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

A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

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

  • #16
    Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

    Originally posted by rcarey View Post
    Hey, looks like he stole my Jose Calderon idea!

    Anyway, for that to happen Jose is going to have to keep up his stellar play and also become disgruntled with the lack of playing time (in comparison to TJ Ford). Jose is out-performing TJ at the PG spot, but getting less minutes because of the pressure on Sam Mitchell to play TJ (especially after signing that big contract).

    During last night's game against the Lakers, Jose pretty much brought the Raptors back from a deficit in the 2nd quarter. He sat until the 4th quarter where he got some more playing time. He was playing well again, but missed a shot or two he usually makes. Once he went off in favour of TJ, he was noticiably upset with himself on the bench...yelling and stuff. I'm not sure if it had to do with getting pulled because he was playing well, or if it had to do with him missing a shot or two that he usually makes.
    Calderon is real good, but I doubt Toronto would be anxious to move him considering how fragile TJ Ford has been throughout his career. With TJ, you really need a solid backup because he'll end up playing major minutes sometime during the season.

    That said, Calderon would be a signifcant upgrade for the Pacers.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

      At least me and few others on here are not the only ones that believe Al should be coming off the bench. It should eventually get through to Carlisle.

      The JO situation was very true. Not scoring till the 3rd (and when he did he owned the Nets) is something that should never happen to our best player and one of the best in the league in his position. We will not get anywhere with Harrington being our primary scorer BUT I think we could become on of the best teams in the East if he was coming off the bench with the 2nd unit. Little changes make big differences.
      My Dream Team

      PG - A.Iverson
      SG - K.Bryant
      SF - R.Artest
      PF - J.O'Neal
      C - D.Howard

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

        Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
        Calderon is real good, but I doubt Toronto would be anxious to move him considering how fragile TJ Ford has been throughout his career. With TJ, you really need a solid backup because he'll end up playing major minutes sometime during the season.

        That said, Calderon would be a signifcant upgrade for the Pacers.
        Yep - it would take Jose to actually complain to coaching/management on his own terms. He's a real nice kid, so I don't see it happening. But if he continues to outplay TJ like he has - only to end up sitting on the bench, I can hope that something materializes.

        Earl Watson, however, is another guy that was mentioned in the article and is also upset with his role as a backup. I think I read a couple articles earlier on about how he was not speaking with Bob Hill after games, and how he was disappointed he didn't get to play out 4th quarters. I don't want to get UB started, but he would also be a significant upgrade on both ends of the floor compared to Tinsley. He also has more of a consistent jumper.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

          I've wanted Earl Watson for a couple of seasons now. Not that he's that great (and I'm a little troubled that he seems to have trouble with some of his coaches) but I'd like to bring Earl aboard. He doesn't solve our problems, but he'd help

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

            Question: who have Al had good chemistry on the court with? We seem to know whom not to pair Al with but who has been working well with Al such that we could utilize that particular pairing/lineup? Guys who watch the games are especially welcome to chime in.
            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

              Earl Watson wouldn't help with anything. Really, some of you are way off base on how you view this turd.

              You think Tinsley can't shoot? Wait until you see Earl Watson. He makes Tinsley look like Reggie Miller . Seriously, Earl Watson has no more of a shooting touch than Jeff Foster. And you think Tinsley is too turnover prone? Earl Watson is just as bad. Rebounding is one of our biggest weaknesses. Tinsley's actually a good rebounder for his position. Not Earl Watson. He's a poor rebounder.

              Earl Watson is no better than Orien Greene, and atleast Orien could have some untapped potential.

              Calderon doesn't do much for me either. So-so porudcton as a backup on an atrocious team doesn't impress me much.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                Rosen hates everybody. People just agree with him because they are down on the Pacers right now.
                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                  Originally posted by Quis View Post
                  So-so porudcton as a backup on an atrocious team doesn't impress me much.
                  Have you seen him play this year? I can almost guarantee you haven't, because he has looked like a legit starting PG in almost every minute has played.

