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

Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

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

  • #46
    Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

    Originally posted by Hall O'Point View Post
    McBob is young enough to be a Senior next year in college.
    No, that's not right.

    McRoberts graduated 2005. That would make him a freshman at Duke for the 05-06 season, soph for the 06-07 (when he got drafted), Jr. for the 07-08, and a senior this past year for the 08-09 season.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

      Hands, bro! > McBobald's

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

        Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
        I hope both kids find some success. Tyler is a little more athletic and his intensity is unmatched. McBob also is an athlete but is not as polished. It will be interesting is the new McBob after reportedly adding some muscle in the offseason will be as explosive.
        McRoberts is easily a better athelete than Tyler.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

          Found this article about there matchups in college. ITs slanted a bit.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...all-white-guys

          Today is suppose to be a good day. The weather is getting warmer, the baseball season is up and running, even the wife is getting nicer. Today though, is not a good day. Today is when North Carolina will win their second championship this decade.
          Don't get me wrong, Michigan State is a fine team and they are good enough to pull off the upset, but let's not kid each other. This Carolina team is a team on a mission. They are ripping through the competition, including three easy wins over top-10 teams like Gonzaga, Oklahoma and Villanova.

          I haven't seen a team breeze through the tournament this easily since the '98-99 Duke Blue Devils.
          Of course, I know what you are going to say...that Duke team lost in the finals to Connecticut. You are correct, but there's a difference between that team and this team. That Duke team had only two upperclassmen (senior Langdon & junior Carrawell) who played in the team's eight-man rotation.

          For the Tar Heels, six of their top seven players (based on minutes in the tournament) are either juniors or seniors. More importantly, all of them have been through this before in last year's final four.

          The point of all this is not to predict a winner in tonight's championship game. We've tried this whole "predicting" thing and it hasn't worked out well for us.

          Instead, when I watch this Carolina club tonight, I can only think back to the incoming recruiting class in the summer of 2005, particularly Tyler Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts.
          Now let's be clear, a single player doesn't make a team. Hell, you can easily argue that Hansbrough is only the 4th best player on his team and the '06 Carolina class that brought in Lawson and Ellington was more important.

          However, when you look at how the fate of Duke and Carolina has flipped-flopped this decade, no two players better represent what went right for the Tar Heels and what went wrong for the Blue Devils.

          Both McRoberts and Hansbrough were five-star power forwards. McRoberts was a little taller, a little wider and was rated number one in the country at PF (No 2 overall). Hansbrough was a little quicker, with a motor that wouldn't quit. He was rated fourth among power forwards and No 10 overall.

          Heading into their freshman years, McRoberts actually had it easier. While he was the extra size the Blue Devils desperately needed, he was never going to be asked to lead the team, not with seniors, Redick and Sheldon on the floor.
          He would get a year to develop as a solid role player for the nations best team. For Hansbrough, there was no breathing room.

          His Carolina team had just won the title the year before and they would head into '05-'06 with their top eight scorers gone. Tyler was Carolina's No. 1 recruit and he would need to step into that leadership role quickly.

          In their first meeting, the (21-1) Devils got the best of the (14-5) Tar Heels in Chapel Hill, and McRoberts had a big game, scoring 17 points on 6-8 shooting. Hansbrough had a decent 14 points and nine rebounds in a losing effort.
          However, North Carolina and Hansbrough were getting better and by the time the two teams faced off in the final game of the regular season. The Tar Heels were able to pull of the amazing upset to ruin senior night for Redick and Williams.

          In a way, it was Hansbrough's coming out party. He dominated the paint with 27 points (9-17 shooting) and 10 rebounds. McRoberts barely showed up, scoring four points and grabbing a single rebound.
          The season would end early for both teams. The Tar Heels were victims of the George Mason Cinderella run (falling in the second round), while Duke was stopped by LSU in the Sweet 16.
          In season two, all eyes were on the two big men on Tobacco Road. Tyler was the ACC rookie of the year, while Josh finished 2005, scoring ten double-double's in his last fourteen games.
          Both McRoberts and Hansbrough would be leading even younger squads (both teams would start three freshman), so the fate of their respected programs would be on their shoulders.
          While both had solid stats for the season (Hansbrough: 18/8, McRoberts 13/8), Hansbrough clearly showed he was up for the challenge, McRoberts didn't.

