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

New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

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

  • #31
    Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    Assuming that TPTB decide to keep Granger and Shawne....I don't mind trying it out....the only way that we can give Shawne any meaningful minutes is to have Marquis play some backup ( not Starting ) PG minutes. Shifting Marquis to some backup PG minutes would allow Shawne to play a decent 20+ minutes as a backup SF while giving Granger, Marquis and Dunleavy about 30+ minutes a game as well in the SG/SF rotation.

    But that's one of the problems that we have on our roster, we have too many SF. Unlike TPTB, I am not too comfortable about playing Small Ball and playing Shawne and Granger any decent minutes at the backup PF spot. I prefer to play both Granger and Shawne at the SF spot simply cuz that's their best position.
    I would not mind trying small-ball in the following scenario:

    1. Jermaine is told he is the center whether he likes that title or not.
    2. Granger becomes the PF
    3. Shawne is the SF
    4. We make a trade such as Foster to the Raps for Peterson - he is the SG
    5. Insert Tinsley or whomever as PG

    We would have four pretty good defenders, and improved shooting/scoring.
    This would be a pretty quick lineup, as well.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

      If we go in the small ball direction, Jermaine will have to go. It would just put his talents to waste

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

        Originally posted by Tom White
        I would not mind trying small-ball in the following scenario:

        1. Jermaine is told he is the center whether he likes that title or not.
        2. Granger becomes the PF
        3. Shawne is the SF
        4. We make a trade such as Foster to the Raps for Peterson - he is the SG
        5. Insert Tinsley or whomever as PG

        We would have four pretty good defenders, and improved shooting/scoring.
        This would be a pretty quick lineup, as well.
        I think JO should be playing center in just about any rotation. JO is an average size center by todays NBA standards.

        I like that lineup as well, but Danny is too small to defend some of the PFs in this league in terms of strength. That lineup would work great if we had a great PG. Either way, even if the Pacers make no changes to the roster..as long as they get a different coach, I'll be happy. And by different, I mean the opposite of what Rick is...Faster offense, not as many called plays, take control of the locker room and make guys WANT to play. There are very few coaches in todays NBA that can make their players really want to play and win. Phil Jackson, Popovich, and SVG are a few that come to mind.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

          Originally posted by MM View Post
          Daniels had only spurts of production, averaging 7.1 points in 17.8 minutes _ both career-lows. A knee condition that had gone untreated in Dallas eventually flared and had him in and out of the lineup. He doesn't need surgery, just rest and treatment, and is expected to be healthy next season.
          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          Is anyone else depressed that a knee injury that kept one our best players out for 1/3 of a season can only be treated by rest? It's just gonna come back.
          It's not going to be treated by rest, only. They are going to treat the knee as well.

          I'm only guessing, but it might be bursitis. It could be treated a number of ways, as far from corrective inserts in his shoes to actually trying to change his running gait.

          Here's a link explaining it in more detail.
          http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/pate...eebursitis.htm
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Reasons why this worries me:

            So the only guy on the team who is really a 2 guard (size and defensive match up, minus a shot) they want to be the starting Point Guard.

            Isn't one of the major flaws of this team stopping quick guards who dribble penetrate? Daniels is a good defender, but name a starting Point Guard he can keep in front of him consistently? Unless they are going to allow JO and Ike to have 10 fouls a game, you can't have point guards getting to the rim at will.

            You want another starting Point Guard has never played a full season with missing time with an injury.

            Reason I like this:

            He is extremely effective when given run, almost his entire career. He is easily one of there best defenders and players.
            Starting point guards are already getting to the hole on us at will. Daniels is beyond adequate in comparison to what we already have. My question is, why bring in a bunch of spare part point guards, and leave the shooting guard position untouched? Is Rawle Marshall a shooting guard, or small forward?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

              Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
              I don't know about anybody else, but in the few times Carlisle actually did let him run the point this season, I really enjoyed watching him go to work. He's a very unique player, very smooth and controlled with the ball. I think his ability to get to the basket combined with his midrange shooting ability would make up for his weakness beyond the arc.
              Right on!!

              If he can develop a 3-point shot, he'd be absolutely deadly.
              Ooops. You just lost me. I don't care if he can shoot the three or not. The three-point shot is vastly overused/ overemphasized.

