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

Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

    Who will pinch butt's next year?!? Seems like a job for Copeland (3 million to grab ***!)
    Danger Zone

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

      Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
      Stephenson when asked to explain why he chose a 3 yr deal over the Pacers 5 yr offer, "I just like the guys we got. I'm happy where I'm at"

      Wow...
      He doesn't even know the guys yet. He just got there. He might know one or two of them. This combined with PG's hesitation when first asked if Lance was coming back tells me all I need to know. Not saying it was ALL Lance's fault, but it tells me there were issues between Lance and at least a couple players. So glad he's gone.

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        All i know is that Lance is the only Pacer to consistently Video Bomb everyone's post game interviews, pinch dudes butts, tickling, rubbing their heads and shoulders, pouring water on them, Dancing in the background. Just sayin....
        I didn't see much of that in the second half of the season.

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          we're in the psychoanalyzing Lance from press conferences stage? this could go on forever!
          Remember the Granger/Lance thread of last year? This will make that seem tame.

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            I think LeBron's case is different. He clearly preferred to play in Cleveland, whether because it was his hometown or because he liked the Cavs' younger cast that can take him to the next decade.

            Lance OTOH made it clear he wanted to stay here. In the end it was about money, and not a lot of money at that. I mean, even the worst Lance critic wouldn't mind that 3 year $27m deal with a team option right? With a little foresight and planning, we could have easily offered the same deal. Instead, we threw away our flexibility on role players.

            It's like fitting pebbles in a bottle. You want to put in the large pebbles first, then fit in the smaller ones where you can. If instead you load up on the small pebbles first, then you'll run out of space for the big, important ones. I feel like that is what happened here.
            You're probably right about LeBron but that's not what I think that happened with Lance.

            I think that Lance wanted two things.

            1) He wanted a team in which he could be the #1 option.

            2) He wanted to command a max contract as soon as possible.

            The second reason is why Lance wanted a shorter contract and declined our 5 year offer. He wanted to raise his value over this couple of years and then enter FA again in a better bargaining position.

            The Pacers could always offer him a shorter contract (although we preferred to offer him a 5 year one) but what we could never offer him is the first reason. Lance would never be the #1 option on the Pacers and he knew that. Paul George is our clear cut #1 option and he is as young as Lance is.

            The situation in Charlotte is different in this area. Kemba Walker is a very good player and he is as young as Lance is but there's no doubt in my mind that Lance believes that he is better than him. Al Jefferson is a great player but he is turning 30 soon and he could also pick up his option next season. There is a lot more room for Lance to become a leader in Charlotte than there is here and that's what I believe that he ultimately wanted.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              The 2012 team did not produce better results. They won 1 more game in the ECF.
              The 12-13 team was 1 game closer to the Finals than the 13-14 team. That's what I meant. The 13-14 team was obviously better in the RS.

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              And that is because Roy Hibbert played like a dominant center. He didn't play that way this year.
              Roy was dominant in the 12-13 playoffs and inconsistent in the 13-14 playoffs (horrible against Atlanta except game 7 and had both good and bad games against Washington and Miami).

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              I'm not sure how Lance caused Roy to not be able to shoot a respectable percentage.
              I never said that Lance caused Roy to shoot a poor percentage. In fact, I never said that Lance was the cause of anything.

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              But he shot a horrible percentage. And for anyone to suggest that isn't the biggest difference, is just making excuses for Roy.
              Roy was very inconsistent in the Miami series. He was very good in the first 2 games, good in game 3, bad in game 4, good in game 5 and bad in game 6. Once again, he was good in the games that he got several touches and bad in those games that he rarely touched the ball (this is has been a consistent trend with Hibbert and it's also something that happens to a lot of bigs).

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              We still gave them a descent series because Lance played well and PG had a huge half in Game 5. If we get the Roy of the 2013 playoffs, I have no doubt we win that series.
              There were a ton of things that were difference between the '13 and '14 ECFs. Wade was much, much better in the '14 ECF. Bosh was better for Miami as well.

              And you are also right that Lance was much better in the '14 series than he was in the '13 one. But he was the only Pacer that played better in '14 than in '13.

              PG averaged more points (24 PPG compared to 19.4 PPG) but one can easily argue that his offensive explosion in game 5 is the sole reason for the point differential. Other than that, he shot a worse percentage and averaged less rebounds and assists. So, it's easy to argue that PG played at approximately the same level in both '13 and '14.

