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

Season ending press conference

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

  • sav
    started a topic Season ending press conference

    Season ending press conference

    I would be interesting in seeing what ya'll thought about the season ending press conference. Was there any surprises? Did anyone catch any ideas of what the game plan is this summer?

    Frankly, I am just about as confused as before the conference. Pritchard said he likes continuity but then he says the reason we lost to Boston was they had more elite players and we need to get better players. So do we get better players or keep continuity?

    He mentioned that we need another shot creator and more speed. He also said that we were going to act like a big market and pursue top Free Agents. That kind of sounded to me like we are going to pursue Kemba.



  • BillS
    replied
    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

    I would argue that the majority of the perceived talented difference is just that, perception. There are three types of playesr, there are the supports, the utilities, and the carries. People love the carries, and they generally get viewed as more talented because they put up the most points. You also have the supports and utilities who can be just as talented as the carries, just in different ways. If you have just the right mixture of supports and utilities you can be better than a team with more carries.

    Let me put it this way, who is more talented James Bond or Q? I would say both are equally talented at what they do, but James Bond plays the role of carry so he gets all the attention while the support Q is mostly just in the background.
    There is also the idea that if you haven't won a championship you are by definition not as talented as a player who HAS won a championship. That often gets extended to a player being INCAPABLE of winning a championship until they actually DO win one.

    It's all part of the growing world of players only being placed in one of two extremes - trash or elite superstars. There seems to be no in-between, except if a player has "potential", in which case they occupy a quantum state between trash and elite until someone opens the box and the probability wave function collapses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eleazar
    replied
    Originally posted by docpaul View Post

    Here's where it gets funky for me. I agree that we have a lot less talent than some of our competitors. We definitely need a big upgrade there.

    That said, did the 2004 Pistons have more talent than the Shaq Kobe Lakers that year? Why did they win the championship that year? Was that a fluke?

    Or... are there other measures of what makes a championship possible above and beyond talent? What are those other measures? How do the Pacers shape up in those departments? Does that change how we view our own team?

    That's the challenge of trying to contribute to these conversations. I'm the first one to advocate for more talent and see it every time we play (duh), but some here act as if that's literally all that matters. I think contending consists of a number of attributes that contribute to success.

    But I'm sure some will reply to me and accuse me of being a Pacers apologist. That I'm OK with the conversative player acquisition approach.

    Truth is, I'm not.,. but I'm also cognizant of that special "other stuff" that's difficult to measure and hard to quantify, and what changing the team construction does to those aspects of our team.
    I would argue that the majority of the perceived talented difference is just that, perception. There are three types of playesr, there are the supports, the utilities, and the carries. People love the carries, and they generally get viewed as more talented because they put up the most points. You also have the supports and utilities who can be just as talented as the carries, just in different ways. If you have just the right mixture of supports and utilities you can be better than a team with more carries.

    Let me put it this way, who is more talented James Bond or Q? I would say both are equally talented at what they do, but James Bond plays the role of carry so he gets all the attention while the support Q is mostly just in the background.

    Leave a comment:


  • docpaul
    replied
    Originally posted by Peck View Post

    Fluke? No Anomaly? Yes

    What you had was a team (Detroit) that had 5 starters 4 of which were either all stars or former all stars and one role player who was all NBA defensive second team that year (Prince). So while they did not have the one big name star you would think is normal for a title team they had virtually zero drop off from one starter to the next 1 through 5. compare that to the Lakers who had two superstars in Shaq and Kobe but the drop off after that was huge. Derrick Fisher would have been the third best player on the team and he wouldn't have been close to as good as either Hamilton or Billups at that stage of their careers.

    To put this in perspective on our current team only Victor Oladipo would be better than any of the Pistons starting five and I'm not sure how much better he would be. So while Detroit did not have superstar talent they had all star talent at every position.

    Now having said all of that I want to try and explain my position here.

