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

This Team is Built for the Regular Season

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

  • #61
    Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

    Jay, maybe I missed it, but what is your criteria for a team being good in the playoffs. are you expecting the Suns or Sonics to be good in the playoffs. I don't mean to lump those two teams together because there are significant differences between the two teams.

    I would be shocked if any team other than Spurs, Heat or Pistons won the championship this season.

    But what does it take to be a good playoff team.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

      This is still difficult. Each of these is worth a thread on its own.

      The team’s best player/ first option
      - Can be solved during a seven-game series by either ‘gimmick’ defenses such as SVG’s swarming defense or double-teams that push him out from the post.
      - Isn’t very good at passing out of the double-team.
      - Has the skills to play center but breaks down physically if he spends too much time as the primary post defender.
      - Is he a guy that can lead a team to a championship (like Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) or is he a guy that can just lead a team into thrilling but futile playoff runs (like Uncle Reggie, Barkley, Ewing, Iverson, Garnett, etc.)
      Totally unfair to Jermaine.

      I see the first two as the same issue, so there's three issues here. I'm going to address them out of order.

      First, I have no idea what "has the skills to play center" means. Is Ben Wallace a center? Jermaine has the skills to play power forward. I honestly don't understand the fascination with the characteristics of the center vs. the power forward. And I don't see how it's a major problem that the same guy not be both the primary offensive scoring threat and the primary post defense player. Nobody does it that way, Jay. Shaq doesn't guard the best big man either. It's not unreasonable for Jermaine to mention that if he has to be the primary offensive weapon on every possession, it would be nice to have someone help on D so he didn't have to be the primary defensive weapon as well. I think I'll love the tandem of JO and Dale, and I honestly can't see what the problem here is. You're asking something of Jermaine that nobody else in the league (even Duncan) is asked to do. I mean, who do you think he is? Ron Artest?

      Second, I didn't think JO was "solved" in the Miami series. SVG didn't show anything wrong with JO, he showed how terrible our shooting guard position was. Watching Reggie this year has pissed me off, because if he still has gas in the tank, why didn't he show any in last year's playoffs? If Reggie had played like this last year, we'd have been the champions. I believe that. Swarming defenses aren't solved by one great passer, they're solved by a good team offense with multiple shooters. Even with Reggie playing terribly, Ron had a great series, in part, because of the attention played Jermaine. I *WANT* a guy on my team that draws that kind of defense. And as a caveat, Jermaine's passing has gotten better every year. It looked pretty good this year before we started playing "box and one" offense. He's a better passer than Shaq was at his age. I'm not worried about Jermaine's passing.

      Third, almost everybody on your "loser's list" is a HOF player without a good squad. I believe Jermaine can lead a team to a championship. I believe those other players could have, too, with a better supporting cast. Plus, you've already closed the book on several players still in their prime, while leaving out past greats. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the response you'd likely get if you compared Jermaine to people like John Stockton, Karl Malone, and David Robinson would have undermined the rest of the point.

      Chemistry?
      - Lots of fans pooh-poohed the idea that our team’s chemistry might not be very good *before* the “Promote my CD” situation.
      - There isn’t any reason to believe that, when the full team gets together again, the chemistry problems will have been solved – especially if there is any truth to the rumor that JO and Ron are struggling to co-exist on the same team.
      - Subtracting Reggie from the team, even though he’s never been a “vocal leader”, could remove the one calming influence in the locker room.
      - There’s no guarantee Dale will re-sign with the Pacers.
      I know memory is selective, but I'm reasonably certain we'd established to all of our satisfaction that the "promote the CD" situation had nothing to do with promoting the CD. I agree, though, that chemistry is probably the biggest problem. It's #1 on my list of issues. None of our concerns, match, though. I also think it's silly to worry about Dale, for reasons I will explain below.

      The guy many fans believe to be the team’s “second best player” (and some actually consider him to be the team’s MVP) is completely un-reliable when the pressure rises. Enough said.
      Straw man. I don't think anyone has considered him the MVP this year. I'd be willing to say that for the second half of last season, he was the MVP of the team. I also disagree that he's completely unreliable "when the pressure rises." He's unreliable, but it has nothing to do with pressure. To support that arguement requires so much twisted logic that I'm continually amazed you keep bringing it up.