          Tyler became the unquestionable leader of a Carolina team that would roll through the regular season and miss the Final Four by a game (an Elite Eight defeat to Georgetown), while McRoberts couldn't adapt to his role as leader. More often than not, when Duke needed a go-to player, he failed.
          -In Duke's first game against a ranked opponent, McRoberts hit only 4-16 shots from the floor in a loss to Marquette.
          - In a two-point defeat in overtime to the Hokies, McRoberts failed to make a shot in the final 4:48.

          - In a nine-point defeat to Georgia Tech, Duke's 'best' player took only ten shots.
          - In a two-point defeat to Virgina (the beginning of a four-game losing streak), Josh would not make a shot in the final eight plus minutes. His final miss would have given Duke the lead with a minute to go in overtime. He finished 7-18 for the day.
          - In a one-point loss at home to FSU, McRoberts missed a game winner with six seconds on the clock. He finished with only 12 points, taking only three total shots in the final 13 minutes.
          - In a home loss to North Carolina, McRoberts fell apart. He took only five shots, scoring six points and missing his only two free-throw attempts. Hansbrough had a solid 16/6 on 5-9 shooting.
          - In Duke's second defeat to Maryland, Josh hit only 5-13 shots, scoring 10. He took ZERO free throws.

          - In the second meeting with Carolina, McRoberts scored nine points, grabbing 10 boards, but failed to take a single shot in the final 11 minutes. During that same stretch, Hansbrough scored 10 points to wrap up Carolina's sweep of Duke.
          - And finally, in the first round loss to VCU, McRoberts actually had a decent game; 22 points, 12 boards, however, he missed two of four free throws in the final 1:41. If he makes them both, the game ends differently.

          Now don't get me wrong, I'm nitpicking stats in Duke defeats from three years ago, but I just remember watching that year and thinking, Hansbrough is becoming a star while McRoberts always seem to shrink in the moments the team needed him to be a man and hit big shots.
          He always looked like a guy who regretted not going pro and was seeing his draft status fall further and further down as the season went on.

          After the dust settle, McRoberts was out-of-there, Hansbrough won the head-to-head battle, 3-1 (including the final three). Josh wasn't drafted until Portland took him with the 38th pick.
          A bit disappointing considering he was a mid-to-late first rounder the year before. He has spent most of his time bouncing back and forth from the big leagues to the D league. This season, he's averaging two points and two boards, playing under eight minutes per game for Indiana Pacers.

          As for Hansbrough, I think we all know what he's done; most career free throw in NCAA history, the ACC all-time leading scorer, his jersey was retired by Carolina, four-time All-ACC player, the 2008 National Player of the year, 6-2 record against Duke, including 4-0 at Cameron...I could go on and on and on and on, but I won't because it makes me sick.
          Most importantly though, he's taking his team to the Final Four two straight years and with a win tonight, will hand Carolina another championship.

          It's simple...one player will go down as one of college basketball's greatest players, the other...will be completely forgotten in 10 years.
          And while I'm sure greatness will swing back to Duke soon enough (and then back to Carolina, and then back to Duke), if you want to know why the Tar Heels rule Tobacco Road right now in 2009, look no further than the two tall white guys recruited in 2005.
          So as I sit down to tonight, sliding on my fictional Michigan State hat, screaming at the top of my lungs for a Carolina defeat, at some point in my mind, I'll be asking...hey Josh, how cold does that Indiana bench feel right now?
          Last edited by Gamble1; 06-26-2009, 04:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

            I don't see the relevance of the either/or nature of the question, as I don't see Foster here in 3 years.

            I hope these two guys push each other and make each other better.
            "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

            Bob Netolicky

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

              Hansbrough has Carlos Boozer-like potential. McRoberts' best case is good role player.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                McRoberts, and I don't think it will be that close.