                  So yeah - I guess a guy like Gilbert Arenas in his first year at Golden State didn't impress you much (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Boris Diaw didn't do much for you either (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Kevin Martin didn't impress you much in his first year in the league (2.9ppg). I guess T-Mac didn't impress you much in his first couple years either. And the list goes on.......

                  But you're right. Maybe we should just wait until guys blossom into stars before we make a trade. That way we can be absolutely sure, and end up giving a lot more in return. It's not like scouting hidden talent is part of being a good GM.

                  No one is saying Earl Watson is going to be the solution to all of life's problems. He would be, however, an upgrade over Tinsley at this point. Of course, you can go back to your RealGM tradechecker and start seeing if a Saras/Baston/Harrison package can pull off a deal for Steve Nash, seeing as though he'd be a much better replacement for Tinsley. But some of us are trying to look at who would be available for a reasonable price, to make a basic upgrade over Tinsley.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                    Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                    Have you seen him play this year? I can almost guarantee you haven't, because he has looked like a legit starting PG in almost every minute has played.

                    So yeah - I guess a guy like Gilbert Arenas in his first year at Golden State didn't impress you much (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Boris Diaw didn't do much for you either (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Kevin Martin didn't impress you much in his first year in the league (2.9ppg). I guess T-Mac didn't impress you much in his first couple years either. And the list goes on.......

                    But you're right. Maybe we should just wait until guys blossom into stars before we make a trade. That way we can be absolutely sure, and end up giving a lot more in return. It's not like scouting hidden talent is part of being a good GM.

                    No one is saying Earl Watson is going to be the solution to all of life's problems. He would be, however, an upgrade over Tinsley at this point. Of course, you can go back to your RealGM tradechecker and start seeing if a Saras/Baston/Harrison package can pull off a deal for Steve Nash, seeing as though he'd be a much better replacement for Tinsley. But some of us are trying to look at who would be available for a reasonable price, to make a basic upgrade over Tinsley.
                    Save yourself the aggravation, rcarey. There's no trying to reason with Quis's type of disrespect. Ignore list ASAP.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                      [quote=rcarey;504892]Have you seen him play this year? I can almost guarantee you haven't, because he has looked like a legit starting PG in almost every minute has played.

                      Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                      So yeah - I guess a guy like Gilbert Arenas in his first year at Golden State didn't impress you much (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Boris Diaw didn't do much for you either (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Kevin Martin didn't impress you much in his first year in the league (2.9ppg). I guess T-Mac didn't impress you much in his first couple years either. And the list goes on.......

                      But you're right. Maybe we should just wait until guys blossom into stars before we make a trade. That way we can be absolutely sure, and end up giving a lot more in return. It's not like scouting hidden talent is part of being a good GM.
                      Delusional Toronto Raptor fan comparison Jose Calderon to Gilbert Arenas and Tracy McGrady.

                      Calderon has looked ok. Nothing special. he can't shoot, can't rebound, can't defend. Is a slightly above average passer and a good free throw shooter.

                      He's not a future star. He's not a future above average starting PG. He's a future backup or, like Tinsley, a future sub-par starting point guard. I'd only welcome him to Indiana if he came dirt cheap.

                      Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                      No one is saying Earl Watson is going to be the solution to all of life's problems. He would be, however, an upgrade over Tinsley at this point. Of course, you can go back to your RealGM tradechecker and start seeing if a Saras/Baston/Harrison package can pull off a deal for Steve Nash, seeing as though he'd be a much better replacement for Tinsley. But some of us are trying to look at who would be available for a reasonable price, to make a basic upgrade over Tinsley.
                      No he wouldn't. You're thinking with the ignorant "grass is greener on the other side" logic. Tinsley may not be great, but Earl Watson is in no way anywhere near Tinsleys level. Every flaw Tinsley has, Earl Watson is even worse. Earl even has a bigger attitude problem.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                        What he can't do is play defense. Twice he was burned to a crisp when he turned his head and allowed Bostjan Nochbar to cut backdoor for a pair of dunks.
                        Sorry, but you can't cherry pick on his assessment to fit your needs/opinions, "I agree with it all except...". What this comment by Rosen says is that it's exactly like any Rosen breakdown...based soley on a single game he sees and heavily dependent on how that game goes.