      The team’s “cog” – the guy that’s truly their second-most important player - their PG – struggles with his physical conditioning.
      - Generally unable to play more than 30-mpg without a breakdown
      - Claims every summer “to be in even better condition than last season” but has yet to show any results late in the season.
      - Notable exception – last season. He was benched for the first two months, which effectively postponed his annual breakdown from mid-March to mid-May.
      Well, this is a more fundamental question that I really don't have a good answer to. Is Tinsley's injury the result of poor conditioning? I don't know. As far as I can answer, nobody has suggested that it was. You've ignoring the fact that, every year, he HAS been in better shape than the year before. Remember the early days? I went back and watched some old tape, and the difference is profound. The guy now eats right, mantains his weight, and works hard in the offseason. He does have a troublesome history of injuries (one of my issues), but I'm not sure any basis has been laid for saying they're conditioning problems.

      We weren’t even the favorite to win the East this season, and the rest of the conference is improving while we’re in neutral.
      - Everybody that said last summer that Shaq and Wade weren’t enough to make Miami a contender was just plain wrong.
      - We’re playing in the same division as the defending champs.
      - Chicago, Washington, Cleveland, Orlando, etc. have made improvements to close the “talent gap” while our team is largely unchanged, except for our sixth-man.
      - Even if we were to win the East, we match up well with San Antonio but they’re just a little bit better at every position (except perhaps PG).
      I had us as the favorites to win the East this season. If not for the absolutely snakebit nature of this season (I'm not talking about Ron's suspension, I'm talking about the continual string of injuries), I still think we could have.

      Regarding the "Shaq and Wade" comment. They weren't wrong. They were absolutely right. Shaq and Wade aren't enough to make Miami a contender. While Shaq's been dominant and Wade has continued to improve, Udonis Haislim has also improved dramatically. Before the season, we all joked about him, but he's turned into a very solid 4. And it's not just playing with Shaq, although I bet it has a lot to do with practicing with Shaq. The guy's just solid. There's also that Jones (the other Jones).

      I don't deny the improvements to the other teams, but let's try to keep them in perspective. Orlando? Not in the playoffs. Chicago? Get back to me when they have somebody signed past their rookie contract. Washington looks great, and much improved, but if we get our act together then they're not a threat. Cleveland looks dangerous in the long term, but with Jax and Artest at the swing positions and Dale (who won't get pushed around by Z) up front, we're in as good a position to beat them as anyone. And watching Gooden guard Jermaine is very enjoyable for me.

      Our coach’s philosophy is to “win now.” He prefers veterans, but our team still has very young players in key positions.
      - Is Rick’s lack of patience appropriate for this team, as assembled?
      - Should we trade some of our young guys and/ or our upcoming mid-first-round pick for veterans if he’s not going to let them develop?
      - I’d be fine with Rick’s approach if he had a veteran team like the teams Bird had, but that’s not the hand he’s been dealt.
      I agree with most of these points, but I'm less worried now than I was 2 years ago. These guys are getting to the point that you can no longer call them "young players." They're coming into their primes, and trading for veterans is, for the most part, no longer necessary. A couple of years ago, though, I'd have said yes in a heartbeat. The team doesn't lack veterans, it lacks roles (the true #1 on my list).

      The team’s backup PGs are inadequate replacements at initiating the offense. - Can occasionally have good games
      - Offense grows stagnant
      - Tendency to let big leads disappear
      I'm not going to spend any time defending Gill, who I think is an excellent third-string point guard. You just have to keep in mind that he's a third-string point guard. Upgrading that position's not worth the trouble.

      I have nothing bad to say about AJ right now. I was really on his case early in the season, but it looks like he's starting to figure out how to run a team. Last year when he was playing well, he wasn't really playing as a PG. He was a small SG that brought the ball across. That's begun to change. We haven't blown many big leads lately (primarily because we haven't had many big leads lately).

      Rule changes – already in place for this season – are not favorable to the Pacers.
      - Hurt our physical defense as the officials are calling more fouls for bumping, holding, etc.
      - Our only perimeter player that has been able to take advantage of the rule changes, offensively, is 39 years old and retiring.
      Yeah, they do. But they hurt other teams just as much. Historically the team D has been good because of stellar performances from a couple of guys (that goes back to Larry Brown). Last year, the team D was good because every guy on the court was a legit defender and the team D was great. I'm not worried about our defense.

