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

Most of you aren't going to like this

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

  • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

    I really shouldn't do this, because I don't want this to turn into a Foster thread - but he did shoot 4 of 5 last night. Sure he struggled at the free throw line - but for most of the season he's been around 70% in FT's. He has imnproved his game every year. (there is more to the game than offense - but even there he's improved almost every year in FT%, and his shooting is better now than ever.

    Comment


    • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

      most, if not all, of the teams in the league would kill for Jeff Foster.

      Comment


      • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        his shooting is better now than ever.
        And it's still atrocious. I literally turn away every time he attempts a 15ft jumpshot. His form from his feet, to his release makes me cringe.

        I don't know which is worse, him taking the shot or JOb actually encouraging him to take it. That in itself should be a fireable offense.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          As I read your post I realized you didn't mention Rush, was that an oversight or on purpuse?
          Nope.....it was on purpose. Unless Marquis is traded before the trade deadline....I really think that JO'B will use our best SG/SF rotation right now......Marquis, Granger, Dunleavy, Jack should get the majority of the mintues at the SG/SF rotation. Unfortunately, there is some reason why BRush is playing behind Graham.....I don't know the exact reason why....but I suspect it's a combination of BRush simply making mistakes and ( as many of you have put it in the Game-Threads ) looking lost on defense. Unlike many of you....the main reason why I am not as concerned about BRush getting minutes in his rookie season is that I think that BRush will get his chance and minutes next season after Marquis' Team Option is ( likely ) not picked up.

          Although I do side with UncleBuck on this and believe myself that it is as important to teach the core of players that it is as important to win and be competitive ( since I still believe that Bird's top priority is to make a return to the Playoffs mainly to attract fans back to Conseco Fieldhouse....even if it means a quick 1st round exit ) as it is to prepare for the future ( by playing the rookies ), I do understand why many of you think that we should just give our rookies as many minutes as they can handle and see what happens....whether it is Playoffs or Lottery.

          My preference is to follow what UncleBuck suggested where we play our best 8-man rotation ( assuming that they are healthy ) where they get the bulk of the minutes ( while also giving Diener and McRoberts/Hibbert about 10 mpg each for relief purposes ) for up 2-3 weeks worth of games just to see how well we can do. The unfortunate truth is that due to injuries to key players at various times over this season, we haven't really seen what we can do since we have had key players out of the lineup. I want to know whether we can truly compete or not for a Playoff spot this season or not. I agree with the poster that suggested that the Hawks have greatly benefitted from their 1st round Playoff Exit. Playoff experience IMHO can build the confidence of a team and give them some exporure to the pressure cooker that I hope they will eventually experience.

          But after this stretch of games where we play this 8-10 man rotation and we see no real change in any win-loss record....then I may change my mind and side with the "Lottery or Bust" bandwagon....but for now, I need to know how well we can do before I decide to jump off the cliff with most of you.
          Last edited by CableKC; 01-15-2009, 02:33 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Major flaws with the logic in the initial post:

            A) Playing Rush, Hibbert, or McRoberts inherently gives you less of a chance of winning the current game.

            Not if they are doing something better than the guy they are replacing, such as defense from Rush vs Jack on SGs or post scoring which no one else on the team does besides Roy.

            B) That the Pacers have been playing these kids a lot and that they've been the key elements in the losses, and not key in the wins.

            Since when were we seeing mostly youth in all these losses? They've lost plenty when Rush, McBob and Roy barely saw the floor. I will admit that the +/- for Rush and Roy is poor, but Jack and Troy aren't doing so hot themselves. Also Rush is part of 2 of the Pacers top 5-man units also (82games.com) by win% and minutes.

            C) That the vets are just waiting to suck up tons of minutes without an ounce of impact on their playoff home stretch game.

            A HUGE reason teams like to get the younger guys some minutes during the year and only shorten the bench in the playoffs is specifically to keep guys fresh when they need them most. Have you seen Rasho? Have you seen Foster's back issues the last few years? These guys badly need Roy and McBob sucking up some minutes now if you want them to play well in April.

            D) The core 4 have some huge history of winning.

            Look, love the effort this year and obviously Danny and Troy stepped their games up to a higher level than last year, but DG, Dun, Troy and Jeff weren't exactly ripping up the win column the last season and a half either. I think the idea that we are obviously sitting on wins that are being flushed away for the benefit of developing players is just wrong.



            One other thing to think about is the Long/Reggie situation. A case could have been made to just play Long a ton and back off Reggie and his poor defense that first season. Long was still shooting it well and was an experienced vet.

            Carry this also to Granger while we are at it. In both cases there came a time when you were winning "then" because the guy had gotten prior playing time. Granger is awesome now, but his +/- was in the toilet his first 2 seasons. He was often lost, didn't have anywhere near the scoring he does now, and easily could have been set aside as a 17 pick that was way too raw to be tolerated in the "win now" world he came into.

            I want wins now as well, but I ALSO want wins in 2-3 years. At some point that's going to be the now just like this one. Will we be looking at a team that still hasn't developed and recalling fondly a few seasons prior when the vets got the team to 38 wins and almost made the playoffs?

