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

Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

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

  • #91
    Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

    Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
    Not at all. . as long as Harrison doesn't play. He just looks lost on the court.
    He looked good the first two games. I think he looked worse last night because he had to guard a pretty mobile big man.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
      I'm with you in spirit, but please calm down. Or watch an old Bulls game, would ya.

      This is like the third time you stated this adamently. You're starting to sound like the homeless game predicting Armageddon.

      He's not there (yet?).
      Well he looks like Pippen from a distance because of his length, he can guard multiple positions defensively even though he's not even close to being all-NBA caliber, doesn't rebound like Pippen yet, but I'm starting to see signs he can average 7-8 a game but other then that I don't see the Pippen comparison.Granger is already a better shooter then Pippen ever was but nowhere near the slasher/ playmaker/ball handler. When I think of Pippen I think of one of the best point forwards I have ever seen play.I think there skill set offensively is very different.

      If Granger can be a 18 point scorer grab 8-9 boards a game a become one of the Premier defenders in the game like i thought he was going to be when he was drafted we should all be happy with that, that probably won't make him one of the top 50 players to ever play the game however.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

        Originally posted by mike_D View Post
        If Granger can be a 18 point scorer grab 8-9 boards a game a become one of the Premier defenders in the game like i thought he was going to be when he was drafted we should all be happy with that, that probably won't make him one of the top 50 players to ever play the game however.
        Pippen was often assigned to guard opposing PGs, and he did a great job at that. He could often take an entire opposing offense out of sync with his D against a guy bringing the ball up. He was an awesome defender, tho I don't know if he'd be as effective at this in today's game with the new handchecking rules.

        Another thing was that he was one of the best ever "point forwards" to ever play. Jordan didn't want to play with a PG who pounded the dribble, but he also didn't want the majority of the ballhandling duties. That's where Pippen came in as an intermediary and allowed Jordan to play off the ball even with the use of guys like Kerr and Paxson, who were more of shooters than they were real PGs.

        Guy was one helluva player. I actually think Granger is a better shooter, but he's just nowhere close to being where Pippen was in other aspects of the game.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
          I'm with you in spirit, but please calm down. Or watch an old Bulls game, would ya.

          This is like the third time you stated this adamently. You're starting to sound like the homeless game predicting Armageddon.

          He's not there (yet?).
          take note: someone just asked seth to tone down his optimism

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          I think he's comparing Granger to a 3rd-year Pippen, not to Pippen at his peak.
          thats how i read it.
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

            One thing I forgot to mention before......was anyone else stunned when we went for stretches in the game with the smallest lineup in the whole NBA?

            At one point...I think we had Deiner, Owens, Rush ( Tinsley or Marquis....I'm not sure ), Granger and Ike. I recall a funny comment by the Grizzlies commentators that joked that Granger and Ike looked at each other and said....whose covering Gasol?
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
              Are you guys as worried as I am about Troy and Shawne returning to this lineup? Especially Troy.
              No, because he won't.

              There were many times they needed Shawne vs Memphis, I would have liked to see him working against Gay for example. Troy would have certainly filled in better than David did. And JOB has gone 2-3 PG at a time out of need more than style, meaning the minutes were there but instead Rush went to SF and Danny went to PF to guard Darko.

              David's size could still force Troy out but those fouls...certainly Foster's struggles have left the door open as well. Ike also has been problematic due to his size, sometimes leaving the frontline overmatched.



              Redd, I simply don't agree. I'm very impressed with his total game right now. Leadership as a star might be lacking, but then the comparison is to young Pippen, "I won't play if I don't get the shot" Pippen, and no Jordan to be found.

              Pippen's numbers would suffer if he was pulled from that roster and put on this one. And 16/6.7/5.4 isn't so out of reach. The assists won't be there, but the kid is going to shoot 38-40 from 3, not 25%. 2.6 steals, 1.2 blocks is 3.8 total defense there, Danny is only at 3.0 right now (more even, lacking the extra steals). But his 22/8.7 is in front of Pip's 3rd year.

              It's not simply numbers, it's how he plays at both ends. The movement, the reads, it's remarkably similar. Certainly he will continue to improve this year, but he's showing real signs of confidence as a main playmaker on the court at both ends.

