Last edited by CableKC; 10-14-2010, 01:27 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

      Nice sookie
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

        I think a very important point where I will give JOB credit is he is always playing to win the games first. in the past years the Pacers are right outside the playoff race. He wants to get them to the playoffs so he is playing the vets because he thinks that gives him the best chance to win. Usually until the last week of the season the Pacers are usually still in the thick of it. Until the X shows up on the standings next to their name he will play to win as any coach should. I think the starting lineup that has been mentioned is a good one. Hibbert is still a young guy in my opion, so is Collison so do we need to start all rookies or second year players for this to work? Save that for D league.
        JOB is a silly man

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post

          I don't want to hear about how Lance is our best PG in practice, and then never see him in a game until Darren or AJ is out with an injury. If he's playing better than either one of them, then he needs to play during games. Shut your mouth with IRRELEVANT praise if it's not the truth. Don't, basically, lie to your fan base talking about how great he is. That's only going to **** us off when he doesn't get to play.

          But it's nothing new. Jim came in to Indy thumping his chest about how if you didn't practice you didn't play, and then we find out that JO isn't practicing but playing as many minutes as he can handle.


          My argument is pretty simple. Play the best performers in practice. Like he should have done with AJ last year. Don't play players completely out of position when you have capable players at that position sitting on the bench.

          How hard is it to do those two things?

          In theory, playing whoever plays best in practice sounds good. But is that realistic? I think in training camp OK it might be. But compare Danny playing 35 minutes every game vs lets say Paul George who is aveaging 10 minutes per game playing in about half the game - for sake of discussion stay with me.

          OK, so in mid January George starts to outplay Danny in practice - what do you do? also what factors are causing george to outplay him. Is george getting better or is the season wearing Danny down. Unfair to compare a starter getting 35 minutes every game to a bench player not getting many minutes - makes sense the bench player would have the energy to practice and outplay the starter in practice. But that doesn't mean they will play better in games.

          So if in 2 months we hear that Lance is outplaying Collision in practice, i say who cares, good for lance, but Collision is tired from playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-14-2010, 01:59 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
            If Jim keeps the rotation he has right now, I'd be pretty happy.

            We have
            Collison/AJ
            Dun/George
            Granger/Posey
            Josh/Hans
            Roy/Foster

            The only change I'd make is to exchange Posey for Rush. Rush is better than him, even at Rush's worst. It's really not even a question over who should play.
            My guess is that we'd probably go with a tighter 8-9 man rotation starting with:

            Collison
            Dunleavy
            Granger
            McRoberts
            Hibbert

            with

            1 ) AJ or TJ backing up Collison
            2 ) Posey or BRush acking up both Dunleavy and Granger ( with BRush getting the bulk of the backup SG/SF minutes )
            3 ) Foster, Solo and Hansbrough backing up both McRoberts and Hibbert ( where Foster gets the majority of the Backup PF/C minutes with Solo and Hansbrough getting minutes here and there )

            Sorry...but I don't think that PG/Lance/Magnum will get signifcant minutes this season when it matters.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              In theory, playing whoever plays best in practice sounds good. But is it realiistic for a bench player who gets very
              Practice....we talkin about practice.........practice?
              JOB is a silly man

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                And outside of shooting how do you get better in those other two areas?
                I think you'd be surprised at how much you can get better at this by being in a place where you can see the whole court and watch what is going on everywhere, without the additional distractions of being on the floor or worrying about what you will do when you get on the floor.

                Then, there is a matter of it clicking. For some players it seems to click right away, for others it takes longer.

                And finally, you need to be well-rounded enough to give yourself the space to do some of the things you have seen on the court while you were watching. We wanted Josh to get more minutes last year for the things he was doing, but the improvement this year has come as much because he is contributing in each area rather than being a specialist body on the floor. I really don't think he was capable of that last year.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Peck nails it, and it's really not even about Murphy. It's about playing Mike Dunleavy and DJones at the 4 while Josh sits there with his hand on his chin. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.
                And I don't disagree with this. As I said, if the discussion is about the degree to which you play some vets over young guys, I have little argument with it, since I think there were some great opportunities to get guys playing time last year. I don't think that was the case two years ago, though, which is why I don't like it being lumped in as a "JOB has done it every year even though we were getting blown out of games" kind of thing.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I don't want to hear about how Lance is our best PG in practice, and then never see him in a game until Darren or AJ is out with an injury. If he's playing better than either one of them, then he needs to play during games. Shut your mouth with IRRELEVANT praise if it's not the truth. Don't, basically, lie to your fan base talking about how great he is. That's only going to **** us off when he doesn't get to play.
                I think this may be one of the bigger issues with JOB. He communicates so much more than RC did that I suspect we think what he says is everything he has to say. Part of that is his fault, he wants to praise guys so he doesn't get very specific and throws around superlatives.

