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

Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

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

  • Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

    I'm probably not the best person to start this since I only got to watch the first half, but here are some thoughts.

    The players that looked the best:

    Mike Dunleavy, Marquis Daniels, and Shawne Williams.

    Dunleavy and Daniels seemed to thrive in the faster pace, motion offense that O'Brien runs. They were both able to grab rebounds on the defensive end and then turn immediately and push the ball upcourt. It reminded me of the way Kidd will grab a rebound and initiate the break in New Jersey. Neither of these guys are as talented as Kidd, but they are both good rebounders and ball-handlers who do well in that role. They were also shuffled through the post and both were able to take advantage of mismatches and their strong mid-range games.

    Shawne looked more aggressive and assured with his ball-handling than last year. His jumpshot still looks great, and he looks stronger.

    Dunleavy, Murphy, and Tinsley all look to be in much better playing shape than last year. Dun and Murphy are bigger. Tinsley looks slimmer.

    Jeff had a classic Jeff game and looked good doing it.

    It seemed that Harrison was being used in the high post and was passing to guys down low who were cutting off of back picks. This is where his 3 assists came from. I don't know if JO will be used this way, but I wonder how he'll like it if he is.

    Ike was given some scoring opportunities in the post, but didn't take advantage of them. This leads me to believe that there are mechanisms in place to get the ball down low to JO when he plays.

    Diener looked better on defense than I expected. He's very pesky. He'll also never be charged with not giving 100%.

    Owens looked strong defensively but looked like a Fred Jones style one trick pony on offense. He's definitely not a distributor, but he loves to attack the basket.

    My favorite quote of the night was from Slick: "Some people call it help side defense, some people call it zone."

    The defense was effective, with some lapses, at keeping people out of the paint. The Hornets seemed to be able to get open looks from outside when they had good ball movement.

    All in all, I liked what I saw, but we clearly have a ways to go before we're ready for the season.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

    I guess looking at the box score, I'm not really surprised. I think alot of what Obie is trying to do with the Motion and freelance pushing the ball is predicated on Bball instinct. You can call it IQ I suppose, but I think it's more about instinct, just knowing where to be on the court offensively relatively to 5 other guys. Same goes for Defense.

    In Indiana its taught from the first organized team your on and becomes second nature later.

    The players who have this, Dun, Tins, Foster and DG (whose shot just didn't appear to fall) will excel.

    Guys like Ike, Harrison and dare I say it JO (not as bad as the past) who have to think about what to do, will struggle, at least at first.
    Last edited by Speed; 10-11-2007, 11:41 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

      Originally posted by Speed View Post
      I guess looking at the box score, I'm not really surprised. I think alot of what Obie is trying to do with the Motion and freelance pushing the ball is predicated on Bball instinct. You can call it IQ I suppose, but I think it's more about instinct, just knowing where to be on the court offensively relatively to 5 other guys. Same goes for Defense.

      In Indiana its taught from the first organized team your on and becomes second nature later.

      The players who have this, Dun, Tins, Foster and DG (whose shot just didn't appear to fall) will excel.

      Guys like Ike, Harrison and dare I say it JO (not as bad as the past) who have to think about what to do, will struggle, at least at first.

      Excellent analysis. I agree with you about Foster - but I suspect most people in this forum will disagree with you.

      I agree with you that there is a difference between basketball IQ and basketball instincts. Tinsley has great instincts, but not good IQ. Dunleavy has good IQ and instincts. Harrison (and Ike but to a lesser degree) have bad instincts and IQ.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Excellent analysis. I agree with you about Foster - but I suspect most people in this forum will disagree with you.

        I agree with you that there is a difference between basketball IQ and basketball instincts. Tinsley has great instincts, but not good IQ. Dunleavy has good IQ and instincts. Harrison (and Ike but to a lesser degree) have bad instincts and IQ.
        http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers_v2.html

        Thanks, I think this is the same thing Obie was saying about Jeff below.

        ..Jeff is indispensable to us, a great leader, his work ethic is wonderful, he has a terrific understanding of the game, a great understanding of Jamaal and Jermaine – he knows how to work off them and they know how to work off him...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

          I agree about Jeff having good IQ and instincts, but the one thing that was bugging me last night was his diagonal rebounding. It works wonders on the offensive end, but not so great defensively. There were several times when NO got offensive rebounds because Jeff tried to sneak in and grab the ball when he should have just boxed his man out.