              As I say, some of it had to do with the rings and with Jordan. Pippen wasn't as good a rebounder as Granger is now, so I don't understand giving Pip the advantage there. Scottie was more of a ball hander and facilitator ala Dunleavy, but again he was out there with Jordan. A steal out front where you can lob the outlet to a streaking Jordan for the dunk makes your APG look a little better.

              Pippen only had 2 seasons of 8+ RPG, the 1.5 without Mike. He only had one season better than his 3.8 STL+BLK 3rd year, again one of the Mike missing seasons. He was more a perimeter guy, thus the steals and assists, but less blocks and rebounds. He stunk from 3, going over 36% only in the line shortened years.

              Put Pippen on Vancouver doing the same numbers and he's as all-NBA as SAR used to be (ie not, despite 20/10/3 and 1/1 on defense as the norm). Pip made the AS game his 3rd year, got limited time. He missed the next year. He didn't get 2nd team all NBA till year 5. And he only made 7 all-star teams, which in greatest ever terms isn't that impressive.


              Danny isn't so far away when the pedestal is returned to a realistic level on Pippen.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                One thing that is very different about the defense from last season is the Pacers are constantly going for deflections, blocks, steals - they are always aware of where the ball is and flood the area. - That does leave the weakside open and at times the Griz did a great job exploiting that, but it is fun to watch the effort and togetherness.

                Although I think there is a noticeable drop-off in the defense whenever Ike and David replaces Jeff and JO
                They double or rotate a lot more. If I read the style correctly I'd say that JOB has given them a "just cover the nearest guy to you, don't worry about switching back right away, and constantly rotate aggressively". There is some trapping, but it's not really that Duke trap attack. This is more like don't leave anyone open even if it's not someone you should normally guard.

                I saw Ike "screw up" (if I'm correct this means) and try to return to his man rather than rotate around to help cover for the guys covering for him. That resulted in a rotation to an open Gay 3, whereas if he'd stayed on the arc and stepped over the other guys would have rotated around and that would have put a man on Gay before the shot. You get mismatched, but that's okay because you just end up with another round of help rotations to counter it, even down low.


                The big problem seems to be PG attack because that leaves a guy out on top and with no one to rotate too. You just follow your guy toward the rim and watch one of the bigs pick up a help foul. That's the chink in the armor that must be solved. This team appears able to beat a passing and movement game, but top of the arc dribble penetration...not so much.

                Who know, maybe it was just Zero and then Cook and Lowry got hot/lucky, but it's tough for me to buy that. I think they were lucky that Wade was out for Miami, and I have no idea why Williams didn't call his own number more. He never really made attempts to attack for whatever reason.

                I sure wish they could have picked up Knight, he would fit this system well I think. I guess we'll see what he does against it. The good news is that the Clips do move it to the wings a lot for playmaking and that could work against them vs the Pacers style.



                Tins flagrant - argh, forgot about that one, just so many instances of that same old crap. I just don't see this magic spark others do with him. Feels very familiar all-around, including the bursts of good play, the showboating that actually costs them plays, the silly frustration fouls (didn't get the call so I think I'll hand foul), and so on.
                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                They actually got him for a carry as he basically cradled the ball while trying revert back from schoolyard to real post move.
                My bad, and I'm embarrassed to say that as I wrote it I thought it might not be quite right and I should check the PxP, but I was just too lazy. That's what I get for that. I hate being a part of the problem. At least the gist was correct, that his pointless showboating ended up as a turnover.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-04-2007, 10:47 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                  I was thrilled with Tinsley performance in the first game.

                  I was OK with Tinsley performance in the Heat game, but I had many problems with the way Tinsley played in the Grizzlies game. He was getting torched by Lowery, and that was frustrating him and when that happens he takes bad shots and tries to "win the game by himself"

                  Harrison is seemingly on the same downward spiral - he just isn't IMO worth the trouble - and that is sad really, because he does have some abilities.


                  Tinsley is extremely important to the Pacers team and they need him to play like he did in game 1

                  The other player I'm concerned with is Daniels - he was outstanding during the preseason, but he has struggled some in the first 3 games and I don't know why. I wodner if he is hurting a little - I don't know.

