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

Is Danny Granger overrated?

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

  • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

    For what the FO pays Granger, we're getting good vaule for him, and his salary gives Indiana room to acquire better players.

    From there, it's your opinion to believe whether or not salary cap is overrated.


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

    Comment


    • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

      He's probably best suited to be a 3rd option.

      A guy who can play off of a low post scoring big, and another wing who can create his own shot.

      Not a franchise guy, not a good #1 option.

      As long as you have reasonable expectations, he is a completely reasonable asset.

      Comment


      • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        because i was banned for suggesting we should trade danny for things like the #1 overall pick to draft rose and was blasted for it.
        Gonna need a link on that. You've suggested many times trading Danny for a top-5 pick, but I don't remember a situation where a #1 pick was for sale where anybody would have said we shouldn't go for it.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
          Hi Anthem,

          Calling me out made me check my stats, and you're basically right. His turnover per usage rate is really pretty good, and while his block % is above the league average, it's not high either, though it is one of the highest on the team (I think 3rd). Actually looking through all the stats on Granger made me realize they are pretty good. The biggest downside is that his offensive stats have gone down the last two years, while turnovers, shots blocked etc have gone up.
          Yep... he definitely lost some fire the longer he played ObieBall.

          I want to see what happens under Vogel.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Yep... he definitely lost some fire the longer he played ObieBall.

            I want to see what happens under Vogel.
            Honestly, that's really what I want to see. Are we really a "bad" team, or was we underperforming under JOB?


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

            Comment


            • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Gonna need a link on that. You've suggested many times trading Danny for a top-5 pick, but I don't remember a situation where a #1 pick was for sale where anybody would have said we shouldn't go for it.
              i've tried going back that far to find old posts and must not know what i'm doing b/c i can't seem to find posts from 2+ years ago... and these were hypothetical discussions where it was would you trade granger for player x when player x wasn't exactly on the market.

              Comment


              • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                Yep... he definitely lost some fire the longer he played ObieBall.

                I want to see what happens under Vogel.
                Good point (and someone had a good point above as well). When salary and coach are taken into account, I think there are a lot of reasons to be positive about Granger. I'm not sure Vogel is the coach for Granger, but anything has to be better than O'Brian.

                While I've been more in the trade Granger if we can get a good deal for him, there are actually very few moves the Pacers can make with Granger that would make me happy based on talent or contracts. I wouldn't mind a package trade for one of the top picks (I trust if we do that then the Pacers brain trust are sold that a player could be truly special), which could provide us with young cheap talent for years. I also wouldn't mind a trade for Eric Gordon with George then moving to the 3. (before you ask, a reasonable trade would be something along the lines of Granger and Hibbert for Gordon and Kaman. Feel free to wiggle the trade at will, but something like that would work.)
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                  Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                  I'm slightly confused about how people view Granger's play in the playoffs. People seem to think he was great, but his defense was middling to poor throughout, and he was absolutely terrible at the end of games. For being the guy we run our offense through in clutch time, one could argue Granger IS the reason we lost the first two games.

                  I thought he shot well and his decision making for the first 3 1/2 quarters was good, but all things considered an average playoff showing at best!
                  I agree,, but if you are comparing it to how he played in the regular season it was much improved. The way he played in the playoffs should be our minimum expectations for him during the regular season.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                    I just looked at some of the lineups Danny has played with in years past. These are the major minute lineups:
                    2007:
                    Diener/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Foster
                    Tinsley/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/O'Neal
                    Murray/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Foster
                    2008:
                    Ford/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Rasho
                    Jack/Rush(r)/Granger/Murphy/Hibbert(r)
                    2009:
                    Watson/Rush/Granger/Murphy/Hibbert
                    Watson/Rush/D. Jones/Granger/Hibbert

                    LeBron James wouldn't do much with that roster. I'm not saying Granger is near LeBron's level, but come on, look at those rosters! Look at the point guards alone: Diener, Tinsley, Murray, Ford, Jack and Watson... Jack is by far the best one and isn't really even a starting PG in the league. Dunleavy plays out of position. Murphy, we all know what Murphy is. And the different centers haven't been anything to write how about. I love Hibbert and Foster, but Hibbert still has a ways to go and Foster is great when we can afford to have a guy who isn't an option on offense.