                        I do like his SINGLE GAME assessments. I feel that if he presented it as only a single night issue as we spoke over a post game beer that I would typically totally agree with him.

                        But the problem is that if he had seen one of Sarunas great games his opinion would be to move Tinsley and make the "super playmaker" Sarunas the starter, and regular fans that see many games realize this isn't a good option. Or in this case thinking AJ was an answer that Tinsley isn't. Come on. Maybe vs the Nets but that's about it.


                        The fact is that in the Nets game (and other games too) Granger was AT TIMES badly beaten like the still pretty green player that he is. He is LEARNING. This is the year of serious pain as he is forced into the foreground rather than the safety of only being a bench player.

                        Any regular fan knows that Danny is actually a bit more talented (physically) on the defensive end, but the fact is that good starter-quality defense requires an immense amount of understanding. Rick knows Danny better than Rosen, which is why he put Danny on Vince Carter a lot more in the 2nd half.

                        Danny can be beaten away from the ball, as Rosen mentioned he was backdoored on one play when he got caught snooping the ball instead, but on the ball he's pretty talented already.

                        And maybe Rosen missed the part where DANNY took EIGHT 3PAs. Eight. He shot it 25%. Okay, if I change that to Jackson then PD has a freaking riot and burns the dude's house down because he's a ball-hogging chucker. The fact is that if Rosen thought Danny was effective on offense he didn't watch the same game I did. The team DEFERRED to him on many plays, passed up shots to move it his way, handing him 6 3PAs in the 2nd half alone (for 2 makes).

                        Danny MISSED as many 3pt shots as Jack TOOK from outside the paint (not the arc, outside the paint). So let's review shot selection and who needs to be benched for Daniels...it ain't Jack. He knows how to pass up shots he won't make.


                        Tinsley actually had an improved game IMO, he's getting it together. Forget the shots, I mean he finally showed some sparks of his old self last night. Before the Nets game Tinsley had been REALLY struggling to find his quality level of play. But it was the 2 Tins behind the backs to AL that set him up for wide open jumpers (which Al nailed), and its that abilty when it gets back to full-game output (instead of brief snippits) that will help open things up late in a way that no other PG does (not even DA, who honestly isn't a great interior creator though I love his overall game/effort).

                        Jack defended Vince better than anyone on the night which is why I want him in the game. Jack is also the closest thing to a complete playmaker they have, followed by Daniels (if his outside shots keep falling). He again made plays for other players without giving the ball up (4 assists to 1 TO), and complain all you want about his shooting but the SELECTION is very improved. Only 11 FGAs, and FIVE of them were in the paint (4 were misses). He's trying to get the good shots but just can't find it right now. He only took ONE 3PA.

                        Vince did have a great night, but when his first 3 came with a behind the head 2 hand fall-away flick with Jack's hand in his face, I don't put the blame on Jack's defense. Vince's next 3 ball came with Daniels and Granger on the floor and he was left wide open on a switch...that's not how Jack had been defending him. It killed me to hear Buckner apparently not watching the game when he said stuff like "they need to have a body on him" since most of Vince's shots with Jack on him involved pretty impossible looking makes.


                        And since when is getting 16 shots, the most on the team, considering going away from a guy? Um, Al was 7-13 and JT was 8-15, both better FG% than JO. JO got his shots and he did tear up the 3rd. But he got 4th quarter touches that were far from impressive too (which was part of the downfall even). I see 16, 15, 13, 13, 11, 10 as GREAT BALANCE.

                        Maybe Rosen hasn't heard, but Indy fans were sick of turtle paced JO in the post basketball and wanted more TEAM ball. If you agree with him now, could you explain why you've changed your minds after years of ranting? I know it was there because I used to defend JO's game against it.