                Of course playing time impacts that and I saw Josh make the kinds of plays that would earn it from me and end up with a DNP-CD the next 5 games, so who knows.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                  Hansbrough isn't going to be close to a guy who can barely get off the bench? Wow, I guess we just drafted one of the biggest busts in recent years.

                  Hansbrough is going to surprise a lot of people here. I think he'll contribute to this team for 8 or 10 yeras.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    No kidding.

                    The Jamison Brewer redeux love fest is a bit silly, isn't it?
                    Look, I watch the game. Often I saw it up close rather than on TV. McBob was THE MOST ATHLETIC PLAYER ON THE COURT at times. Higher vert, great speed/size ratio, great lateral, aggressive at both ends of the court.

                    He'd play 9 minutes, grab 4 tough boards, challenge some shots, give 2 hard fouls, make a nice pass, throw one down or hit a middy, and make a couple of bonehead awareness mistakes.

                    When Hibbert is making the same mistakes but is slower, reaching for fouls on defense, and not able to bring the same athletic energy and yet is getting a lot more playing time I'm going to complain.



                    Here's how sick of it I am - you tell me, what SPECIFIC things did McRoberts do wrong in any game last year that warranted not playing?

                    He got 3 games of 20+ minutes
                    In DEC (3 days apart)
                    PHI 5-12 (0-4 deep) but 8 boards and 4 blocks in 28 min
                    NJ 4-10 (0-0) with 4 boards, 5 assists and 2 steals in 25 minutes

                    Then he sits for 2 weeks before getting 4 minutes. You know, because filling up the box with rebounds, blocks, assists and steals is worthless and proves you need to stay on the bench.

                    You go all the way to freaking April for his final game of 20+ minutes
                    TOR 5-8 with 11 boards, 1 ast, 1 stl, 2 blocks in 22 minutes.

                    That "crappy" output earned him 11 minutes and 6 minutes in the next 2 games.



                    The next time McRoberts plays himself out of the rotation will be the first time it's happened in Indy. That's our problem. Brewer got the chance to prove himself in summer ball finally, and when he blew it that marked the end.

                    All I've seen from McRoberts is very promising and active play, he impacts games when he gets in. What I haven't seen was the coach let him play his way to the bench on a team that wasn't making the playoffs.

                    Everyone in the city knows this is weird, it's become a growing topic of "why won't he at least play him and find out more".

                    That's the other question I want answered - why wouldn't you at least let him play BAD for 5 games before benching him? Worse than that, why would you bench him right after a great game?

                    There is no good answer for doing that unless there is some major secret behind closed doors. I've thought they were trying to hold his contract value down personally.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                      Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                      Hansbrough isn't going to be close to a guy who can barely get off the bench? Wow, I guess we just drafted one of the biggest busts in recent years.
                      You called it.

                      I mean JOB's winning record in Indy and 3 years of scouts ranking Hans as the 20-22nd pick in a weak draft prove that I'm the crazy one here. There's no possible way that JOB could be making some poor choices given his Sloan/Phil type of track record. There's no way a Naismith guy could go JJ Reddick on the league.


                      Here's the tidbit that got TBird PO'd - JOB liked James Johnson until they saw him in Chicago at which point he felt like he was too similar to Danny Granger. As TBird said - "too similar to an all-star player, that's the problem?"

                      JOB spent most of the season letting Ford start or going with a combo of Ford/Jack at the same time, and many of us complained about this. Yet most supporters justify him and the team due to the late run....AFTER THAT MISTAKE WAS FIXED and Ford moved to the 6th man roll and Rush became the normal SG.

                      I mean some coaches don't play guys that go on to prove them wrong. Coaches do make mistakes.

                      Someone signed Dun and Troy to those contracts so therefore it was a good choice. The fact that it happened proved it was the correct thing to do.

                      That's what evaluating McRoberts' ability based on how much time a coach was willing to give him is doing. You aren't judging his ability, you are assuming that JOB is infallable and is making all calls based 100% purely on talent.



