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

Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

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

  • #61
    Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

    The problem with looking at the defense in the last three games is that, just like defense contributes to the offense, offense contributes to the defense. Good offensive efficiency (and by this I DON'T mean the old "hold the ball for 22 seconds to deny the opponent chances to score") reduces the opportunities for the opponent AND makes sure you can get into good defensive position before the opponent gets there. In the two blowouts, I think when we had a chance to get set our defense was just fine - unfortunately, it's hard to set up to defend against a steal or bobbled pass in the backcourt or a long bricked shot rebounded above the 3 point arc and passed downcourt.

    Last night, though, I commented a number of times about Pacers who simply ducked out of the way when a shooter came toward them. Maybe this was finally an acknowledgment that they were out of position and knew it would just cause a foul, but it really looked like no one was bothering to challenge anything. THAT kind of defense bothers me.

    Note that for all he can't keep up with most players, Murphy is NOT the one I think is most guilty of that.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

      Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
      Oh I agree Duke I know Tyler has that 4 spot, but just saying what I would like to see and what I think may get us out of the slump. When a pitcher consistently throws fastballs to a hitter the best thing to do is throw a changeup. Thats what I think the Pacers should do. Do a vast change on the starting lineup with players that have hardly ever started in a NBA game and see what happens.
      As much as I would want to believe that playing a lineup like that could get us out of this funk we're in I don't think it will happen. For a lack of better scenarios, it's like putting together a D-League team going against an NBA team. Sure we've got some talent, but besides teaching these guys how to lose our record doesn't change.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

        I was pleased to see Josh do well. I agree that this is an indication that we should see more of McRoberts, but - as the OMGTYLERTYLERWOW! people get told - let's see a few games and see what happens.

        McRoberts has 3 years of at least hanging around active NBA action on the floor, so I would hope that he could figure out where to be. In at least this game, it showed.
        Bill, as we've already discussed, Josh did this exact same thing last year. He does show it and what happens next? Bench, or street clothes. I keep saying it, go look at his game log last year. He had a few games where he got to really play and they were all great outings. Then he gets benched and it wasn't just me that said "wow, that's weird".

        The "Tyler crowd" is saying WOWWOWWOW what a great 30% shooting night he had. Did you see the one where he really got them angry right before his shot was blocked.

        When I complained about Tyler I didn't say it in vague terms or use the "there must be some reason he doesn't get to play". I said "shot blocked here, FG% there, fouled this guy, got lost there".

        With Josh you even said directly to me after I cited his Portland output prior to the half "yes he had plays, but they don't really affect the game like Tyler's do. He blocked a shot, but it went out of bounds so that doesn't help".

        I'm on about that because as you can imagine I found it the most outrageous, biased defense imaginable.

        People got excited about ONE DUNK by Tyler when Howard stepped aside. Josh just put two in within minutes and both were out of straight up halfcourt cuts.

        So what I'm saying is that I've cited play after play, and not just this year. You still haven't given me any specific problems with his game. "Awareness" but few examples of him getting lost (and yes, he has I'll agree, just not enough to bench).

        The big defense this year was his FG%...on 12 attempts. If Tyler only had 12 attempts all year I wouldn't be worried about his FG% either. Hell, I just said that I dismiss the Josh 3 as a fluke. He's not in or out on 12 attempts, no player should be.

        Even Tyler gets defended with "he'll find his shot". Well certainly Josh should be afforded the same chance, especially since he didn't shoot that poorly last year and isn't so far this year after last night.



        Here's your chance. You tell me what Josh CAN'T DO that other players clearly can from the PF/C position. And you should be able to back it a little with stats, as in "he can't rebound when his per36 numbers are good".

        He's not playing, what reason have WE SEEN for that. Because we've seen tons of reasons he should play, and that includes many times last season as well as this summer.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

          Here's your chance. You tell me what Josh CAN'T DO that other players clearly can from the PF/C position. And you should be able to back it a little with stats, as in "he can't rebound when his per36 numbers are good".

          He's not playing, what reason have WE SEEN for that. Because we've seen tons of reasons he should play, and that includes many times last season as well as this summer.
          I know you are going to tell me I am wrong, but I am going to take a shot at it anyway.

          Like I've said before. He needs to somehow get broken to lead like a horse. Because you see it out there, I see it too. The guy has a ton of energy, and maybe the coaching staff likes that, but he is too much out of control. Using Foster as an example, he can control his strength and energy. That is something that Josh needs to be able to do if he wants to see any form of playing time, let alone extended minutes.

