Tweet
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
All this recognition is great and this team is well deserving of it.
All this recognition is great and this team is well deserving of it.
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.
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
-
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
Dunleavy's negative impact on his club defense this season has been grossly overstated. For one reason or the other, opponents just haven't been taking advantage of his poor defensive ability. The one who came closer was Gerald Wallace but the Bobcats didn't really milk that matchup either.Originally posted by mellifluous View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
Can someone tell me where to find the dialogue for PTI so i can read it. I know there is a podcast but my work computer (dont get me started) does not have sound.JOB is a silly manComment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
PTI is not on yet, but they talked about the Pacers in around the horn and were talking about the almost perfect quarter, the Host also called Mcroberts McbobOriginally posted by jhondog28 View Post
One of the guys was saying that he understand Mcbob no passing the ball, he said that Hansbrough abused him in college(Mcbob)because of that he didn't want to pass the ball and that if he gave the ball to Hans he was never going to give it back(joke)@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
Cordobes, that's because team's fail when they are predictable, and to do this the coach would need to call for isolation, which is hard to justify with a shot-blocking beast in Hibbert down low who has been great coming weakside this season. Plus, Dunleavy is mostly exposed off the dribble, but he is very long for his position, which allows him to get a hand up on a jump shooter easily whenever the shooter realizes going to the rack isn't the best shot available with Dunleavy being backed up by a giant. So, it has played into our hands this season thanks to Roy and even Josh. Still would rather see Rush work his way into the starting rotation, and I think he will.Originally posted by cordobes View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
Is time for PTI, they are going to also talk about the pacers in a minute@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
I happen to be in Indiana (I live in Arkansas) this week and on a whim, my dad bought 2 tickets online (my brother, a friend and family already had tickets, except they were in section 114 and we were in 17, near the front. Quite a game to catch! A pleasant surprise for everyone.
We didn't realize until after the 3rd what had happened. We just knew mike and the Pacers were on fire.
It's unfortunate the attendance is so sparce, but I A55 was certainly spirited. Good job on your part. All in all great night for the Pacers and it's nice to have a positive basketball related news story come out for the team.Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
I bought season tickets this year. The game last night was awsome. Here's to a great season!!Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
Yup, other teams have been taking advantage of Collison more. (Who is, quite frankly, just as bad)Originally posted by cordobes View Post
But, we really haven't played top tier SGs yet, with the exception of Manu (who did go off)Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
amazing game. i wish all our games are like this. lolComment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
Ditto on both counts. I thought that Collison's defensive effort last night was improved however. But man, Parker (for example) was just blowing right past DC. His "defense" is that he goes right back at his guy at the other end, which is one way of dealing with it I guess, ala Granger's "defense".Originally posted by Sookie View Post
I'm way late to this party and someone's probably rained on it already, but let me jump in and add to that...well kinda.
First off, until the 3rd Dun's night was really more of the same and there was no indication of the quarter to come. People reading into a guy who's gone 25-35% from 3 for MONTHS at a time being A-OK because of a quarter nearly unprecedented are making a mistake.
No one on here and I mean no one would have bet a week's salary on Dun having a 24 pt quarter EVER, let alone currently.
And to add to that I'd say that Tyler was extra abnormally hot from the deep jumper. Can he make those? Sometimes. But he got way hotter than you can count on.
Collison also was hotter from 3 than we can hope for.
And on top of all this is the obvious fact which has no doubt been made by someone already that Denver is a disinterested defensive team on game 4 in 5 nights on the road. And that's a perfect formula for a better than normal offensive 3rd quarter for opponents who often come out of the locker room flat from the cool down.
I enjoyed the ride, I was stunned to see Dun carrying the majority of it, and I sure as hell didn't consider a lot of those longer makes "open" shots. In fact some were rather low quality as Denver regrouped and began to dial up the defense.
But on the plus side we had this list:
Collison was sharp on defense and in pushing the tempo right off the bat. He hit some tougher jumpers but he was also the aggressor on both ends all night and often a one man fast break.
Rush came back and looked like a man on a mission to prove himself. His defense was ramped up - ie, stealing the ball from behind Melo and going the other way with it - and his scoring was typically aggressive going to the rim.
In fact prior to the 3rd quarter this was 100% a story about how DC and Rush were owning.
