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

Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this) :)

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

  • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
    I was being very serious.
    Looks like I probably should of explained more huh...

    You do realize that Monta's played mostly sg for years now. Every night he goes up against taller and stronger players and still manages to put up great numbers.

    Defensively he's not nearly as bad as you and others make it sound. If he's guarding pgs his defense is gonna look a lot better then when he's guarding players like Kobe Bryant, James Harden, Kevin Martin, Ray Allen, and our own 6'10" Paul George. Can you think of anyone else in the league that has a size disadvantage like that night in and night out? If you put him at pg he doesn't have that problem. All of sudden he's the one with the advantage. He becomes taller, stronger, and more athletic then all but 2 pgs in the league. He's also a willing passer evident by his 6 apg. That would be tops for sgs.

    And Beast, as far as your analogy goes I gotta disagree. If that was the case our beloved Danny would be **** out of luck when it comes to regaining his glory day defense. Hasn't it been **** long enough to call it a "primary habit"? Why shouldn't I believe Monta can change if I think Danny can? They both have the tools, they just need to apply them.

    Imagine Paul and Monta on the break. Imagine all the open looks Danny and David would get out of the PNR. Imagine nationally televised games again. Imagine the fans coming back and putting the 'Life' back into Bankers Life Fieldhouse because, well, who could avoid the show? I can envision all these with Monta running the point for this team.

    I never said it wouldn't be risky, but it's on Mr. Bird and company to decide if Monta's got the right mentality for the job... not you or I. Don't pretend to act like you know the man because you read the internet a lot.

    I can understand if you and others have an emotional attachment with certain players... but I don't. I couldn't care less about how comfortable they are in the locker room. It's nice to get along, but having good off court chemistry isn't nearly as important as having good on court chemistry. You can win without being friends.
    Last edited by CJ Jones; 02-19-2012, 09:13 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      He's a little harder on Danny than I would be, but facts are facts.

      Granger was an all-star and now he's not...and in the past few years there's a very good reason or two for that.

      One has been his defense. He appears to be shoring that up. It's still not elite or even Iggy level pressure. IOW, he's not riding in as an all-star even on the basis of his improved defense. At the moment, it is about average or maybe slightly above average as a starting SF.

      The other is offense. Granger is a great shooter and getting better at mid range. However, his offensive game is still pretty one dimensional compared to all-stars around the league. His handle is very weak and a real liability. I must say that he's improved that some since he doesn't constantly charge like he used to. Still, it's a weakness. He does not see the floor well and pass it...and even guys like David West and Paul George do that better. Also, he is not a threat to come into the paint and flush it. In fact, I'm not even sure he is capable of dunking in a little traffic. Name another 6'8" all-star SF who never dunks unless nobody is within 20 feet. Dunking doesn't make an all-star...but it does indicate how explosive he is. I suppose he's not all that athletic...but that's not good either...
      Fans have a very short, and perhaps selective, memory. It seems like just a few games ago we were commenting about Granger's improved handle as he was making moves to the rim and dishing it to Hibbert in ways we've never seen before. It was one of the main aspects he worked on this summer.

      Danny has also increased his assists every single season except for 09-10 when he had 171 compared to 183 in 08-09. However, he was also plagued by injuries that season and played 5 less games. He was averaging 2.8 apg that season, so 2.8 x 5 = 14 and 171 + 14 = 185. Last year he had 203 assists. The point is, we know this guy works on his game tirelessly. We know he has the desire to improve on his weaknesses.

      I'm not sure where the idea that Paul George sees the floor better than Danny comes from. How many times have we seen Paul drive to the rim out of control? He picks up at least a foul or two a game off charges this way. But he's a young player and I'm confident he'll improve his pull-up mid-range game and his awareness.

      David West is a smart player, just like Danny is a smart player. However, one we've had the pleasure of watching for six seasons, and the other is the shiny new toy that everyone is perhaps still enjoying a honeymoon period with. Both of these guys are willing passers at about the same rate. They both see the floor equally well. It's just that with Granger, after six years he's received a certain reputation around here and people are fixed in their positions on him.

      The truth is Danny was the clear number one option on this team for years, head and shoulders above anyone else. O'Brien's high-paced, three-loving offense might have inflated his stats, but it also put him in a position to fail every single time we needed a clutch bucket at the end of close games. The few successful outcomes were off catch-and-shoot situations like the game in Phoenix where O'Brien had no choice but to run Danny off a screen because there was something like 0.5 left. If it wasn't a TJ Ford "dribble around and shoot a fade-away elbow jumper," it was a Danny ISO, obviously not one of Danny's strengths. After watching him come up short on many of these occasions, it's no wonder fans have less than favorable views of him.