                      Usually when bad players play you cringe most of the time and pray for him to get pulled. When McRoberts played that didn't happen. At worst fans were neutral on him. He wasn't out there with Eddie Gill/Saras moments turning the ball over for free, or pulling Harrison monster fouls and losing control.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                        I'm not AS enthusiastic as you, Seth, but I do think McRoberts is a better player than most around her give him credit for.

                        The trouble is, I'm afraid he may be leaving us.

                        BEFORE THE DRAFT: Had the Pacers offered him 1 or 2 years at right around the Vet minimum, he would've signed with a smile and given us everything he's got, like always. If another team had offered him a little more money, or a little more time on the contract, he would've turned them down to stay in Indy.

                        AFTER DRAFTING A PF: He's going to be mad about the apparent lost minutes, so now if the Pacers offer him 1 year at the vet minimum, he's going to walk. If they offer him 2 years at the minimum, he's still going to look for other offers from different teams where he could be higher on the rotation.

                        It's just business, but unless they sweet talk him into believing that Hans is NOT going to affect his minutes in 2009-1010, I think he's going to find another team that is willing to offer him the same money and the same duration, but also a slot higher on the depth chart.

                        In my opinion, the best way for the Pacers to go about this is to say, "Look, we know Foster won't be able to play in about 40% of games because of his back. We are counting on you to have an increased roll this year with Maceo gone, and Foster aging. You and Hans are part of our future frontcourt, along with Hibbert."

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                          McRoberts had a couple of decent years at Duke (nothing close to any of Tyler's 4 years) and showed some hustle last season, and yet you're (Naptown) saying that he's going to have a better career than one of the greatest college players of all time who PLAYED IN THE SAME CONFERENCE AT THE SAME TIME?

                          Wow.

                          Tyler played in the same ACC that McBob did and had better stats.

                          FWIW, I liked McRoberts last year. But I would be absolutely stunned if he had a better career than Tyler.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-27-2009, 12:55 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            Granger was a four-year college player and he's made big improvements every year.

                            We're expecting improvements from Rush and Hibbert in their next NBA season, and they were four-year college players.

                            This assumption isn't particuarly strong. Tyler is a winner and leader because he knows how to overcome obstacles with success. There is something to that.



                            Ain't that the truth.
                            Brandon: 22 when drafted, 23 in first game
                            Granger: 22 when drafted, 22 in first game
                            Hibbert: 21 when drafted, 21 in first game
                            Tyler: 23 when drafted, 24 in first game

                            Re: McRoberts

                            I looked up the games you were talking about, and he was always a minus on the floor except in that philly game. And it's a miracle he got playing time considering how badly our team was injured at that point. And he had a terrible +/- overall, it seems as if whenever he was on the court, the team suffered.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                              Originally posted by Drewtone View Post
                              I don't see the relevance of the either/or nature of the question, as I don't see Foster here in 3 years.

                              I hope these two guys push each other and make each other better.
                              Screw my negativity, this is my favorite post on the subject. I THINK the pick stinks, but I HOPE it's brilliant.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Three years from now, who's the better NBA player? Tyler or McBob?

                                Originally posted by flox View Post
                                Brandon: 22 when drafted, 23 in first game
                                Granger: 22 when drafted, 22 in first game
                                Hibbert: 21 when drafted, 21 in first game
                                Tyler: 23 when drafted, 24 in first game

                                Re: McRoberts

                                I looked up the games you were talking about, and he was always a minus on the floor except in that philly game. And it's a miracle he got playing time considering how badly our team was injured at that point. And he had a terrible +/- overall, it seems as if whenever he was on the court, the team suffered.
                                The +/- stat user is an empty man with and empty soul.

                                Worst statistic in sports. I'm more interested in a player's show size or his favorite color.

                                If the Cavs get killed, and Lebron plays the whole game, is he a worse player than the 11th man off the Lakers' bench who has a +20 in his 10 minutes of play?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X