Tweet
Danny wasn't the face of the franchise when that trade happened. It was PG by far. Dany was never very vocal on the court and was downright bad at that time. He was out of the league not long after. Let's not make him out to be more than he was. 1x all star who played on a bunch of bad teams.
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.
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
-
Lifelong pacers fan -
I just want to make sure everyone is away. The 11-12 squad with Danny as the leader had a better regular season record than the 12-13 squad (.636 vs .605). It was also the only squad to take a 2-1 series lead over Miami. To say he was just a guy who played on a bunch of bad teams is revisionist history. Yes, that team probably wasn't ready to truly compete against Miami, but to downplay how good he was just because he sequestered to mediocre teams because of Murphlevy and JOB is disrespectful to who he was on the court. If it wasn't for the injury I have absolutely no doubt in my mind he would have led the 12-13 squad to the finals with a good chance to win it all.
I said it right after the trade, and I still believe it today. Even on paper trading Granger for Turner was a bad trade. Granger might not have been putting up the stats, but having him allowed them to match-up with anyone, most importantly he was a good match-up against Miami. In an East where you knew you had to go through Lebron James you want players who can physically match-up with Lebron. We had two in Paul and Danny. After the trade we had one in Paul. Having Danny allowed you to move Paul to SG to cover Wade. Or allowed you to put him in at PF neutralizing what turned out to be a bad match-up in Battier. There was not one other team in the East that was even close to challenging that Pacers team, so why do you trade away a player who allowed you to match up well against the one team who could challenge you? Before you even take into consideration the psychological affect it makes no sense to make that trade. Not to mention keeping Granger also would have allowed Stephenson to play more with the bench which was where he truly shined.
Honestly, looking back at everything that happened before and after that team, I am mostly convinced that Bird just lucked into assembly a great team, instead of doing it on purpose.Comment
-
It's true, Granger career more or less ended after he was traded. It still doesn't mean that we should have traded him for two reasons, #1 there's no reason to mess with the chemistry of a winning team, especially when they've played together for so long and the players understand their roles, and #2 dumping a player who had nothing but loyalty to your team for 9 years just to get a better role player is a jokeOriginally posted by LilSean320 View Post
Basketball is a team based game and neglecting the bonds between teammates is plain ignorant, you guys can blame PG all you want, I specifically remember this article back in the day:
https://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/...on-team-022713
and PG always said Danny was his mentor, for example here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHp4VSMV3eg
and finally when he was traded, George said:
Seems like the wounds of this trade are reopening for me, and now when I recount all the events I remember why I stopped getting up in the middle of the night to watch the Pacers play, because this piece of **** organization showed zero respect towards the guy who kept this franchise running during its darkest years. I'm sorry for those words fellow fans, and I know you see things differently, but this is my opinion“I’ve seen a guy that played for that (Pacers) organization, gave that organization everything they had, or everything he had, and was essentially traded to the dogs. And I’m speaking on Danny Granger, who was one of the better players in Pacers history,” said George in USA TODAY Sports’ A to Z podcast. “And at the time, they traded him to the Philadelphia 76ers. And this was a guy that was battling injuries, and that’s where you send him? The guy is trying to get back on his feet, trying to work back to this league, (and) you send him to the Philadelphia Sixers?”
Last edited by yoadknux; 04-09-2019, 06:29 AM."Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"Originally posted by Piston PrinceComment
-
Respect and understand your opinion/sentmients on this issue, even though I don't personally feel as strongly about it. The only thing I'm actually commenting on is the darkest years part. I might suggest the darkest period for the modern era of the franchise. I don't know that I would consider the post-brawl era to be darker than the early NBA years of the late 70s and particularly the first half of the 80s, when we regularly won in the low to mid 20 game mark and MSA at times had a curtained upper ring to reduce the visual impact of low attendance.Originally posted by yoadknux View PostI'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Granger was the leading scorer on the 11-12 team, but waa he really the leader? He only averaged 18 pts per game on a low fg%. Roy made the all-star team over him. He was on the decline at that point IMO.Originally posted by Eleazar View PostLifelong pacers fanComment
-
Certainly some interesting stuff to address here:
It was mostly typical “wah wah wah, we would have beat the Heat if not for meanie Bird” pontification from David The Pius.
Really all that needs to be said is this: Roy Hibbert needed constant one on one coddling because the Pacers had the audacity to try to improve their roster by signing Bynum. That is just flat out sad and we were never winning anything if one of our top players was that fragile, Granger or no Granger.
It cracks me up - West always piously gets on Bird for taking generic shots at Hibbert, but West is the one who is actually providing specific concrete embarrassing stories which paint Hibbert in a very negative light. West’s comments about Hibbert are way more damning than anything Bird ever said.
One other thing that really stood out: West - this alleged leader on the team - actually admits to mentally throwing in the towel on our title hopes as soon as he heard about the Granger trade. WTF? We were leading the East and had been bulldozing teams all year without Granger, yet our leader admits to immediately giving up on the team as soon as he heard about the trade? That’s some pretty weak stuff right there.
Now on the court, West helped get us to the ECF’s with some good performances against Atlanta and Washington, but as a leader this guy is pretty overrated. Between this and the “light went out” comments after PG’s injury, this guy has a habit of admitting to mentally throwing in the towel on the team as soon as there is a bump.