                    I don't really think it is fair to judge Danny on how good he can be when the roster has been this bad. This year is finally a year where our roster looks respectable at least. But our guys are young and we didn't have a true second option this year. The next season seems like it may be the best judgement of Danny just because we are giving him a team to work with.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                      I just looked at some of the lineups Danny has played with in years past. These are the major minute lineups:
                      2007:
                      Diener/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Foster
                      Tinsley/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/O'Neal
                      Murray/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Foster
                      2008:
                      Ford/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Rasho
                      Jack/Rush(r)/Granger/Murphy/Hibbert(r)
                      2009:
                      Watson/Rush/Granger/Murphy/Hibbert
                      Watson/Rush/D. Jones/Granger/Hibbert

                      LeBron James wouldn't do much with that roster. I'm not saying Granger is near LeBron's level, but come on, look at those rosters! Look at the point guards alone: Diener, Tinsley, Murray, Ford, Jack and Watson... Jack is by far the best one and isn't really even a starting PG in the league. Dunleavy plays out of position. Murphy, we all know what Murphy is. And the different centers haven't been anything to write how about. I love Hibbert and Foster, but Hibbert still has a ways to go and Foster is great when we can afford to have a guy who isn't an option on offense.

                      I don't really think it is fair to judge Danny on how good he can be when the roster has been this bad. This year is finally a year where our roster looks respectable at least. But our guys are young and we didn't have a true second option this year. The next season seems like it may be the best judgement of Danny just because we are giving him a team to work with.
                      Look at what the Cavs had... I would pick our team with LBJ to win against the cavs teams with LBJ.. Tinsley was a good player, just crazy off the court. Rookie of the year. The other guards aren't starter material, except one year you happened to leave out.. DC is definitely a starter in this league.. But what good PG has LBJ had other than one year of Williams and a half year with Bibby? JO was also an All-Star and Reggie was also here.. Murphey is a nice weapon to have, over paid, but underrated talent. All that said, a superstar makes plays himself. Look at the Cavs now, Pacers wouldn't be near that bad without Danny, though we would be worse.

                      Not trying to attack you like it probably sounds, but come on. The Cavs didnt have much after Lebron.. Granger cant do things himself, because he isn't good enough. Pacers have a better overal team than a lot of teams out there.. But we dont have a closer or a dominant leader. That as well as being young and unpolished is the difference.
                      Last edited by Ownagedood; 05-28-2011, 10:53 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                        Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
                        Look at what the Cavs had... I would pick our team with LBJ to win against the cavs teams with LBJ.. Tinsley was a good player, just crazy off the court. Rookie of the year. The other guards aren't starter material, except one year you happened to leave out.. DC is definitely a starter in this league.. But what good PG has LBJ had other than one year of Williams and a half year with Bibby? JO was also an All-Star and Reggie was also here.. Murphey is a nice weapon to have, over paid, but underrated talent. All that said, a superstar makes plays himself. Look at the Cavs now, Pacers wouldn't be near that bad without Danny, though we would be worse.

                        Not trying to attack you like it probably sounds, but come on. The Cavs didnt have much after Lebron.. Granger cant do things himself, because he isn't good enough. Pacers have a better overal team than a lot of teams out there.. But we dont have a closer or a dominant leader. That as well as being young and unpolished is the difference.
                        I purposely left the most recent season out because I said our roster is finally respectable. It's much better than the three previous seasons. Two years of Mo Williams is better than any two years that Granger had. Mo Williams is better than anyone Granger has played with... Sure he got a pity All Star appearance, but no one Danny has played with has come close to getting one.

