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

Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

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

  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

    He's got a lot of skills. He showed them his rookie year, which was the last time the Bucks had a complete team.

    The last three years in Milwaukee have been part Hammond destroying his foundation and running Skiles off, part Bogut breaking his wrist and vanishing as an elite center, and part Jennings not dealing well with the changes happening around him, most notably Monta Ellis.

    He's an excellent shooter with deep range, and yet his shooting percentage sucks because he took so many awful shots. His shot selection was terrible. Just don't tell me he can't shoot the ball. That's ignorance. Every team Milwaukee played against last year picked Jennings up 25 feet from the basket defensively. You don't do that to a guy that can't shoot.

    Same goes for Brandon's defense. It sucks, but not necessarily because he can't play defense. He's got excellent anticipation, but he plays lone ranger and tries to get 10 steals a game. 6-7 of those times he gets burned.

    Brandon hasn't really had anyone to just dump the ball into and take a break offensively. It was always he and ellis attacking 1-on-1, and Milwaukee's defense was so bad that he rarely if ever got transition chances.

    Maybe his shot selection doesn't improve with more firepower around him, but maybe it does. I don't know how this will shake out until they play a full season, but I certainly think the potential is there for this team to be very good, very fast.
    Last edited by Kstat; 07-31-2013, 06:57 AM.

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

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

    Comment


    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      Find me a better mentor in the nba than Chauncey Billups. Every player that's ever been amnestied has threatened to retire if claimed. I don't see how that's a character flaw.
      Billups is probably as good as it gets as far as being a mentor, I can get on board with that. But the general rule I have with these things is more along the "it takes a village to raise a child" lines of thinking. I think Lance Stephenson panned out because he was in an environment with a bunch of veteran leaders and high character guys with a coach everyone loved and the looming presence of the Legend around. If we had say, 3-4 (or more) rather mercurial guys on the roster, I don't think it would have taken with Stephenson.

      Billups is a great leader and a very respected member of the NBA, but he has two problems there:
      1) He can't keep all those guys in check. Not saying you have a bunch of problem children on your roster, but there are enough guys with character/personality red flags that it really makes you wonder.
      2) I think part of what makes KG, David West, et al so effective as leaders is that they lead by example and they still play at a high level. Billups is no longer playing at a high level.

      I'm not saying it's going to fail or that you guys won't win 35-40 games and make the playoffs, and I understand the motivation behind these moves, but there are a lot of question marks on your roster.

      Comment


      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

        A lot of people see Jennings and Ellis as similar players because they played together and are smaller guards, but I think the crucial difference is that Montae HAS to score, that's the only thing he's good at. Jennings was forced to shoot so much because they had nothing else on offense, but he's got a wider skill set than just shooting contested twenty footers. I would hate to have Ellis on the Pacers, I would love Jennings.

        One of my favorite moments of last season was demolishing Detroit in back to back games. Those games are gonna be a lot tougher this year, especially with the size Detroit can throw out to go along with Jennings' speed at point.

        Comment


        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Billups is probably as good as it gets as far as being a mentor, I can get on board with that. But the general rule I have with these things is more along the "it takes a village to raise a child" lines of thinking. I think Lance Stephenson panned out because he was in an environment with a bunch of veteran leaders and high character guys with a coach everyone loved and the looming presence of the Legend around. If we had say, 3-4 (or more) rather mercurial guys on the roster, I don't think it would have taken with Stephenson.

          Billups is a great leader and a very respected member of the NBA, but he has two problems there:
          1) He can't keep all those guys in check. Not saying you have a bunch of problem children on your roster, but there are enough guys with character/personality red flags that it really makes you wonder.
          Who is "all of these guys?"

          -the two best players on the roster are two of the nicest young guys in the league in Monroe and Drummond. The veteran guys are Billups and maybe Smith, and Smith isn't really a selfish player or a bad teammate. Poor shot selection doesn't make him a bad guy. Stuckey and Villanueva may as well not exist because they're on the team in name only. They're expiring deals waiting to be traded. I think the first word from either of them gets a ticket to Tinsley-land.

          The only two guys I can see you referring to are Jennings and Mitchell, and Mitchell is a 2nd-round rookie that the Pistons can dump for almost no penalty if things go badly with him. Jennings has the keys to the car, for sure. But we've whittled it down to one guy.

