Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

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

  • #16
    Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post

    Now to Buck concerning JO'B. We have had our share of differences of opinions concerning O'Brien. I have never been a JO'B hater or wanted him fired. I just don't like "Jimmy's run n gun with little 'D' style game. I'll be the first to say he had the Pacers playing better the last 20-25 games this year. His modus operandi the last 2 seasons is to get the Pacers playing better towards the end of the season only to come up short. I just want it to start at the beginning of the season and have the team playing "D" instead of "his perfect game" of run n gun outscoring the opposition while playing little "D". "D" Jimmy, it truly does work! Work on "D" for your system for next year keeping in mind you have the core returning that has played in your system 1-2 years. Incorporate and expand the concept of MORE "D" for the players in your style/system. Playing "D" and scoring aren't incompatible with each other, they can work together, so do it.

    I know Buck, you are going to say he does teach it. Then maybe he's teaching or presenting it incorrectly. Bottomline is it just ain't work'n for whatever reason so it needs to be changed. Next year is a year for either success or a new coach for 2010-11. The ball is in your court Jimmy... success or failure. No more 36-46 teams with a push towards the end of the season only to miss the playoffs.... AGAIN!

    I've enjoyed watching the growth of Granger and Murphy this year in JO'B's style play, among others, but I want to get to the playoffs. Teams win in the playoffs playing "D". I, like others, feel we would have been there this year, even w/o Dun, if "D" had been played. JMOAA

    I don't disagree with anything in your post. Some of the better record at the end had to do with the schedule - I cannot ever remember a more brutal schedule through December - the number of games and the quality of the opponent was incredible and that was why I and several others around the second week of January figured from that point forward the team should be at least a .500 team the rest of the way. Also having so many key new players hurt early on and missing Dunleavy really hurt early on because of all the new players. (Having two new point guards really is tough - because they control everything)



    The question needs to be asked. Is this team not capable of playing good defense - do they not have the quickness or mental capacity to do it. They certainly lack the inside players to play more than adequate defense IMO they have Jeff and no one else. Roy has really improved, and I expect him to be a factor defensively next season, but this past season with all his fouling and just being a rookie he was a negative.

    The key for me is that Danny has to start training camp with defense on his mind - that is the key - if he commits to it - the rest of the team will follow.

    I don't buy the theory that this defensive system cannot work - it can and it has in the past and with other teams and other coaches.

    JOB needs to start anew next traning camp making defense the emphasis. - Also would help picking up a coupled of players who specialize in defense

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

      I thought that MCRoberts played great on defense. He rotated exceptionally well on the pick n roll. Jack, Ford, and Danny penetrated and allowed for out shooters open shots and bigs easy lay ins. The players after the game really showed like they were enjoying each other. Danny giving high 5s to the crowd really shows how much he enjoys playing here.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

        JOB put in Diener and Mc Roberts and the Pacers got a Victory. What a great end to the season. I had no idea Dan Gadzurick was muscular. Joe Alexender got outplayed by Rush.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

          Alexander did better in draft workouts though.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

            I am satisfied with the way that the team played and performed this year, but next year I am really hoping for a playoff berth. I followed the team pretty closely as I always do and had a fun time with it, but I was never emotionally invested to the point where I was really pulling for them to win because I knew for the start that this would be a rebuilding year.

            Next year, though, I am really going to emotionally invest myself into the Pacers making the playoffs and if they don't, I'll be really disappointed. With the emergence of Danny, the continuing development of Rush and Hibbert, and maybe some frontcourt help in the offseason we should be in the playoffs. Then we would be a good PG away from being a really good playoff team. I'm excited.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

              Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post

              Duke, this all took place about a minute or two after you walked off
              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Um had to more than a min. or two as I was there a good 10 min or more after Duke left and this happened after I left. I assume that Somehow Evans showed up as you were leaving to offer you a ride home in Boomers Van.
              It's alright. I got to talk to him for a while in Home Court earlier in the season.

              He asked me if I wanted him to take my jersey and have it autographed after the game.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

                Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                He asked me if I wanted him to take my jersey and have it autographed after the game.
                Are you sure you weren't almost duped by a look-alike?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

                  Originally posted by Hibbert Laugh View Post
                  Are you sure you weren't almost duped by a look-alike?
                  I am sure. I've seen his father many times. And he's pretty recognizable.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Also having so many key new players hurt early on and missing Dunleavy really hurt early on because of all the new players. (Having two new point guards really is tough - because they control everything)


                    Anyone who expected a team with the kind of personnel changes this one had to come out without having to gel was nuts.