    While I certainly come across as negative, because honestly I am, my entire intention is that we don't just go into next season buying into Victor Oladipo and some deck shuffling between the next washed up guard we bring in will be enough in any way to actually compete for a title or even an EC finals appearance. If we bring back everybody as we have them plus get a healthy Victor, yes we will make the playoffs, yes they will play hard every game and yes they will exit in the first round for the 6th straight time. It's time to start looking for the future IMO. I believe we can win some games now but still move forward with younger players who are more athletic and have upside. They won't win as many games in the regular season as the veterans but I believe that in the long run we will be better off playing players who potentially can surpass the players who have peaked right now.

    As I said when I brought up the subject, my idea could fail spectacularly. But to me I would much rather see that happen then go another year of 1st round exits where we talk about not having enough talent.
    Let's put the 2019 Pacers - 2004 Pistons comparisons aside, because that's a distraction to the core point, and I don't think you disagree that the Lakers team had more talent than the Pistons team, correct?

    https://www.basketball-reference.com.../LAL/2004.html
    https://www.basketball-reference.com.../DET/2004.html

    Putting that aside, I want to see the same core move to happen that you describe above (focus on bringing in another Oladipo-Turner level player above all else), but also hope and pray that the same team culture and fight in the team doesn't get lost in the process.
    Last edited by docpaul; 05-08-2019, 03:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peck
    replied
    Originally posted by docpaul View Post

    Here's where it gets funky for me. I agree that we have a lot less talent than some of our competitors. We definitely need a big upgrade there.

    That said, did the 2004 Pistons have more talent than the Shaq Kobe Lakers that year? Why did they win the championship that year? Was that a fluke?

    Or... are there other measures of what makes a championship possible above and beyond talent? What are those other measures? How do the Pacers shape up in those departments? Does that change how we view our own team?

    That's the challenge of trying to contribute to these conversations. I'm the first one to advocate for more talent and see it every time we play (duh), but some here act as if that's literally all that matters. I think contending consists of a number of attributes that contribute to success.

    But I'm sure some will reply to me and accuse me of being a Pacers apologist. That I'm OK with the conversative player acquisition approach.

    Truth is, I'm not.,. but I'm also cognizant of that special "other stuff" that's difficult to measure and hard to quantify, and what changing the team construction does to those aspects of our team.
    Fluke? No Anomaly? Yes

    What you had was a team (Detroit) that had 5 starters 4 of which were either all stars or former all stars and one role player who was all NBA defensive second team that year (Prince). So while they did not have the one big name star you would think is normal for a title team they had virtually zero drop off from one starter to the next 1 through 5. compare that to the Lakers who had two superstars in Shaq and Kobe but the drop off after that was huge. Derrick Fisher would have been the third best player on the team and he wouldn't have been close to as good as either Hamilton or Billups at that stage of their careers.

    To put this in perspective on our current team only Victor Oladipo would be better than any of the Pistons starting five and I'm not sure how much better he would be. So while Detroit did not have superstar talent they had all star talent at every position.

    Now having said all of that I want to try and explain my position here.

    While I certainly come across as negative, because honestly I am, my entire intention is that we don't just go into next season buying into Victor Oladipo and some deck shuffling between the next washed up guard we bring in will be enough in any way to actually compete for a title or even an EC finals appearance. If we bring back everybody as we have them plus get a healthy Victor, yes we will make the playoffs, yes they will play hard every game and yes they will exit in the first round for the 6th straight time. It's time to start looking for the future IMO. I believe we can win some games now but still move forward with younger players who are more athletic and have upside. They won't win as many games in the regular season as the veterans but I believe that in the long run we will be better off playing players who potentially can surpass the players who have peaked right now.

    As I said when I brought up the subject, my idea could fail spectacularly. But to me I would much rather see that happen then go another year of 1st round exits where we talk about not having enough talent.

