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

Lance initiating the offense

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

  • Lance initiating the offense

    I have been saying for a long time that Lance should initiate the offense most of the time, and that we would struggle in the playoffs when teams really clamp down on defense.

    Turnovers were a huge problem last night and the offense got stymied. Would putting the ball in Lance's hands have made a difference?

    (It will only get worse if we ever face Miami.)
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  • #2
    I'm not exactly sure Lance is better suited to handling the pressure, I recall one possession where Jason Kidd, of all people, was full court pressing and he picked up his dribble in the back court.

    But at least I can say with confidence that other teams are struggling just as much when WE turn up the defensive pressure.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Lance initiating the offense

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      I have been saying for a long time that Lance should initiate the offense most of the time, and that we would struggle in the playoffs when teams really clamp down on defense.

      Turnovers were a huge problem last night and the offense got stymied. Would putting the ball in Lance's hands have made a difference?

      (It will only get worse if we ever face Miami.)
      I believe it would, but we're not going to find out this year unfortunately. Vogel didn't let him run the offense all season, and he's not going to start now. I still wanna slap Frank for saying he doesn't view Lance as a PG when he's clearly better at running an offense than our starting and backup PGs.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Lance initiating the offense

        Lance ran the offense some in Game 1 and several times during the Hawks series. I'm not sure why they didn't give him more opportunities in the second half of game 2 but I think he will be given a few more chances in Game 3.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Lance initiating the offense

          Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
          Lance ran the offense some in Game 1 and several times during the Hawks series. I'm not sure why they didn't give him more opportunities in the second half of game 2 but I think he will be given a few more chances in Game 3.
          The reason why he didn't initiate the offense more in game 2 is because he let himself be taken out of the offense by the Knicks' defensive effort. He was the only guy who couldn't make it across the timeline under full court pressure.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Lance initiating the offense

            No, most of our turnovers came from Paul George trying to do too much..and just stupid passes.

            Honestly, Hill and his lack of being a point guard was the least of our problems last night.

            There's also a huge difference between getting to pick and choose when you see a play and then being able to make it, versus having to make plays all the time. Lance has done a good job and has gotten progressively better at doing the first. He's had no practice doing the second this season.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Lance initiating the offense

              I actually didn't think that George Hill was the problem last night (as far as the turnovers are concerned)

              But to answer the question, I think the less pressure you put on a young guy like Lance, the better. The games where he's excelled have been the games where he's knocked down open shots, finished on the break, hit the boards, and played good defense. To ask him to initiate our offense in the half-court is asking him to do a little TOO much imo.

              This isn't to say he doesn't have that ability--because he does. BUT this is to say that he's likely to turn the ball over, or make a few foolish decisions (bad shots, unnecessarily risky passes, etc).

              I do think this much is clear though--if the opposing team is playing any type of pressure defense, Paul George is NOT the one to initiate the offense. He needs to receive the ball, on the move, 17ft and in.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Lance initiating the offense

                I think Lance Stephenson is our PG of the future, he has probably the best handles on our team, he is the best passer, and imagine him pushing the ball up the floor, now keep in mind I said future, because right now I don't think he is ready yet, but maybe in 2 years or possibly next year, I think Vogel should give him the PG duties, because there are very few 6th men who can come off the bench and score as well as George Hill.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Lance initiating the offense

                  I wish we had the capabilities, or I did atleast, to do video break down, because there was a play in the second half that really displayed Lance's ability.

                  Lance brought the ball up the floor, and they were trying to run screens for GHill. The Knicks defense was stepping out and bumping GHill, and I even think at one point made a switch. Lance had the ball on the left wing, GH was trying to get free on the right wing. Shot clock goes under 10, Lance drives the ball towards the middle of the FT, makes GHill's defender slide over in help side, Lance makes the pass and GHill hits the 3.

                  Recognizing that GHill was supposed to get the ball, is the easist part of the play. Having the patience to allow the play to run through, get stopped, then create a play off the fly to get the exact shot the offense was looking for was is really encouraging IMHO.

                  There were multiple times during game 1 and during the ATL series that I thought Lance did a great job and recognizing who should get the ball, and where, then making it happen. There were a couple to West that looked really good.

                  The guy has all the phsyical tools to play PG. His decision making when push comes to shove is the biggest question mark. I still say go away with the PG/SG label between him and GHill and just let both of them be combo guards.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Lance initiating the offense

                    I'm with this idea 100%. I think its clear Lance is the best ball handler and passer on our team. I feel comfortable with him handling ball pressure. Not to mention Hill has a much more reliable shot, which would allow drive and kicks to work much better then when Lance has to pop 3's.
                    //

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Lance initiating the offense

                      Lance is a special ball handler and passer, but he IS NOT a PG--certainly not for a slow, grind it out team like the Pacers.