              George Hill played worse in '14 than he did in '13.

              Roy Hibbert (just like you said) played worse in '14 than he did in '13.

              David West played at approximately the same level in '13 and '14 as well.

              So, it's not only one factor. All of the above factors influenced the outcome of those series. If Roy and Hill played better and if Wade and Bosh played worse then we could beat them. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              Regardless, the Heat don't exist anymore and I don't see any other teams we will be able to dominate in the post the way we did Miami. They had an exceptionally weak front court. Atlanta does too, but our "power post game" couldn't dominate them, could they?
              We never played as a power post team in the Atlanta series for a full game. We would see some glimpses of that identity (and we always went on runs when we did that) but then the next quarter would come and we would forget all about and start shooting jumpers (which usually resulted on the Hawks going on a run).

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              Truth is, we had a clear cut advantage over Miami down low, and it STILL WASN'T ENOUGH. Did you ever think maybe they figured out a better way to deal with Roy and we needed to adjust our attack? Did you ever think maybe they figured out our power post game? Or was it all on us?
              Miami certainly threw some crafty double teams on our post players and was generally good at denying the entry pass and fronting our bigs. Their team defense has always been good and disciplined.

              But I do believe that most of it was on us. Mind you, not all of it was on us and Miami does deserve credit for their good defense but I believe that a pretty big part of it was on us. I remember a lot of cases in which we would have the opportunity to pass the ball down low on a big with good post position and we just hesitated to do it or waived the big off and asked for a screen instead.

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              And lets say we beat Miami, do we have that same advantage against the Spurs? No we don't. So it's pointless to argue about our over rated power post game.
              Our power post game is not overrated. It's the only reason this current core ever had championship aspirations. We will never be a high octane offense that will drop 110+ points daily. We don't have a LeBron or Durant to tell them "get the ball and give us a score" at any given moment.

              What we do have, though, is some amazing defenders and great size. That's our biggest strength. This team has always played very, very well when they remember that those two things are their strength. It's when we forget those things and attempt tons of long 2s that we struggle.

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              As far as my plan, I told you my plan. Hope Lance Stephenson and Paul George turn into a great 1-2 punch and build around them. Maybe look to add a third wheel after next year when we have two huge expiring deals if we still need a boost.
              We offered Lance a contract but he declined it. That's what happens with unrestricted FAs. You cannot keep them if they want to play elsewhere.

              So, what's your plan now that Lance is no longer here? Tank for Okafor and Thon Maker?

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              There is no plan now, lol. We have no cap space and a mid to low first round pick next year more than likely. Pray maybe?
              Sure, there is a plan. I said it before and I will say it again. Yes, losing Lance hurts a lot. Yes, we lost a big talent and a player that I liked a lot. But that doesn't mean that the sky is falling. It doesn't mean that our plan was altered. Lance was a very important player for us but he wasn't our franchise cornerstone. He isn't irreplaceable. We replaced Danny when he got injured and we can do the same with Lance as well.

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              What's your plan? Hope Lance Stephenson was the reason we couldn't get over the hump?
              I told you my plan in my previous reply. Return to our 12-13 identity. Return to our power post identity and most importantly stay true to it.

              The East is wide open this year. Every team has question marks. So, let's return to our true identity and see where we can go from there. The goal remains the same as it was in the start of last season.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                You're probably right about LeBron but that's not what I think that happened with Lance.

                I think that Lance wanted two things.

                1) He wanted a team in which he could be the #1 option.

                2) He wanted to command a max contract as soon as possible.

                The second reason is why Lance wanted a shorter contract and declined our 5 year offer. He wanted to raise his value over this couple of years and then enter FA again in a better bargaining position.

                The Pacers could always offer him a shorter contract (although we preferred to offer him a 5 year one) but what we could never offer him is the first reason. Lance would never be the #1 option on the Pacers and he knew that. Paul George is our clear cut #1 option and he is as young as Lance is.

                The situation in Charlotte is different in this area. Kemba Walker is a very good player and he is as young as Lance is but there's no doubt in my mind that Lance believes that he is better than him. Al Jefferson is a great player but he is turning 30 soon and he could also pick up his option next season. There is a lot more room for Lance to become a leader in Charlotte than there is here and that's what I believe that he ultimately wanted.