                        note - the rest of JO's effort and game was once again strong, and his scoring in the 3rd was very impressive. He didn't lose the game, he just didn't make big 4th quarter baskets. And Rosen is really confused about the Pacers going away from JO as he got SEVEN FGAs in the 4th, the most on the team. He hit 2. Al got six and hit 4 of them. No one "went away from" JO on offense, other than JO's own shooting touch.



                        Look, I'm frustrated with the inconsistant team offense. It simple isn't clicking yet, guys aren't reading each other well, they don't see the options with each other. Forget the typical scapegoats and let's talk FOSTER. No one thinks he's lazy or a big problem. Okay, so he made what should have been a great bounce pass in the lane to a cutting Al on the baseline. Ball goes flying out of bounds. Why? Because Al didn't expect it, period.

                        There is only one fix for that stuff, keep playing together. The 2000 team everyone loves knew each other like the back of their hand. These guys have now started 8 games together EVER. This is not the 2000 team with 8000+ minutes together (at least Jax, Rik, Reggie, McKey and Dale).


                        I just wish the hard stretch of the schedule was now so they could take the learning lumps in games they might not have won anyway.

                        In the meantime we need to also remember one thing - they were LEADING in the 4th quarter of 3 of their 5 losses. The NJ game they were down by 1 point with under 3 minutes to go.


                        So the only thing they REALLY need is a legit go-to scorer/play for the final 2 minutes of games. That would have won the Chicago game, the NJ game and maybe the OKC game.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                          Originally posted by Quis View Post
                          Delusional Toronto Raptor fan comparison Jose Calderon to Gilbert Arenas and Tracy McGrady.
                          First of all, I'm a Raptors fan?

                          Second of all, where was the comparison? The point that I made was that guys come into this league and don't always put up stellar numbers but have the potential to be good players. That's the opportune time to trade for them...before it becomes painfully obvious to other GM's in the league that he's worth trading for.

                          But you missed my point - and that doesn't surprise me. You remind me of another (banned) poster.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                            Al and JO have to find a way to lead the team.
                            One moment bothered me (Al's tech was a joke, one of the worst examples of how the new enforcement is stupid), when the long pass to JO was screwed up when trailer Danny jumped in and stole it from JO. JO was ahead of him and should have been very visible to Danny, it was clearly a Granger mistake.

                            You see JO get on him after the play, but you never see him back off with some understanding, something positive to keep spirits up. Maybe if Danny was mouthing off he deserved it, but it didn't look that way. It came across as MILDLY petty on JO's part.

                            All he had to do (and maybe did off camera later) was to pat him on the back and say "well, okay, it was just a mistake, it happens, we'll get 'em next time". That's what a leader does when a guy makes an EFFORT mistake. JO's got to treat Danny like the sophmore he is.

                            Again, unless behind the scenes Danny is a cocky jerk that talks up his game, etc. Something I'm pretty doubtful about.


                            Armstrong - I agree about his fire and leadership. It really, really shows. He does what I just mentioned. He could be driving his car off a cliff into a burning pit of molton lava and the dude would be clapping and saying "well, let's figure out how to get out of this". This is what JO needs to learn, he needs to move past being himself, to set those interests aside, and focus on being the leader, which is more anonymous.

                            What that means is that "leader" isn't discussing himself, puts his interests totally out of the picture, and focuses on everyone else. He loses the luxury of covering his own butt, he doesn't get to defend himself or his mistakes, he has to move past the worries of bashing in the press and ONLY think of how his teammates feel and what they need to hear next to get themselves on track.



                            That's where Mark Jackson was so effective and how he was able to lead where Reggie wasn't. Armstrong isn't going to be around next year (probably) so JO (or someone with enough PT) needs to become that guy and soon.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              One moment bothered me (Al's tech was a joke, one of the worst examples of how the new enforcement is stupid), when the long pass to JO was screwed up when trailer Danny jumped in and stole it from JO. JO was ahead of him and should have been very visible to Danny, it was clearly a Granger mistake.

