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

2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

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

  • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    I still don't like Lavoy at the starting 4. He just brings nothing to the table.
    If he isn't dominating the boards he really serves no purpose. And Jonas DEMOLISHED us on the glass.

    #FreeSolo

    Comment


    • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

      Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
      If he isn't dominating the boards he really serves no purpose. And Jonas DEMOLISHED us on the glass.

      #FreeSolo

      Options are Solo at PF, CJ Miles at PF, or bring Myles back into the starting lineup at the 4.

      Comment


      • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Every single quote since the end of the game yesterday from every single raptor has been fairly delusional, especially Lowry and Derozan
        If we beat them tomorrow, this series is over. They're already on edge

        Comment


        • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

          i wonder if Vogel will continue to trot Allen out there in the starting line up. Allen seems to be one of those guys who impresses you when he gets the chance and then proceeds to show you why he is a bench player.

          Though it looks like Vogel prefers to close with turner and Solo out there.

          Oh and I am convinced that Playoffs Paul is a real thing. 2 healthy seasons in a row he has shot out of the gate with MVP level production. Then seems to taper off for a couple of months, and then picks up little bit before the playoffs. Then bam! playoffs are here and he plays like a superstar again.
          Last edited by graphic-er; 04-18-2016, 02:51 PM.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

            To be honest, it really doesn't matter who starts. Allen only played 14 minutes to Solo's 26. The Raptors are doing the same thing with Scola. Luis played 15 minutes to Patterson's 28.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

              All Toronto needs to do to win is attack Monta Ellis on defense. Why bother with Paul George or George Hill when the path of least resistance is so obviously through Monta?

              Comment


              • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                All Toronto needs to do to win is attack Monta Ellis on defense. Why bother with Paul George or George Hill when the path of least resistance is so obviously through Monta?
                When the attacking choices are an injured Norman Powell or an injured Demarre Carroll.

                Comment


                • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                  I'm sure if TOR wins their fans will think they're back and it's over. We're playing with house money tonight. If we win great, if we lose cool. See ya Thursday.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15...rst-round-jinx

                    All eyes are on the Raptors after losing Game 1 at home

                    The Raptors were defiant and relaxed at practice on Sunday: Everything is totally fine! It was only one game!

                    They should be confident. The free throws that were supposedly going to vanish in the postseason hothouse flowed in abundance, only the Raptors missed 12 of them -- including a random 4-of-9 bonk-fest from Kyle Lowry. Their two All-Stars, Lowry and DeMar DeRozan, shot 8-of-32 combined. Jonas Valanciunas was dominating the game, toying with skinny Myles Turner and rebounding everything in sight before a cheapo third foul sent him to the bench.

                    Hell, even if the unthinkable happens and they lose Game 2, the Raptors can still recover; they had the third-best road record in the league! DeMarre Carroll, their potential Paul George disruptor, isn't even healthy!

                    Everything's cool! Right? Right! Right?

                    Maybe. But amazingly, just 48 hours after they tipped, the first moment of truth in these playoffs is here. As one team executive emailed after Game 1, "Monday will be the tightest-sphinctered game in Toronto basketball history." It is certainly the franchise's biggest game since ... when, exactly? It feels bigger than even Game 7 two seasons ago against Brooklyn, when the Drakes emerged as the accidental Atlantic Division champs -- hang those banners, baby! -- after dumping Rudy Gay, and coming one phone call away from diving into the tank at the trade deadline.

                    A winner-take-all deal is bigger than any Game 2, but those Raps were playing with house money. The same core has gotten better and better every year, almost forcing Masai Ujiri, the team's GM, into stasis with a roster he's not quite sure about. How do you bust up a team that tacks on five more wins every season, especially when you're already holding one key rebuilding chip -- the Knicks' pick -- thanks to a laughable heist involving Andrea Bargnani and his facial hair?

                    A shake-up nearly happened after last season's humiliation, when Dwane Casey's job hung in the wind. Ujiri stood behind Casey, a good man and a good coach, and supplied him with three defense-first free agents who would replace the human turnstiles Casey brought off the pine last season. Then, Ujiri gave Casey, in the final guaranteed year of his contract, a strong vote of confidence before these playoffs.

                    Meh. The Raptors have now lost seven straight playoff games in the weak sister conference. At some point, you have to start asking if something is just wrong with the fabric of your team. Another first-round loss, this one against a demonstrably worse team that couldn't win close games all season, would mark that point.