                  Jeff seems to be out of sorts also - his defense isn't what I expect and his rebounding has been very spiractic (sp)

                  Ike on the other hand has been Ike. he can score - no doubt about it and he'll fight for rebounds. But he gets lost defensively and whenever he gets the bal out of his comfort zone and has to pass the ball - I get extremely nervous. If Ike ever "gets it" he could be an extremely good player

                  So while I'm thrilled to be 3-0 and Mike and Danny has been great - there are many warning signs that have me concerned
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-05-2007, 08:01 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                    I was worried about Daniels the first game, but after seeing the team live in the second game I'm not anymore. The guy is just a very quiet player but he makes plays that affect the out come of games. Maybe not scoring always, though he can affect a game that way, but he disrupts passing lanes, he is great at double teaming on the perimeter and also helps facilitate the offense. The guy is a very good glue guy. I don't know if he'll put up the numbers to be a sixth man of the year. I think its more likely that Ike has the more impressive off the bench numbers as the team stands right now, but Quis is crucial to the long term success of this years team.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                      Originally posted by Isaac View Post
                      Oh and the Memphis brodcast really was funny. Apparently Marquis Daniels is a post up player for us.
                      Also, Tinsley has lost at LEAST 35 lbs in the past two seasons. Those announcers were nice, at least.


                      A completely ugly game, and I hope for the NBA's sake there aren't many like it. Nobody wants to see a game that is stopped on every other possession. Let the guys play.

                      Now the Pacers have won 3 games, in 3 different jerseys, on the road, at home, good shooting, bad shooting....I'm running out of things to be superstitious about.



                      I'm glad we got the win, and I'm glad our FG% is up on offense and down on defense. I don't mind the high defensive PPG as it relates more to possessions than it does bad defense.



                      I'm still not comfortable with the way the team's playing, and I don't think we can rely on this style of play for much longer; especially once other teams start playing better. We need to get more easy looks, like we did in the preseason. We also need more low post scoring.



                      I think Murphy can forget about starting if Foster continues to shoot very well from the outside. Eventually, opponents will start to honor that and the floor will open up. I thought that was Troy's only advantage over Foster. What an anomaly for Foster to finally start hitting those in games after so many years in the NBA. By first-hand accounts, he does it regularly in practice.


                      I'm glad that we'll be getting Shawne back. I'm curious as to how he'll fit in the rotation. With O'Brien's comments about Shawne being our 2nd best defender, I'm sure he'll get time. BTW, watch out for good chemistry between Shawne and JO. Shawne is EXACTLY what this team needs in movement without the ball, and now that JO is looking to pass more we should expect to see several easy baskets from Shawne. Not really sure how good of a finisher he is; I guess we'll see soon.


                      Diener is not impressing me much. For whatever reason, he appears to be a much better shooter than his numbers have consistently shown. Reminds me of MDJr. and Sarunas. It's still way too early to make bold statements about players imo, but all signs point towards a PG problem, again, unless we can get Marquis or Mike some PG minutes.


                      I'm fine with Rush being nothing more than an assassin. His shot is great to watch. Haven't had a shooter with quick release like that since Eddie Johnson, have we?


                      Jamaal is very unflattering. I'm hoping his play will get better soon. He tried to play defense in the first two games, but saw the same old signs of ole last night. Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess (except for Foster, heh).


                      I'd never noticed how many deflections Marquis gets until O'Brien pointed it out. How the heck did I miss that?


                      I'm slowly getting better feelings about Granger. He's showing more flashes of good play than he did last year. Anyone notice him react at the end of the game when his man turned his head at halfcourt? He sprinted toward the basket and picked up a foul when he received the wide-open pass. It was a very heads up play; not something I've seen a lot of from a supposedly smart player.


                      I love how Ike carries himself on the court. He's very confident, doesn't let the officials or his play get to his head. I wish our best player would follow example.

                      Know what's refreshing? Not turning the ball over coming out of a timeout. I got sick of seeing it last year. We're actually scoring now.

                      Mike is almost automatic coming off a screen at the top of the key.

                      Comment


                      • Point guards

                        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                        Diener is not impressing me much. For whatever reason, he appears to be a much better shooter than his numbers have consistently shown. Reminds me of MDJr. and Sarunas. It's still way too early to make bold statements about players imo, but all signs point towards a PG problem, again, unless we can get Marquis or Mike some PG minutes.

                        Jamaal is very unflattering. I'm hoping his play will get better soon. He tried to play defense in the first two games, but saw the same old signs of ole last night. Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess (except for Foster, heh).
                        If Diener can't handle the backup role, then there's always Owens, who I feel great about having on the floor. With Dun out there to help with playmaking, Owens can do just fine as a backup PG.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                          Seth...If you're talking "Year-Three Pippen" than you're argument's understandable.