      The team’s “Center of the future” – for whatever reason – has regressed significantly during his rookie season.
      - Maybe the rest of the league has figured out how to play him.
      - Foul magnet.
      - Pre-draft rumors of always being out-of-shape.
      - Because the team hasn’t committed the necessary in-game investment, he won’t be ready to start next season, and he might not even be ready to be a permanent member of the rotation.
      - Individual rebounding still leaves a lot to be desired.
      - We just gave up on a high-post center that might’ve complimented JO very well because he never received the necessary in-game investment, either.
      - Even though I was smitten with him early in the season, I’m now 50%/50% between, “He’ll be a legit starting center (Dampier)” and “He’ll drive us all mad with his unfulfilled potential (Jerome James).”
      - Regardless, Jeff Foster, would be better suited to be a backup (and as said above, there's no guarantee Dale will re-sign with the Pacers this summer)
      I'm absolutely shocked that you spend this much time on Harrison. Come on, Jay. If you're going to use the words "center of the future," at least evaluate him against that standard and not "center of the present championship team." Your first statement is plain craziness: "Maybe the rest of the league has figured out how to play him." I readily admit you've seen more games than me, but I haven't heard you or anyone else propose that his problems are anything other than self-inflicted. Equally curious is "Pre-draft rumors of always being out-of-shape." Actually, the pre-draft rumors were that he was LAZY and always out of shape. I haven't seen any sign of either of those. He wasn't in NBA shape this season, but he was in better shape on Nov. 1 than he was on draft night. A summer with Dale will straighten him right out.

      Half of the remaining bullets are the same issue stated different ways. Harrison is a rookie big man that has not yet adjusted to the speed of the NBA game. That's not a big deal to me... he's hardly unique among rookie big men. He fouls because he hasn't yet figured out how to keep his position and uses his hands too much (see also, Tinsley three years ago). He drops passes (especially zip passes from Tinsley) and rebounds, but his position is good and he has a history of having good hands (voted "Best Hands" blah blah blah). This will get better.

      I agree that Harrison needs more game time and that Foster's an ideal backup. I have no idea what you mean when you say Brad Miller didn't receive enough game time.

      Our SGs not named Reggie are either:
      - Very streaky and emotional; or
      - Rock solid yet undersized
      News flash, man. Reggie is "very streaky and emotional." Compared to Reggie, Jax is the model of consistency. I'm perfectly content going into next season with Jax starting and Fred backing him up. Would I rather have Ray Allen? Sure, but not for the money. Please expound on why you think the Jax/Jones combo is deficient.

      My brain hurts.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

        Thank you, Anthem, Thank you.

        You just said what I was sitting here trying to decide whether to say or not.

        There is no way I would have been as "politically correct" as you and would probably have just caused more controversy.

        Again, thank you.

        I would rather be the hammer than the nail

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

          And will the injuries really matter that much if JO/JT are out until the beginning of the season? As long as the team doesn't go 2003-2004 Orlando Magic and lose nearly the first fourth of its season's games, the team would still make the playoffs, which is the goal. More and more I've begun to think about the regular season as a warm-up to the post-season (playoffs). So it doesn't really matter if we ended up the 5th or 6th seed because JT/JO would have been back long enough that we would have been able to see how this team works/the roles players should be in to make this team work its best.

          At least that's how I'm thinking about it.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

            Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
            Thank you, Anthem, Thank you.
            I'll second that. It's what I was trying to do, but I think failed to.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

              I'll try to sum up why I think we are not a good playoff team, real quick.

              -Tinsley: Make whatever excuses you want, but he breaks down late in the year.

              -Artest: Pretty well breaks down every year. I do not want to head into the playoffs with this man on the team, after last year's behind-the-scene ruckus, and this year's collapse. He simply isn't reliable, hasn't ever been, and is a detriment to chemistry.

              -O'Neal: Don't get me wrong, Jermaine is a very, very good player. I have no problem with his injurys, as he still usually plays most the games. But you cannot deny that Jermaine is a bit soft, on defense, the boards, and his offense (not so much, but he shoots too many fades/jumpers, low FG% for low-post player). If Jermaine is going to be on the team, he needs to play next to a great defender, and rebounder, who plays physical on both ends of the court. I admit, it appears Dale may be that guy, but I worry whether he can play this well for very long. And even if he is this guy, he certainly isn't in our long-term plans.

              -Foster: He can not be our starter. Again, with Dale playing well as the starter, this point may be lost. But if Foster is our starting center heading into the playoffs any year, we are in trouble.

              -Harrison, Pollard, both Jones, and Jackson - I have no problem with any of these guys, they will fill their roles when called upon. Except Harrison, his role is to better as a player right now, I have no problem giving him a few years to work at this. And Pollard, his back is a worry, but I see Pollard as a luxury, we do not necessarily need him, but he is nice to have.