                      1. Lance gets out of control wayyyy too easily. He's so aggressive that he doesn't make the best decisions.
                      2. Lance is a great finisher, but it's normally off of a cut or on the break. He doesn't possess a good "in-between" game--which is a must for PG's in today's game. Right now Lance is pretty much 3's, layups--minus the occasional pull up J that he hits when he's feeling it.
                      3. For anyone that doesn't think George Hill is a "natural PG", I don't see how they could think Lance could be this either. He's a natural born scorer.

                      Now with all this said, a guy doesn't have to be a PG to initiate offense. Kobe and Jordan initiate offense out of the triangle. Lebron and Wade initiate offense, etc. I think that we could think about giving Lance the ball a bit more to create, but this also causes our offense to bog down as a result.

                      Moving forward, I think we have a good combination with George and Lance as a backcourt. They compliment one another well, and as Lance improves his pull up J and his idea of "when to go, when to set things up" it'll only make them more dangerous over time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Lance initiating the offense

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Lance is a special ball handler and passer, but he IS NOT a PG--certainly not for a slow, grind it out team like the Pacers.

                        1. Lance gets out of control wayyyy too easily. He's so aggressive that he doesn't make the best decisions.
                        2. Lance is a great finisher, but it's normally off of a cut or on the break. He doesn't possess a good "in-between" game--which is a must for PG's in today's game. Right now Lance is pretty much 3's, layups--minus the occasional pull up J that he hits when he's feeling it.
                        3. For anyone that doesn't think George Hill is a "natural PG", I don't see how they could think Lance could be this either. He's a natural born scorer.

                        Now with all this said, a guy doesn't have to be a PG to initiate offense. Kobe and Jordan initiate offense out of the triangle. Lebron and Wade initiate offense, etc. I think that we could think about giving Lance the ball a bit more to create, but this also causes our offense to bog down as a result.

                        1. Lance definitely has some control issues, but I think we can admit he's gotten much better at restraining himself. I think he's earned some trust/benefit of the doubt.
                        3. Lance isn't a "natural PG", but he has significantly better instincts than Hill. Can you honestly say Hill is a better ball handler and passer than Lance? Not to mention it takes us way too long to initiate the offense because Hill can be a very timid ball handler. I agree we have a slow paced offense where we need to feed bigs, hell, Lance is better at feeding the post too.

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Moving forward, I think we have a good combination with George and Lance as a backcourt. They compliment one another well, and as Lance improves his pull up J and his idea of "when to go, when to set things up" it'll only make them more dangerous over time.
                        I totally agree, I just think they would compliment even better if they reversed their rolls. Why not let the better passer and creator dish it out to the better shooter instead of the other way around?
                        //

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Lance initiating the offense

                          Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
                          1. Lance definitely has some control issues, but I think we can admit he's gotten much better at restraining himself. I think he's earned some trust/benefit of the doubt.
                          3. Lance isn't a "natural PG", but he has significantly better instincts than Hill. Can you honestly say Hill is a better ball handler and passer than Lance? Not to mention it takes us way too long to initiate the offense because Hill can be a very timid ball handler. I agree we have a slow paced offense where we need to feed bigs, hell, Lance is better at feeding the post too.


                          I totally agree, I just think they would compliment even better if they reversed their rolls. Why not let the better passer and creator dish it out to the better shooter instead of the other way around?
                          IMO being a better PG doesn't have to do with who's a better ball handler/passer. Being a better PG has to do with decision making, controlling tempo and getting good scoring opportunities. Within the Pacers offense (very similarly to the triangle) the PG needs to be a good knock down shooter, and a great decision maker. Lance is not either of these.

                          Also--and this is just opinion so who knows who is right or wrong--but I think Lance is the better post entry passer.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Lance initiating the offense

                            Lance looked more lost than anyone in Game 2. Not sure asking him to initiate the offense is necessarily a good idea.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Lance initiating the offense

                              Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                              Lance looked more lost than anyone in Game 2. Not sure asking him to initiate the offense is necessarily a good idea.
                              I'd say he looked more lost defensively than anything. In all honesty everybody with the ball looked lost yesterday. Maybe I'm overrating him some, but I don't think the Knicks could get away with trying to trap Lance.
                              //

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X