    Leave a comment:


  • docpaul
    replied
    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    I just strongly disagree that we are even in the same stratosphere as these four teams talent wise even with a healthy Oladipo. Victor would not be the best player on the floor vs any of those teams, the closest he would be would be vs Boston as he's probably not that far behind Kyrie (well was when he was healthy) but every other series? I'm not sure he would be the 3rd best player vs Philly. He would be second best vs Toronto & Milwaukee though.
    Here's where it gets funky for me. I agree that we have a lot less talent than some of our competitors. We definitely need a big upgrade there.

    That said, did the 2004 Pistons have more talent than the Shaq Kobe Lakers that year? Why did they win the championship that year? Was that a fluke?

    Or... are there other measures of what makes a championship possible above and beyond talent? What are those other measures? How do the Pacers shape up in those departments? Does that change how we view our own team?

    That's the challenge of trying to contribute to these conversations. I'm the first one to advocate for more talent and see it every time we play (duh), but some here act as if that's literally all that matters. I think contending consists of a number of attributes that contribute to success.

    But I'm sure some will reply to me and accuse me of being a Pacers apologist. That I'm OK with the conversative player acquisition approach.

    Truth is, I'm not.,. but I'm also cognizant of that special "other stuff" that's difficult to measure and hard to quantify, and what changing the team construction does to those aspects of our team.

    Leave a comment:


  • CableKC
    replied
    Originally posted by pogi View Post

    Ok...but do you honestly feel that players would rather play with Oladipo than Lebron?
    If you are to look at this purely from a Player POV,.....as in, do you want to play for Lebron or Dipo ( while ignoring a multitude of other factors )? then the answer is easy to answer.

    The problem is that one cannot answer this question properly since there are other factors involved. We are talking about whether one would want to play with Dipo ( in Indy but with a well run and respected FO and Ownership ) o wanting to play with Lebron ( with the glitz of BOTH playing in LA and for the Lakers Franchise ).

    In the end, the answer is the same. Lebron. But it's not exactly a fair question to begin with.
    Last edited by CableKC; 05-07-2019, 01:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peck
    replied
    Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

    He answered a question with facts, not sure what the problem is. The team matched up without Boston was at a talent deficit. This was obvious. The team was in the third spot when Vic went down. This is a fact. When asked about the talent deficit, he said we were right there and we have the opportunity to add a piece or two.
    It was not his answer that I had the problem with. It was his attitude and indignation at a guy just doing his job. It was not even an insulting question IMO. The Pacers have stated themselves we were out talented, so the guy just asked how far the gap was. Like I said, KP is just lucky he is in Indiana and that wasn't the press in Philly, Boston, N.Y., Chicago or hell even Miami. They never would have let that stand.

    I just strongly disagree that we are even in the same stratosphere as these four teams talent wise even with a healthy Oladipo. Victor would not be the best player on the floor vs any of those teams, the closest he would be would be vs Boston as he's probably not that far behind Kyrie (well was when he was healthy) but every other series? I'm not sure he would be the 3rd best player vs Philly. He would be second best vs Toronto & Milwaukee though.

    Leave a comment:


  • CableKC
    replied
    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

    In all fairness...merely having Lebron hasn't been enough to attract free agents. He was a one-man wrecking crew when he first came into league. He joined his friends in Miami. Cleveland already had Irving, and Cleveland traded for Love. LA already has some descent young talent, but they signed free agents like Lance, McGee, Rondo, etc this past offseason. Truthfully, if it wasn't for Lebron's greatest as an individual talent, a lot of his teams won't have even made the playoffs.
    One thing to keep in mind is that the Lakers hands were tied when it came to being able to spend $$$ on Free Agents last season. That's why all they could do was sign Free Agents to minimal 1 year contracts. This upcoming Summer? They will have more options with Lebron making a few calls. I still think that they will make a good run at a "Batman" and then sign another "Robin/Alfred" Level type Player that will complement both Lebron and that 2nd Player.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

    It is a reasonable opinion. Many of the projection systems had the Pacers still finishing 5th at the time of the Oladipo injury. That was partially because the Pacers had a really easy first half of the year schedule, and partially because the projection systems had Boston getting it together a little faster than they ending up doing.