            Nope. We'll be unhappy with the growth of the younger players.

            It's about balance, and good teams (see Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Celtics, etc) all win with young guys getting a chance too. I mean it's not like Rondo had tons of seasons under his belt or that George Hill is pulling splinters in San Antonio. Or Randolph in Phoenix who I just pointed out recently (and KILLED the Pacers in that game).


            Rush has hit the bench, the team still kept losing. McBob doesn't even get to play and nearly every time he does get good minutes they win. Hibbert started off weak but has been part of solid starts in recent weeks. So really what's the issue here?

            I see two things, the same two I've already seen. McBob's +/- vs Graham/Jack suggest you should be toning down the small ball and getting him more minutes. And while Rush isn't great, it's not like Graham has had so much +/- success that you've got to keep Rush out.

            Unless you really think Graham is the future there is no reason not to continue to feed MILD MINUTES to both Rush and McBob. Each getting 5-8 per night isn't costing you games at all, and in fact it's probably helping you win NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
            Hear Hear! (or is it here here??) Mostly I find myself agreeing with UB, but I don't see where the vets have done so great and the young guys have done so bad. Aside from fouls (real or rookie calls) I think Hib has done very well, and I say let him use his six fouls. McBob, well it's hard to tell because he gets so few minutes, but so far I've been impressed. Not to mention lately Foster and Rasho have just looked tired...

            Comment


            • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

              Originally posted by dryley View Post
              Hear Hear! (or is it here here??) Mostly I find myself agreeing with UB, but I don't see where the vets have done so great and the young guys have done so bad. Aside from fouls (real or rookie calls) I think Hib has done very well, and I say let him use his six fouls. McBob, well it's hard to tell because he gets so few minutes, but so far I've been impressed. Not to mention lately Foster and Rasho have just looked tired...
              But we never have had the vets together. Last night was the first time all season that we had our best team on ythe floor and Ford is about about 60% anyway. But now Daniels is out - I thinbk we need to know what we have with the 9 that I mentioned in the first post. I think that is a better than .500 team.

              Comment


              • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                POS - Starters/Reserve

                PF - Murphy/Foster
                C - Hibbert/Rasho
                PG - Ford/Deiner/Jack
                SG - Dunleavy/Quis/Graham
                SF - Granger/Quis

                Ideally, that's the roster w/rotations I'd like to see w/Quis being the 1st Guard and Foster being the first big off the bench, respectively. However, I know that's not what's going to happen. To that, I think UB may be right. If JOB wants this team to make the playoffs, he has to do something to turn things around. I'm sure he wants to see the young guys develop, but if he continues to rely on them to get the job done this team may not make it to the post-season for a second straight year. Don't get me wrong; I think Hibbert has great promise, and McRob and Graham has done some good things w/the limited minutes they've had, but I think it's time to go with the vets since they have a better grasp on defensive schemes. We need to get Quis back out there, but I see a lineup similar to what UB proposed:

                POS - Starters/Reserve

                PF - Murphy/Foster
                C - Foster/Rasho
                PG - Ford/Deiner/Jack
                SG - Dunleavy/Quis
                SF - Granger/Dunleavy/Quis

                For my taste, I'd rather see Ford and Deiner hold down the PG spot because both can push the tempo. Use Jack for stronger defense @ the Point or to slow the tempo alittle. Dunleavy and Quis are interchangeable btwn the SG & SF positions, even Granger!

                Stick w/the vets as much as possible from here on out and this team might just get a foot in the door this year.

                Comment


                • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                  Originally posted by nerveghost View Post
                  most, if not all, of the teams in the league would kill for Jeff Foster.
                  There is not a single team in the NBA for whom Foster would not be a rotation player.
                  "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                  - Salman Rushdie

                  Comment


                  • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                    More minutes for Rush, Hibbert, and McRoberts

                    Let's tank and hope we get lucky in the lottery IMO :P
                    Pacers,baby!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      But we never have had the vets together.
                      This is an excellent point. I like all three of our young guys quite a bit, and I think they should all be used situationally. It's time, however, to play our best players no matter what and see if we can play ourselves into or out of the playoffs. Give it a month or so, and if we're not making the run that the schedule says we should, then we can start playing the youngsters.

                      For the record, I really like the way O'Brien is using Hibbert right now. He force feeds him some minutes at the beginning of games where he thinks he can be effective. In games where he's clearly going to be outmatched (like trying to guard any big Detroit would have put on the floor), he goes in a different direction.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                        I'm glad I'm not running this team with you guys as advisors...cuz I'd be totally "waffling"! I'd be Dan Quayle II....
                        It would be ideal to have 9 or 10 healthy guys who were all capable of playing 40 minutes if called upon. However, we don't have and never will. It just bugs me to be watching Rasho struggle to get up and down the court, and there's McBob over there with his tongue hanging out and tail waggin' like a ****zu Hound, sayin' "C'mon man, open that door! Just 5 minutes, I'll run like the wind!" I just don't get it...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                          I have no problem with JO'B playing the vets, but I want to see a 10 man rotation if he insists on playing a run n gun helterskelter with little "D" style game. I don't want players constantly gunning out of gas from fatigue or see players later in the season woren out from fatigue.