      In the Chicago series, he was unquestionably our leader and our best player. Hopefully Paul George can get there one day, but until then Granger is the captain of this ship. The good news is that he finally has a capable crew. And now that he has teammates who can alleviate some of that offensive load, logically his numbers will decline. That's no reason to use this season's statistical decline against him.

      I'm thankful the Pacers have had a respectable player who does well on the court and in the community as the face of their franchise these past few seasons. Is it his fault that for many years, out of necessity, he was forced into a role that might have been too big for him? All we can ask for is that players honor their contracts, leave it all on the floor (teeth optional), and represent the franchise in a respectable manner. Danny more than did his part. Instead of picking apart if he dunks enough or not -- personally, I'm glad his game is an "old man's game," he'll last longer for it -- let's enjoy the fact that we don't have to rely on him every night in order to be a competitive team.
      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

      Comment


      • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Those look like tough shots to you but those are common shots for players like Monta, Kobe, Rose, EJ, Westbrook and Dwade, there is a reason why a lot of those guys are great, BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE TOUGH SHOTS, that's what the Pacers are lacking of, a guy who can create his own shot and can make tough shots.
        What you say is true but you DON'T want to live or die by tough shots. That's what your opponents want. There's ALWAYS the chance to take a better shot unless it's only under 1 second on the clock.

        Great players can make tough shots but they can also pass out of tough shots to a guy who is open and has a good shot. That's what MJ did at the game 6 of the 1997 Finals. He passed to Steve Kerr. And he nailed it and the Bulls won the title. Could MJ hit the tough shot? Sure, he could. Passing it to the open man was the better choice, though.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
          Can you think of anyone else in the league that has a size disadvantage like that night in and night out?
          Chuck Hayes and DeJuan Blair. Also, Earl Boykins but he has a size disadvantage over everything so I don't think he counts.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            You haven't accused him of being shot first, that's true.. Several other people have, though. I'll agree that he needs to fix his decision making. He also has some other flaws in his game that he needs to fix (entry passes, fast breaks, pick and roll offense and defense, fighting through screens etc).

            But he's trying to improve himself. He is trying to fit the team concept. That's why I don't want to ship him. I sincerely believe that this would ruin the team chemistry.

            Regarding on enemies respecting or fearing his game. They don't fear him cause he does not get a whole lot of attempts. However, DC is a great shooter. In every season of his still young career his TS% is over .500 (this is his lowest season at .524). If he actually learned to play the pick and roll he would create a lot of jumper shots for himself and we know that his jumpers are lethal.
            See thats the thing, the have-nots heavily outweigh the haves with DC. Even with a guy like Monta What he lacks in superior assist statistics, he makes up for it by being damn near unguardable. With the ball in his hands, I believe he's every bit at good as Rose. Rondo might not be a great shooter but he puts his teammates in the best position to score, and if you sag off of his jumper for to long, next thing you know he's got a triple double.

            I mean I don't hate the guy (DC), its just that I can see clearly that he's not THE GUY. And until we get said guy (Monta), we wont be maximizing our potential. As for chemistry, I certainly don't believe that would be in jeopardy.

            Comment


            • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

              Originally posted by Asher99 View Post
              I would rather have Danny over Monta. Granger could have big scoring nights too if he took as many shots as Ellis takes.
              The point is to put Monta with Danny without giving up any significant pieces. What say you to that?

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              What you say is true but you DON'T want to live or die by tough shots. That's what your opponents want. There's ALWAYS the chance to take a better shot unless it's only under 1 second on the clock.

              Great players can make tough shots but they can also pass out of tough shots to a guy who is open and has a good shot. That's what MJ did at the game 6 of the 1997 Finals. He passed to Steve Kerr. And he nailed it and the Bulls won the title. Could MJ hit the tough shot? Sure, he could. Passing it to the open man was the better choice, though.
              Im sure you and I can agree that were a better team than GSW,right? Right. Now, with that in mind, what or who rather is the ONLY reason we seem to have issues with them. You guessed it, Monta. As to him being able to pass out of tough spots, dude has increased hiss assist every season he's played.