          Overall, I thought boxing out was a weakness for the team as a whole last night.

          I think you could add 'Quis to your list of players with good IQ/instincts. He seems to be in the right place, at least defensively, much of the time. He also seems more comfortable in a both the open court and in a motion-style offense.

          One more thing, I know that Mo Pete is no Dwayne Wade, but he didn't give Dunleavy any significant problems on the defensive end last night.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

            Interesting analysis.

            Dunleavy and Marquis are definately interesting cogs to Obie's system. They're the kind of above average, but not amazing guys that have the ability to look really, really good in a system in which fits them, but can also look horribly average in one that constrains their strengths.

            Shawne I think has the potential to rise above that level.

            I won't make any bold predictions, but I think that Obie has the ability to get the best out of what we have. The "best" could be only 42-45 wins and another season of mediocrity and another mid first rounder, which I'm willing to live without. So the implications of this could kinda suck. I'd like to see under 30 wins this year, or 46 and over. Nothing in between.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

              Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
              but I think that Obie has the ability to get the best out of what we have. The "best" could be only 42-45 wins and another season of mediocrity and another mid first rounder, which I'm willing to live without.

              That is all I would ask if I was Bird.

              I don't think the Pacers have truely done that since the 61 win season.

              Bird and Walsh always used to talk about not knowing what they had. Well if Obie can get the best out of this group at least you can identify where you need to go with the next step, more intelligently, than you would if you didn't know where you are at now.

              Even if you are "in between" maybe you know what can put you over the top or that you are too far away that you have to really start over.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                [On RANT]
                As I was recently informed in another thread, every single word posted here is pointless, as these games have zero meaning and you can't read anything into them. It is apparently impossible to guage any aspect of any player in any preseason game.

                Sorry, but I deserve these sour grapes. I was dressed down pretty badly for suggesting that we won't get our best read on the Pacers preseason because the schedule doesn't give them many good tests. I was informed that this was hogwash.
                [OFF RANT]



                Now obviously I don't agree and I do think there is merit to discussing the results. I didn't get to see, only listened to as much as I could while on a break.

                But Dun in transition looking good, that doesn't surprise me. He is a better open court guy than probably anyone on the team. I said that last season even during the losing. I don't like him as SG, on defense, or shooting the 3. But I do like the ball in his hands as a facilitator and on the break.

                Shawne is young and I assume the running plays to his advantage. He sounded pleased with it post-game that's for sure, including his comments on how beat everyone has been after practices in camp. We were so focused on how JOB's 3ball style plays to his hands that we overlooked what running might do for him.


                I disagree about Danny. He's clearly a thinker rather than an instincts guy. Last year it was Danny that got lost and Shawne who seemed to read situations a lot better. Danny is smart and I think can learn any of it, but I do think that's his process - learning rather than just instinct.

                DG to me is a player that will progress which is why I feel good for his slow but steady growth. I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to turn insta-stud, I don't get the vibe that he'll make that type of jump. Instead he'll just keep getting better long past when other guys hit the wall.


                But my worries.

                Was this really JOB ball? Meaning has the team found it yet? 7 3PAs in the first half which they won. 11 3PAs in the 2nd half which they were crushed in.

                Also they did a lot of damage against the Hornet scrubs and prospects in the last 1st and then full 2nd quarter. Foster, Danny, Daniels, Tinsley vs Hilton, Richardson, Vinicius, Pargo, Wright. As I said before, not exactly a true test for those guys. That's 4 Pacers who have and still could/will start for the team. Heck Dun and Troy rotated in too.

                You have to expect the Pacers starters to beat the Hornets prospects and bench.

                Outrebounding the Hornets badly, I mean really, really badly. Is this JOB's style when you stir Jeff into the mix? Or just a fluke of an early pre-season game? Honestly I have no idea, but it sure came out of left field either way. Maybe Jeff is the big man JOB never had.

                Foster 80% from the FT line on 10 attempts. Has this EVER happened, seriously?

                Peja 2-9 and 1-6 with ZERO rebounds. I know he's soft on the glass, but zilch in 20+ minutes is pretty awful even for him.