                          I'm not expecting big minutes for the rookies, I consider McBob a rookie, but I do want them to "get playing time on a consistant basis." Yes, like everyone else I'd like to see the Pacers win, and getting a healthy roster to play would be nice just to see what it can do. BUT at the sametime Bird has seen enough of these players to know what he's got and what this team needs... an inside presence for one. I don't want to go much more than about 3-4 weeks playing the vets to see what they can produce. I don't want to waste the trade deadline by letting a "wait and see attitude" prevail only to findout Bird waited too long to pull the trigger losing an expiring contract or two that could have been used in a trade.

                          From an O'Brien and Bird point, I don't feel they can go much longer w/o getting this team to winning. My feeling is they are beginning to feel the heat, and need to start producing more than ever. JMOAA

                          Comment


                          • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                            Last night is a terrible measuring stick about whether a certain set of players should be in the game or not. Also, the fact Dunleavy has returned is going to help our team. Whoever's getting time right now will now look better than otherwise. All the calculus has changed.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                              Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                              I haven't read this thread yet. But I wanted to post specifically on the topic UB brought up.

                              Sitting our young guys does one thing the vetrans do not need, a shorter rotation. Listen if we happen to make the playoffs with a healthy lineup, and benching our youth will be a miracle. Rush, Roy, and McRoberts should have around 15 minutes between them, just to give the regulars added rest.

                              Ford-30
                              Dunleavy-32
                              Granger-37
                              Murphy-30
                              Foster-30

                              Rasho-16
                              Daniels-25
                              Jack-25

                              This leaves 14 minutes to the said three. When we need added defense in the backcourt, Rush comes in. Foster and Rasho have foul trouble, Roy. We need energy off of the bench, McRoberts.
                              I agree , but I would have it tweaked a bit myself to the following..

                              This is just a rough estimate I'd go by , and it would also depend on who is playing particularly well that particular game.. and who we are matched up against..
                              Also these minute wouldn't be concrete, just the minimum I would go by..

                              TOTAL there are 240 minutes to distribute...



                              Ford-29
                              Dunleavy-30
                              Granger-37
                              Murphy-25
                              Roy 17


                              Foster-20
                              Jack-22
                              Rasho-18


                              Daniels-16
                              McRoberts 12
                              Rush /Diener/ 10-12 min
                              Graham/Baston 2-4 min
                              Last edited by Kemo; 01-15-2009, 05:51 PM.
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment


                              • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                                Originally posted by intricold
                                Ford-30
                                Dunleavy-32
                                Granger-37
                                Murphy-30
                                Foster-30

                                Rasho-16
                                Daniels-25
                                Jack-25

                                This leaves 14 minutes to the said three. When we need added defense in the backcourt, Rush comes in. Foster and Rasho have foul trouble, Roy. We need energy off of the bench, McRoberts.
                                Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                                Ford-28
                                Dunleavy-30
                                Granger-37
                                Murphy-25
                                Foster-20

                                Rasho-19
                                Daniels-25
                                Jack-22

                                Roy 16
                                McRoberts 10
                                Rush /Graham 8
                                Okay....my turn! My turn!

                                Since I believe that fatigue is a MAJOR factor in how well we do in the 2nd half ( especially when it comes to our primary PF/C rotation of Murphy/Foster/Rasho )....I'm far more conservative then most of you when it comes to divying up minutes for Granger and our Guards....so I'm gonna do my best impression of Carlisle and his eggtimer minutes :

                                Ford - 28 mpg as our primary PG
                                Marquis - 28 mpg as our primary SG
                                Granger - 34 mpg as our primary SF but playing some backup PF minutes
                                Murphy - 28 mpg as our primary PF
                                Foster - 24 mpg as our primary Center but playing some backup PF minutes
                                Dunleavy - 32 mpg playing backup SG and SF minutes ( 6th Man )
                                Jack - 28 mpg playing backup SG and PG minutes
                                Rasho - 20 mpg playing backup Center

                                Diener - 8 mpg as our 3rd string backup PG
                                McRoberts ( or Hibbert...depending on Matchups ) - 10 mpg as our 5th PF/C in the lineup

                                I would try to give the bulk of the 10 minutes for McRoberts/Hibbert in the 2nd half when it's very apparent that Murphy/Rasho/Foster are winded and need rest to finish up games.....whereas I would do the same for Diener to get a more stable PG in the lineup that would simply protect the ball in the 2nd half when we need to play less erratically and in a more "controlled" manner while pushing the tempo. Of course, the main intent would be to give our finishers more time to rest so that they are energy to focus on defense/offense and close out games.

                                As for my finishers.....it's a toss-up between Ford/Jack ( depending on who is not getting torched on the other end ) alongside Dunleavy ( or Marquis if Dunleavy is being owned by the other SG ), Granger, Murphy and Foster.
                                Last edited by CableKC; 01-15-2009, 06:11 PM.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X