              Unlike some of our other poor shooters from out there, Marquis is bright enough/ disciplined enough to realize that is not a strength of his game and he rarely shoots from out there.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                Agreed, and I'm not sold on Marquis as the starting PG anyway even if he was healthy. This team desperately needs a legitimate outside threat at that position (look at all the open threes that JT got this year).
                Tell me about it. One criticism of Tinsley that has always been WAY off base is his shot SELECTION. Hey, wide open 3's are shots you have to make just to hold the defense honest, and don't get me started on floaters 5 feet from the rim and layups.

                Tinsley's issue was his ability to make the shots his position required.

                However, one thing in Quis favor is that while he won't hit the 3, he's so good attacking off the dribble (even if it is less traditional looking) that he's still going to get a good looking 2 that he can knock down. And that's something that was lacking from Tinsley's game.

                The only question with Quis is HEALTH. If the answer to that is a good one then I don't see the problem, but I'm not sure the answer is going to come out that way.


                Jay - Quis I think tripled his 3pt attempts rate here in Indy. He USED to know better, but with the Pacers he started forgetting it seems.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  A lot of Pacers fans are hoping Jamaal Tinsley is traded, but wondering who can be gotten to replace him. The answer might already be on the roster. Daniels can create with uncanny penetration, scoring in the lane and setting up teammates for open shots. He doesn?t have much shooting range (24 percent from the 3-point line for his career), but it's a luxury, not a necessity, for point guards to hit 3-pointers. Management wants to see if this would work, and perhaps the next coach will give it a look.
                  I would also like to see how Quis plays the point. If we do end up keeping Dunleavy (which in my interpretations of Donnie's interview with Ford, means yes) we could have him play the SG. If we decide to go young (trade JO)...I would play Williams at SF, Danny at PF, and someone else at center. If Jeff is still here, he would do fine because the other four positions aren't great at grabbing rebounds. You could make Ike the starting center if you want but I don't think I would personally.
                  I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Jay - Quis I think tripled his 3pt attempts rate here in Indy. He USED to know better, but with the Pacers he started forgetting it seems.
                    You sure about that? He attempted 26 3FGs last season in forty-five games. That's what - 0.6 per game?

                    http://www.nba.com/pacers/stats/index.html

                    Ah, I see what you're doing. This was slighly higher than his career average of 0.52 per game, but in your defense it is "substantially" higher than 05-06 where he shot a whopping 19 3FGAs in 62 games for Dallas, 0.3 3FGA per game. So if you're going to make a big deal about his number of 3FGAs doubling from last season to this season, the stats might be true but its still a non-event.

                    Especially compared to a brain-dead player like Streakin' Jackson who doesn't shoot much better as a % but still attempts more than four 3FGAs per game. Oh sure, every once in Streakin' Steve will give you a 3-4 game out there. The problem is the five straight 1-5/1-6 games along the bumpy ride.

                    32%- 35% shooting from beyond the arc is not a high enough percentage to justify that volume of shots, but I don't mind the guy shooting one 3FGA every other game, especially with our dribble-out-the-24-second-clock offense, Marquis was bound to take a few forced 3FGAs just to beat the buzzer.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                      I'll try not to pick Motheith's article apart too much.

                      In the long run, I agree that in not playing Quis more particularly earlier in the season his value did become diminished, but during those first 32 games the Pacers were still trying to feel their way through the multitude of changes on their roster. To that, it's fair to say they didn't know what they had in him until after the 8-player trade had occured.

                      As to Quis' "injury", I'm in the camp that believes either said injury was more serious than we were led to believe or there was something else happening the public (fanbase) wasn't privy to. It's true that tendinitis is one of those injuries that heals best w/rest and some sports therapy treatment, but it's rare that his condition would have taken him out of action for as long as it did (20+ games in one stretch!). I think there's something else going on here, folks especially since his condition seems to be repetitive in nature.

                      As to re-acquiring Croshere, I admit I was surprised he was traded in the first place, but here's another one of those "You asked for it" situations...the one where the fanbase complained so much about this guy eating up cap/tax dollars that mgmt probably jumped on the opportunity to take his millions off the books just to appease. Be careful what you wish for, Pacers fans. But I digress, while this team could use a veteran or two, I'm 50/50 on seeing Croshere back for two reasons:

                      1) I'm not sure he'd want to come back after what he experienced w/the team over the last 4 yrs, i.e., limited playing time, fall-out from the brawl. Of course, I don't see how his "limited" playing time could possibly get any more limited than his time in Dallas? I think he sniffed all of what? 2 games all season? And then to return here and now be behind Diogu and probably Baston if he is retained? Something tells me, Croshere won't be a Pacer next year or ever again. And I'm not too sure that's a bad thing. Granted, he did a superb job at rallying the troops near the end of the '04-05 season - his efforts were probably the one catalyst that got them into the post-season that year - but...

