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

Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

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

  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson







    media day, over/under on how many "Danny looks great"'s we'll hear?

    Comment


    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      I agree that he was obviously the main focal point of any defense. I disagree that he didn't have offensive help, because he did have offensive help that was good enough for teams to worry about. 08-09 Murphy, Ford, Daniels, and Jack all had the capacity to burn teams on the offensive end. Jack's solid play was a huge reason that we won as many games as we did.

      In 08-09, you didn't beat the Pacers by stopping their offense. You beat them by exposing their pathetically soft defense. We were 5th in PPG scored, but 26th in PPG allowed.
      They were so good that you, yourself, called them "completel crap." It's not really making sense that you agreee they're complete crap, agree that defenses didn't have to game plan for them, but simultaneously argue for their offensive prowless.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        They were so good that you, yourself, called them "completel crap." It's not really making sense that you agreee they're complete crap, agree that defenses didn't have to game plan for them, but simultaneously argue for their offensive prowless.
        They could score a lot of points. This is complete 100% fact, as they were the fifth highest scoring offense in the entire league that year.

        They were a soft team that couldn't play defense or winning basketball. This is complete 100% fact, as is evidenced by their 38-44 record.

        What is so hard to understand about what I'm saying? The Phoenix Suns were the number 1 scoring offense in the league that season, yet didn't even make the playoffs. By saying that the Pacers had a high scoring offense, I am not saying that they were a good team. They were crap that could score.

        In post 515, you said:


        So how in the world is he a 19pt career scorer, and how in the world did he average 26pts at one time? He had no offensive help, so if he was THAT bad offensively how could teams not stop him?



        I was simply pointing out that he did have offensive help. I never said that they were a good team. If you're fifth in offense, but can't even make the playoffs, then you obviously have a ton of holes as team. That team obviously was not a very good overall basketball team. But there were several guys on that team outside of Granger who could score. No one likes Troy Murphy on this forum, but is there anyone who can deny that he could score the basketball? Of course not.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-27-2013, 12:05 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

          Because scoring points doesn't automatically mean a team is good offensively. They were 18th out of 30 for offensive rating. They played a fast pace game, that allowed them more possessions to score those points. As a team they had an eFG% of 50.1 placing them dead middle of the NBA (15). They shot 45% as a team, which was 19th in the league.

          They weren't that good offensively, and you know this. That's why you agreed no one had to game plan for any player, other than Danny. That's why they were "complete crap," as "complete" includes offense. Danny Granger, carried that team offensively.

          Hoising up threes, and getting cheap points off of a gimmicky offense, doesn't make a team good offensively.
          Last edited by Since86; 09-27-2013, 12:21 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Because scoring points doesn't automatically mean a team is good offensively. They were 18th out of 30 for offensive rating. They played a fast pace game, that allowed them more possessions to score those points. As a team they had an eFG% of 50.1 placing them dead middle of the NBA (15). They shot 45% as a team, which was 19th in the league.

            They weren't that good offensively, and you know this. That's why you agreed no one had to game plan for any player, other than Danny. That's why they were "complete crap," as "complete" includes offense. Danny Granger, carried that team offensively.

            Hoising up threes, and getting cheap points off of a gimmicky offense, doesn't make a team good offensively.
            I agree that it was a hideous offense that does not translate to success, and I hope to never see it from the Pacers again. But there were guys who could score. If we're going to look at team eFG%, then I might as well point out that Troy Murphy had an eFG% of 58%, compared to Granger's 51.8%. But I put very very very little importance on this statistic.

            My point was to never say that it was a good or winning offense, just that it could put up a lot of points.

            Comment


            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              ............ Troy Murphy had an eFG% of 58%, compared to Granger's 51.8%. .........
              So, Troy > Danny.

              Comment


              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                I think it's also important to keep in mind that normally when teams don't have the personnel to compete in the NBA, their system typically sacrifices good defensive possessions in order to pick up easy baskets. Compare that to our current system, where we sacrifice easy baskets to ensure that defensively we are always covered. If we ran a wide open system, our offense could have been very good last season. But the defense would probably have suffered more than we gained on offense.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  I agree that it was a hideous offense that does not translate to success, and I hope to never see it from the Pacers again. But there were guys who could score. If we're going to look at team eFG%, then I might as well point out that Troy Murphy had an eFG% of 58%, compared to Granger's 51.8%. But I put very very very little importance on this statistic.

                  My point was to never say that it was a good or winning offense, just that it could put up a lot of points.
                  You can still use the advanced shooting statistics, you just have to note their pitfalls. If troy Murphy shot as often as granger, his efg% would go down. Similarly, if granger had as high usage as Jordan his efg% would also drop.