                              You see JO get on him after the play, but you never see him back off with some understanding, something positive to keep spirits up. Maybe if Danny was mouthing off he deserved it, but it didn't look that way. It came across as MILDLY petty on JO's part.

                              All he had to do (and maybe did off camera later) was to pat him on the back and say "well, okay, it was just a mistake, it happens, we'll get 'em next time". That's what a leader does when a guy makes an EFFORT mistake. JO's got to treat Danny like the sophmore he is.

                              Again, unless behind the scenes Danny is a cocky jerk that talks up his game, etc. Something I'm pretty doubtful about.


                              Armstrong - I agree about his fire and leadership. It really, really shows. He does what I just mentioned. He could be driving his car off a cliff into a burning pit of molton lava and the dude would be clapping and saying "well, let's figure out how to get out of this". This is what JO needs to learn, he needs to move past being himself, to set those interests aside, and focus on being the leader, which is more anonymous.

                              What that means is that "leader" isn't discussing himself, puts his interests totally out of the picture, and focuses on everyone else. He loses the luxury of covering his own butt, he doesn't get to defend himself or his mistakes, he has to move past the worries of bashing in the press and ONLY think of how his teammates feel and what they need to hear next to get themselves on track.



                              That's where Mark Jackson was so effective and how he was able to lead where Reggie wasn't. Armstrong isn't going to be around next year (probably) so JO (or someone with enough PT) needs to become that guy and soon.
                              I agree with you. And the T last night may have been bogus, but I felt that he allowed the officiating/foul trouble to get to him too much. So, if he's to be a leader, he has to be able to shut that out and focus.

                              I'm concerned it's just the frustration starting to boil over as it did last year. They knew the early season would be tough. It's hard to drop three straight but they need to find a way to stay somewhat even keel and Al and JO should be the guys spearheading it.
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Sorry, but you can't cherry pick on his assessment to fit your needs/opinions, "I agree with it all except...". What this comment by Rosen says is that it's exactly like any Rosen breakdown...based soley on a single game he sees and heavily dependent on how that game goes.

                                I do like his SINGLE GAME assessments. I feel that if he presented it as only a single night issue as we spoke over a post game beer that I would typically totally agree with him.

                                But the problem is that if he had seen one of Sarunas great games his opinion would be to move Tinsley and make the "super playmaker" Sarunas the starter, and regular fans that see many games realize this isn't a good option. Or in this case thinking AJ was an answer that Tinsley isn't. Come on. Maybe vs the Nets but that's about it.


                                The fact is that in the Nets game (and other games too) Granger was AT TIMES badly beaten like the still pretty green player that he is. He is LEARNING. This is the year of serious pain as he is forced into the foreground rather than the safety of only being a bench player.

                                Any regular fan knows that Danny is actually a bit more talented (physically) on the defensive end, but the fact is that good starter-quality defense requires an immense amount of understanding. Rick knows Danny better than Rosen, which is why he put Danny on Vince Carter a lot more in the 2nd half.

                                Danny can be beaten away from the ball, as Rosen mentioned he was backdoored on one play when he got caught snooping the ball instead, but on the ball he's pretty talented already.

                                And maybe Rosen missed the part where DANNY took EIGHT 3PAs. Eight. He shot it 25%. Okay, if I change that to Jackson then PD has a freaking riot and burns the dude's house down because he's a ball-hogging chucker. The fact is that if Rosen thought Danny was effective on offense he didn't watch the same game I did. The team DEFERRED to him on many plays, passed up shots to move it his way, handing him 6 3PAs in the 2nd half alone (for 2 makes).

                                Danny MISSED as many 3pt shots as Jack TOOK from outside the paint (not the arc, outside the paint). So let's review shot selection and who needs to be benched for Daniels...it ain't Jack. He knows how to pass up shots he won't make.