          We saw last night that it's possible that he could be somewhat effective if he just slows down and stops running around like a loose lightning bolt.

          In a sense Josh may be his own worst enemy and be doing more harm than good, so the staff feels like they have all that controlled energy in Tyler, so you might as well play him.

          I mean what other reason? Again, this is just my opinion.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

            That might be trying to do too much with limited time. When you think, make that know, that you're only going to get one shot and showing you can produce, sometimes you try too much.

            I imagine you'd see a slow down if he knew he wasn't going to be put back on the end of the bench.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

              Do you think they increased McRoberts time as a showcase for trade bait. I dont think we would do this but was just wondering.
              JOB is a silly man

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                And please, I am so sick of either "he was showing this in practice but JOB hates him" vs. "he doesn't practice well but so what, practice doesn't matter" stuff. If you aren't at practice you are only guessing.
                I'm sick of this too. For the sake of hyperbole, let's pretend it's LeBron. Yep, I'm only guessing that LeBron is outperforming his teammates in practice because I'm not there.

                Dude impacts just about every game he's in, period. He's shown nothing if not an ability to defend better than any other teammate at his position. He's consistently shown that he's also our best big passer, dribbler, and possibly most athletic (regardless of Jim's thoughts on Solo). There's no way he isn't practicing well in relation to his teammates.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                  Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
                  Do you think they increased McRoberts time as a showcase for trade bait. I dont think we would do this but was just wondering.
                  First you have to look at it is if the other teams besides Portland knows that there is a player in the NBA named Josh McRoberts. Since he is low on our bench I suppose most teams wouldn't be scouting him.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                    JFC trying to deipher this team's issues and how to fix them is like trying to start a puzzle but you cannot find the corners. It drives you Fuggin Nuts.
                    JOB is a silly man

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                      In a sense Josh may be his own worst enemy and be doing more harm than good, so the staff feels like they have all that controlled energy in Tyler, so you might as well play him
                      Where have you seen Josh out of control, and where have you seen Tyler in control? If anything, I haven't seen a Pacer more out of control with their energy (Tyler) since Al Harrington in his rookie year (he's already developed a reputation for it..just ask Stephen Jackson).

                      And for the record, I think it's a good thing to be out of control with energy.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Yeah, because I'm wrong. That's what the game last night told you?

                        Maybe if less people tried to make the case that somehow after games like last night Josh was nothing worthwhile and doesn't warrant PT, you'd see a lot less of my rants.

                        If you don't put out the freaking fire then the fire alarm is just going to keep going off. Stop telling me he's no good and deserves street clothes and I'll stop losing it when he comes in and has these types of games.


                        PS - if that was Tyler or TJ Ford or Murphy having that game, then I'd be on here saying they had a great game. They don't make those plays, that's the problem.

                        Tyler had a solid game recently and I said so right away, and I didn't wait till I got home even. I said it right to BillS, Peck, Hicks, Gnome, etc right after the game.
                        You're not wrong, but you're not right either. Mostly, you're just silly.

                        I think Josh had a nice game last night and I am happy to see it. I'm not sure what that has to do with Tyler since they bring different things to the position and the team.

                        It is irritating to see you interchange anecdote and statistics when it suits you.

                        If Tyler played last night, you would be railing on his measly 2 boards at the PF position in 30 minutes. About how he can't rebound in the NBA and how crucial that ability is. You'd be annoyed that he chucked up a pair of threes even though he made one.

                        Go browse your responses to excited posts by Pacer fans in games where Tyler had a nice game. You'll find yourself trivializing a scoring night much higher than 9, lamenting about rebound totals of 5 or 6, and rolling your eyes about the intangibles people point out. And yet, here you are.

                        The funny thing is, I have absolutely no problem with you fanboying for Josh because its great to have a player you love and follow and get excited about when he does well.

                        What I don't get is why you're trying to drag Tyler down into the mud as part of your discussion.

                        It would be very, very easy to trash Josh right now by taking a broader lens and comparing some things with certain other players. But screw that, the kid is a nice player and he deserves better.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          Where have you seen Josh out of control, and where have you seen Tyler in control? If anything, I haven't seen a Pacer more out of control with their energy (Tyler) since Al Harrington in his rookie year (he's already developed a reputation for it..just ask Stephen Jackson).