                  It's why Paul George's game could be considered an improvement last season. His numbers for the most part went up proportionally to his extra shots and minutes. But if he had tried to do that 2 years ago his stats would have been worse. The more you handle or shoot the ball, the more teams pay attention to you.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Would one of you guys that are arguing against Danny please let me know what it is that you are trying to accomplish here?

                    To a person most Danny fans know exactly what he is. At his absolute best he was a star player, not a mega star not a super star and by no means any form of franchise player. He has weaknesses several of which have been discussed ad nauseum on this board to which we won't contest.

                    At his normal (in other words not his absolute best) playing level he is comparable to Deng, Gay, Johnson, etc. He is not better than any of them but he is not significantly worse than any of them either.

                    You can not put bad player around him and expect him to raise their level of play, he's not that good.

                    Many of us like him for both his talent and honestly for the fact that he was the first flush of the toilet that was the early 2000 teams. In other words personality wise he was the exact opposite of Jermaine O'Neal, Jamaal Tinsley, Ron Artest & Stephen Jackson. He was a nerd who had some game and did not come across as a prima donna, coke head, nut ball or gangster.

                    So I guess I'm just totally confused by all of this.

                    I don't understand your final goal. If you are arguing that one of the younger guys deserves a chance to play over him, fine. But build your guy up, don't do it by trying to tear Danny down.

                    We have gone so far over the edge here that honestly a couple of very well respected posters are now posting what is the modern day equivalent of gibberish and the curious part about it is, why? What point is trying to be served here?

                    Are you guys honestly trying to say that Danny is not only not better than Lance & Paul but in all honesty he isn't even as good as Orlando Johnson? Nor was he ever better than Stephen Graham?

                    Please don't use the excuse that you are just trying to refute all of the pro Danny posters. At best Mattie in another thread (quite possibly while intoxicated) made a remark disparaging the anti Danny crowd (which btw, sadly that is what you guys have become whether you have intended to or not). Also in this thread in an effort to compare certain statistical elements Danny was compared to some of the all time greats. I understand the posters idea but I also understand where you guys would lose it over comparing Danny to these players, so in retrospect while it was not his intention to do so he was comparing Danny to them and well Danny is just not on that level (he even said that but by that time the horse had left the barn).

                    So please explain to me where are we going here?
                    Not sure if this post was directed at me or not.

                    I don't consider myself anti-Danny, just very pro-Lance. Seeing the chemistry of last year and the offensive grease Lance brings to the team, I am concerned what happens if Lance is replaced by Danny when it counts -- at the end of games. (who starts, etc., is much less of an issue for me.)

                    This is a very difficult matter. I'm not saying I even know the answer. But I think we have one of the real rising talents in the league in Lance Stephenson, so my larger concern is that he be utilized and brought along progressively as he should.

                    It is article titles like "easy choice" that get me personally chapped and willing to thank "anti-Danny" posts. It is also comments like those of who thinks who should start is a real toss up being called "unintelligent" and "illogical" . . . and then this post just a while ago from Gamble:

                    This is why Danny will start becuase anyone with two eyeballs knows that Lance is not ready yet
                    So, my position is being disrespected, not just disagreed with. And all the while, guys like Bird and Hibbert are saying the same thing I am saying.

                    Hope that helps answer your question.
                    Last edited by McKeyFan; 09-27-2013, 06:15 PM.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      Not sure if this post was directed at me or not.

                      I don't consider myself anti-Danny, just very pro-Lance. Seeing the chemistry of last year and the offensive grease Lance brings to the team, I am concerned what happens if Lance is replaced by Danny when it counts -- at the end of games. (who starts, etc., is much less of an issue for me.)

                      This is a very difficult matter. I'm not saying I even know the answer. But I think we have one of the real rising talents in the league in Lance Stephenson, so my larger concern is that he be utilized and brought along progressively as he should.

                      It is article titles like "easy choice" that get me personally chapped and willing to thank "anti-Danny" posts. It is also comments like those of who thinks who should start is a real toss up being called "unintelligent" and "illogical" . . . and then this post just a while ago from Gamble:



                      So, my position is being disrespected, not just disagreed with. And all the while, guys like Bird and Hibbert are saying the same thing I am saying.

                      Hope that helps answer your question.
                      It tells me the why but not really the direction that we think this is supposed to go. BTW, this wasn't really directed at you but in some way's I'm sure it was pointed in a direction in which you were standing. No offense was intended by my post btw, which I know you didn't take because we have interacted for so many years.

                      Hold on now that I think about it the whole Mckeyfan is about Derrick McKey isn't it? Grrrrrr... Just kidding.

                      Anyway can't we all just love the Pacers and appreciate that this is really a special team and that we are all far more worried about this than they are.

                      I'm realistic btw, I know this is Granger's last hurrah so I'm not going to lie I want there to be some appreciation for a guy who signed a long term extension with a bad team when he was at the near zenith of his career and never once publicly whined about it or the situation.

