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:
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

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

Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

    How have we solved last year's biggest problem of not having offensive flow and firepower because we could not get the ball to our solid scorers in the post? We haven't.

    This year we will find the same problem as last year in the playoffs--no one can get Roy the ball and West gets it way out on the peremiter. Hill was better than Collison, but Hill still is weak in this area.

    So, for me, the most intriguing development for next year will be to see how we find some offensive power and lubrication, particularly in the back court. Our problem now, it seems to me, is our two best defensive players play together (Hill, George) and two offensive-minded players play together (DJ, Lance). We may need to do some mixing and matching all year long until we find just the right mix. This could also be solved by Hill suddenly improving in distribution or PG suddenly improving his playmaking ability and offensive production. I am not holding my breath just yet.

    So, come playoff time, the following are all possible options:

    1. Hill
    2. PG (current)

    1. DJ
    2. Hill

    1. Hill
    2. Lance (or vice versa)

    I don't see Hill being benched at the end of games because of his veteran savvy, great defense, and clutch play. PG still could find the bench, because he is young and still makes strange mistakes. But what is more likely is that PG gets moved down to the three and Granger plays 4, but that puts either Hibbs or West on the bench, so that's doubtful as well.

    But, my point, is that unless we see significant improvement from our two starting guards, they won't have what we need offensively to make things happen in big games.

    Lance developing to such a point is still a long shot. DJ Augustin providing the much needed distribution is more of a possibility, but what we would give up on the defensive end would be significant. He would have to be a truly impressive improvement to find himself playing down the stretch.

    But that's what I will be watching. I'm glad Barbosa and Dahntay are gone (both of whom I liked), because neither of them have even the potential to help with this problem. Lance and DJA do, but it's a long shot.
    Last edited by McKeyFan; 09-27-2012, 08:02 AM.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

  • #2
    Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

    I agree with it being one of the most important things. I rewatched the Miami series over the summer and found that Paul George was a huge part of what they were trying to do, the link to almost everything. It could be coming off the pick and roll or the post entry pass. Moreso than Danny, by far imo, in that series. Danny often was relagated to the BRush role almost, standing and waiting. Paul was uneven, understandably, being guarded by DWade. It goes back to what I alway think about Paul, he can and does do everything pretty well, just not consistently or as cleanly as he could/should. I think if he's matured and improved he's right there in being a lynch pin in making it all work much, much better. Vogel has the foresight to put him in that position last year and hopefully we see results this year. Better reads, tighter handles, more of the ability to take on that responsibility that its his role to be a main cog. Is it scoring? Yep, but not just that. It's making the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I think he will improve this year, how much will see if its an answer to your OP.

    Geroge Hill is the best defensive point guard they've had since well, I really don't know who, Earl Watson maybe.... It's time to recognize this and what value this has to the team concept. It's easy to forget how poorly DC played the Pick and Roll in the recent past. So, I like how they look coming out of the gate with his length and athleticism to not be at a crazy disadvantage in that regard from the opening tip. Also, George Hill can score. The biggest challenge for George Hill is to now be a point guard, the straw that stirs the drink, like Mark Jackson would say. It's a completely different mentality. In San Antonio Pops wanted him to be the scorer he was coming out of college and show that aggressiveness coming off the bench for the Spurs. The Pacers need him to now run the team. It's a different skillset, but moreso a completely different mindset. He has to know his mismatches in a game, but also on a given play. He has to hvae his finger on the pulse of the team and know when a guy has it going or might not be feeling engaged and bring him into the fold. It's a tough thing to teach, its a tougher thing to understand. Some players are just this way by nature, CP3, Kyrie Irving, Mark Jackson, etc. It's more about elevating your team than it is about stats or specifically assists per game. In fact, I'm not sure how his assists can get over 7 or so a game, just by the low post nature of what Frank runs. Frank has this one right too, he told George Hill to focus on being a point guard this summer. That's what they need, someone at the wheel, both literally and in a bunker mentality leadership way. Will George Hill provide more scoring, maybe, but it's more important that he elevates the team as a Point Guard in the old school way, then the overall offense will fall into place.

