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

Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

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

  • #46
    Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

    the initial point was that I said coach K is an excellent coach and a great coach for team USA, and someone decided to argue that coach K is a crappy coach that does not develop players and sucks at strategy, and decided to use Carlos Boozer's lack of low post touches at Duke as proof. If I used an absolute that was taken the wrong way, that's on me. It doesn't detract from my initial point, though.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      A couple of things I wonder about with Granger:

      1) Couldn't part of his lack on D these last few years be because he's asked to be our primary offensive weapon on teams that weren't exactly stocked with scorers? I thought even the great Kobe Bryant went through this before the Lakers became elite again, where he was asked to focus so much on his scoring that he wasn't considered as elite of a defender for a year or two in the mid (or so) 00's?

      2) We know Danny had knee concerns coming out of New Mexico. Could that quietly be playing some part in why he plays a more 'reserved' game and just tries to pick his spots?
      1) Of course it is. We've had pathetically few scoring options the past couple of years. Has to work hard as hell to get shots often. Focus of defenses, etc
      That can change this year, and I'm hoping he's still got it in him to switch it back down.

      2) There was NO doubt (in my mind) that Danny was gimpy most of last season. He lit it up at the end of the year when he started feeling better as manifested by actually putting the ball on the floor again and not having to settle for the immediate jumper because he couldn't move worth a darn.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.
        That's right, K-Stat. Please stop engaging in the conversation if you can't win an argument and must resort to personal attacks. That says EVERYTHING about you. I have felt that your points you made as supposedly the lFIBA-college-NBA expert on this board were kinda nut, but I had class enough not to call you out in an overly negative way. Trust me I wasn't going to keep this up either if you had come up with a reasonable and civilized rebuttal because there is no need for that type of back-n-forth on these boards. But you ended it on a sour note for all of us with your childish response. In the future try coming up with better arguments that don't have holes big enough for Rik Smits to walk through.

        As for Boozer, in case you weren't paying attention, IN COLLEGE he was able to post up anyone and score. That was the point me and the other poster were trying to make in regards to how K didn't take advantage of his post play. Sorry that went over your head.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

          Right. Boozer was a low post beast. His low post skills just happened to vanish when he got to the NBA. Magic, I suppose. Maybe it was the evil doing of the terrible coach K?

          Calling you out of touch with reality is not a personal attack, nor is it uncivilized. It's just the truth. You have a sad, comical grudge against Mike Krzyzewski, and are going out of your way to criticize him in the the midst of the best coaching job of his career. If that doesn't scream "irrational," I don't know what does....
          Last edited by Kstat; 09-11-2010, 07:54 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            FYI on Boozer's offensive plays (of which there are a recorded 1,649):

            0.1% were as the P&R ball handler (a whopping 1 time )
            1.0% were off screens
            1.5% were hand offs
            5.7% were isolation
            7.3% were in transition
            7.7% were "all other plays"
            8.6% were offensive rebounds
            11.2% were spot-ups
            13.5% were as the P&R roll man
            21.5% were post-ups
            22.1% were cuts
            Hicks, this is what Major Cold wrote :

            Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.


            And I ended up concuring with him. Nothing he wrote made any mention of what Boozer has done or is doing as a pro. In the NBA Boozer's 6'8 height (at best) and lack of major hops will make it difficult for him to be dominant in the paint. But when he was at Duke he obviously wasn't facing the same level of competition and was able to post folks up and score almost at will. He shot 61%, 60% and 66% during his three seasons at Duke and he shot well above 70% from the free throw line each year at Duke too.

            http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/pla.../carlos-boozer


            In other words he was a true weapon in the paint for the Blue Devils. But K allowed Jason Williams to take stupid three pointers all game long rather than instructing the ball to go into Boozer more. In their final year at Duke when the Blue Devils failed to make it to even the Final Eight it was in part because Jason, a 38% three-point shooter that year, had the green light to launch long jumpers rather than be give the instruction to play like a point guard and get the ball into his big man. Period. This was simply an example that Major Cold was using as evidence of K's disinterest in post play. That's all. As a result a guy like Boozer who, whether K-Stat thinks highly of him or not, has been a very productive player in the NBA ended up falling to the second round of the draft when he has clearly put up lottery like numbers over the years. Many people have felt for years now that if Boozer had been THE focus of that Due offense not only would Duke had won back-to-back championships, Boozer would have been picked in the first round as well. One doesn't have to agree with that theory of course but if you can't come up with nothing more than a hissy fit response worthy of a six year old why even bother posting? I can take K-Stat's points and counter them until the cows come home without ever having to resort to something like that last post he directed at me.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Right. Boozer was a low post beast. His low post skills just happened to vanish when he got to the NBA. Magic, I suppose. Maybe it was the evil doing of the terrible coach K?

