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:
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

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

The Comprehensive Defense thread, part VI: Fighting thru screens away from the ball

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Comprehensive Defense thread, part VI: Fighting thru screens away from the ball

    Today, in the sixth part of this seven part series, we talk about fighting thru screens away from the ball. If you have missed them or would like to review them, the first five topics of this series have been:

    1. "Defense at the point of attack"
    2. "Defending the wings"
    3. "Defending the low post"
    4. "Playing proper help side defense"
    5. "Defending the ball screen" (screen/roll defensive techniques)

    If someone more computer friendly than I would like to post links to those first five articles, feel free to do so. The last article in this series will be posted soon, which will just be a summary of the other 6 threads, with some conclusions about what how the Pacers staff could adjust our defensive scheme for better results.

    Avoiding screens is an important thing for an individual defender to be able to do. However, it has to be an overall team effort in order to let that happen in the most optimum way. Avoiding screens requires things that are key critical basketball skills that often go overlooked....things like positioning, communication, anticipation, awareness, vision, intellect, footwork, instincts, and proper fundamentals.

    I actually view this is one of the things the Pacers as a team do fairly well, and in my judgment it isn't as much of a problem as some of the earlier topics I have covered. However, that is more of an indictment of our porous defense than you probably realize, because most teams are able to score on us consistently without HAVING to screen against us as much as they do against other teams. We may indeed have difficulty fighting thru screens well, but our other aspects of defense aren't good enough to force the opponent to have to screen us much to begin with!

    With that said, let's look at some things I see when watching our defense closely:


    By positioning, what I am referring to is our tendency to be one step BELOW the help line, as I discussed in the help side thread. This particular Jim O'Brien system quirk in my judgment leaves us vulnerable, more than most teams, to being downscreened against. By being this far down the floor into the lane, this means our players have more ground to cover upward onto the floor if their own man is being screened for. It also means they are somewhat of a "sitting target", letting the offensive player hone on them, and be less precise on the techniques needed to set a proper screen. These are negatives.

    On the other hand, by being in such a severe help position, our defenders are often so far away from their men that the screener has to go further, out of the design of the play often, to find the proper man to screen. That sometimes makes the offense playing against us to get out of kilter, as their timing and spacing can be affected by having to set screens against a defender in such a unique defensive position. By accident, our somewhat wacky defensive scheme can be a positive in this way.

    Because of this over emphasis on help, I think unintentionally (or perhaps it is by design actually, I would need to really discuss this with JOB himself to find out and that isnt going to ever happen) our Pacers are actually hard to screen away from the ball, with one big exception I will discuss in the next paragraph. I think the Pacers defend the cross-screen well in the paint, and I think for the most part the Pacers defend the down screen well. These are things to at least be happy about.

    But, for the same reasons we may be good at defending those types of away from the ball screens, we are the league's worst at defending the "flare" screen. For definition purposes, this is defined as a screen coming from the OUTSIDE OF THE COURT INWARD, TOWARD THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOOR.

    You see this major weakness manifest itself sometimes by the plethora of crosscourt passes we give up, and by how easily teams reverse the ball against us. Often this is done without screening us at all, and just using spacing and athelticism and our own system against us, but some teams do screen our backs to prevent us from recovering to weakside shooters, and our scheme hurts us in this effort to closeout.


    Communication with your teammates is such a huge part of team defense. Strangely, it is something that doesnt come naturally to players, instead it is something that has to be drilled in to them constantly, in every situation and in every drill they do. It has to be treated as a COACHING PRIORITY, not just as coachspeak. The Pacers, like most bad defensive clubs, struggle with this.

    But we have some individual players who I feel are good communicators and are "loud and proud" defenders, or at least potentially are. From studying extensive tape prior to last year's draft, I felt like that Roy Hibbert was an extremely aware defender, and was great at pointing and communicating verbally as a backline traffic cop. Hibbert has his head swimming this year just trying to survive and stay in the games, but as he gains more floor time and experience (and perhaps plays in a more conventional defensive style with better players around him) I think he can be an excellent communicator inside for his teammates.

    I also view Maceo Baston and Jeff Foster as relatively good and active communicators defensively inside in screen situations, and I am particular surprised at the energy and enthusiasm Josh McRoberts has provided us at times. Again, I think a less difficult and wacky system (I've covered what I believe our issues are in the earlier parts of the series) would help this become more of a team strength.

    So, it isn't all bad in this aspect of defense.

    But we also have some players who are extraordinarily bad I feel as communicators defensively...they are way too quiet! Murphy, Nesterovic, and Dunleavy all are too quiet as defenders in screen situations. Often, you will particularly see players like Granger, Rush, and Daniels get crushed by a blind sided screen when it is set by the men these three are guarding. I'm particularly bothered by Dunleavy and Murphy having this issue, as these guys are supposed to be smart and intelligent players. For whatever reason in their upbringing, the ability to play "loud and proud" defense escaped them. More than their lack of athleticism, the inability to communicate well really hurts their defensive cause, and is one reason why I shake my head when people defend Dunleavy and others as good "team defenders". They are simply not, as in no way does their team play better defense overall when they are on the floor.


