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

How much blame does Nate McMillan deserve for the Pacers game 1 performance?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post

    I think I have the answer. Trade Myles Turner. Heís still young, he has potential, he lead the league in blocks, and heís well liked around the league. The player you trade him for is Anthony Davis. Itís going to take a lot without getting a guarantee that AD wants to stay past his final season but a swing for the fences move like that is necessary. Youíre gonna lose Myles, Holiday, McDermott, and the 18th pick. Cut bait on all the current Pacers free agents and see if you can sign Kemba Walker into cap space.
    This x a googolplex

    I am a Myles fan but I would trade anyone on this roster for AD except VO. Even if it means a one year shot I would do it. I am tired of the rut that Peck described the Pacers are in. Please
    KP for the love of basketball and anything else I can think of think outside the box for once in the franchises history.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • #62
      And if the above fails the Pacers will be in the running for top picks for 2-3 years
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • #63
        It wasn't the coach missing wide open shots in the 3rd qtr.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

          I would completely disagree, at best it is a wash. Nate has benefitted from having better offensive talent, but he has done almost nothing to actually take full advantage of that talent.
          You'll have to completely disagree with the data then, because Nate's team routinely place above average and in the top 3rd or higher on offense.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by imawhat View Post

            You'll have to completely disagree with the data then, because Nate's team routinely place above average and in the top 3rd or higher on offense.
            Except that one year where Vogel had a top 10 offense, and the team's Ortg was +2.1 over league average. Like I said, Nate has benefitted from better offensive talent. Better talent can take you a long way in the regular season.

            Comment


            • #66
              Is Nate the reason we have chosen not to play our young talent as much as other teams do? That's my biggest problem going forward.

              Our most prominent young talent on this team (we can argue for some more added to this group) consist of Holiday, Leaf, Sumner, and Johnson:

              Let's start with TJ Leaf, who I know many have some strong opinions about. In Leaf's case, we played him basically the same amount of games as his rookie season. He played 58 games this season compared to 53 his rookie year and averaged 9.0 minutes per game in those contests vs. 8.7 the prior season. One could argue his three point percentage was disappointing this season, but he had some decent outings throughout the year where he looked like an NBA player that could contribute something valuable. Problem is we play him 15 minutes in one contest where he does well and then choose to have him play 5 minutes the next three games or even sit a game or two. There's plenty of veterans and established players who go through rough patches during the season while getting regular minutes, so how can we expect to even fairly evaluate Leaf or see him progress if his playing time is all over the place? We had a log jam of big men between Turner, Young, Sabons, Leaf, and O'Quinn and while I though the O'Quinn signing was a good idea, it ultimately made no sense if the intent was to use Leaf and O'Quinn in a similar reserve role for this season. At the end of this season, I still have no idea what we have in TJ Leaf.

              With Holiday and Sumner, we had the unfortunate Victor Oladipo injury occur which should have opened up minutes for both of these players. Reality is once Oladipo went down, any opportunity the Pacers had to make a run in the Eastern Conference this year was finished. So instead of giving both these players a chance to get more minutes, develop, and actually see what they are capable of doing, we go add a veteran that takes away minutes they should have had. Adding Wes Matthews did nothing to change the outcome of this season and it took away a prime opportunity to see what the young guards on this roster could achieve.

              Now is the blame for this on McMillan, the front office, or both? Seemed to me that under the last regime, we at least gave younger players a better chance to show whether they were worth holding on to one way or another. I'm all for trying to win basketball games, but at some point you need to be able to assess what you have with your draft picks and prospects. How can we ever expect to get a good reading on them if they don't get opportunities to play significant minutes in a prime situation to do so like Oladipo's injury?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                Is Nate the reason we have chosen not to play our young talent as much as other teams do? That's my biggest problem going forward.

                Our most prominent young talent on this team (we can argue for some more added to this group) consist of Holiday, Leaf, Sumner, and Johnson:

                Let's start with TJ Leaf, who I know many have some strong opinions about. In Leaf's case, we played him basically the same amount of games as his rookie season. He played 58 games this season compared to 53 his rookie year and averaged 9.0 minutes per game in those contests vs. 8.7 the prior season. One could argue his three point percentage was disappointing this season, but he had some decent outings throughout the year where he looked like an NBA player that could contribute something valuable. Problem is we play him 15 minutes in one contest where he does well and then choose to have him play 5 minutes the next three games or even sit a game or two. There's plenty of veterans and established players who go through rough patches during the season while getting regular minutes, so how can we expect to even fairly evaluate Leaf or see him progress if his playing time is all over the place? We had a log jam of big men between Turner, Young, Sabons, Leaf, and O'Quinn and while I though the O'Quinn signing was a good idea, it ultimately made no sense if the intent was to use Leaf and O'Quinn in a similar reserve role for this season. At the end of this season, I still have no idea what we have in TJ Leaf.