                Harrison 9 minutes, 1 foul, 3 rebounds, 3 assists. Come on, did JO put on Hulk's uniform and sneak in? That kind of output from David over the long term would be a minor miracle, even in preseason.



                Ultimately to me it sounds like they didn't really win with "JOB ball" full on due to the scrimmage nature and that they are still learning. The defense and running are probably the first things that have taken hold, or so it sounds.

                Also sounds like most guys are on track for expectations except Dunleavy who might actually be poised for a big turnaround (it was nice to see that he hit a couple of threes). That would change the fortunes of the Pacers drastically.

                Also good that Rush played and delivered about on par with what you could expect. That's gotta be a high concern for any Pacers fan, what will we get from him.

                Ike, eh. I hope he has more to offer than that.

                Jeff vs Troy for starting minutes, did this game heat that competition up? Seems like it's Jeff's hustle/rebounds vs Troy's shot. I don't think Jeff can count on FTs to normally give him the help on offense so I think this debate is still way up in the air.


                Thank god the next game is on TV.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                  Here is some questions for last nights game and stuff I'll be watching for on Sat.

                  How did Murphy and Duns Defense look?

                  Did Tins keep his man in front of him?

                  Did DG just go 0-8, to start, cuz he missed good shots or were they bad shots?

                  Is Rush instant offense, off the bench or was it just in the flow of things?

                  Did NO try to bully Deiner and if so how did he do?

                  What was Harrisons demeanor or was 9 mins not enough to tell?

                  How much did Daniels run the point or did he? how did he look?

                  Ike sounded lost and the stat sheet seems that way, is that correct? If so, I wonder why he played the most mins?

                  Did Foster take any jumpers... did he make them...does his shot look better?

                  Did the add on guy from Michigan look like an NBA potential player?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                    Originally posted by Speed View Post
                    Here is some questions for last nights game and stuff I'll be watching for on Sat.

                    How did Murphy and Duns Defense look?

                    Did Tins keep his man in front of him?

                    Did DG just go 0-8, to start, cuz he missed good shots or were they bad shots?

                    Is Rush instant offense, off the bench or was it just in the flow of things?

                    Did NO try to bully Deiner and if so how did he do?

                    What was Harrisons demeanor or was 9 mins not enough to tell?

                    How much did Daniels run the point or did he? how did he look?

                    Ike sounded lost and the stat sheet seems that way, is that correct? If so, I wonder why he played the most mins?

                    Did Foster take any jumpers... did he make them...does his shot look better?

                    Did the add on guy from Michigan look like an NBA potential player?
                    I'll answer what I can. I only watched the 1st half.

                    Troy and Dun looked pretty good on defense. I don't know that we can tell much from this game, but Troy's added bulk seemed to help when West posted him up. He was able to contest nearly every shot West took while Troy was guarding him.

                    Tins picked up a couple of quick fouls trying to guard Chris Paul. He wasn't all that successful at keeping Paul in front of him, but the effort was there.

                    Danny's shots were open shots that just didn't fall. A couple of them would probably be consider bad shots by O'Brien because they were only a couple steps inside the arc. After his first couple open looks didn't fall, Danny seemed to be pressing a bit. It looked like he was trying too hard.

                    I didn't see Rush play.

                    NO did not try to bully Diener, but I don't think they have the personnel to do so.

                    Harrison looked like a very mediocre NBA big man. He stared down the ref once after being called for a foul. There was also a great moment where he started to get after the ref for not calling a foul. Then O'Brien gave him the stink-eye and he shut right up.

                    Daniels was always on the floor with either Tins, Diener, or Owens. If this game is any indication, however, the 2 guard has the freedom to bring the ball up the court and initiate the offense in this system. Daniels looked comfortable doing this.

                    I like Ike, and I really wanted to see something from him last night. I didn't. Lost is a very apt word to describe how he looked.

                    I don't recall Jeff shooting any jumpers.

                    I didn't see the guy from Michigan.

                    I have one question for someone who saw the second half:

                    How did Rush look as a ball-handler and defender?
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                      I hate to say it Melli, but your report seems to back that vibe I got of "basically what you expect". Everyone is so down on me, but let's be honest, even as bad as they finished last year this roster could win a few games, and at home against 50% NO bench/prospects would have been one of those games.