                          And for the record, I think it's a good thing to be out of control with energy.
                          Usally watching him defend and just start hacking. Him running up the court, he's given the ball then just chucks it. Last night I didn't see that. He is usually out of position, but I suppose I am wrong, so I'll jump out of this one.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            With Josh you even said directly to me after I cited his Portland output prior to the half "yes he had plays, but they don't really affect the game like Tyler's do. He blocked a shot, but it went out of bounds so that doesn't help".

                            I'm on about that because as you can imagine I found it the most outrageous, biased defense imaginable.
                            The problem is that not only don't I remember this, you are right and it is stupider than I would normally be. I repudiate that statement, it was a bizarro-Bill, I was on cold medicine, whatever.

                            I can imagine saying that activity in garbage time doesn't affect the game.

                            I know that I've said the previous observations of McRoberts and Tyler are that I had seen McRoberts rise up on one play and then not be involved in the next activity in the same possession, while my observation of Tyler is that he is constantly involved from point to point to point, which is why he seems to be more effective on misses and bobbles (including his own) than McRoberts. Note I did NOT notice this last night.

                            I acknowledge that Josh looked really good last night - give me the same credit that you want others to give you when you acknowledge Tyler. But also apply the same caveats.

                            I saw McRoberts do some dumb things last year, I also believe he could have gotten more time, but I don't think he's a 7th-8th man player somehow unfairly forced into a 12th man spot. Yet.

                            He just has to do a little more to prove it to me. He may be on track to do that, but let me be the judge of when I've seen it.

                            In regards to specifics about why I feel the way I feel, well, that's a weakness. I don't have Tivo'd games I can break down and analyze, and I think statistics are useless without context. I'll agree to do it moving forward, but even then I don't know that I'll have specifics with specific plays because I don't take notes during the game. I did that when I was reporting, it is too much like work to do it now.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                              I'll debate.

                              He had 3 rebounds in 27 minutes, that's not PF ish. He has never ever had a consistent shot as a pro, although it looked good last night. He did really struggle with awareness, moreso last year, since they played that really weird hedge strong side deal. I don't really blame him there, I really didn't get that either. He used to not really move his feet defensively either in the low post or face up, he actually did last night. He'd often miss those same dunks, that got me off the couch last night with a fist pump and a profanity.

                              I mean I like McBob, but as much as he hasn't done things to not play, I don't think he's done things that ever make me think, man why isn't he playing.

                              I guess my point is that maybe you can point to some of his limited minutes and say he well played good enough to not be benched.

                              My big thing is I just don't see the comparison to Tyler, who ya gets blocked, but gets to the line. Also, as a physical presence, it's not even close. Hansbrough's really the only physical presence on the team and the only one for long while. They are really completely different players to me.

                              I do agree with you that he never has gotten consistent minutes and when he has played he hasn't been a detriment to deserve benching. In fact, I think if he ever got to be rotation guy, we'd see many more of that great pass from last night. He often seemed to try to run the exact offense Obie wanted instead of being able to play fluidly. Regular minutes would let him maybe to that.

                              Last night, he played more free, without thinking. He played well.

                              I think we probably get a chance though, to answer a bunch of these questions tonight. If your only front court guys are McBob, Solo, and Roy. McBob gets a Zach Randolph who is having one of the best stints in his career right now. Ya, it's not fair really to say that he should even hold his own against him, but I'd guess we'll see some of the warts more clearly when he's matched against a skill player instead of a player that is completely based on athleticism like a Tyrus Thomas.

                              I feel bad for even taking this side, cuz I actually agree with you Seth, I want him to play and play well and I think he can.

                              It's funny, one of the first things I thought of watching McBob last night was, man I bet Naptown Seth is fired up to finally see McBob get some burn.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                                In the two blowouts, I think when we had a chance to get set our defense was just fine
                                No, this is 100% not the case. I will be happy to record the Bulls game to DVD if need be, or have you over for the most unpleasant dinner/viewing either of our wives could imagine in order to make the case.

                                I didn't even notice many transition issues. Nearly all the defensive breakdowns came out of half court. It was rotations off of PnR mainly, though we have issues with guys getting lost on baseline screens and stuff too.

                                I cited 3 specific plays above when talking about Dun.

                                I actually would be more than happy to agree with you if the case just was the bad offense, and it wasn't good much of the night, but the Bulls just didn't really punish the Pacers in transition so much.

                                Also it wasn't just "Rose is good". A few times he rose up and hit tough jumpers, but most of the time he wasn't defended well anyway. It was much more a case of guys playing WAY off of people, giving tons of space or losing them when the moved off-ball.

                                It was bad enough that I was irritated by it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X