                    This isn't some Western Conference team winning 55 games every season, and coming oh-so-close to real playoff success; the Raptors aren't the Clippers, or the pre-2011 Mavs. They've done basically nothing. Almost all the key players are in their primes. They are meant to win now, and if they don't, Ujiri will have to ask some serious questions -- about Casey, and about whether DeRozan, a free agent whose cap hold soaks up any potential cap space now and forever, is the long-term fit they want with Norman Powell, Terrence Ross, Valanciunas, and all the babies eventually ready for more.

                    Doomsday talk is silly after Game 1, but not with this playoff history. The Raptors need to win Game 2, and they need to win this series. Period. Ujiri's downplaying of expectations before the playoffs -- all these teams are pretty good! -- is a bit of well-crafted messaging puffery. The Raptors are better, and they should win -- starting Monday night.

                    Here are eight things they can do:

                    1. Step 1 might be excising Luis Scola, and giving all the power forward minutes to Patrick Patterson, DeMarre Carroll and even James Johnson. That is not fun to write. Scola is a great dude, a wonderful teammate, and he worked his butt off to become a 40 percent 3-point shooter. But he has a slow release, he hit just 34 percent from outside the corners, and the Pacers do not respect his shot or his pokey catch-and-drive game.

                    With Indy sneaking in off Scola and George ducking under picks against DeRozan, a ton of Toronto possessions died on the vine:
                    http://media.video-cdn.espn.com/gifs..._5_42_2GIF.mp4

                    Is Lowry tentative passing up that 3-pointer? Maybe a little, but that's what happens when a quality defender like George Hill is closing out on you. Lowry and DeRozan are ready for this, but they showed tiny signs of the yips in Game 1; Lowry even barfed up a flailing Lou Williams-style begging-for-the-call pull-up in crunch time.

                    Watch the start of that possession: Lowry pitches to DeRozan and jogs in the general direction of Valanciunas before veering out of the play. That looks like a classic screen-the-screener action -- a set on which Lowry is supposed to nail Valanciunas' guy, Myles Turner, so that Turner falls behind the action. Toronto whiffed like this too often in Game 1. Start hammering people, Drakes.

                    With Patterson or Carroll in Scola's slot, the lane is more open, and the ping-ping-ping action speeds up. Toronto recorded 32 drives in Game 1, four fewer than their season-long average. Their 20 turnovers depressed that number a bit, but some of those cough-ups came precisely because the Raptors couldn't come unstuck.

                    The Raptors will not beat real teams when the offense stops after one action. Indiana's defense was awesome against Toronto's initial pick-and-rolls in Game 1; guards scooted around screens, Ian Mahinmi and Turner spread their arms wide, and the help was on point.

                    On defense, Patterson has been switching onto stud wings all season, and he can do the same against George. Scola can't, which is why you'll see the Pacers run George off Scola's guy as long as Scola is in the game:

                    http://media.video-cdn.espn.com/gifs..._5_26_2GIF.mp4

                    The Raptors outscored opponents by 16 points per 100 possessions with Patterson and Valanciunas on the floor together this season; they shared the floor for just five minutes in Game 1, per NBA.com.

                    Starting Patterson doesn't solve the issue of George torching DeRozan. The Raptors might want to give Powell a shot; he's three inches shorter than DeRozan, but he has a longer wingspan, and sparing DeRozan George duty might inject some verve into his offense.

                    A healthy Carroll is by far Toronto's best option against George, and if Casey wants to keep Patterson in his bench role, he could go super-small with Carroll starting. That would leave Toronto at a size disadvantage with DeRozan or Powell checking one of the Mahinmi/Lavoy Allen duo, but neither of those guys are post-up threats, and I kind of like the idea of an all-wing lineup switching pick-and-rolls -- and daring the Pacers to post-up Mahinmi/Allen over fronts. (Rebounding could be an issue, of course.)

                    2. If Casey sticks with the same starters, Toronto will have to improve on the fringes: a quicker hook on Scola; no minutes with both Lowry and DeRozan sitting; better screening; and more gumption swinging the ball from side-to-side.

                    3. Toronto has to punish Monta Ellis, who spent most of Game 1 hiding safely on Powell and (less safely) on Cory Joseph. One method: Have Joseph, Lowry and DeRozan screen for each other in jumbles with one Raptor big man. Good things happened when Toronto did this in Game 1, and it's an easy way to make Ellis do actual work on defense:

                    http://media.video-cdn.espn.com/gifs...10_14_2GIF.mp4

                    They also just need to be more active. Boston stashed Isaiah Thomas on Kent Bazemore, away from the jukes of Jeff Teague, and Bazemore made them pay by cutting backdoor. This kind of buzzing hasn't always been in Toronto's DNA.