                      The GS deal was supposed to hinge on Ike. Hate hearing his slow start. Guess I'm not sure just how a player could be "lost" in JOB's offense. Perhaps he's a player that needs his plan spelled out for him, as in "if this then that, if that then this" rather than the freedom JOB's system entails.

                      Some players like structure just as much as others hate it.

                      One thing I had zero concern with is Mike/Quis bringing the ball up. I'd be shocked if they couldn't handle it in fact.

                      That extra Harrison news...ugh. GD he ticks me off.

                      I did hear Shawne say that JOB would give them an earful if they took "non-open" shots. I wonder if Granger heard about any that he forced if that was the case.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        That extra Harrison news...ugh. GD he ticks me off.
                        Wait, I missed something. What extra news?
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                          http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TS04/710110557

                          Indiana Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal's knee injury doesn't appear to be serious, but David Harrison could be held out awhile to allow his sprained ankle to heal.

                          O'Neal sat out Wednesday's pre-season opener against New Orleans and today's practice at Conseco Fieldhouse, but could play Saturday against Seattle.

                          O'Neal banged his left knee against teammate Shawne Williams in practice on Monday and has since suffered swelling.

                          Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said O'Neal asked to participate on Wednesday and Thursday, but was held out by the team's athletic training staff.

                          "He's willing, but the medical people were saying not to do it.

                          "I don't think it's going to be a chronic situation."

                          Harrison aggravated a sprained ankle in Wednesday's game. O'Brien said he leans toward having Harrison sit out until the ankle is completely healed.

                          Danny Granger played Wednesday's game with an eye infection that caused swelling, but his condition is not considered serious.
                          Last edited by Speed; 10-11-2007, 03:59 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            I hate to say it Melli, but your report seems to back that vibe I got of "basically what you expect". Everyone is so down on me, but let's be honest, even as bad as they finished last year this roster could win a few games, and at home against 50% NO bench/prospects would have been one of those games.
                            According to my calculations the starters projected for these patently pitiful Pacers played 31% of the available minutes. I'm amazed they could even pretend to hang against a potential playoff team from the perennially powerful Western Conference who's starters played 50%.........
                            Last edited by MagicRat; 10-11-2007, 09:25 PM.
                            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Indy v. NO - 10/10 - Post Game

                              It seems like Seth kinda doesn't want the JOB Pacers to outshine the Controlisle Pacers.

                              Regarding the long list of questions:

                              - Tins looked markedly better on defense to me. But since he was guarding one of the quickest PGs in the league, he still struggled. But there is no question his attitude seems to be resurrected by a new system and an endorsement from the head coach. Still too early, but the results so far look good.

                              - Marquis Daniels looked quite good. I think he always does. Injuries are my concern with him. Otherwise, he can create, dish, make good decisions, play excellent team defense, steal and run the break. The only thing he can't do well is shoot from long range, which, however, is not much of a problem since he can simply penetrate in a little closer and make the shot. I don't like his dreds or his injuries. Otherwise, I'm sold.

                              - I didn't see Granger take a bad shot. He just bricked. Speaking of being sold, I'm not yet sold on Granger being a first or second offensive option. He can spot up but I don't see him creating all that well.

                              - It was too early to tell if Diener is a defensive liability. He didn't seem to be last night, but I still can't tell. I also can't tell--besides one nice 3 shot -- if he is an offensive asset.

                              - Ike didn't look very good. Too early though.

                              - Murphy and Dun's defense--as well as Harrison's and Ike's and most everyone else--seemed decent. Basically, every shot was contested, even if at the last instant, and generally no one got inside for easy baskets. Compared to last year, it looked pretty dang good.


                              I would say the most impressive part of the evening was watching the team get the ball past half court in three seconds. They said they would, and they did--at least in the first 20 minutes, when they soared ahead. It started to lag somewhat after that.

                              But it was a beautiful thing to watch. Tins seems very, very comfortable and able in this role. Marquis and Dun as well, moreso than the two backup PGs.

                              The second impressive thing was the motion in the offense. Slick kept talking about "backpicking." It created a lot of opportunities inside. This looked so different from last year where we walked the ball up the court, crossing mid court in about 7 seconds, not three, then starting an offense where we try to dump it inside with no picking while four guys stand around the arc.

                              I'm encouraged.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X