              Calling you out of touch with reality is not a personal attack, nor is it uncivilized. It's just the truth. You have a sad, comical grudge against Mike Krzyzewski, and are going out of your way to criticize him in the the midst of the best coaching job of his career. If that doesn't scream "irrational," I don't know what does....
              Oh, make up your mind already, dude. First you say you have no further point debating me and now you're back again. I guess you just need to have the last word. You seem like that type.

              Please keep dismissing anything positive about Boozer's play by being sarcastic. It doesn't do anything to prove your point. And, yes, in case you haven't noticed many undersized forwards had to change their games when they make it to the NBA because they can't get away with the same things they did in college. Its called an adjustment. You may not know this but some high school stars have to make similar adjustments when they move on to college too. It works like that.

              And unlike you with Boozer I was once a huge admirer of K. During the Laettner days I felt he was a terrific coach. Unfortunately he later morped into a Rick Pitino clone. Just my opinion. I don't have a grudge against the man (although you appear to have a hard on for him); I simply can't stand the hype that has surrounded hi for the past 12 years. By the way could I argue that you have some unreasonable grudge against Larry Brown? Don't throw around accusations when you aren't immune from incrimination yourself.

              Oh, you still weren't able to give a rebuttal to ANY of the points I made earlier this morning, have you? Of course not. Its clear you get your thrills t being the lone expert on all things basketball, particularly FIBA related. The problem with so-called experts is that they tend to not able to take it well when someone has the audacity to challenge their knowledge and authority. That would explain your little rant.

              I would ask you to at least get around to providing the 2003 FIBA results for Team USA but you're probably too preoccupied putting up another poster of Coach K in the personal shrine you made for him. Cool. We all gotta have hobbies. But, hey, go ahead and have the last word because there's no more point in wasting board members' times with a never-ending flamewar. Besides you've proven you can no longer write anything that I would think is worthy enough to read. Just one bit of advice…I Team USA wins gold please be dignified enough not to throw yourself at the feet of K when he returns to American soil.

              I apologize to the rest of the guys here for my part of this wasteful discussion.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                1. I rebutted pretty much everything you said. Arguing further is a waste of my time.

                2. I don't hate Larry Brown any more than I love coach K. I can't stand Duke. but I'm not so blind that I can't see past my own blinders to recognize one of the best basketball coaches of his generation.

                3. The 2003 Tournament of the Americas don't interest me. I know they had a much better team then, just like I know they still managed to bring Tim Duncan to the Olympics the following years and put in a pitiful performance against inferior talent, because their coach could not adjust to FIBA rules, nor could he win his way without vastly superior talent, and insufficient preparation time.

                Basically, Krzyzewski is doing everything in 2010 that Larry brown could not do in 2004.

                If I took every little irrational post and wrote out paragraph-sized rebuttals, I'd never get any sleep. Arguing that Mike Krzyzewski is not a good coach, or that Carlos Boozer at any level was a fine low post player, is like telling me the sun is green. I don't need a thesis to rebut it, nor is it interesting enough to take seriously.

                The final joke is that you're implying that I, a lifelong Pistons fan, have a grudge against Larry Brown, of all people. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with a bazooka.

                You hate coach K. We get it. Just don't pick the one year where he follows up an NCAA Championship with a FIBA World Championship to go on a massive rant about how much he sucks. You're likely to get laughed at.
                Last edited by Kstat; 09-11-2010, 08:44 PM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner



                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Fixed...
                    I agree. His defense has fallen way off, his 3PA/FGA ratio is wacko, his 3PA/Gm is outrageous as well.

