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

Pacers vs Magic

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

  • Pacers vs Magic

    Here is an interesting article about how the Magic revamped their team and won right away and how that relates to the Pacers changes.

    http://www.indycornrows.com/2015/9/6...mparison-maybe

    Do the Orlando Magic of the mid-2000s tell us anything about the modern-day Pacers?
    TWEET (6) SHARE (6) PIN

    I hope Larry Bird has the Orlando Magic on speed dial, preferably someone with an advanced degree in 2007-2008 Upstarts.
    Stan Van Gundy's currently calling the shots in Detroit. Rival country. But that's okay.Frank Vogel ought to call him anyway. They'd have a lot to talk about; reforming stagnant offenses and such.
    How about Paul George? Does he know Rashard Lewis? No?
    Well, text him. Tweet him. Facebook him. Whatever. Hit him up, Paul. You guys need to have a conversation. Success or failure this upcoming season may depend upon it.
    It can't be this easy, can it? Here I thought the 2015-2016 Pacers were on a crash-course toward mediocrity: a 41-41 season, and late-season melee for 7/8 seed supremacy (inferiority?). Upon further investigation, there might be more hope than originally thought.
    The inspiration behind my thought-evolution is rooted in the southeast; in a city where pin-striped unis are still en vogue and cartoon characters roam the streets like subway traffickers.
    You haven't given any thought to the Orlando Magic of 2006-2008 yesteryear, have you? Neither had I. No reason to, right?
    I stumbled upon them mostly by accident and took notice. What I discovered wasn't groundbreaking or of Zach Lowe-reverence, but it could be something. A trail of bread crumbs, or a tattered roadmap of what could be in Indiana if everything breaks left, not right (that was for you PG-13).
    You already know this, but it turns out the Pacers aren't the only team in history to revamp their roster and seek a do-over all in one salty offseason. Given enough time, we could probably name dozens--if not hundreds--of other teams that have followed a similar track.
    But there's something about those Magic teams and this current group of Pacers that struck me. So much so, I spent more than 2,000 words poring it over.
    Maybe it means something, maybe it means nothing. That's something I'll let you decipher for yourself.
    Three Reasons the Comparison Works

    1. For Sale: Aging Plodders

    To the history books we go:
    Led by head coach, Brian Hill, the 2006-2007 version of the Magic finished the season 40-42, landing them a front-row seat to a first-round sweep at the hands of the Detroit Pistons. They sputtered to a 104.9 offensive rating, good enough for 22nd in the league. Their pace of play was positively snailing at 89.9 (26th/30); and spacing issues abounded, producing a middling team 3PT% of 35.6.
    Herein lies the rotation that got them there:
    Starters (most commonly):
    PG: Jameer Nelson
    SG: Grant Hill
    SF: Hedo Turkoglu
    PF: Dwight Howard
    C: Tony Battie
    Key Bench Players: Darko Milicic, Keyon Dooling, J.J. Redick, Carlos Arroyo, Trevor Ariza, Keith Bogans.
    It wasn't all bad. For all of their offensive woes, the Magic were a sterling defensive club (Defensive Rating: 104.1, 6th/30). Using defense as their calling card, they proved just good enough to be a low-seed playoff threat.
    Sound familiar?
    I present to you the 2014-2015 Indiana Pacers:
    W/L Record: 38-44
    Offensive Rating: 103.5 (23rd/30)
    Defensive Rating: 103.2 (7th/30)
    Pace: 93.2 (19th/30)
    Starters (most commonly):
    PG: George Hill
    SG: C.J. Miles
    SF: Solomon Hill
    PF: David West
    C: Roy Hibbert
    Key Bench Players: Rodney Stuckey, Luis Scola, C.J. Watson, Ian Mahinmi, Damjan Rudez, Lavoy Allen.
    Not identical, I know, but the parallels are there: two offensively challenged clubs, two plodding rosters, two defensive stalwarts. Two teams that needed change to take the next step ... or any step for that matter. And both teams got exactly that the following offseason.
    For the Magic, change resulted in a significant competitive boost:
    2007-2008 Orlando Magic
    Coach: Stan Van Gundy
    W/L Record: 52-30
    Offensive Rating: 111.3 (7th/30)
    Defensive Rating: 105.5 (6th/30)
    Pace: 93.4 (9th/30)
    Team 3PT%: 38.6% (4th/30)
    Starters (most commonly):
    PG: Jameer Nelson
    SG: Maurice Evans/Keith Bogans
    SF: Hedo Turkoglu
    PF: Rashard Lewis
    C: Dwight Howard
    Key Bench Players: Mo Evans/Ketih Bogans, Keyon Dooling, Carlos Arroyo, J.J. Redick,Brian Cook.
    For the Pacers ... TBD.
    2. Paul George Meet Rashard Lewis