    I know our staff has made mistakes in terms of the overall fundamental strategy they have chosen for us. In fact, examing those mistakes was the entire point of answering the question "Why is our defense so freaking pathetic?" But at least I think we can tell that the effort to prepare is there, even though the results haven't been. I know that Jim O'Brien probably watches more film than most coaches, and I know that the Pacers practice harder and more often than most teams, even having full contact practices on game days. I would bet that we have defensive scheme changes next season, after O'Brien has had a full off season to see the mistakes he has made.

    But he has done one thing very well as a defensive coach: The Pacers do know where the ball is at all times! That sounds like no big deal, but I promise you that it is. Rarely do teams just walk down the lane against us for uncontested layups....if anything, we help too much and too often. When you especially consider that our PG defense has been much worse than almost all of us expected (including me), I think overcoming that has been too much for O'Brien to overcome, and when he tried to adjust he could have done a couple of different things, and he chose incorrectly. He should have simply demanded more from and "coached up" Ford and Jack, instead he compensated for them and screwed up the entire scheme to try to hide them....just as he had to for Jamal Tinsley a year ago.

    But the point is, the Pacers have a great awareness of where the ball is defensively, and that is an important thing to have established.


    I view Rush as a nice 3rd wing player, first wing off the bench type of guy. So far he hasn't really done anything to change that, but that's what I thought he was all along, so that is fine with me. Defensively, he is really good. He slips thru screens, anticipates being screened and slides thru well. He could be a bit more physical as the screen is coming I suppose, but his main job is getting thru the screen still in contact with his man, and doing so on balance....and Rush is good at this. This is an important building block.

    Granger has been focused on offense for my judgment rightfully so. But he at least has the athleticism and length to be a very good defender as well in getting thru screens. Right now he is good at recovering and that is hiding the fact that Granger runs into more screens head on than any other Pacer. Of course, Im blaming some of that on his teammates, but Granger gets his share of blame here too. He just needs to concentrate more and not drift off, and continue to improve as an individual in playing defense BEFORE his man gets the ball, and not WAITING TIL AFTER HIS MAN ALREADY HAS IT!

    But in general, the Pacers have 3 potential plus defenders going we need about 5-6 more, including a major help at the point guard spot, and another wing better than Rush and Granger defensively, and some interior guys who can play. Not easy, but at least we have a start.

    In the next thread, I'll summarize the "comprehensive defense threads" into a game plan defensively for the staff to follow for next year's training camp, and for the front office to look at in evaluating players that can defend they way we need them to. In my opinion, Larry Bird drafted 2 of our best 3 defenders a year ago, so I think he is seeing the game from a defensive standpoint much better than he is given credit for.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.


  • #2
    Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part VI: Fighting thru screens away from the ball

    Here are the others:

    1. "Defense at the point of attack"

    2. "Defending the wings"

    3. "Defending the low post"

    4. "Playing proper help side defense"

    5. "Defending the ball screen" (screen/roll defensive techniques)

    tbird, you can cut and copy this into your next thread.


    • #3
      Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part VI: Fighting thru screens away from the ball

      Originally posted by count55 View Post
      Here are the others:

      1. "Defense at the point of attack"

      2. "Defending the wings"

      3. "Defending the low post"

      4. "Playing proper help side defense"

      5. "Defending the ball screen" (screen/roll defensive techniques)

      tbird, you can cut and copy this into your next thread.

      Thanks for the help Count.

      I'll go ahead and admit it now...I'm tired of writing these long defensive threads, and I'll be glad to have them finished with the next one so I can move on to a more interesting and less dry topic.

      I do hope they've at least been somewhat educational to those who have read them, because they've taken a long time to analyze and write.


      • #4
        Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part VI: Fighting thru screens away from the ball

        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
        Thanks for the help Count.

        I'll go ahead and admit it now...I'm tired of writing these long defensive threads, and I'll be glad to have them finished with the next one so I can move on to a more interesting and less dry topic.

        I do hope they've at least been somewhat educational to those who have read them, because they've taken a long time to analyze and write.
        Yes indeed, TBird. You and Count clearly are among the PD Blue-Ribbon elite in terms of adding value. Many thanks; it is appreciated!

        "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

        - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.


        • #5
          Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part VI: Fighting thru screens away from the ball

          For the most part, I've really enjoyed these, tbird. I say for the most part only because not every single piece of information in these threads is equally interesting, but as a whole this was great. As you know, I've been interested for a while in learning about coaching, and as I've gradually made my way through various books, I've found your posts on defense to be a great supplement to my education.