                      That is one of the reasons I love him as a player and I know that is one of the reasons Bird has been so loyal to him as well.

                      But when it's all said and done this team going forward will be with Lance having a large role, don't think he will pass Paul but I know he actually has the talent to do it.

                      See I also believe that Lance is uber talented and look forward to hopefully several years of watching him grow as a player.


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

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        It tells me the why but not really the direction that we think this is supposed to go.
                        Personally, I think the direction needs to be toward both sides being more civil to each other. Both Granger and Lance are great players (or potentially). Bird, Hibbert, and who know who else think the starting job is a legitimate competition. Those of us on PD who feel the same should not get bashed.

                        In terms of direction of the discussion, I think it will be a year long dialogue. Will the firepower of Granger's offense truly send us up even a higher level, or will we lose a bit of the magic and chemistry we had last year? Will we notice the glaring hole of Lance's contribution or will it not be that big of a deal? Will Lance (or Danny) in the second unit revolutionize the bench in such a way that everyone is happy?

                        These are questions we don't know yet. And their answers will determine who ends games and our playoff rotations. It's a d@mn good problem to have and I look forward to the discussion.

                        Again, I think the dialogue will be more civil if "our" side is not denigrated so much.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Hold on now that I think about it the whole Mckeyfan is about Derrick McKey isn't it? Grrrrrr... Just kidding.
                          I feel certain any supposed animosity fully ended when the name Satan was transferred to a more deserving individual.



                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Anyway can't we all just love the Pacers and appreciate that this is really a special team and that we are all far more worried about this than they are.

                          I'm realistic btw, I know this is Granger's last hurrah so I'm not going to lie I want there to be some appreciation for a guy who signed a long term extension with a bad team when he was at the near zenith of his career and never once publicly whined about it or the situation.

                          That is one of the reasons I love him as a player and I know that is one of the reasons Bird has been so loyal to him as well.
                          There is another layer behind the Granger/Lance fears, and it is probably not that valid, but I think it is real. Granger represents the era of him who shall not be named (except by the term formerly given to Derrick Mckey).

                          As I have noted before, that era rubbed off a bit on Danny. I also get a little of the JO vibe from Danny. Not much but a little. We played basketball the wrong way, the very wrong way, arguably the very worst way, for several years. It turned around when Vogel took over and we got a taste of Danny playing the right way, but he didn't heal overnight.

                          I'll say it here: when Danny went down and Lance stepped in, I felt a sense of "the right way" happening on our team in a way I hadn't seen it in years and years. It was this soothing feeling, like hot chocolate on a cold winter's day. It wasn't just Lance's defense. It was Lance's ability to get the ball to the right player and the team as a whole finding really good percentage shots. Maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised if some other "Lance fans" will confirm that feeling.

                          This is a little unfair to Danny, because he did change to a large degree when the culture changed. And it is true that the team playing so much "the right way" last year has more to it than Lance. It was Vogel's first full year with a training camp. Roy and Paul matured a year, Hill got better at the point, and West got fully healed. But Lance also played a role.

                          For those who feel the way I do, the worst fear is that Granger doesn't crank up his defense to a higher gear like the rest of the team has, and that his tendency toward threes, quick attempts early in the clock, and shot selection that doesn't include a few passes first will affect both the chemistry and effectiveness of the team. None of those concerns may be valid, but they exist for those of us traumatized by the JOB years.

                          I like and respect Danny Granger. I am hoping his addition takes us to another level and we have the firepower next year to win a championship. I truly do. I also look forward to seeing Lance get more touches in the second unit, if that's where he'll be. But doggonit, I will be watching what happens at the end of games, and if it looks like we've lost that magic from last year, I will be frustrated. Very frustrated.
                          Last edited by McKeyFan; 09-27-2013, 11:25 PM.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                            Here's all I want. There are good reasons to want Lance to start. A TON of good reasons to like Lance. That's awesome. I like Lance too. If you (this is you-anybody, not you-McKeyfan) want Lance to start, why not talk about Lance? Tell us the things he does really well that you want to see more of. I'm down with that. But if you're all about Lance, why spend time talking about Danny?

                            There are definitely people on the board who think the Pacers will be better with Danny starting. I'm one of them. But these people don't, for the most part, try to make the case by trashing Lance.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              or will we lose a bit of the magic and chemistry we had last year?
                              People were talking about the same magic and chemistry about the 11-12 starting 5 too. I think chemistry is the last thing we need to worry about as it is something that both groups got a lot of praised for, in fact I think the 11-12 group got more praise for their chemistry than 12-13.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                Seeing the chemistry of last year and the offensive grease Lance brings to the team, I am concerned what happens if Lance is replaced by Danny when it counts -- at the end of games. (who starts, etc., is much less of an issue for me.)
                                Our chemistry was amazing in 11-12 as well
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X