                I suspect in every case what he was saying was that (player-we-think-should-play-more) was great or the best at some things but inadequate in other things. However, he gets caught up in the superlative, tells us, we extrapolate it, and then even if he mentions the negatives later we think something to the effect of, "well, you just made those up to justify the playing time, otherwise you would have told us before."

                I can't point to anything specific other than the team keeps coming back dfrom funks rather than letting the funk run to the end of the season, but I think JOB communicates better to the players than he does to us. Which, given the choice, I would take over the other way around.

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                If your point is that if all things were the same and Troy was still here that Josh would be starting & Troy would be coming off of the bench or even splitting min. between the two with Troy still starting I'll just say that we will agree to disagree.
                No, I think that is probable as well. What I'm saying is that it is really irrelevant to the question of whether Josh has gotten better over the summer and irrelevant to the ability or lack thereof of Jim to manage this team as it stands. We need to let what is happening stand or fall on its own merits rather than comparing it to a "what-if" as if we had facts to back it up. For all we know, JOB was visited by the ghost of Dale Davis the night before training camp and has completely reformed.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                  I think PG is you're 3rd best wing right now at 20, truthfully.

                  I think he'll probably hit a wall, since he's been non stop since being drafted. However, I don't think Brandon, Posey, DJones, or Lance are as good all around as PG.

                  He's good enough defensively to play now and he seems to improve almost daily. He's not timid ala BRush, he's not limited like DJones.

                  When he was drafted I thought this was a watch and learn year, I don't now. I think he'll play as the first wing off the bench for almost the whole season and should.

                  Only thing that would maybe change this is if a light bulb goes on for Brandon, I don't see that happening.

                  I almost think he transcends this discussion because he'll earn his way on the court hands down, by being good enough, but also by your other options.
                  Last edited by Speed; 10-14-2010, 01:53 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                    I really like what we have going into the season.

                    This is a pretty good and balanced rotation.

                    PG Collison/Price
                    SG Dun/Rush (George or Posey)
                    SF Granger/George
                    PF McBob/Hansbrough
                    C Hibbert/Foster

                    We have a PG who has great leadership in Darren.

                    Mike looks like his regular self again playing SG.

                    Danny's the leader of the team and can do a little bit of everything especially score.

                    Josh and Tyler are 2 big men who are tough offensively and can both get to the line or fly in for an open dunk plus can shoot outside of the paint. Their man-to-man defense is really good and based on the games Tyler's appeared in, he's really good with staying on the opposing player with the ball.

                    Roy is a hardworking center who does everything he can to improve himself. He's a powerful big man offensively by dunking and scoring in the post and defensively, he can block a handful of shots.

                    Plus we have a bunch of young guys and some veterans as backups.

                    So there's no reason to finish with a record below .500 and/or miss the playoffs even with JOB coaching.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      I think PG is you're 3rd best wing right now at 20, truthfully.

                      I think he'll probably hit a wall, since he's been non stop since being drafted. However, I don't think Brandon, Posey, DJones, or Lance are as good all around as PG.

                      He's good enough defensively to play now and he seems to improve almost daily. He's not timid ala BRush, he's not limited like DJones.

                      When he was drafted I thought this was a watch and learn year, I don't now. I think he'll play as the first wing off the bench for almost the whole season and should.

                      Only thing that would maybe change this is if a light bulb goes on for Brandon, I don't see that happening.

                      I almost think he transcends this discussion because he'll earn his way on the court hands down, by being good enough, but also by your other options.
                      That is what i think too. but JOB wont do it he will have Brush and DUN over him. I wish he would be at least the 6th man playing 25-30 mins a night. I want him to start so he can run with DC and DG33 and Jmac.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I think you'd be surprised at how much you can get better at this by being in a place where you can see the whole court and watch what is going on everywhere, without the additional distractions of being on the floor or worrying about what you will do when you get on the floor.

                        Then, there is a matter of it clicking. For some players it seems to click right away, for others it takes longer.

                        And finally, you need to be well-rounded enough to give yourself the space to do some of the things you have seen on the court while you were watching. We wanted Josh to get more minutes last year for the things he was doing, but the improvement this year has come as much because he is contributing in each area rather than being a specialist body on the floor. I really don't think he was capable of that last year.
                        While all that's true, watching it and actually DOING it are two completely different things.

