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

4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: Philips Arena, Atlanta, GA
    Officials: T. Brothers, M. Ayotte, T. Washington, J. Williams

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Atlanta Notes
    Television: / FOX Sports Indiana / SportSouth / NBA TV (Canada)
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM, 107.5 FM / WZGC 92.9 FM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you

    Away: 21-20
    Home: 24-17
    Apr 26
    Apr 28
    May 01
    May 03

    Andrew Bynum – racing Fesenko to be Pacers' least effective midseason pivot pickup (out)

    Gustavo Ayon - right shoulder surgery (out)
    Al Horford - right pectoral muscle surgery (out)
    John Jenkins - lower back surgery (out)

    Jon Washburn: An In-Depth Look at the Pacers’ Screening in Game Two

    Over the past month and a half, basketball analysts have tried in vain to figure out what
    has been wrong with the Indiana offense. The flaws have been far more subtle than
    normal. Basketball geniuses like Zach Lowe even decided, after much research, that the
    Pacers are simply “not playing basketball as well.”

    Indeed, not much has seemed to change in Indiana’s offense from the start of the
    season. Usage rates for each player have remained remarkably consistent. Only Roy
    Hibbert has seen his shot attempts decline, and even his decrease in looks hasn’t been
    an outlier of sorts. The only substantial difference is that the entire team, across the
    board, seemed to have forgotten how to shoot the ball. After shooting 47% as a team
    in December, the Pacers shot 45% and 42% in February and March.

    Still, ardent fans of the Pacers “felt” that something just seemed different. The offense
    wasn’t flowing the way it should. George Hill was being too passive. Paul George and
    Lance Stephenson were forcing the issue. Roy Hibbert was being Todd MacCulluch-y.
    But was there something more tangible?

    After the Pacers awful loss at home to the Hawks two weeks ago, basketball expert
    Haralabos Voulgaris tweeted that they went through the whole game without setting a
    proper screen on offense. Since then, several writers at 8pts9seconds have been
    wondering if there was more truth to that than anyone wanted to admit. Unfortunately,
    no real stats (at least stats that are available to the fans and the media) exist
    regarding in-game screens. It’s borderline amazing the amount of information that the
    new SportVU cameras have provided us with, and yet, there are still holes in the story.

    So last night, I decided to watch the game and solely focus on the screens that both
    teams set throughout the game. Admittedly, this was a tough task, but it did provide
    us with some interesting information.

    A few ground rules:
    1. Keeping track of every single on-ball and off-ball screen from a basketball
      game is probably more difficult than you would imagine – I did my best and
      used my DVR to the best of my ability – these numbers may be slightly off,
      but they are at least a good estimate.
    2. Determining whether a screen was “successful” or not is obviously
      somewhat subjective in nature. My criteria was whether the player working
      off the screen saw enough daylight to attempt a shot or start an open drive
      to the basket.
    3. While dribble hand-offs are just as good as screens, they were not
      included in last night’s numbers for the completely arbitrary reason that I
      decided not to record them.
    4. Attempted screens that were denied by the ball-handler (for instance, if
      David West came to set a high screen but George Hill were to drive the
      other way because his defender was “cheating” over the screen) were not
      included in tonight’s numbers.
    5. If a player attempted to make one screen, failed, and then immediately
      turned to set another screen for the same player in the same area, this was
      only counted as one screen attempt.
    6. Since oftentimes three and four screens are set on inbounds plays, none
      of these screens were counted as they didn’t come within the regular flow
      of the offense.
    7. Both teams pulled their starters with about six minutes left in the game
      – stats were taken for garbage time, but were not deemed relevant enough
      to be included in this game synopsis.

    On to the numbers!

    A few quick notes to summarize:
    • For the game, Indiana successfully executed 19 of 48 screens, with 12 of
      those screens coming off the ball. Conversely, Atlanta was 39 of 69, with 27
      of those coming via on-ball pick-and-roll type variations.
    • Atlanta had 90 offensive possessions while Indiana had 87 on the night,
      meaning that the Pacers averaged 0.54 screens per possession while Atlanta
      averaged 0.77.
    • Atlanta successfully executed 73% of its on-ball screens while Indy could
      only muster 37%. As anyone that has ever played basketball can tell you,
      this probably has more to do with the ball-handler than the actual screener,
      as it’s the ball handler’s job to run his man into the screen. This definitely
      matches up with the good old eye-test, as Jeff Teague is a wizard with a
      screener while Lance Stephenson, Paul George, and George Hill all appear to
      feel more comfortable with more space or even in isolation-type situations.
    • Atlanta’s bigs are screen-setting monsters. In the first half, Pero Antic and
      Paul Millsap connected on 14 of 20 screens while Indiana as a whole was only
      good for 11 of 23. For the game, Antic, Millsap, and Elton Brand successfully
      executed 31 total screens, 50% more than the entire Pacers’ roster.
    • While the number of screens per quarter for Atlanta stayed pretty
      consistent, the Pacers set far more screens from different places in the
      game-changing 3rd quarter. This is what we will focus on for the remainder
      of this piece.
    • A simple look at the box score will tell you that the Pacers made their big
      second half run when Paul George and George Hill started to get into their
      groove. Indeed, the Georges combined for 18 points on 7 of 10 shooting
      during that stretch, and Pacers fans were once again delighted to see their
      point guard become the aggressor.