                    There can be some argument over why they didn't seem to gel more quickly, was it coaching or injuries or some combination, but there should have been every expectation that the team would be better down the stretch than at the beginning of the season.

                    I would not be surprised if we have a couple of steps back at the beginning of next season as well. Consider that at minimum we might lose Jack and/or trade Foster or Murphy - these are players who have been key to the style being played and therefore the replacements will have a learning curve.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

                      What, no mention of Rush in this game?

                      15 points in the 4th quarter, during the huge run. He was pivotal. I'm absolutely loving the potential of Granger/Rush combo.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

                        I'm not trying to hate on Murphy, but I have to point this out because of all the Murphy stat padding talk that's gone on this season.

                        He goes into last night's game as possibly the only player to finish in the top 5 in rebounding and 3-pt shooting percentage. His 3-pt percentage is safe, so he shoots 0 3-point shots. This was the only game all year that Troy played in and did not shoot a 3.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

                          Great finish to a great season. It's offically the Pacers offseason.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Post Game, Pacers v Bucks, Pacers come from way back.

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Now to Buck concerning JO'B. We have had our share of differences of opinions concerning O'Brien. I have never been a JO'B hater or wanted him fired. I just don't like "Jimmy's run n gun with little 'D' style game.
                            I'd have to disagree with your comment in bold.

                            When you look at some of the better teams in the NBA - Cavs, Lakers, Celtics, Magic and even the Blazers now - what you see is guys who are quick to recover defensively. They get back to the Wings or break through high screen and/or know how to defend the PnR better. It's not like they are flocking shots, getting deflections or more steals, but rather they use their quickness and lateral movement to smoother the ballhandler and recover quickly. In short, most of these teams play Zone defense and aren't affraid to switch up and rotate defensively even if it does mean they'd cause a mismatch because they know that as long as they can get "in yo' face" fast enough most players won't be able to get a quality shot off. In other words, they'll rush the shot or won't get one off in time (shot clock violation).

                            I think JOB is still working to instill this mentality in some players, but most of them simply lack quickness. Case and point: Notice how fast things turned around once Deiner and McRoberts were rotated into the lineup in the 4th qrt? What was the difference?

                            - Better ball movement.

                            - Quicker hands.

                            - Faster recovery to the Wings, as well as at the top of the key right at the ballhandler.

                            - Deiner controlled the tempo; he pushed the ball on every possession.

                            - Unselfish play! Deiner found Danny; Danny found Rush; Rush found Hibbert; McRoberts simply found his own way to the basket and delivered, but did a little distributing of his own as well.

                            Key thing here is everyone was active. Two players brought tons of energy that wasn't there before and with that the Pacers were the quicker team.

                            I'll be the first to say he had the Pacers playing better the last 20-25 games this year. His modus operandi the last 2 seasons is to get the Pacers playing better towards the end of the season only to come up short.
                            Here again I'd have to disagree to a point.

                            Yes, the Pacers did show a "renewed interest" in playing better near the end of each season, but the reasons for that are obvious.

                            Last year, they felt they had a chance to make the post-season. So, players took it upon themselves to try and go for it. But that decision was more rooted in players (Danny and Dunleavy) finally deciding that they needed to take the lead instead of waiting for either JO or Tinsley to return. Had they made that collective concious decision 5 or 6 games sooner, the Pacers would've been in the playoffs last year.

                            This year, they knew the odds were totally stacked against them which was alittle different last year. Last year, they pretty much held their dystiny in their hands until about the last game of the season. This year, I think they knew the knew the odds were against them as much as 10 games out and was certain their fate was sealed by the last 5 games. But unlike last year, they accepted that this was a rebuilding year and so they made the collective decision to keep on fighting no matter what and do those things necessary to improve and prepare for next year. So, the end of the season took on a different feel from last year. I know for me, personally, I was less "stressed/concerned" for whether or not this team would make the post-season within these last 10-15 games and more concerned with seeing just how well they handled things down the stretch. IMO, this is a pretty good group of guys. They'll do alot better next year.

                            I just want it to start at the beginning of the season and have the team playing "D" instead of "his perfect game" of run n gun outscoring the opposition while playing little "D". "D" Jimmy, it truly does work! Work on "D" for your system for next year keeping in mind you have the core returning that has played in your system 1-2 years. Incorporate and expand the concept of MORE "D" for the players in your style/system. Playing "D" and scoring aren't incompatible with each other, they can work together, so do it.
                            Don't you think he knows that?