                                Tinsley actually had an improved game IMO, he's getting it together. Forget the shots, I mean he finally showed some sparks of his old self last night. Before the Nets game Tinsley had been REALLY struggling to find his quality level of play. But it was the 2 Tins behind the backs to AL that set him up for wide open jumpers (which Al nailed), and its that abilty when it gets back to full-game output (instead of brief snippits) that will help open things up late in a way that no other PG does (not even DA, who honestly isn't a great interior creator though I love his overall game/effort).

                                Jack defended Vince better than anyone on the night which is why I want him in the game. Jack is also the closest thing to a complete playmaker they have, followed by Daniels (if his outside shots keep falling). He again made plays for other players without giving the ball up (4 assists to 1 TO), and complain all you want about his shooting but the SELECTION is very improved. Only 11 FGAs, and FIVE of them were in the paint (4 were misses). He's trying to get the good shots but just can't find it right now. He only took ONE 3PA.

                                Vince did have a great night, but when his first 3 came with a behind the head 2 hand fall-away flick with Jack's hand in his face, I don't put the blame on Jack's defense. Vince's next 3 ball came with Daniels and Granger on the floor and he was left wide open on a switch...that's not how Jack had been defending him. It killed me to hear Buckner apparently not watching the game when he said stuff like "they need to have a body on him" since most of Vince's shots with Jack on him involved pretty impossible looking makes.


                                And since when is getting 16 shots, the most on the team, considering going away from a guy? Um, Al was 7-13 and JT was 8-15, both better FG% than JO. JO got his shots and he did tear up the 3rd. But he got 4th quarter touches that were far from impressive too (which was part of the downfall even). I see 16, 15, 13, 13, 11, 10 as GREAT BALANCE.

                                Maybe Rosen hasn't heard, but Indy fans were sick of turtle paced JO in the post basketball and wanted more TEAM ball. If you agree with him now, could you explain why you've changed your minds after years of ranting? I know it was there because I used to defend JO's game against it.

                                note - the rest of JO's effort and game was once again strong, and his scoring in the 3rd was very impressive. He didn't lose the game, he just didn't make big 4th quarter baskets. And Rosen is really confused about the Pacers going away from JO as he got SEVEN FGAs in the 4th, the most on the team. He hit 2. Al got six and hit 4 of them. No one "went away from" JO on offense, other than JO's own shooting touch.



                                Look, I'm frustrated with the inconsistant team offense. It simple isn't clicking yet, guys aren't reading each other well, they don't see the options with each other. Forget the typical scapegoats and let's talk FOSTER. No one thinks he's lazy or a big problem. Okay, so he made what should have been a great bounce pass in the lane to a cutting Al on the baseline. Ball goes flying out of bounds. Why? Because Al didn't expect it, period.

                                There is only one fix for that stuff, keep playing together. The 2000 team everyone loves knew each other like the back of their hand. These guys have now started 8 games together EVER. This is not the 2000 team with 8000+ minutes together (at least Jax, Rik, Reggie, McKey and Dale).


                                I just wish the hard stretch of the schedule was now so they could take the learning lumps in games they might not have won anyway.

                                In the meantime we need to also remember one thing - they were LEADING in the 4th quarter of 3 of their 5 losses. The NJ game they were down by 1 point with under 3 minutes to go.


                                So the only thing they REALLY need is a legit go-to scorer/play for the final 2 minutes of games. That would have won the Chicago game, the NJ game and maybe the OKC game.
                                Jack defended Vince better than anyone on the night which is why I want him in the game. Jack is also the closest thing to a complete playmaker they have, followed by Daniels (if his outside shots keep falling). He again made plays for other players without giving the ball up (4 assists to 1 TO), and complain all you want about his shooting but the SELECTION is very improved. Only 11 FGAs, and FIVE of them were in the paint (4 were misses). He's trying to get the good shots but just can't find it right now. He only took ONE 3PA.

                                I guess we watched two different games, because the game that I watched Vince tore Jax a new one. Vince simply abushed your hero all night long and how you come up with your assement is beyond me. OH, I assume you also know more about the game then Quin Buckner, simply amazing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X