    What was so interesting, though...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Kevin Zimmerman: Pacers find old magic in 3rd quarter against Hawks

    The Indiana Pacers regained their attacking defensive mentality and began sharing the
    ball again, but they especially did so with a few new faces.

    It started with aggressiveness. The Indiana Pacers trailed the Atlanta Hawks, 52-48, at
    halftime of Game 2 on Tuesday night, but something looked different to start the third

    Offensively, the ball whipped around. Indiana seemed set on posting David West and
    Roy Hibbert despite the latter's recent woes, and the familiar perimeter starters were
    neither taking early attempts nor wasting their dribbles. Paul George, Lance
    Stephenson and George Hill were definitive.

    Defensively, most of the Hawks' shots were contested. Even Hibbert, for as bad of a
    matchup the floor-stretching Hawks are for him, was getting a hand up on perimeter
    shots and working to recover after the fact. On pick-and-rolls, he wasn't being picked
    on, either. The Pacers, led by a determined George, were getting deflections and
    putting enough pressure on the ball to get Atlanta out of rhythm.

    But after all that, the Pacers went into a timeout with just a 68-65 lead and 3:30 to
    play in the third quarter. Head coach Frank Vogel substituted C.J. Watson and Ian
    Mahinmi and kept starters George, Hill and West on the court. That's when the dam
    burst, leading to a 101-85 Pacers win.

    Indiana finished the quarter on an 11-0 run after the timeout, and behind a smaller
    lineup finally broke the Hawks' offense. It was so hectic that even somewhat open
    looks by Atlanta felt rushed as the Pacers ran at the shooters. The Hawks missed
    their final six shot attempts, and by the end of the period had gone 5-for-20 from
    the floor. The bench trio of Lou Williams, Shelvin Mack and Mike Scott went 0-for-
    7 combined.

    Offensively, the Pacers went 12-for-16 on field goals and had eight assists. Indiana
    took 18 spot-up attempts for the game, scoring at a blistering 1.4 points per
    possession, according to Synergy Sports, but the third quarter was different. In the
    final three-plus minutes, West bullied his way inside and then twice found Hill
    cutting to the hoop for two of the point guard's five baskets in the quarter, all of
    which were in the paint.

    George capped the third...CONTINUE READING AT SB NATION

    Matt Dollinger: Pacers take frustrations out on Hawks to even series

    After sleepwalking through the first six quarters of the playoffs (and the last month of
    the regular season), the Indiana Pacers snapped out of their extended snooze Tuesday,
    clobbering the Atlanta Hawks 101-85 in Game 2 to even their first-round series 1-1.

    The Pacers aren’t back, but they’re at least starting to get up. Let’s keep Indiana’s
    blowout Game 2 victory in perspective. Beating a sub-.500 team at home is several
    hundred miles short of the NBA’s mountain top. There’s no denying that Indy’s 16-pt
    win was a promising sign for a team that resembled a blue-and-gold dumpster fire
    three days ago, but the Pacers still have plenty of problems to figure out. They trailed
    by double-digits in the first half once again against Atlanta and didn’t start to resemble
    the team that claimed the East’s No. 1 seed until midway through the third quarter.

    That’s when a month of frustrating, fatigue, fed-up stars and frankly horrible basketball
    spilled over and swept the Hawks away. Indiana closed the third quarter on a 24-6 run
    and capped the period with a buzzer-beating three-pointer from Paul George (27 points,
    10 rebounds and six assists) that brought a cathartic explosion from the Fieldhouse.

    It was more a celebration of relief than joy. Finally. Indiana had been suffocating in a
    cloud of losing for over four weeks. Finally, it had a feel-good moment to rally around.
    Finally, it started to look like the team that was consensus title contender the first four
    months of the season.

    The Pacers went on to outscore the Hawks 55-33 in the second half, cruising to a much-
    needed win before heading to Atlanta for two games. But they would be foolish to let
    its guard down now. This is a team that lost 10 of 13 games at one point during March
    and April and got outplayed by one of the worst No. 8 seeds in NBA history for the first
    six quarters of this series.

    Several issues remain glaring, none more unsightly than the Pacers’ 7-foot-2 quandary
    of a center, Roy Hibbert. Indy seems dead-set on force-feeding Hibbert until he shoots
    himself out of his slump, something that might not be the wisest strategy.

    Hibbert scored just six points and shot 1-of-7 in Game 2. Over his last 15 games, he’s
    shooting only 29.5 percent. That’s a startling number for any player, much less one
    with a significant height advantage that attempts almost 70 percent of his shots from
    within 10 feet of the hoop.

    Game 2 gave Indiana a series-squaring win and a sense of optimism — but not a
    solution for every one of its issues accumulated over the last four weeks.