    Just because it is reasonable doesn't mean it's right of course. The Pacers easily could have been the 2nd or 3rd best team also. But thinking they were 5th is very reasonable.
    Agreed. We have a nice group of guys in Indiana that come close to maxing out their talent night in and night out. The togetherness is very good. The effort level is often high. You just don't see that with many of the teams. The Celtics had a lot of drama and guys playing for themselves which is why they trailed us for awhile. Obviously they have more talent. Even so, Milwaukee is beating them. The Sixers are clearly more talented. It's really not that close with the Sixers. We are a solid team and fifth place isn't that bad. I do think with Dipo we challenge some of those teams but we have a couple key guys who are still very young. Give it a couple years and if this group sticks together, progresses and Dipo comes back close to 100%, we may well be near the top of the east. But it's really not now and looking at regular season records really doesn't mean much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cubs231721
    replied
    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

    5th!? WTF!? We was THIRD in the Eastern Conference before the injury.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT7C4wG0tEw
    It is a reasonable opinion. Many of the projection systems had the Pacers still finishing 5th at the time of the Oladipo injury. That was partially because the Pacers had a really easy first half of the year schedule, and partially because the projection systems had Boston getting it together a little faster than they ending up doing.

    Just because it is reasonable doesn't mean it's right of course. The Pacers easily could have been the 2nd or 3rd best team also. But thinking they were 5th is very reasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • kent beckley
    replied
    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    All I can say is that the Indiana Pacers front office has the softest media market in the NBA to deal with. Did you see the part where a reporter asked KP a question about what he thought the talent disparity was between the Pacers and the top 4 teams in the East? Did you see how crappy and defensive KP got with him. In this market he got by with that because nobody followed up on his statement about with Victor we were one of the top 3 teams. In a market that didn't just placate to the team someone else would have asked him to answer the question and if that didn't work someone else would have asked him to name the teams we were better than if he thought we were a better team with Victor.

    The reporter was just asking a question based on statements that the team, including KP, have said. That there were a talent disparity between us and Boston and since Boston finished 4th then arguably the 3 teams in front of them were equally as talented if not more so.

    That being said the rest of the press conference was about what you would expect. They honestly should have just hung a sign in the background that read "remember Victor was injured this year" so they didn't have to continually utter it. I don't think you can really read much intention going forward with this. Judgement will be made in the fall I guess or whenever we say our roster is set.
    He answered a question with facts, not sure what the problem is. The team matched up without Boston was at a talent deficit. This was obvious. The team was in the third spot when Vic went down. This is a fact. When asked about the talent deficit, he said we were right there and we have the opportunity to add a piece or two.

    Leave a comment:


  • ksuttonjr76
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Losing Victor put this team in a bad spot. I really don't mind them milking that as much as they can. The only thing I would argue is that the Pacers are not a top 3 team with Victor 100% healthy. We are about #5 in the east. Not bad, just not really near contention.

    The good news is...ahem...well, there really isn't any good news. Victor is not likely to have the explosiveness he once had ever again and there is a real question if he will ever be a franchise level talent. Pacers will be forced to come to terms with that soon. I suppose it may take 7 or 8 months for that to be discussed openly, but it's coming.
    5th!? WTF!? We was THIRD in the Eastern Conference before the injury.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT7C4wG0tEw

    Leave a comment:


  • ksuttonjr76
    replied
    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

    I don't have to stray too far for a response.

    Andrew Luck.
    Add Paul George to that list....

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    The good news is...ahem...well, there really isn't any good news. Victor is not likely to have the explosiveness he once had ever again and there is a real question if he will ever be a franchise level talent. Pacers will be forced to come to terms with that soon. I suppose it may take 7 or 8 months for that to be discussed openly, but it's coming.
    I don't have to stray too far for a response.

    Andrew Luck.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X