Don’t get me wrong, West in his first three years is one of my favorite Pacers in recent years and there’s no doubt that his production absolutely helped change the course of our team. But to me, it seems that his leadership qualities were mostly confined to the basketball court. Off the court, it doesn’t seem like he did that much leadership wise.
I will never blame Bird for “going for it” 5 years ago. We were trying to beat a top 5 all time player in the prime of his career who had joined with two other superstars in an unprecedented manner. We might very well have beat them in 2013 if we had any bench at all. Bird saw this, so he added Scola, Bynum, and Turner. That’s putting all of your chips in the pot. I respect that. It’s not Bird’s fault that the starting unit was embarrassingly fragile. The Colts lost the beloved Edgerrin James and then won a Super Bowl the next year. The Pacers lost Antonio Davis, then went to The Finals without him. Strong units rebound. Weak units don’t.
Bird gave Granger plenty of time to rehab from his injury. It was sadly obvious that he was finished as a player, so Bird tried to bring in someone who could produce. Obviously Turner was mostly a disaster, but he’s played decent enough in other places in recent years to show that we clearly didn’t utilize him well.
Here’s the bottom line about this group: they were great as the Heat challengers when no one really expected them to win. But they simply couldnt handle the high expectations once people started picking them to win it all. Blaming anything else is just making excuses. Hibbert’s collapse was clearly the biggest factor to this, I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise.Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-09-2019, 12:45 PM.Comment
-
Being the leader and having a low fg% and lower ppg tally are two different things. He also played about two less min a game that season as well. That was Davis West first year here and I would say (while freely admitting to being a Danny Granger fan) that what he did that season was leadership. He had been the man for about four seasons before that being the leading focus of the offense. That year he willingly stepped back and took on a more defensive and yes even enforcer role on the club (never forget tough pills). He was openly trying to let Paul take over the staring roll and instead of fighting it or pouting about it he embraced it and to this day if you ask Paul George about influence in the NBA Danny's name will be uttered.Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
Now as to questioning whether or not he was the leader? Well, seems to me what I think or you think or any of us online or at home think doesn't matter. This article, along with statements made at the time of the trade and even before by both players and coaches says he was. Why would we question what they all said in that regards.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
As we all take out of the article what we want to fit our own beliefs, I have to ask how much of this was on Vogel for not having control of the lockerroom and putting these issues to bed instead of letting them fester?
Hibbert should have known Bynum wasn't replacing him. Lance should've been able to have been made comfortable knowing Evan wasn't taking his spot on the team or having it shown to him how they both have a place.
Would PG have been so protective of Granger if Granger was actually healthy and taking the spotlight back from PG?
Who was the leader of this team? It doesn't sound like anyone was and at the first sign of trouble there was no central voice to pull things back together and instead it just fractured more.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Originally posted by Bball View Post
In fairness to Vogel, it sounds like he was faced with the ridiculous task of coddling Hibbert since we had the audacity to try to beef up our team by signing a backup center.
Vogel also deserves credit for the team still making it to the ECF’s, Albeit as a shell of themselves.
Comment
-
I’ll say this about Bynum: his 15 minutes against Boston that night was a clinic of how to play the center position. Pure artistry. I Don’t blame Bird at all for going after such a talent.Comment
-
Orlando Johnson.Originally posted by Bball View Post"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference
Comment
-
Agreed. The best players on that team during the playoffs were Paul, David and Lance. Only David had the potential to lead and I don't think he was ever inclined to lead. So, yes, that team imploded in the finest fashion.Originally posted by Bball View Post
I'm not sure Paul would have minded playing second fiddle. He's actually pretty comfortable with that. He's not cut out to be superman.
Vogel did what Vogel could do...which was to stroke players. That is still a valued trait among the coaching ranks with the prima donna factor approaching 95% in the league. Personally, I don't think anything could have stopped that team from falling apart short of another leader type player being acquired. We had a team full of followers. Yet George Hill is a leader. He just couldn't step up because others were more talented.Comment
-
I'm not going to lie, after this horrific stretch over the last month; I've honestly checked out already. I will root for the Team in the Playoffs and will cheer for the effort, but in the end.....the Celtics simply have more talent. Team Chemistry is important and IMHO can get you far ( as in, the 5th Seed in the East ). But the Celtics are in the same boat with decent Team chemistry. The talent that they have is simply going to push the Celtics over the Pacers in a 7 game series.Last edited by CableKC; 04-09-2019, 06:48 PM.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
This was nice to read.
I've always thought this about the collapse, which is similar to what UB said: Larry thought we couldn't beat the Heat and thought it'd be our best chance ever, so he made a high risk/high reward gamble. In hindsight it killed the team, but I totally understood it at the time. Evan Turner was fantastic for the 76ers, and Bynum was a force in his two games with us. We STILL almost beat the Heat. We were going to win game 2, IMO, until Wade kneed Paul George in the back of the head and concussed him. So with a half-functioning Bynum or even some good fortune, we would've beaten the Heat.
If we'd kept Granger, I think we would've beaten the Heat as well. Now, we had some major problems before Granger got traded, but it really spiraled after the trade.
The interesting piece in the article to me was Lance's admission of fear when the Turner trade happened. Lance was such a clear cut starter to me, it didn't even occur to me that a #2 pick in the same draft as a #40 pick, with better stats on the 76ers, had a shot at becoming the starter. But I totally, 100% understand why that messed with Lance.Comment
-
I don't remember all this. Did some of the implosion begin before the trade? What specifically?Originally posted by imawhat View Post"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference
Comment
Comment