    The Pacers needed Luis Scola. Of course, he was ready. This season has been a

    Increased Transparency Reveal Awards Voting is More Broken Than We Thought

    The most fun sideshow of the playoffs is awards season, where seemingly every day a
    new award winner is announced. Nothing will top Dirk Nowitzki accepting the MVP trophy
    while his Mavericks were getting bludgeoned by the eight seed Warriors in 2007, but this
    awards season does have a new wrinkle: transparency.

    Due to pressure from the Professional Basketball Writers Association (of which I am a
    member), and especially President Mary Schmitt Boyer, this year all award votes are
    made public. The call for this to happen intensified last year when a lone voter
    prevented LeBron James from an MVP sweep, inexplicably voting for Carmelo Anthony
    instead. Dan Le Batard took advantage of the anonymous nature of the balloting and
    trolled everybody by pretending it was him for awhile before Boston Globe columnist
    revealed in a column that he was the one that had voted for Anthony.

    In the abstract, increased transparency is a good thing and I fully support the PBWA’s
    push to make this happen. But just a few votes in, increased transparency has raised
    many more questions than it has answered.

    Why are team and quasi-team employees allowed to vote?

    Sam Smith, a writer for has a vote. John Denton, a writer for OrlandoMagic
    .com has a vote. Walt Frazier, broadcaster for the MSG Network (whose executive
    chairman is Knicks owner James Dolan) has a vote. Chris Marlowe and Jason Kosmicki
    of Altitude Sports and Entertainment (owned by Nuggets owner Stan Kroenke) have
    votes. I’m sure there are more examples if I delved into the ownership structure of
    every regional sports network, but you get the point.

    The conflicts of interest here are huge and obvious. Do any of these voters feel
    pressure—whether explicit or implicit—from their employers on who to vote for? Do
    they feel it necessary to support certain candidates to stay in the good graces of the
    person who cuts the paychecks? For their part, the NBA is unconcerned, with NBA
    Senior VP of Communications Tim Frank telling me that while the NBA monitors all
    votes, they aren’t really concerned and, “just haven’t seen any type of bias”. That
    may well be true, but when it comes to conflicts of interest, the appearance of one
    can be just as damaging as a conflict itself.

    This concern is also present, though not as acute, for people who aren’t employees but
    regularly cover one team. Arizona Diamondbacks beat writer Nick Piecoro, for instance,
    wrote a great piece on how teammates griped when he didn’t vote for Brandon Webb
    as Cy Young, and generally the pressure he feels as an awards voters. His conclusion
    though, seems sound: “hiding behind anonymity isn’t the answer”.

    Why does the media even vote on awards in the first place?

    For six years the AP’s college football rankings were a major component of the formula
    that determined which two teams played in the college football national championship
    game. But in 2004 the AP pulled out, with the AP’s sports editor saying the decision was,
    “prompted by reading and hearing stories from voters of ethical concerns and harassing
    e-mail messages and phone calls.” The Charlotte Observer’s sports editor said, “’My
    issue was with the ethics of reporters determining where all that money went. I didn’t
    think that was right.”

    These concerns aren’t quite as pronounced...CONTINUE READING AT THE DISS

    Candace Buckner @CandaceDBuckner
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows
    Ian Levy @HickoryHigh
    Whitney @its_whitney

    Chris Vivlamore @ajchawks
    Jason Walker @JasonWalkerSBN
    Kris Willis @Kris_Willis
    Bo Churney @bochurney
    Raj Prashad @RajPrashad
    Co Co @cocoqt81

    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    thanks, brilliant as usual
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


    • #3
      Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

      I came into the playoffs concerned we wouldn't get out of the first round, convinced we wouldn't get out of the second.

      That second half the other night gave me hope. Reading comments from Heat fans have reignited my passion.

      Its time to stomp the Hawks, then the Bulls/Wizards, because this season will be a waste if we don't at least get a shot at the Heat. I am tired of their arrogance and fans, lets finish this season with something to be proud of, if we go down, lets go down swinging.


      • #4
        Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

        We got this game. I feel good about it for some reason.


        • #5
          Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

          Heat "fans" are the worst...

          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


          • #6
            4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

            Will NBATV be blacked out for us locals?

            Never mind...NBATV IS BLACKED OUT...must watch foxsports
            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
            Last edited by PaulGeorgeHill; 04-24-2014, 07:01 PM.


            • #7
              Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

              I want to see the same defensive effort we had in the third in game 2 from the tip off in game 3.


              • #8
                Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                Time to get back into the driver's seat! Let's go!


                • #9
                  Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                  It's Scola time!

                  Everyone get your Scola Cola!
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions


                  • #10
                    Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                    LETS GO.


                    • #11
                      Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                      Did Atlanta sell out? This might not be a playoff atmosphere tonight

                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


                      • #12
                        Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                        Lets get it going! Go Pacers!


                        • #13
                          Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                          PG24 will shine again im feeling it


                          • #14
                            Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                            Hoping for a good start to settle my nerves.


                            • #15
                              Re: 4/24/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round - Game Thread #3: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                              Looking kinda empty at tip....

                              Classic ATL
                              Super Bowl XLI Champions
                              2000 Eastern Conference Champions