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              Chuck Hayes and DeJuan Blair. Also, Earl Boykins but he has a size disadvantage over everything so I don't think he counts.
              Maybe if you said Charles Barkley or something, i dont know. I know i'm overshooting but considering how sensational a player Monta is you are incredibly low balling with those comparisons.

              Comment


              • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                I mean I don't hate the guy (DC), its just that I can see clearly that he's not THE GUY. And until we get said guy (Monta), we wont be maximizing our potential. As for chemistry, I certainly don't believe that would be in jeopardy.
                Sure, Collison is not THE guy. Our team is not modeled around having THE guy. Our team is modeled around having a balanced offense and everyone in our starting lineup being above average.

                Sure, Rondo is better than DC but Hibbert is better than Jermaine O' Neal (at this age). Nash is better than DC but Granger is better than Grant Hill (at this age, at least). Dwight Howard is better than Hibbert but DC is better than Jameer Nelson. LeBron James is better than Granger but Hibbert is better than Joel Anthony. John Wall is better than DC but David West is better than Trevor Booker (or Andray Blatche). Dirk Nowitzki is better than David West but Paul George is better than Delonte West.

                Do you catch my drift?

                Our team does not revolve around having THE guy. If we were to get him, we should change our current structure. We wouldn't go to Hibbert or West a lot. We wouldn't let PG get his shots off as much as we do now. Our offense would be reshaped.

                PS: Teams who do not revolve around having THE guy can find their own guy during their run. That's what the Pistons did with Billups. He did not came there as THE guy. He came there as a starter and became THE guy for them.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                  Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                  The point is to put Monta with Danny without giving up any significant pieces. What say you to that?
                  Someone will ask for a trade in less than 3 games. We don't have enough shots to keep everyone fully happy now, let alone if we added the leagues leader in attempts per game the last two years. And how do we even go about landing Monta without giving up significant pieces.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                    Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                    Im sure you and I can agree that were a better team than GSW,right? Right. Now, with that in mind, what or who rather is the ONLY reason we seem to have issues with them. You guessed it, Monta. As to him being able to pass out of tough spots, dude has increased hiss assist every season he's played.
                    Talent-wise our starters are not much better than theirs. We only have a significant advantage in our SF and C spot. They are better at SG and PG and I quite frankly believe that we're about equal at PF or that they can be a bit better.

                    However, we are a better TEAM because we have a better plan. You saw our game against them, right? What did they do? They went small and they let their guards decide the game for them. And they do this in every single game. Did it worked in that case? No. Does it work in general? Not that much. Was it working when we did this during JOB? Most of the time it did not. It's the same with the Warriors.

                    Talent-wise we're about equal with them. But our plan is better than theirs and that's why we're a better team.

                    Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                    Maybe if you said Charles Barkley or something, i dont know. I know i'm overshooting but considering how sensational a player Monta is you are incredibly low balling with those comparisons.
                    Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing them with Monta in any way. I'm just saying that they have are in a constant height disadvantage. Nothing more, nothing less.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Sure, Collison is not THE guy. Our team is not modeled around having THE guy. Our team is modeled around having a balanced offense and everyone in our starting lineup being above average.

                      Sure, Rondo is better than DC but Hibbert is better than Jermaine O' Neal (at this age). Nash is better than DC but Granger is better than Grant Hill (at this age, at least). Dwight Howard is better than Hibbert but DC is better than Jameer Nelson. LeBron James is better than Granger but Hibbert is better than Joel Anthony. John Wall is better than DC but David West is better than Trevor Booker (or Andray Blatche). Dirk Nowitzki is better than David West but Paul George is better than Delonte West.

                      Do you catch my drift?

                      Our team does not revolve around having THE guy. If we were to get him, we should change our current structure. We wouldn't go to Hibbert or West a lot. We wouldn't let PG get his shots off as much as we do now. Our offense would be reshaped.

                      PS: Teams who do not revolve around having THE guy can find their own guy during their run. That's what the Pistons did with Billups. He did not came there as THE guy. He came there as a starter and became THE guy for them.
                      Im thanking your post because it agrees with my post that you quoted. When I say THE GUY, I dont mean lets go get CP3 cuz he's THE GUY or lets get Dwight cuz he's THE GUY. My point is lets get THE GUY that WE KNOW is gonna get it done.

                      WE KNOW Danny can get it done so he's THE GUY
                      WE KNOW West can get it done too so he's THE GUY
                      Roy can get it done most of the time, so imo, he's THE GUY.