                        By the time Danny has been the best player on this team, Reggie was gone and JO was too. The last year he spent with JO, O'Neal wasn't near his All Star level. Tinsely was good as a rookie and then just went downhill. And in that 07-08 season he played a total of 39 games. Troy Murphy is underrated? What? He's so underrated that he couldn't get off the bench in New Jersey or Boston. And he was our starting PF here...

                        What pg do you want to start, Mo Williams, Jarret Jack, TJ Ford, Earl Watson, Jamaal Tinsley, Flip Murray or Travis Diener? Mo Williams is the right answer.

                        Do you want Troy Murphy to start or Jamison or Varejao? I wouldn't take Murphy over either of those guys.

                        Through 08/09 Ilgauskas was a better center than any of the Foster/Hibbert/Rasho combo.

                        If you take the rosters before this seasons, they are terrible without Granger. Then riddle them with the injuries that the Cavs had this year too and they would be pretty damn close to the Cavs record this year.

                        Finally this past season our roster was respectable. A lot of that is because of bringing in DC and because our younger guys matured a bit. And those are also reasons why we will be better next year and give us a better read on how Danny can play on a team that is respectable. Looking at these past rosters, I'm embarrassed. I'm surprised we won as many games as we did.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                          Personally I think all of those teams under achieved, and mostly because of JOB. Give them a half-decent coach and they make the playoffs.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                            Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
                            Look at what the Cavs had... I would pick our team with LBJ to win against the cavs teams with LBJ.. Tinsley was a good player, just crazy off the court. Rookie of the year. The other guards aren't starter material, except one year you happened to leave out.. DC is definitely a starter in this league.. But what good PG has LBJ had other than one year of Williams and a half year with Bibby? JO was also an All-Star and Reggie was also here.. Murphey is a nice weapon to have, over paid, but underrated talent. All that said, a superstar makes plays himself. Look at the Cavs now, Pacers wouldn't be near that bad without Danny, though we would be worse.

                            Not trying to attack you like it probably sounds, but come on. The Cavs didnt have much after Lebron.. Granger cant do things himself, because he isn't good enough. Pacers have a better overal team than a lot of teams out there.. But we dont have a closer or a dominant leader. That as well as being young and unpolished is the difference.
                            Please. This whole 'LBJ had no supporting cast in Cleveland' thing is complete BS. Yes compared to WADE AND BOSH he had nothing. The Cavs lost their focal point AND had massive injuries AND lost other players like Z/Shaq this year leading to their poor record.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                              Originally posted by oxxo View Post
                              Please. This whole 'LBJ had no supporting cast in Cleveland' thing is complete BS. Yes compared to WADE AND BOSH he had nothing. The Cavs lost their focal point AND had massive injuries AND lost other players like Z/Shaq this year leading to their poor record.
                              So you think if the Cavs kept Shaq, and Big Z, they'd have not sucked? Sorry, I can't picture it going that way.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                                It depends how you look at it. As a Pacer fan its easy to say he is overrated because we expect him to be gods gift to indiana. As a bystander I see a player who is really good. He is a top 25-30 player. If your looking at it as the people on ESPN recognizes him, he is underrated. For as good as he is he is never mentioned on TV. Basically what I am saying is hes an over average player surrounded by role players. You cant expect him to carry a team. He has the potential to be a great defender if he tries. He can shoot the ball but teams plan to keep him from getting good looks. He needs to go in stronger on rebounds hes a big guy. The one thing I dont get about danny is his lack of athletic ability. I believe he has it in him but hes afraid to use it. He is 6ft8. I would like to see him come driving in and just jam on someone. Ive seen him do it a couple times so i know its there, i think hes scared of the contact. He needs to excite the crowed. Come in strong and draw the foul. We need another legit scorer (OJ Mayo and Jr Smith/Jamaal Crawford) to help take pressure off him
                                Craig "The Coon" Gehlhausen

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X