McRoberts and Tyler were on their A games, Josh making some brilliant passes and his overall athletic/physical game, and Tyler hitting more of what I'm coming to accept as his reliable "junk ball" shots centered around brute force. I've obviously doubted that translating to the NBA, but at the very least he's going to be able to succeed against anyone not prepared to bring a ton of force right back at him.
Roy was really out of synch but as Denver let him gather his game on the inside he was able to play his way back into the flow.
Danny was not special, but he was in standard Danny form.
On top of that we saw very interesting, quality lineups from JOB, which included defensive based groups like DC, Rush, George, Tyler and McBob.
I felt like JOB was working the rotation very well all night.
In fact I'm almost sorry that the 3rd quarter overshadowed some of these other positives because I think those are hopeful signs for reliable success while the 3rd quarter miracle was a fleeting moment of magic.
I'm not trying to discount or knock Dun's outing. It was brilliant and impressive. If this is a sign of offense to come then it means the Pacers are loaded.
Do we really think this team is loaded or without flaw because of one night, really one magic quarter? We shouldn't. The nights are coming when the Pacers roll into Boston, Utah or LA on the 4th game in 5 nights of a West trip and suddenly the offensive flow will mysteriously disappear.
What we really have is a team that can be the Philly game one night and the Denver game a week later. The talent, the offensive system, and the team as a whole aren't the Denver game, but hopefully the positives we saw last night mean they aren't the Philly game either.Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-10-2010, 08:27 PM.
Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
With the exception of TJ/AJ...but I think we're going to have to wait until TJ is physically off the team, or until he annoys JOB..which although not playing good, he hasn't played like he did at times last season..Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
I think Darren always tries. Offensively, he may not get it all the time..he may want to hold onto the ball. But he tries. He's never a disinterested defender (which is Ford's flaw) He just has a tendency to go for steals which gets him killed, and he loses his guy when his guy moves..and the fact that he's small means that guys shoot over him.
I think he could grow to be a real pest though. He's so energetic, he's just playing on defensive instincts that happen to be poor defensive habbits. I think between him and Hans, our team could be a really annoying team to play against. And I really though Collison was the reason we won this game, from the begining he set the tone. (obviously I missed the third quarter..but I don't think Collison would have let us lose this one)Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
I can't think of anything in basketball that's more satisfying to me that watching one of your players torture and strip the opponent's best player and take it to the other end. I'll take that over ESPN's flashy SportsCenter highlight dunks any day of the week.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
We're not going to see play like in this game regularly, but it was very nice to see what can happen when they put things together and go on a hot streak.Comment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
Yeps, Manu scored 22 points; but only 3 when guarded by Dunleavy.Originally posted by Sookie View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame thread/ The Mike Dunleavy and Rush show
I think some other posters are a game or two away from looking pretty foolish.Originally posted by cdash View Post
When someone MATCHES their 3P makes for the first 5 games (6) in one game, it might just mean people weren't wrong to complain.
Dun just went 9-13 (6-10). That RAISED his TOTAL FG(3P)% on the year to a kick-butt 41%(34%).
It took an epic, nearly unmatched ever effort for one quarter of one game to get his numbers from "bench this dude" to "limit this guy's minutes".
RON ARTEST is outshooting Dun from 3 at this point (36%). Ron "you think that was a bad shot, watch this" Artest.
As for "this is the Mike we know", are you telling me that the 60% (100% in the 3rd) from 3 Mike is the one you know? Because the Mike I know has the following season totals from 3:
35%
37%
39%
29%
31%
43%
36%
32%
and was shooting 24% on the year before last night
I see 3 seasons above 36% and 5 at or below 36% and working on a 6th.
I hate it even having to get to this because I'm not thrilled with having to belittle his night. But I'll be GD if I'm going to sit back and let outrageous, unreasonable opinions be thrown at people who had a lot of evidence building to back their feeling that Mike wasn't playing that well.
Even in this same game Mike was 1-5 from 3 without that 5-5 3rd quarter, 2-6 overall FG without the 7-7 of the 3rd.
Heck, his epic struggle to find the basket makes it even more amazing. The guy entered the 3rd quarter shooting (DEN first half included):
34% FG
23% 3P
Then, just as expected, he went 7-7 (5-5) and not one of those was less than 19 ft away. You know, because that's normal.
If it was the plot of Teen Wolf 3 you'd say it was too fake.
I don't know how it happened and I don't care, it was basketball miraculous.Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-10-2010, 09:01 PM.Comment
Comment