    Augustine is a shot maker and actually can run a fast break intuitively. Both big needs for a team missing both. Playoff games you see offensive schemes fall apart. One was to score easily is in transition, Augustine can bring this. Something DC or anyone on last years squad honestly could NOT do. He is also not afraid to take a shot with the clock running down. Often, in playoffs, the Point Guard gets stuck with the ball in his hands as the shot clock runs down. Augustine can get a decent shot off in this situation, in spite of his poor FG% last year.

    Gerald Greene can guard other wings well, run the break, and hit the spot up jumper. All 3 are exactly things needed from your first wing off the bench. I feel like he has 'potential' to even get better than last year, even though his path has been unique to the NBA. If Danny has lingering knee problems, which he does seem to, GG could have a huge impact.

    As for Lance, I'm not sure what he brings. His handles and court vision are truely remarkable, imo. Its getting that very good skill harnessed while being consistent with everything else, aka defense, shooting, turnovers.

    Overall, I like this group alot, mainly because of they are more complete players than the Pacers have had in recent past. Dunleavy, Dahntay, DC, Barbosa, all had one or two things they were good at and then a few other things they were bad at. This group still has some discernably very good skills, but not the glaring weaknesses. It's discouraging thinking about a game in the past, knowing you have to compensate for Dunleavy's one on one defense or Dahntays offense. I don't feel like that's the case now.


    • #3
      Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

      Really, a lot depends on PG if we are going to make the next step. But we all knew that. Maybe more depends on Hill?

      I was thinking about this last night, our top four players can't dribble.


      • #4
        Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

        Originally posted by billbradley View Post
        Really, a lot depends on PG if we are going to make the next step. But we all knew that. Maybe more depends on Hill?

        I was thinking about this last night, our top four players can't dribble.
        It depends on PG
        Smothered Chicken!


        • #5
          Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

          The problem isn't that we don't have anyone who can get the ball to Roy or West in the post, the problem is that we don't yet have the dynamic perimeter player that every contender has. It is almost impossible to get a post player the ball in decent position late in games especially playoff games, so that is why every contender needs a point guard, shooting guard or small forward who can create something out of nothing. We do not have that, and that will be the reason why we lose when we do


          • #6
            Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

            Can Green dribble/create?


            • #7
              Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

              Originally posted by billbradley View Post
              Can Green dribble/create?
              I don't know. My sense is he is more of a finisher than a creator - but I have not seen enough of him to know


              • #8
                Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                Against the Pacers he frustrated Danny initially with his very good D. Danny went to the bag of tricks got a couple of fouls on him, IIRC, and that hampered Green's ability to defend, a bit. I remember him setting up in the high post/wing area and looking comfortable there, a couple of times. As for beating a guy face up off the dribble, not that I remember. Small sampling, all from memory. I do remember thinking that he looked pretty good all the way around, but my expectations were low, probably.


                • #9
                  Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                  I know that I may get flamed for this comment, but what is the possibility that we see Augustin running this team from the point midway through the season? With Hill being a combo guard with more of a scorers mentality, wouldn't that benefit our second team more giving a much needed threat off the bench? I would think that Augustin's ability to distribute the ball and make plays for others would benefit our first team more than the second team...

                  Maybe my view is skewed on this due to the fact that we have lacked a good distributing 1 for a while, and now that we have one, it doesn't sound as if he will be utilized to his fullest....


                  • #10
                    Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                    Can Green dribble/create?
                    According to Hollinger, probably not.

                    GERALD GREEN, SG

                    Scouting report
                    + Athletic, explosive leaper with ideal size for a small forward. Ridiculous dunker.
                    + Strong 3-point shooter. Ball skills only adequate, and prone to turnovers.
                    + Lean build. Defense, basketball IQ and decision-making still are question marks.