                Can you see Lance becoming a leader? This looks like a nightmare in chemistry waiting to happen. I don't see Jefferson and Walker as ready to step to the side for Lance to take control. Our guys were used to Lance and he still got under their skin. I'll give it until about 15 games into the season for the Hornets to need a mediator to work things out in the locker room.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  Can you see Lance becoming a leader? This looks like a nightmare in chemistry waiting to happen. I don't see Jefferson and Walker as ready to step to the side for Lance to take control. Our guys were used to Lance and he still got under their skin. I'll give it until about 15 games into the season for the Hornets to need a mediator to work things out in the locker room.
                  Eh, you never know. I wouldn't put it past Lance to develop into a leader.

                  However, it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters in this case is what Lance thinks and he probably believes that he can become a leader in Charlotte.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    Eh, you never know. I wouldn't put it past Lance to develop into a leader.

                    However, it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters in this case is what Lance thinks and he probably believes that he can become a leader in Charlotte.
                    I can't imagine him as an off-court, locker room leader. But I could see him being more of a leader on the court. He definitely had the maturity issues, but he also seemed to love to play the game, and if he can focus his talent and energy on the court then I think he can be an upper echelon player.
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                      I have been surprised how many times I've heard national NBA media guys say that lance is a fantastic, oustanding.......pick your adjective, defender. I don't see that. I mean at best he is pacers third best defender, although I think at times he's been 4th or even 5th best defender. What am I missing. I also am surprised to hear almost everyone say lance always gives 110%. I think his overall effort is inconsistent. I remember a lot of times not getting back on defense, not running the offensive play hard off the ball. Not playing hard team defense.

                      no doubt he has talent, but his intangibles leave a lot to be desired

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I have been surprised how many times I've heard national NBA media guys say that lance is a fantastic, oustanding.......pick your adjective, defender. I don't see that. I mean at best he is pacers third best defender, although I think at times he's been 4th or even 5th best defender. What am I missing. I also am surprised to hear almost everyone say lance always gives 110%. I think his overall effort is inconsistent. I remember a lot of times not getting back on defense, not running the offensive play hard off the ball. Not playing hard team defense.

                        no doubt he has talent, but his intangibles leave a lot to be desired
                        Great summary UB. I agree 100%. Speaking of intangibles, all of the times when he gets taken out of the game and shakes his head has to wear the team down mentally after dealing with that behavior for 82 games. I am not implying that we will be as good or better like some are, but losing Lance might be good for the locker room and cohesiveness.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I have been surprised how many times I've heard national NBA media guys say that lance is a fantastic, oustanding.......pick your adjective, defender. I don't see that. I mean at best he is pacers third best defender, although I think at times he's been 4th or even 5th best defender. What am I missing. I also am surprised to hear almost everyone say lance always gives 110%. I think his overall effort is inconsistent. I remember a lot of times not getting back on defense, not running the offensive play hard off the ball. Not playing hard team defense.

                          no doubt he has talent, but his intangibles leave a lot to be desired
                          He doesn't. He shows a lot of energy when he has the ball, but if he doesn't, and he wanted the ball. Nope.

                          As for defense. It's the same thing. If he feels like being a good defender that day, he could be a good defender. But typically he was more concerned about getting the ball.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I have been surprised how many times I've heard national NBA media guys say that lance is a fantastic, oustanding.......pick your adjective, defender. I don't see that. I mean at best he is pacers third best defender, although I think at times he's been 4th or even 5th best defender. What am I missing. I also am surprised to hear almost everyone say lance always gives 110%. I think his overall effort is inconsistent. I remember a lot of times not getting back on defense, not running the offensive play hard off the ball. Not playing hard team defense.

                            no doubt he has talent, but his intangibles leave a lot to be desired
                            Well, he did seem more than capable of defending LeBron James' power game. In fact, I think he did that better than Paul. While we all witnessed him overpowering Paul in the post, he didn't do that with Lance...and Lance was indeed focused while defending James. So, the talent is there. We shall see if we should have waited for him to mature.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                              I've been away most of the week, so haven't posted much. I've seen some comparisons of lance with Artest. I don't see that, I compare lance a lot more to Jalen Rose on the court. Don't have time right now to get into this, but they seem very similar to me
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-19-2014, 12:37 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Well, he did seem more than capable of defending LeBron James' power game. In fact, I think he did that better than Paul. While we all witnessed him overpowering Paul in the post, he didn't do that with Lance...and Lance was indeed focused while defending James. So, the talent is there. We shall see if we should have waited for him to mature.
                                I dont recall LeBron ever overpowering PG in the post this past season, I thought he was much improved in that regard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X