    So, how did the Magic do it? Go from one-trick ponies to balanced savants, and a team on the rise in the Eastern Conference?
    For one, they reeled in Van Gundy to coach, an imaginative offensive mind with a hankering for versatile lineups and the three-point shot.
    But a coach can only do so much to bring his inventions to life. He needs the proper tools at his disposal, and he got a good one when then-GM, Otis Smith, overpaid Rashard Lewis in a sign-and-trade deal.
    Lewis had spent the previous nine seasons with the Seattle Supersonics where he earned an All-Star nod in 2005, and labored on a couple of shrug-worthy playoff teams.
    Most importantly, previous to joining the Magic, Lewis was a fixture on the wing. A smooth and slender athlete at 6'10" 215lb, he never played a single second at PF while employed in the Emerald City.
    Upon signing with Orlando; however, Lewis was instantly re-positioned as a stretch PF to help facilitate Van Gundy's space-and-pace offense.
    Again, sound familiar?
    Lewis thrived in his new role, averaging 16.6 PPG, 5.2 RPG, and 40% from three as a three-year starter. Perhaps most encouraging was the durability displayed while battling bigger, stronger foes. Lewis started 232 of a possible 246 regular-season games during that span.
    The Larry Bird-fed idea is that it could go even better for Paul George. After all, George is similarly sized, and he, too, has been a wing-player only thus far in his brief career. But he's also a far better player both offensively and defensively than Lewis ever was. Add in his youth, and the fact that there are fewer and fewer NBA behemoths manning the middle, and you realize this could work. It really could.
    3. Seasoned Greetings

    While the Magic's roster transformation in 2007 wasn't quite as dramatic as Indiana's in 2015, they did experience a good deal of turnover, adding five new players overall.
    Two starters out: Hill, Battie. Two new starters in: Evans, Lewis. Space-eaters jettisoned: Hill, Milicic and Battie. Space-enthusiasts unleashed: Evans, Lewis, Bogans, and Cook (kind of).
    And the Magic didn't do it on the back of a youth revolution. Eight of their top-10 rotation players were card-carrying members of the 25-and-over club.
    Compare that to the Pacers of 2015-2016: seven new players, potentially three-new starters on tap, and nine of their top-12 projected rotation players aged 25 and older.
    To some, I get it, late 20s are a negative. The older a player is, the less room for future growth. This is an especially difficult concept to accept when one's mind is focused on rebuilding.
    But if you're Larry Bird and Frank Vogel, and your objective is to keep the team afloat competitively, it can only benefit you to have a collection of vets who can quickly digest new offensive and defensive schemes.
    The semi-veteran approach worked well for the '07-'08 Magic as they won 16 of their first 20 games, en route to improving their regular-season win total by 12.
    Three Reasons The Comparison Doesn't Work

    1. We Have Dwight Howard and You Don't

    Let's not forget who Dwight Howard was in 2007-2008. Think pre- "Gonna get my coach fired," pre-trade-demand, pre-changes-mind-then-demands-trade-again, pre- "I hate playing with Kobe," pre-drawn-out-free-agency, pre-injury-plagued Dwight Howard: a third-year manchild and emerging Defensive Player of the Year candidate.
    With such a dominant player in tow, it's a bit easier for a coach to implement a new offensive system, while aspiring to remain elite defensively; a feat the '07-'08 Magic executed quite swimmingly.
    The 2015-2016 Pacers will have no such player. George, in theory, should be that guy, but he's coming off a serious injury and will likely be learning a new position. Expecting him to dominate—especially early—feels misguided.
    Ian Mahinmi, Jordan Hill, and Myles Turner will do their best Howard-impression in the middle ... and will likely fail. George Hill's durability will be challenged like never before as he attempts to maintain his new offensive persona and take on a more crucial role defensively on the wing. Monta Ellis will surely bring his high-scoring act to Indy ... along with his seesaw-effort on D.
    For the Pacers to make a similar jump as the Magic, they'll have to spurn the idea of a one-man band piggybacking the troops. It'll have to be a collective effort, and in today's state-the-obvious news of the day: a collective effort only takes you as far as the talent-level permits. Just how talented is this version of the Blue and Gold?
    2. Coaching, coaching, coaching