                    I think we are getting a reality smack in the face that Danny isn't better than Iggy or Gay.

                    OTOH, Danny proved that he was a pretty lethal scorer in 08-09. If he could get some support in developing his full game and drop some of the 3PA focus he could still be a better player than Iggy/Gay.

                    I do agree that the biggest hit for him right now is that he's basically Durant-lite in his overall game which means that his minutes are going to Durant more than they are going to Iggy/Gay. I mean Rondo just had a similar experience.


                    Then again, Westbrook and Love have both proven their own games during this run and silenced some doubters. Westbrook especially shines here because his number one asset is intangible plays based around his explosiveness/hops/quickness/reaction time.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                      While I do agree that Coach K can lean heavily toward perimeter, to call him a horrible coach and not efficient is a huge stretch. I have not seen Kenner say that K is horrible, that was stretch.

                      Coach K has not fallen off his high horse. He just won a title with a perimeter team against another perimeter team. As I recall there really was not a low post scorer that shined bright in the tourney. But it is late.

                      But when Duke hit the Hans and Mays years they struggled a little.

                      Listen FIBA is not for low post scorers. The key is prove of that. The physicality is prove of that. The lack of goal tending is prove of that. This has always been a perimeter tournament. Scola is a pick and pop player. When his back is to the bucket even in the NBA you will see him iso 13 feet out.

                      NOW Boozer was not pick and pop in college to my recollection. The 3-2 motion should utilize the low post and even a high high post. But against zones this offense utilizes a cross court or kick back against collapsing defenders. That is why McBob has a developed passing game. You have to play smart and thorough in this offense.

                      It is apparent that talking in extremes is the fault. Coach K does not suck (which I have only seen in Kstat's accusations) and Coach K does have some faults. But I will say that he is still the most accomplished and respected college coach since Dean Smith. Wooden spoke highly of him.

                      He has proud pride to the national team. He should be commended.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                        I haven't read any of the rest of the thread, but I can tell you why Granger isn't getting the PT, from what I saw in the time that he has played in FIBA...

                        and I like Danny Granger...i really like danny granger and i'm glad he's a pacer.

                        1. too soft...he dodges contact every chance he can

                        2. lack of any sort of non-opportunistic purpose on both ends of the floor

                        if you can't convince me that you should be on the floor, you're definitely not going to convince coach K and his staff.

                        from what i've observed, danny hasn't done one thing outside of his comfort zone (that i've observed) for team usa (something most of us hoped he would)...and that's what the other guys like rudy and iggy have done and that's why they're playing and he's not...it's as simple as that. rudy played defense like most of us haven't ever seen him play, and iggy adapted his game in ways that we never saw him do in nba play. i can't say the same for danny. he looked the exact same in fiba, if not worse, than he does in nba play.

                        the saddest part for me is that he didn't do what those guys did...all the other players look like they've grown and expanded, but danny doesn't...i really, really hoped he would leave that comfort zone that he has...but, he just looks like the same ole danny of the past couple of years, who doesn't exert himself on defense, doesn't move any better without the ball, doesn't have any sort of force and doesn't impose his will and doesn't make his teammates better in any way. he's still just an opportunistic player. i wanted that to change.

                        it's sad, for me, and i've been in pseudo-denial about it for most of the fiba championships. but, it is what it is and that's why he's not playing.

                        stephen curry and tyson chandler have suffered the same fate...they're doing nothing beyond what they normally do...every other player who's seen significant PT has been going above and beyond what they've done in the nba in some way
                        Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                          Speaking of DG expanding his game, Pacers could sure use some extra D and board work from him. We know he's capable. Playing 3 and in OB's system takes him away from the hoop, but he could still chip in say 6-7 boards a game. It will have to be by committee.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                            http://espn.go.com/nba/

                            Something is wrong with this picture??

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                              Originally posted by indyblue47 View Post
                              http://espn.go.com/nba/

                              Something is wrong with this picture??

                              Granger was raised a Jehovah's Witness. They're not allowed to salute the flag, say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem, etc. (I'm assuming you're referring to Granger not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem.)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                                Does anyone else just not care aboput the issue of Granger not getting any minutes for Team USA.

                                but I do find it interesting that some are blaming Jim O'Brien. LOL

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X