                    4. The Turner-Valanciunas matchup is a juicy one, though they may not cross over as much if Mahinmi avoids foul trouble in Game 2. Indy over the past month exiled Jordan Hill, and recommitted to small-ball on bench units -- with Solomon Hill as the nominal power forward, and Turner as the lone big.

                    The Raptors need to the post the crap out of this matchup. Turner has to feel pain. Valanciunas can back him down all the way to the rack, and Toronto should exploit that as long as the Pacers let it happen.

                    Indiana will eventually send help, and test Valanciunas' low-IQ passing; he had just 42 assists all season, and hasn't advanced as much passing out of double-teams as the Raps hoped. Valanciunas' level of involvement on offense is a divisive issue within the organization, but you can almost understand Casey's wavering trust as long as Valanciunas stagnates as a passer.

                    Still, he should be able to manage the easy one-pass-away kickout, and if the Raptors find him early enough in the shot clock, that dish could trigger peppy swing-swing-swing sequences.

                    5. I'm not sure Turner can hurt Valanciunas on the other end; he made only three 3-pointers all season, so he's not exactly the Kevin Love-at-center package that slaughtered Detroit in the fourth quarter Sunday. The Cavs will, and should, go back to that, by the way. Their wings are solid enough to guard Detroit's tweeners, and Love can put up a fight against Drummond on defense; there were possessions when Cleveland switched him there, even with Tristan Thompson on the floor, and had Thompson scurry around with Marcus Morris or Tobias Harris.

                    Drummond isn't comfortable on those Kyrie Irving/Love pick-and-rolls venturing high enough to corral Irving, and recover onto Love before Love hurls a bomb. Switching creates pain in both directions, something that has rarely been true of the LeBron-Love combo. And when Love took a breather to spread the floor, the Cavs unleashed LeBron as roller in open space. That is death.

                    Detroit will have counters ready -- including simply putting Love into as many pick-and-rolls as they can squeeze in.

                    Back to Turner/Valanciunas: If that matchup materializes, I'd be curious to see if Turner can get anything going from the perimeter.

                    6. George thrived in Game 1 as a screener in the pick-and-roll:

                    http://media.video-cdn.espn.com/gifs..._1_54_2GIF.mp4

                    The Raptors need to be ready for this.

                    7. I've written it before, but the Pacers need to avoid any minutes when all three of Hill, Ellis and George are on the bench.

                    8. It will be interesting to see how much small-ball the Pacers are willing to play. They were dynamite all season with the Allen-Jordan Hill combo off the bench, but Allen is starting alongside Mahinmi in what can be an awkward fit, and Hill is (mostly) gone. If the Pacers cut Allen's minutes even more, they have two choices: pair Mahinmi and Turner more, or separate them. Toronto's power forwards don't spook you out of going small, but Valanciunas ate the entire Pacers team alive on the offensive glass.

                    Enough about Toronto. Come out and win Game 2. Show us this was all real.
                    Interesting article from Zach Lowe

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                      So many Jimmy Buckets fans here. Idle thought, would you trade PG for Butler? The Bulls seem willing to trade him.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                        I think what I'm most scared of is Toronto going small with Carroll. Good thing for us that his health is still questionable.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Interesting article from Zach Lowe
                          Zach lost me the moment he called the East the "weak sister conference". Wake up, Zach. This isn't 2010 anymore.
                          Last edited by Nuntius; 04-18-2016, 04:16 PM. Reason: typo
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Zach lost me the moment he called the East the "weak sister confrence". Wake up, Zach. This isn't 2010 anymore.
                            Yeah, 2010 was much more interesting at the top with Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. This year only one team can sniff the Finals.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              So many Jimmy Buckets fans here. Idle thought, would you trade PG for Butler? The Bulls seem willing to trade him.
                              Butler is a fantastic player, But the way the Bulls finished leaves me wondering. i think he is a big time gamer though. The equal of PG in my opinion. He is a more relentless defender than PG is right now. I say that because who knows maybe next season Paul gets back his burst he uses so much on defense.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2016 NBA Playoffs: (2) Toronto vs. (7) Indiana

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Yeah, 2010 was much more interesting at the top with Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. This year only one team can sniff the Finals.
                                It doesn't matter who sniffs the Finals, though. Only the Warriors and the Spurs can win the title, imo. That said, the East as a whole was better than the West this season and it's high time that the media acknowledges this and gets rid of the "the East sucks" narrative.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X