                        We have a lot of arm-chair coaches on this forum, but I would bet if you got some of them on a basketball floor in live action, they would be lost. It's easy to sit back and dissect something from afar, rather than doing it real time while you have to concentrate on the ball, your man, and what the other players are doing as well.

                        It's like an offensive set. We can run it a thousand times in practice without a hitch, but break it out in a game and the whole thing breaks down. It's the same concept.

                        Sure, you get your initial knowledge from watching but you get the other half, and I do mean half, from actually playing.

                        It's not only like that in basketball, but any sport.

                        NBA players aren't freaks like we tend to believe. They aren't doing anything that thousands and thousands of non-NBA players can't do. They just happen to be bigger, faster, and stronger than the rest of us. Adjusting to that is what takes time. Whether it's a college player coming out of HS, he was usually the best player on the floor. He was the biggest, strongest, fastest. Now that's not the case for most players. Same with college players going to the NBA.

                        Sure Josh learns by watching, but until he actually becomes comfortable with the speed, size, and strength of his opponents, and his teammates, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

                        Knowing what to do, and being able to do it are two completely different things, and you can't find out if you are able to do it without stepping on the court when it matters.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                          I think it's possible that there is a happy medium out there that allows for both. I just with JOB would adjust when things clearly aren't working. I would rather see Rolle, Hansbrough, Rush, and Stephenson, get minutes over Solomon Jones, Dahntay, Jeff, TJ, and definately over Posey. There was some stat I read last night where our backup (not josh or roy) power forward / center positions combined went 1 - 6 from the field, and had some turnovers and fouls to go along with that ugly stat. I think with guys like Posey and Jeff they pretty much are what they are whereas maybe if ya give Stephenson and Rolle some burn, and i'm not talking starter minutes just give them 10 - 12 minutes a night put in a backup role. Then maybe just maybe you'll end up with a better overall product. That's what I don't understand with JOB it seems like there can be no grey areas. Saying things like "i'm not going to risk wins for player development." is horribly short sighted and stubborn.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Knowing what to do, and being able to do it are two completely different things, and you can't find out if you are able to do it without stepping on the court when it matters.
                            Again, I don't disagree with this. The question is at what point do you put the guy on the floor for major minutes and hope he figures it out? In some cases you have no choice, but in cases where you do have a choice you want to have him get out there, show the problems, bring him back, show him those problems, and do it again. Otherwise you run the risk of having him get out there, not work out the problem, and develop a bad habit or lose confidence.

                            I believe that I see enough of a difference between the last game that I saw Josh play last season and the first game I saw this season to think that something more than just getting on the floor for more minutes has clicked. Obviously, I can't be sure (I've slept since then), but it is what I think.

                            Now, would it have clicked in midseason if he'd gotten more minutes? I don't know, it is possible. I also think there were some combinations on the floor that should have been given to Josh, but I don't think it hampered him and may in fact - if we assume JOB communicated with him what he wasn't communicating to us - have helped him figure out what to work on over the summer so he could come out like this.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                              Okay, we're agreeing on the simple points, but you've referrenced midseason twice, so I'll go with it.

                              Which do you prefer, letting him get minutes midseason when Tyler went out or letting Dunleavy and DJones get the minutes?

                              Obviously everyone knows my preference.

                              This is the problem I'm having with you and UB, mostly you. We agree on what should happen, but when we point out that it didn't happen the way both of us agree on, I get told excuses on why Jim didn't do it.

                              UB can say that he thinks Jim needs to go after this season, trying to sneak it in, but still won't come out and say WHY he thinks so. You can't defend the man each and every time with excuse after excuse but agree that he needs to find another job.

                              He's either doing a good job and needs to stay, or he isn't. I think you guys are trying to have it both ways.

                              And I think UB is doing it now so much just because he's been digging the hole beside Jim's for so long, he might as well lay in it. It's just easier than admitting Jim screwed up.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                No, I think that is probable as well. What I'm saying is that it is really irrelevant to the question of whether Josh has gotten better over the summer and irrelevant to the ability or lack thereof of Jim to manage this team as it stands. We need to let what is happening stand or fall on its own merits rather than comparing it to a "what-if" as if we had facts to back it up. For all we know, JOB was visited by the ghost of Dale Davis the night before training camp and has completely reformed.
                                Ok, if that is the case then that is perfectly logical & I don't disagree with any of it.

                                I am certain Josh has gotten better, just as Roy and others have, by working on his game.


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X