                With Holiday and Sumner, we had the unfortunate Victor Oladipo injury occur which should have opened up minutes for both of these players. Reality is once Oladipo went down, any opportunity the Pacers had to make a run in the Eastern Conference this year was finished. So instead of giving both these players a chance to get more minutes, develop, and actually see what they are capable of doing, we go add a veteran that takes away minutes they should have had. Adding Wes Matthews did nothing to change the outcome of this season and it took away a prime opportunity to see what the young guards on this roster could achieve.

                Now is the blame for this on McMillan, the front office, or both? Seemed to me that under the last regime, we at least gave younger players a better chance to show whether they were worth holding on to one way or another. I'm all for trying to win basketball games, but at some point you need to be able to assess what you have with your draft picks and prospects. How can we ever expect to get a good reading on them if they don't get opportunities to play significant minutes in a prime situation to do so like Oladipo's injury?
                To answer your question. No.

                Before you disagree hear me out. It is not a coach's job to develop players with in game experience. It is a coach's job to win. Well let me clarify that it is an NBA coach's job obviously anything below that is about development. No coach other than Brett Brown and Brad Stevens have ever really been given the guarantee of not losing their jobs by developing young players at the cost of wins and losses.

                So whether we agree with him or not Nate, like the vast majority of coach's, feels far more comfortable with veteran players who do not tend to make as many mistakes a rookies and young players do. So this is why you saw Thad Young and Bjoan Bogdanovic play huge giant minutes all season long while T.J. Leaf and Edmond Sumners didn't play or played very little.

                No this really falls on KP because as you said when Victor went down he could have looked at the roster and said this isn't going to be good enough and made moves to ship off some of the veterans for draft picks or other young prospects. Instead of signing Matthews he could have just forced Nate to play Holiday and Sumner by not giving him any veterans to take their place.

                But ultimately you have to really lay the blame on this at Herb Simons feet. Now don't get me wrong Herb wouldn't care if the team started 5 rookies as long as they were winning as many games as they could and making the playoffs. Again you and I may not agree with it but there it is in a nutshell.

                BTW NBA coach's are really somewhat hypocritical in how they are so impatient with young players making mistakes. Some of these veterans make idiotic mistakes as well and they are given a long leash while a rookie will be snapped back faster than lightning.

                Late Edit: Also I will point out because I know someone will, that technically both Sabonis and Turner are still young. I agree with you I consider both to be veterans at this point but they are young veterans. But I agree I think both of them can still grow and are not really finished products but I doubt either of them changes much going forward in leaps and bounds.
                Last edited by Peck; 04-18-2019, 02:45 AM.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                  Is Nate the reason we have chosen not to play our young talent as much as other teams do? That's my biggest problem going forward.

                  Our most prominent young talent on this team (we can argue for some more added to this group) consist of Holiday, Leaf, Sumner, and Johnson:

                  Let's start with TJ Leaf, who I know many have some strong opinions about. In Leaf's case, we played him basically the same amount of games as his rookie season. He played 58 games this season compared to 53 his rookie year and averaged 9.0 minutes per game in those contests vs. 8.7 the prior season. One could argue his three point percentage was disappointing this season, but he had some decent outings throughout the year where he looked like an NBA player that could contribute something valuable. Problem is we play him 15 minutes in one contest where he does well and then choose to have him play 5 minutes the next three games or even sit a game or two. There's plenty of veterans and established players who go through rough patches during the season while getting regular minutes, so how can we expect to even fairly evaluate Leaf or see him progress if his playing time is all over the place? We had a log jam of big men between Turner, Young, Sabons, Leaf, and O'Quinn and while I though the O'Quinn signing was a good idea, it ultimately made no sense if the intent was to use Leaf and O'Quinn in a similar reserve role for this season. At the end of this season, I still have no idea what we have in TJ Leaf.