              -Dale: I want to see how he performs the rest of this season, and if he re-signs, before counting on him for next year. I admit, however, that his stellar play, if kept up, really eliminates a lot of my gripes for a few years.

              -Croshere: Simply put, a bad fit for this team. Love the guy, but he needs somewhere else to play.

              -Bender: A bust, I don't really consider him part of the team now, or in the future.

              -Johnson: If we had a rock-solid PG, I'd be okay with him, I think. I don't particularly care for his game, but he is consistent, and not likely to turn the ball over. Our starting PG is the problem right now, IMO. There are more pressing needs than improving this position, and come playoff-time, Fred could always play here a bit.

              So, if Artest were to suddenly become dependable, Tinsley stay consistently healthy, Dale play this well for a year or two, and Harrison emerge as the next Dale, and our back-up PG position improved, I suppose I would be okay with this team long-term.

              I can buy Dale playing well, Harrison turning into a nice player, and addressing back-up PG in the off-season. They aren't all that likely, but I believe they are possible.

              I just don't see Ron ever becomind mentally reliable, or Tinsley physically reliable.

              I think we need to move Ron and Jamaal. Get back a decent PG with speed, who plays good to great defense, and a player in the Josh Howard mold, and we can still be very good. I realize trading these two for veteran players of this caliber is harder than snorting a brick through your nose, draft picks may be our best bet here. (And I know Tinsley's contract status, don't come at me with that, I realize he is about untradable)

              I would like it if we moved Croshere, Johnson, and Bender, but that is by no means a pressing matter.

              If Dale can't hold up for a few years, or Harrison flops, we have much bigger problems, however.


              I must be feeling nice, or forgetful, I feel as if I am in the sunshine brigade after that post. What happened to all the other problems, either Dale solves that many of them, or they simply aren't occuring to me right now.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                So much for "real quick." That got long-winded in a hurry.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                  Why do you discount any chance of championship victory if our starting center isn't the prototypical kind? Jeff gets his rebounds night in and night out and chips in his share of points too. I don't see the problem people have with him. Every single position does not need to be balanced. Every starting position does not need the best player at that one either; what it needs is the most effective at beginning a game or whatever goal the team has in mind. No team will ever have amazing talent or the best quality of players at all five starting positions. I hope I'm getting the point across. What I want to say is that it doesn't matter if Jeff isn't a scoring monster or do-it-all type of player; if he's effective starting, the team will be just fine. I see no reason why Jeff Foster being a starter will prevent this team from winning it all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                    Maybe it's Jamaal's prolonged absence and people are forgetting what he brings to the team, but I cannot see how Jamaal is a detriment to this ballclub. He isn't perfect, but we could be a lot worse off.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                      So we should blow up a team that is one step away from the play offs and build it from the ground and wait for another 3 years for them to get back to be as good as we where last year, I think not. Keep this team together they can win it all.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                        Originally posted by MSA2CF
                        Why do you discount any chance of championship victory if our starting center isn't the prototypical kind?
                        I don't know what a prototypical center is. Last year the championship center was Ben Wallace. Before that I believe it was Rasho Nesterovic. Before that it was Shaq.

                        Foster's a good player, but I think his ideal position is backing up both power spots. Dale can start at center with Jermaine at PF. Foster can play with either one.

                        Harrison should get minutes as well, which shouldn't be difficult. There's room for those four guys in the rotation. Scot, Austin, and Bender, though, are out of luck.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                          Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                          I'll try to sum up why I think we are not a good playoff team, real quick.

                          -Tinsley: Make whatever excuses you want, but he breaks down late in the year.

                          -Artest: Pretty well breaks down every year. I do not want to head into the playoffs with this man on the team, after last year's behind-the-scene ruckus, and this year's collapse. He simply isn't reliable, hasn't ever been, and is a detriment to chemistry.

                          -O'Neal: Don't get me wrong, Jermaine is a very, very good player. I have no problem with his injurys, as he still usually plays most the games. But you cannot deny that Jermaine is a bit soft, on defense, the boards, and his offense (not so much, but he shoots too many fades/jumpers, low FG% for low-post player). If Jermaine is going to be on the team, he needs to play next to a great defender, and rebounder, who plays physical on both ends of the court. I admit, it appears Dale may be that guy, but I worry whether he can play this well for very long. And even if he is this guy, he certainly isn't in our long-term plans.