          I agree with the "one knucklehead" rule per team. I just don't believe we have any problem children on this team long-term aside from Jennings. Mitchell can play his way there, but that's years from happening.

          the core of our team going forward is Monroe, Jennings, Smith, Drummond and Caldwell-Pope, with Siva, Datome, Jerebko, Singler and Mitchell as possibilities going forward, and Billups in the locker room leader role. Bynum is sort of in limbo, and Stuckey/Villanueva are dead men walking.

          I'm happy with that, but I'm also excited that we seem to have one more big move left to make with $17 million in expirings to shop around.
          Last edited by Kstat; 07-31-2013, 07:46 AM.

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

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

          Comment


          • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Who is "all of these guys?"

            -the two best players on the roster are two of the nicest young guys in the league in Monroe and Drummond. The veteran guys are Billups and maybe Smith, and Smith isn't really a selfish player or a bad teammate. Poor shot selection doesn't make him a bad guy. Stuckey and Villanueva may as well not exist because they're on the team in name only. They're expiring deals waiting to be traded. I think the first word from either of them gets a ticket to Tinsley-land.

            The only two guys I can see you referring to are Jennings and Mitchell, and Mitchell is a 2nd-round rookie that the Pistons can dump for almost no penalty if things go badly with him. Jennings has the keys to the car, for sure. But we've whittled it down to one guy.

            I agree with the "one knucklehead" rule per team. I just don't believe we have any problem children on this team long-term aside from Jennings. Mitchell can play his way there, but that's years from happening.
            Drummond, by all accounts I've read is a nice kid, but there are questions about his motor (or were, but the stigma lingers). Monroe is not an issue at all. Smith is dicey. He's bickered with coaches in the past and sometimes his body language on the court and interactions with teammates are a bit off-putting. Mitchell is a goober but as you said, if he presents a problem he's gone. Jennings has clashed with coaches and thus far in his career has pretty much done his own thing. Even under Scott Skiles he showed a blase attitude towards defense, aside from his propensity to gamble for steals. Stuckey and Chaz Villanueva are still in the locker room, so they are still part of the team, and still effect the chemistry, so I don't think you can write them off.

            Again, I'm not saying this is definitely going to be a problem, I'm just saying the potential is there.

            Comment


            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

              Nobody questions Drummond's motor anymore. He was one of the highest-energy guys in the NBA last season, and he spent this summer working to get his body fat% down from 8% to 6% (which at 290 lbs I don't see how that's possible). He absolutely has question marks still, but laziness is not one of them.

              Stuckey is a total assclown but Villanueva, despite being a worthless lazy ***** has not been a locker room problem, just a basketball problem.

              I agree that they're still in the locker room, but if either poses a distraction, Joe can send them home and tell them not to come back until they're traded or their contracts expire. They have very little leverage to cause a distraction.
              Last edited by Kstat; 07-31-2013, 07:39 AM.

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

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

              Comment


              • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                I think this is a great trade for Detroit. They have enough front court defenders to shield BJ's gambling.


                Offensively he and Monroe could gell. For me this is not a Charlie V and Gordon addition.

                Comment


                • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Find me a better mentor in the nba than Chauncey Billups. Every player that's ever been amnestied has threatened to retire if claimed. I don't see how that's a character flaw.
                  He's the only one that has, and he was actually claimed by the Clippers. Look at the other guys that were waived using the amnesty clause:

                  Travis Outlaw (claimed), Tyrus Thomas, Baron Davis, Brendan Haywood (claimed), Chris Andersen, Charlie Bell, Luis Scola (claimed), James Posey, Ryan Gomes, Metta World Peace, Mike Miller, Drew Gooden, Darko Milicic, Gilbert Arenas, Elton Brand (apparently had a preference to sign with Mavs but no retirement talk), Josh Childress, Brandon Roy, Linas Kleiza, Andray Blatche.

                  I don't remember any of those guys threatening to retire if claimed. Sure there were whispers of their preferred destinations but those who were claimed mostly went to bad teams and didn't retire.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                    I support this deal, but I'm not ecstatic. We absolutely upgraded our talent level, as well as acquired our first actual point guard in 4 years.

                    I'm not blind, though.

                    PG: Jennings
                    SG: KVP
                    SF: Smith
                    PF: Monroe
                    C: Drummond

                    bench: Billups, Singler, Datome, either Jerebko or Mitchell and either Stuckey or Bynum, with Siva at the end of the bench, and CV likely in street clothes.