                  With Holiday and Sumner, we had the unfortunate Victor Oladipo injury occur which should have opened up minutes for both of these players. Reality is once Oladipo went down, any opportunity the Pacers had to make a run in the Eastern Conference this year was finished. So instead of giving both these players a chance to get more minutes, develop, and actually see what they are capable of doing, we go add a veteran that takes away minutes they should have had. Adding Wes Matthews did nothing to change the outcome of this season and it took away a prime opportunity to see what the young guards on this roster could achieve.

                  Now is the blame for this on McMillan, the front office, or both? Seemed to me that under the last regime, we at least gave younger players a better chance to show whether they were worth holding on to one way or another. I'm all for trying to win basketball games, but at some point you need to be able to assess what you have with your draft picks and prospects. How can we ever expect to get a good reading on them if they don't get opportunities to play significant minutes in a prime situation to do so like Oladipo's injury?
                  When it comes to Leaf, I agree he should have had more consistent regular-season opportunities throughout. Holiday was also worthy of the same, even pre-Vic injury.

                  Both he and Sumner should have continued to be the main beneficiaries of Dipo's minutes after that point. I do love Matthew's toughness and attitude. He brings a lot of leadership. But, ultimately, you are right that he doesn't move the needle big-picture-wise. Therefore, the acquisition just stymied the younger guys development.

                  A related issue that some have criticized - and that I also agree with - is that we failed to get anything from our expirings at the deadline knowing that we aren't bringing them all back and, importantly at that point, knowing that the season was over for all intents and purposes following the injury.
                  Last edited by D-BONE; 04-18-2019, 02:47 AM.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Peck View Post

                    To answer your question. No.

                    Before you disagree hear me out. It is not a coach's job to develop players with in game experience. It is a coach's job to win. Well let me clarify that it is an NBA coach's job obviously anything below that is about development. No coach other than Brett Brown and Brad Stevens have ever really been given the guarantee of not losing their jobs by developing young players at the cost of wins and losses.

                    So whether we agree with him or not Nate, like the vast majority of coach's, feels far more comfortable with veteran players who do not tend to make as many mistakes a rookies and young players do. So this is why you saw Thad Young and Bjoan Bogdanovic play huge giant minutes all season long while T.J. Leaf and Edmond Sumners didn't play or played very little.

                    No this really falls on KP because as you said when Victor went down he could have looked at the roster and said this isn't going to be good enough and made moves to ship off some of the veterans for draft picks or other young prospects. Instead of signing Matthews he could have just forced Nate to play Holiday and Sumner by not giving him any veterans to take their place.

                    But ultimately you have to really lay the blame on this at Herb Simons feet. Now don't get me wrong Herb wouldn't care if the team started 5 rookies as long as they were winning as many games as they could and making the playoffs. Again you and I may not agree with it but there it is in a nutshell.

                    BTW NBA coach's are really somewhat hypocritical in how they are so impatient with young players making mistakes. Some of these veterans make idiotic mistakes as well and they are given a long leash while a rookie will be snapped back faster than lightning.

                    Late Edit: Also I will point out because I know someone will, that technically both Sabonis and Turner are still young. I agree with you I consider both to be veterans at this point but they are young veterans. But I agree I think both of them can still grow and are not really finished products but I doubt either of them changes much going forward in leaps and bounds.
                    I really like this post, I am a bit more positive on Sabonis and Turner. I expect them both to clearly be better basketball players in 2 years. Turner with learning how to play the game. Sabonis with completely filling out and sharpening his skills. I see them both as solid starting C's in the NBA.

                    The rest of the team could be traded tomorrow and it will not matter. Bojan is a nice piece but he should be on the market because this team is in dire need of a rebuild. Don't bank on Dipo coming back as good as he was last year. The Pacers really need to look for their next franchise level talents and I am not convinced that person or persons is on the current roster.
                    Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I don't get why Nate's decided to put Bogey at PF with the bench instead of just playing our normal bench of Cojo/Tyreke/McBuckets/Thad/Domas? At at one point in the season that 5 man group led the league in net rating. They finished the year 20+ in net rating, by far the best 5 man group on the team. They've played together a total of 3 minutes in 2 games. We finally get to the playoff with a great bench and we're not even using it.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                        Sometimes, I wish I could sit with NBA Players, so I could ask them the direct question of...."What is it specifically that you don't like about Indianapolis from a free agent perspective?".
                        It's weird how that is in the NBA. In the NFL you never hear about some player dying to go to a big market.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                          Is Nate the reason we have chosen not to play our young talent as much as other teams do? That's my biggest problem going forward.