                          I thought you were talking "Top 50 All Time", "10-time All NBA Defense," "7-Time All NBA," "Top 8 SF of All Time," "7-Time All Star," "5th All Time in Steals" Pippen from like his 1996 peak.



                          ,
                          Last edited by JayRedd; 11-05-2007, 01:10 PM.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                            It's not time to give up on Diener yet. He's been mistake prone, especially on defense. give him a few more games to get comfortable and find his groove.
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                            Comment


                            • Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              No, because he won't.

                              There were many times they needed Shawne vs Memphis, I would have liked to see him working against Gay for example. Troy would have certainly filled in better than David did. And JOB has gone 2-3 PG at a time out of need more than style, meaning the minutes were there but instead Rush went to SF and Danny went to PF to guard Darko.

                              David's size could still force Troy out but those fouls...certainly Foster's struggles have left the door open as well. Ike also has been problematic due to his size, sometimes leaving the frontline overmatched.



                              Redd, I simply don't agree. I'm very impressed with his total game right now. Leadership as a star might be lacking, but then the comparison is to young Pippen, "I won't play if I don't get the shot" Pippen, and no Jordan to be found.

                              Pippen's numbers would suffer if he was pulled from that roster and put on this one. And 16/6.7/5.4 isn't so out of reach. The assists won't be there, but the kid is going to shoot 38-40 from 3, not 25%. 2.6 steals, 1.2 blocks is 3.8 total defense there, Danny is only at 3.0 right now (more even, lacking the extra steals). But his 22/8.7 is in front of Pip's 3rd year.

                              It's not simply numbers, it's how he plays at both ends. The movement, the reads, it's remarkably similar. Certainly he will continue to improve this year, but he's showing real signs of confidence as a main playmaker on the court at both ends.

                              As I say, some of it had to do with the rings and with Jordan. Pippen wasn't as good a rebounder as Granger is now, so I don't understand giving Pip the advantage there. Scottie was more of a ball hander and facilitator ala Dunleavy, but again he was out there with Jordan. A steal out front where you can lob the outlet to a streaking Jordan for the dunk makes your APG look a little better.

                              Pippen only had 2 seasons of 8+ RPG, the 1.5 without Mike. He only had one season better than his 3.8 STL+BLK 3rd year, again one of the Mike missing seasons. He was more a perimeter guy, thus the steals and assists, but less blocks and rebounds. He stunk from 3, going over 36% only in the line shortened years.

                              Put Pippen on Vancouver doing the same numbers and he's as all-NBA as SAR used to be (ie not, despite 20/10/3 and 1/1 on defense as the norm). Pip made the AS game his 3rd year, got limited time. He missed the next year. He didn't get 2nd team all NBA till year 5. And he only made 7 all-star teams, which in greatest ever terms isn't that impressive.


                              Danny isn't so far away when the pedestal is returned to a realistic level on Pippen.

                              If you want to say from a numbers stand point Granger compares to Pippen thats fine, but your projecting Grangers numbers on 3 games. Pippen in his prime gave you 18-20 points a game, 7-9 boards, 5 assists and one of the best defenders in NBA history.

                              Those are numbers Granger should be able to match other then the assists, this is why I can't compare the two.Pippen was a small forward who basically played pg for them, Granger can't do that, he hasn't done it yet and he probably never will.Grant Hill was alot like Pippen in his Piston days he initiated the offense.Hell Lebron, T-mac even lamar Odom have similar offensive skill sets to Pippen then Granger has.Doesn't mean Granger won't be a great player because I think he will be. It's just hard for me to compare a player to Scottie Pippen when they can't play that point forward role.

                              As far as Pippen making only 7 all star games, he was robbed a couple of times just like I thought Reggie was robbed a couple of times.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Game 03 Pacers at Grizzlies Post Game Thread

                                Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                                If you want to say from a numbers stand point Granger compares to Pippen thats fine, but your projecting Grangers numbers on 3 games. Pippen in his prime gave you 18-20 points a game, 7-9 boards, 5 assists and one of the best defenders in NBA history.
                                I don't think anybody's saying that trading a third-year Granger for Pippen in his prime would have helped the Bulls. Seth has been consistently comparing Granger's development to Pippen's development, so comparing him to a 3rd-year Pippen would be the way to go.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X