                    There is a ton of talent in that starting 5, and just as many question marks. Most of those guys are good characters, but they're going to have to win with defense and rebounding. They've got a lot of guys that can score, but no outside shooting other than the guards.

                    The other issue is youth. One, probably two and maybe three rookies in the top 8, and probably one of them starting. If Billups can't stay healthy, the next veteran in line is probably Smith, unless Monroe takes control of the locker room, which is unlikely. That's not a good situation.

                    This is a combustible mix of talent, if not personalities. I don't think these guys will have issues getting along, but chemistry is and should be a huge question mark until they prove it isn't.

                    I do appreciate that this is the first Pistons team I can get excited over. This is the first time since 2009 that making the playoffs will be the minimum requirement. The biggest challenge with this team this season will be utilizing all of that talent, instead of hoping they have a fluke season and some of our guys play above their heads. It's a good feeling to have.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 07-31-2013, 08:08 AM.

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

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

                    Comment


                    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                      The Pistons have a ton of talented guys on the roster right now but I get the feeling that Josh Smith and Jennings are going to launch up so many bricks from the perimeter that they won't even make the playoffs.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                        Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                        The Pistons have a ton of talented guys on the roster right now but I get the feeling that Josh Smith and Jennings are going to launch up so many bricks from the perimeter that they won't even make the playoffs.
                        well, if that happens, they probably won't. I question if either is likely, though. Smith isn't a volume shooter from the perimeter (he doesn't make many, but he also doesn't attempt many), and Jennings isn't as likely to go 1-on-5 if he actually has teammates to pass to. Maybe he will, but I'm not in fear of it.

                        Jennings can take as many threes as he wants, if they're open shots. I don't question his range or his accuracy at all, I just question his shot selection. He's gotta reign that in. The off-balance chucking off of the back foot with a hand in his face needs to stop.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 07-31-2013, 08:06 AM.

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

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

                        Comment


                        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          There is a ton of talent in that starting 5, and just as many question marks. Most of those guys are good characters, but they're going to have to win with defense and rebounding. They've got a lot of guys that can score, but no outside shooting other than the guards.

                          The other issue is youth. One, probably two and maybe three rookies in the top 8, and probably one of them starting. If Billups can't stay healthy, the next veteran in line is probably Smith, unless Monroe takes control of the locker room, which is unlikely. That's not a good situation.

                          This is a combustible mix of talent, if not personalities. I don't think these guys will have issues getting along, but chemistry is and should be a huge question mark until they prove it isn't.
                          Pretty balanced evaluation, and actually quite close to how I see it. Pistons are going to be interesting to watch, no doubt.

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          I do appreciate that this is the first Pistons team I can get excited over. This is the first time since 2009 that making the playoffs will be the minimum requirement. The biggest challenge with this team this season will be utilizing all of that talent, instead of hoping they have a fluke season and some of our guys play above their heads. It's a good feeling to have.
                          From that perspective, I do appreciate it's a step forward for the Pistons. I just have (huge) doubts about the strategy they've chosen to advance themselves. Anyway, we'll see how it plays out.

                          Comment


                          • I still don't think we're done yet. We have a dire need for a 6th man type, either at the wing positions or up front. Our bench is either too old or too inexperienced. Hoping we can move stuckey or Villanueva for someone that can tie the second unit together.

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

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

                            Comment


                            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              well, if that happens, they probably won't. I question if either is likely, though. Smith isn't a volume shooter from the perimeter (he doesn't make many, but he also doesn't attempt many), and Jennings isn't as likely to go 1-on-5 if he actually has teammates to pass to. Maybe he will, but I'm not in fear of it.

                              Jennings can take as many threes as he wants, if they're open shots. I don't question his range or his accuracy at all, I just question his shot selection. He's gotta reign that in. The off-balance chucking off of the back foot with a hand in his face needs to stop.
                              13th among forwards in attempts beyond 15 feet last season (3.9 per game) last year, first the year before at 6.3 attempts per game, 21st the year before that at 4.3 attempts per game. Pretty safe to say that he'll be hoisting at least a handful of them each game. Also worth noting, each of the years that he wasn't first in attempts, every forward above him on the list shot a better percentage.

                              (Note: Included only players who appeared in 20+ games at at least 20mpg.)

                              Comment


                              • 3.9. ....so were talking about 4 shots a game. 4 shots.

                                4 shots a game is not going to make or break anything.

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

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X