                          Our most prominent young talent on this team (we can argue for some more added to this group) consist of Holiday, Leaf, Sumner, and Johnson:

                          Let's start with TJ Leaf, who I know many have some strong opinions about. In Leaf's case, we played him basically the same amount of games as his rookie season. He played 58 games this season compared to 53 his rookie year and averaged 9.0 minutes per game in those contests vs. 8.7 the prior season. One could argue his three point percentage was disappointing this season, but he had some decent outings throughout the year where he looked like an NBA player that could contribute something valuable. Problem is we play him 15 minutes in one contest where he does well and then choose to have him play 5 minutes the next three games or even sit a game or two. There's plenty of veterans and established players who go through rough patches during the season while getting regular minutes, so how can we expect to even fairly evaluate Leaf or see him progress if his playing time is all over the place? We had a log jam of big men between Turner, Young, Sabons, Leaf, and O'Quinn and while I though the O'Quinn signing was a good idea, it ultimately made no sense if the intent was to use Leaf and O'Quinn in a similar reserve role for this season. At the end of this season, I still have no idea what we have in TJ Leaf.

                          With Holiday and Sumner, we had the unfortunate Victor Oladipo injury occur which should have opened up minutes for both of these players. Reality is once Oladipo went down, any opportunity the Pacers had to make a run in the Eastern Conference this year was finished. So instead of giving both these players a chance to get more minutes, develop, and actually see what they are capable of doing, we go add a veteran that takes away minutes they should have had. Adding Wes Matthews did nothing to change the outcome of this season and it took away a prime opportunity to see what the young guards on this roster could achieve.

                          Now is the blame for this on McMillan, the front office, or both? Seemed to me that under the last regime, we at least gave younger players a better chance to show whether they were worth holding on to one way or another. I'm all for trying to win basketball games, but at some point you need to be able to assess what you have with your draft picks and prospects. How can we ever expect to get a good reading on them if they don't get opportunities to play significant minutes in a prime situation to do so like Oladipo's injury?

                          I will throw you some support for asking the tough questions that I believe we as fans should be asking right now. There is a reason why we never have any trade pieces besides the lone star on the team. If we continue to run our veterans into the dirt leaving young talent on the bench, we will never be players in FA or trade deadlines. You would think an injury to your star would open minutes to some of your younger players but in reality for the Pacers it seems the other way around. With VO still playing, we should have enough talent to overcome rookie mistakes thus letting our younger players getting much needed minutes and experience. Now they are left to watching a front office push our veterans so hard in the regular season that they have nothing left in the post season.
                          If I was a Leaf or a Sumner I might be taking note on how things are being run and if they are eventually thrown into the same boat 3-5 years from now. I said it in another thread. There is no reason we are not giving Holiday and Leaf significant minutes right now. The FO has to see our veterans have nothing left in the tank to make any kind of run. I am still rooting for my team but I am more rooting for the players stuck in a broken system than the FO who is unwilling to say they
                          are wrong.
                          Last edited by LazyDaze; 04-19-2019, 09:46 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I swear that some people believe EVERY year is a rebuilding year and the focus should be on the young guys, acquiring draft picks, chasing free agents that don't want to come to the Pacers, while completing trades the are grossly lopsided in favor of the Pacers.


                            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by BornIndy View Post
                              It's weird how that is in the NBA. In the NFL you never hear about some player dying to go to a big market.
                              NFL isn't guarenteed money, so players go where they can make the most and/or have the best chance of playing to extend their career. So a NFL player has no problem ending up in Indy if that is were the best place for them to showcase their talent.
                              NBA players tend to be locked in. Also everyone knows the really good players cause there are a lot less NBA players than NFL. So by a bunch of really good players teaming up in a hot spot of a town, they really have nothing to truly prove to extended their career out.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                                I swear that some people believe EVERY year is a rebuilding year and the focus should be on the young guys, acquiring draft picks, chasing free agents that don't want to come to the Pacers, while completing trades the are grossly lopsided in favor of the Pacers.
                                I think their way of dealing with the slim chances any individual team without a superstar has of winning a championship is to get enjoyment from the churn of players and the "what ifs" of different mixes.

                                However, in the process they forget about fit, strategy/lineup connection, and sometimes reality. Some bench player is ALWAYS going to have been the savior if he'd just played more.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X