                            What we had on this team this year was pretty much the same thing we had last year - a bunch of scorers, but very few "defensive-minded players". That's the key to improving the defense. Case and point, again using last night's game against the Bucks as an example.

                            McRoberts is one of the few players on this team who, IMO, thinks defense first, offense second. He's always looking for the block, the steal, the deflection. He's not afraid to body-up his man. If you watched him at all, you noticed that he took on all takers and he sprinted down the court and got back on defense fast! That's what this team needs more than anything - players who take pride in wanting to play defense vice relying on a defensive scheme. To that, JOB did the right thing in trying to implement "team defense". First and foremost, in order to lock a team down defensively you have to understand the offense. Once you can recognize the plays the offense is running, you can defend better. That much was proven in RC's last season when teams began to load-up on JO in the half-court. They knew exactly what we were going to do. But once JO was no longer part of the picture and this team began to spread the floor and find the shooters, they couldn't stop us so easily. Now, granted, you live and die by the 3-ball, but I think this year we saw a group of players who were able to mix it up alot more.

                            We had shooters, and slasher, dunkers and a few high fliers, a few curls, some backdown screens, you name it it was there! About the only thing this team lacked was consistent back-to-the-basket post-play, as well as a known shot blocker. That aspect of the game was done by committee with a little bit of everybody getting a piece of the shot blocking action - Granger, Quis, Hibbert, Foster, McRoberts, Graham. I think even Baston, Jack and even Murphy got a few blocks in as well. So, the defense was there. It just wasn't there often enough at key moments in games. Nor was it "enforced" by any one player particularly in the post. But if you look at the overall stats, I don't think it was there for most teams either considering that the Pacers often times filled the stat sheets with more points in the paint than their opponent.

                            The defense was there, just not in bunches, with any one (post) player or as quickly as JOB would have liked for it to have been.

                            I know Buck, you are going to say he does teach it. Then maybe he's teaching or presenting it incorrectly. Bottomline is it just ain't work'n for whatever reason so it needs to be changed.
                            Again, I don't think it's the teacher as much as it is the students. I've seen situations this season where guys like TJ, Jack or even BRush are right there in a guy's face and he still knocks down the shot. Who's fault was that? Shorter defender or just good, solid defense against a lucky or prolific scorers? You be the judge, but in my book in such cases it was just a lucky shot. The defense did get better as the season progressed. It's both a matter of players understanding the schemes, as well as their willingness to put forth the defensive effort. Next year will be better.

                            Next year is a year for either success or a new coach for 2010-11. The ball is in your court Jimmy... success or failure. No more 36-46 teams with a push towards the end of the season only to miss the playoffs.... AGAIN!

                            I've enjoyed watching the growth of Granger and Murphy this year in JO'B's style play, among others, but I want to get to the playoffs. Teams win in the playoffs playing "D". I, like others, feel we would have been there this year, even w/o Dun, if "D" had been played. JMOAA
                            Here's where we both agree, but slightly.

                            I do think an improvement in defense would have netted the Pacers a playoff berth, but I also think that being w/o Dunleavy really hurt. He's one of the few players on this team who moves exceptionally well w/o the ball, and thus, is able to get himself in position for better scoring opportunities.

                            With most others if they aren't on cue with a set offensive scheme they get lost rather quickly and can't recover if a play breaks down. But Dunleavy has this understanding of the game where if it's a broken play he can make something out of nothing. Granger has gotten better at it. So did Jack as the season went on, but the key here was having that "other scorer" on the floor alongside Granger who could create shot opportunities for himself, draw fouls and put the defense back on their heels. JOB tried that w/BRush throughout the season, but it didn't begin to bare fruit until BRush got fully confident in his abilities about 10-12 games before the seaons ended (re: Pacers @ Bulls, game 3 of the series).

                            In Brush, I saw a player who was a step better than Dunleavy in the sense that he moved very well w/o the ball, could score from the perimeter or from the field, could drive the baseline or penetrate the lanes and get to the basket for the score or could reach a lobbed pass for the throw-down. BRush is well on his way to being a complete player, but you really didn't see it all come together until near the end. Still, Dunleavy already has alot of what BRush has just begun to exhibit. Hence, had Dunleavy been healthy I'm convinced the Pacers would have been the 6th seed at the very least. Without him, well...you know how the story ended, but that's still talking-up the offensive side of the ball. Defensively, I think this team was short one defensive minded player either at the PG, SF or PF position. PF is where I'd like the "defensive focus" to be in the off-season. Short that position up, and get Dunleavy (and possibly Quis if he does return) healthy and this team will certainly play to it's potention...and then some.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X