                          -Foster: He can not be our starter. Again, with Dale playing well as the starter, this point may be lost. But if Foster is our starting center heading into the playoffs any year, we are in trouble.

                          -Harrison, Pollard, both Jones, and Jackson - I have no problem with any of these guys, they will fill their roles when called upon. Except Harrison, his role is to better as a player right now, I have no problem giving him a few years to work at this. And Pollard, his back is a worry, but I see Pollard as a luxury, we do not necessarily need him, but he is nice to have.

                          -Dale: I want to see how he performs the rest of this season, and if he re-signs, before counting on him for next year. I admit, however, that his stellar play, if kept up, really eliminates a lot of my gripes for a few years.

                          -Croshere: Simply put, a bad fit for this team. Love the guy, but he needs somewhere else to play.

                          -Bender: A bust, I don't really consider him part of the team now, or in the future.

                          -Johnson: If we had a rock-solid PG, I'd be okay with him, I think. I don't particularly care for his game, but he is consistent, and not likely to turn the ball over. Our starting PG is the problem right now, IMO. There are more pressing needs than improving this position, and come playoff-time, Fred could always play here a bit.

                          So, if Artest were to suddenly become dependable, Tinsley stay consistently healthy, Dale play this well for a year or two, and Harrison emerge as the next Dale, and our back-up PG position improved, I suppose I would be okay with this team long-term.

                          I can buy Dale playing well, Harrison turning into a nice player, and addressing back-up PG in the off-season. They aren't all that likely, but I believe they are possible.

                          I just don't see Ron ever becomind mentally reliable, or Tinsley physically reliable.

                          I think we need to move Ron and Jamaal. Get back a decent PG with speed, who plays good to great defense, and a player in the Josh Howard mold, and we can still be very good. I realize trading these two for veteran players of this caliber is harder than snorting a brick through your nose, draft picks may be our best bet here. (And I know Tinsley's contract status, don't come at me with that, I realize he is about untradable)

                          I would like it if we moved Croshere, Johnson, and Bender, but that is by no means a pressing matter.

                          If Dale can't hold up for a few years, or Harrison flops, we have much bigger problems, however.


                          I must be feeling nice, or forgetful, I feel as if I am in the sunshine brigade after that post. What happened to all the other problems, either Dale solves that many of them, or they simply aren't occuring to me right now.

                          I hope you are good at whatever you do for a living, because as a GM for a Pro basketball team, your career would be very short-lived.

                          I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                            How are you going to make this team better Jay? Obviously you want to trade Artest and Tinsley. Maybe O'Neal. So tell us how you are going to "blow up" this team and make it better. I want to hear these trades. Maybe we should pass them along to fans of the teams we are trading with to get their reaction. Jamaal Tinsley and Scot Pollard for Steve Nash is not going to fly, Jay.

                            If it hasn't occurred to you, this team you have given up on was very young last year and tasting playoff success for the first time. It also had very average guard play, especially defensively. And it was injured. But mostly it was very young and inexperienced in dealing with playoff pressure. The Pistons were largely a veteran team, as were the Lakers, San Antonio, and Sacramento. I think the miracle might have been that they did as well as they did. Rather than blowing this team up, I think I'd prefer to keep the core together and continue to tweak the team. I think that is obviouslyour best chance to reach for the brass ring. We'll need some luck. Sure. But there has never been a team win an NBA championship who didn't enjoy some good fortune along the way.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                              Originally posted by sixthman
                              Rather than blowing this team up, I think I'd prefer to keep the core together and continue to tweak the team.
                              I will say that this team needs quite a few tweaks. That's high on my list.

                              But I won't bring out my list until we get a solid win streak, just because I hate piling on.

                              EDIT: And re Tinsley, I love how suddenly he's our only advantage against the Spurs. Historically, he's been looked at (on this forum and elsewhere) as having no chance to attain the god-like status of Tony Parker.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: This Team is Built for the Regular Season

                                OK - so there's a new bash on indystar that calls Jay, among other things, a Kravitz fan, unintelligent, and - this one's my favorite - a racist "deep down inside." It's obvious Sassan is the writer.

                                I have to come out and support Jay - not necessarily for what he's said - but more for the fact that he said it. It took guts and confidence to come out and post something he knew would not necessarily be received well. Very big of him.

                                I also think it's a credit to the rest of the forum that many have taken a step-by-step approach and have addressed his post with respect and intelligence.

                                This has been the best read in a quite a while.
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X