                    • #11
                      Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                      Here's the box score from the game I mentioned, a 84-100 loss to the Nets.


                      Green had 14 pts, 4 rebs, 3 stls, 1 blk, 2 to, 4 fouls in 28 mins, was 6-10 FG and 2-4 from 3.

                      Danny had really maybe the worse game box wise I can remember, I have no idea how much Green guarded him, but I do remember he did some.

                      Granger 21 mins, 5 pts, 3 boards, 4 tos, 6 fouls. Yikes!


                      • #12
                        Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                        Originally posted by ejwallace View Post
                        I know that I may get flamed for this comment, but what is the possibility that we see Augustin running this team from the point midway through the season? With Hill being a combo guard with more of a scorers mentality, wouldn't that benefit our second team more giving a much needed threat off the bench? I would think that Augustin's ability to distribute the ball and make plays for others would benefit our first team more than the second team...

                        Maybe my view is skewed on this due to the fact that we have lacked a good distributing 1 for a while, and now that we have one, it doesn't sound as if he will be utilized to his fullest....
                        I think that is a real possibility. I could see late in some games where Augustin is running the point and Hill is playing shooting guard. We'll have to see how it develops


                        • #13
                          Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                          Our problem wasn't Hill's post entry passing. That is actually one of his best qualities as a perimeter player. Our biggest problem is not being able to attack the weakside when they bring the double team pressure. We didn't make the other team pay for doubling down on Hibbert. Paul made a lot of mistakes in that regard. if the ball needed to get passed on to Granger on the far side, it didn't happen. We made a lot of bad cross court passes that could easily get picked off. We need Hibbert to establish himself earlier in order to get him the ball prior to the the help coming. That, and if the double comes, Hibbert needs to be quicker with getting the ball rotated to catch the doubling player out of position. I think our biggest problem, was not feeding the post at all. It was the lack of ball movement that allowed teams to double us effectively. PG was the biggest culprit of not being able to truly feed the post. Most of our turnovers in this area had more to do with him than any other player. I think Granger did a poor job from the weakside of moving into a passing lane for an easier pass. When they double down two things need to happen, the point player needs to move towards the strong side to allow a potential pass from the big down low, to bail out the wing with the ball, and to bring his defender away from the weakside wing who can't then cover either player as easily. We didn't do this very well and DWade and Battier easily rotated defensively, which hurt us. Granger/the weakside wing needs to find a passing lane as well or make the decision to fill the most open area inside the arc, which helps him get a closer open shot. Another thing we could have done more of, is pick the weakside doubling defender with our PF. Get in his way and then run Granger off the pick toward the high post making his defender make the decision to either follow his man or double. Granger typically sat behind the three point arc and played patty cake as he watched his man double down.

                          I guess this is a long-winded post as I am accustomed to, but we had sooooo many more issues with feeding the post than Hill. Hill was the lone bright spot IMO, but he takes the fall as the PG. Paul George and Danny Granger need to get MUCH better with their wing play in feeding the post. Not only with the ball in their hands, but without it in their hands. We need all five guys being more proactive in order to feed the post instead of standing around waiting for a pass to happen against a defense that we allow to set itself up for the double team.

                          And no, Augustin won't be starting at any point this season, unless there is an injury to Hill. Hill fits exactly what we are trying to do. Augustin will play plenty of minutes though.
                          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."


                          • #14
                            Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            It's easy to forget how poorly DC played the Pick and Roll in the recent past.
                            Forget? I still have nightmares where I think DC is coming through my living room on his way around the pick to catch up with the ball handler...

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


                            • #15
                              Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I think that is a real possibility. I could see late in some games where Augustin is running the point and Hill is playing shooting guard. We'll have to see how it develops
                              If Danny starts the season with a sore knee, I could see this tried sooner rather than later. Either way, we should know fairly early in the season how this works out.