    Frank Vogel is a fine coach, one of the best in the league. He sports a career regular-season record of 205-144, and is largely responsible for morphing a roster with middling talent into a defensive-dynamo, and elite Eastern Conference contender.
    Where he lacks cred is on the offensive side of the ball. Only one Pacers' team under his watch has finished in the top half of offensive efficiency (2011-2012). This was mostly by design. The Pacers of the last four seasons were trained to be a battering ram on both sides of the ball. For the offense, this meant force-feeding the post and reining in the pace. To Indiana's credit, it produced a lot of wins, and a few deep playoff runs.
    Still, one naturally wonders if Vogel has the coaching chops to transform from one deliberate style of play into one wholly different, all while the brainchild of the play-faster mantra (Larry Bird) watches on.
    On the other side is Stan Van Gundy, who before leading the Magic, masterminded a trio of offensive makeovers in Miami. Lamar Odom starred in rendition No. 1, Shaquille O'Neal in No. 2, and then Dwyane Wade in year three, resulting in the league's first and only Free-Throw Line championship. In hindsight, Van Gundy was ready-made to head the offensive revival in Orlando because of his experiences in South Beach.
    At the moment, it's hard to make the same argument for Vogel.
    3. Out of Style

    Perhaps the most damning aspect of this comparison exercise is the style-of-play discrepancy. The '07-'08 Magic pushed the pace all right, but they achieved it secondarily to their spacing principles. For reference, Van Gundy's bunch launched 2074 three-point attempts (nearly a third of their overall field-goal attempts), a whopping 107% increase from the '06-‘07 season. Remarkably, they did so without compromising their size. With the exception of Lewis, the Magic fielded a mostly traditional lineup, featuring a dominant big (Howard), a sturdy-wing rotation (Evans, Bogans, Turkoglu, Redick, Ariza), and a floor-general PG (Nelson).
    The Pacers of 2015-2016 similarly hope to accelerate the pace, but they'll aim to do so with a differing approach. Lacking elite outside shooters, Bird's Downsize U will attack opposing defenses with speed, svelteness, and slash. Several players on the roster project to swing between multiple positions in hopes of causing mismatch chaos. Improved three-point shooting may occur as a result, but unlike their Orlando compadres, it'll likely be a byproduct of their increased pace, rather than the catalyst.
    In Conclusion...

    Much like next season's Pacers, the 2007-2008 Orlando Magic weren't expected to do much in the regular season. Most, including the Four-Letter Network, slapped them with a back-end playoff spot. They worried about depth, lineup construction, and the team's ability to adapt to a new coaching philosophy.
    One last time: sound familiar?
    The Magic forged ahead with their new playing style and blitzed pre-season predictions, winning 52 games, and establishing themselves as a present-and-future threat in the Eastern Conference.
    Will the Pacers follow suit? How about ... maybe.
    There are enough similarities between the two to be tempted to think so. On the other hand, there are enough differences to tempt you to dismiss all of this as fable-talk.
    Regardless of how you feel about the comparison, if the Pacers want to exceed expectations, they'll need much of what that '07-'08 Orlando team possessed: buy-in from day one, coaching/roster cohesion, star-level play from perceived star, offensive-and-defensive balance, persistence of scheme ... you get the picture.
    And you know what? They could use one other thing; something every elite team stumbles upon at some point in the season. Some might call it luck, others may say health or talent. I prefer to call it something else: a healthy dose of ... magic.

    Go Pacers!

  • #2
    Re: Pacers vs Magic

    In order to pull this off we'd need another elite player. Someone reliable and young.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers vs Magic

      It's an interesting article. Thanks for posting.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers vs Magic

        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        In order to pull this off we'd need another elite player. Someone reliable and young.
        We got Whittington.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers vs Magic

          Originally posted by sav View Post
          We got Whittington.
          LOL. Nope. Next Summer will be interesting.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers vs Magic

            pretty sure The Smits Upfake (that was embarrassingly slow, go watch it again lol) is my earliest cognizant OH **** YOU SEE THAT! memory

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers vs Magic

              FYI I'm still thinking 50 wins.
              Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers vs Magic

                As long as the Pacers lead the league in 3P% or close to it, anything could happen. To compare a team that arguably had the best offensive center / shot blocker in the game which retooled to surround him with perimeter sharpshooters to a Pacers team with absolutely no interior presence on either end of the court retooling for speed and an increased volume of 3's is dubious at best IMO.

                Assuming that teams basically dare the Pacers to shoot and then kill them on the glass on both ends of the court while stopping dribble penetration from Ellis and Young and Hill on occasion (I'm not counting on much of that from PG13 unfortunately), the Pacers could end up from as high as the mid to upper 40's in wins all the way down to somewhere around 30, possibly even less if the passing game ends up being the atrocity I am afraid it will be.

                I feel a Hee Haw song coming on

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers vs Magic

                  Why the hell would we want to take after the magic? They haven't won a championship yet.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers vs Magic

                    As far as the Magic goes, I am not sold on Elfrid Payton. Many analysis gush over his athleticism and decent play in the second half, but a player at his position without any semblance of a jumper concerns me.

                    Gordon, Vucevic and Oladipo are nice players, but I am not sure they have a play to build around. Until they find that guy their ceiling will be 500 IMO.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X