                      I honestly dont feel he need to upgrade those positions because THOSE GUYS get it done. Catch my drift?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                        Originally posted by Asher99 View Post
                        Someone will ask for a trade in less than 3 games. We don't have enough shots to keep everyone fully happy now, let alone if we added the leagues leader in attempts per game the last two years. And how do we even go about landing Monta without giving up significant pieces.
                        I disagree with you assessment. Monta score out of necessity. They dont have anyone else who can really do it outside of Curry and Lee but the play small ball so they barely go into the post. Monta would open up so may perimeter shot for this team that it'd be ridiculous.

                        In terms of trade, it'd have to be centered around some combination of DC, Tyler, Picks and cap space. Maybe with a third team involved.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Talent-wise our starters are not much better than theirs. We only have a significant advantage in our SF and C spot. They are better at SG and PG and I quite frankly believe that we're about equal at PF or that they can be a bit better.

                          However, we are a better TEAM because we have a better plan. You saw our game against them, right? What did they do? They went small and they let their guards decide the game for them. And they do this in every single game. Did it worked in that case? No. Does it work in general? Not that much. Was it working when we did this during JOB? Most of the time it did not. It's the same with the Warriors.

                          Talent-wise we're about equal with them. But our plan is better than theirs and that's why we're a better team.



                          Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing them with Monta in any way. I'm just saying that they have are in a constant height disadvantage. Nothing more, nothing less.
                          So, if we turn their SG into our PG then we'd be way way better than them and a whole lot of other teams. Regardless, my sole focus is on upgrading the point guard spot so that we do get overmatched and outclassed every other night.

                          As for a plan, I dont think GSW ever had one to begin with.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                            Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                            So, if we turn their SG into our PG then we'd be way way better than them and a whole lot of other teams. Regardless, my sole focus is on upgrading the point guard spot so that we do get overmatched and outclassed every other night.

                            As for a plan, I dont think GSW ever had one to begin with.
                            On paper, yes, we would be way way better than them. But would it work out? There's no way to be sure.

                            The Knicks got better with the Melo trade on paper. Did it worked out? Not as much as it did for Denver.

                            Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                            Im thanking your post because it agrees with my post that you quoted. When I say THE GUY, I dont mean lets go get CP3 cuz he's THE GUY or lets get Dwight cuz he's THE GUY. My point is lets get THE GUY that WE KNOW is gonna get it done.

                            WE KNOW Danny can get it done so he's THE GUY
                            WE KNOW West can get it done too so he's THE GUY
                            Roy can get it done most of the time, so imo, he's THE GUY.

                            I honestly dont feel he need to upgrade those positions because THOSE GUYS get it done. Catch my drift?
                            I'd say that DC does not take as many shots as West, Roy or Danny in order to be THE guy

                            That said, people forget that DC only has one more year of experience than PG.

                            EDIT: Monta can pass out of tough spots but I'm not sure if he willing to pass out of tough spots while the game is on the line.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                              Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                              I disagree with you assessment. Monta score out of necessity. They dont have anyone else who can really do it outside of Curry and Lee but the play small ball so they barely go into the post. Monta would open up so may perimeter shot for this team that it'd be ridiculous.

                              In terms of trade, it'd have to be centered around some combination of DC, Tyler, Picks and cap space. Maybe with a third team involved.
                              Monta scores because Monta loves to shoot, if they had a team stacked with scorers he's going to get his especially since he can opt out and look to get paid again after next year. I also don't think that package of players would excite them enough to make that move at all, every time you hear his name in trade talks its always with a established player going back to Oakland.

                              If they trade Monta any time soon its going to be on their terms not on another teams.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                                You can repeat your line about how "the biggest problem with Danny Granger is that he isn't Lebron James" as many times as you want, which has been plenty already, but it's just as silly and inaccurate now as it was the first time.
                                People complain that Granger doesn't give the full effort he is capable of on the Defensive end. Basically saying that he isn't a 2 way player. But how many players in the NBA are consistent 2 way players at the level you want Danny Granger to be?? Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Kobe, Paul Pierce? Hell you got people on here complaining about Loul Deng being a better overall player than Granger! But Deng isn't even the best player on his team! No body is counting on Deng to carry the load.

                                So the saying is completely true, you all want a guy who can score 20, grab 8 rebounds, dish about 4-5 dimes, and play lock down defense. You all want Lebron James out of Granger. I've heard the same complaints about Granger for the past 3 years. Doesn't make his teammates better, doesn't rebound well for his size, doesn't have a good handle, doesn't defend all the time. If he did all those things competently, he would be Lebron James.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X