                      I don't know...

                      Let me sleep on it through about FA signing time...June 15th or so....and I'll get back to you.

                      Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                      Agreed, and I'm not sold on Marquis as the starting PG anyway even if he was healthy. This team desperately needs a legitimate outside threat at that position (look at all the open threes that JT got this year).
                      On Quis as the PG: Frankly, I'd rather see MDjr bring the ball down court. He has better ball control, better court vision and doesn't seem to panic when doubled. Besides, wasn't he a PG in high school/played at the Point alittle in college? Moreover, I like a back court duo of MDjr/Quis better than Army or McLeod/Quis. I think such a pairing could be more difficult for opponents to deal with because both MDjr and Quis have shown they can penetrate and get to the basket. However, only Quis has shown he can break down defenses and create his own shot. Still, having two Guards who can penetrate will cause problems for most teams because you never really know what either will do - stand back and take the trey? Work it inside for the dish? Step inside for the 2? Drive to the lane for the score And1? If MDjr could come along just a little bit more...you just don't know...

                      As far as needing a PG who's able to knock down 3-pters, that's should NEVER be the responsibility of your PG! His job first and foremost is ball distribution. If he's able to knock down a trey, cool! But to rely on that capability from your PG...not smart, folks. It's one of the reason I would get so tick'd @ Tinsley...watching him jackup so many 3's and clankin' 'em. Or when Travis Best was here watching him damned near dribble out the shot clock. Hated that w/a passion!!! Set up the offense and ball distribution w/an occassional shooting touch, that's what I want in a PG, ala, Mark Jackson. Ah, the good ole days.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                        I wouldn't mind seeing Dunleavy and Quis sharing the point duty while on the court together. Dunleavy can bring the ball up court and pass pretty well. He would have to cut down on the crucial turnovers. He can even knock down the occaisional jumpshot. With Quis on the floor with him, Quis can be the driver who creates for himself and others. Worth an experiment IF we have the right coach and IF we don't have many other options.

                        You could put Quis on the PG on the defensive end.. he long and could really put pressure and bother the opposing teams PG. Either could post up the PG on the opposite end.

                        You could put Danny on the better SG/SF on the floor.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                          Let's agree that both sound bad .
                          fair enough, and I'm worried about it too.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                            Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                            I wouldn't mind seeing Dunleavy and Quis sharing the point duty while on the court together. Dunleavy can bring the ball up court and pass pretty well. He would have to cut down on the crucial turnovers. He can even knock down the occaisional jumpshot. With Quis on the floor with him, Quis can be the driver who creates for himself and others. Worth an experiment IF we have the right coach and IF we don't have many other options.

                            You could put Quis on the PG on the defensive end.. he long and could really put pressure and bother the opposing teams PG. Either could post up the PG on the opposite end.

                            You could put Danny on the better SG/SF on the floor.

                            This is something many of us have talked about on this forum. It still puzzles me why Carlisle never really tried out Daniels at pg.Daniels is good enough to be a starter at both guard spots and be very productive. The question will remain if he can stay healthy.He hasn't been healthy in Dallas and he comes here and gets injured.I just don't know if you can rely on him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                              Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                              This is something many of us have talked about on this forum. It still puzzles me why Carlisle never really tried out Daniels at pg.Daniels is good enough to be a starter at both guard spots and be very productive. The question will remain if he can stay healthy.He hasn't been healthy in Dallas and he comes here and gets injured.I just don't know if you can rely on him.
                              Yeah it would have been nice to try the experiment while he was healthy. I mean for most of the season our backup was a 38 yr. old and though DA played well in spurts, there were times and stretches where he could have at least TRIED Quis at PG.

                              Hopefully our next coach is more flexible, especially that times where things aren't working. It's fine to see a team or lineup will mesh, but an 11 game losing streak without a lineup or rotation change calls for one of these

                              Not saying we wouldn't still lose, but I recall a game (I believe against the Raps) where the starters were getting ran for the majority of the game, and guys like DA, Shawne, Ike and Maceo came in to make it interesting, only to be benched for the starters to blow the come back attempt. And of course Shawne, Ike and Maceo didn't even get a chance to bring a sweat in the next contest.

                              So whomever the coach is... hopefully he's willing to put together different looks on the court when things are working.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: New info on Marquis Daniels injury - excellent blog by Mark Montieth

                                Originally posted by Jay View Post
                                Ooops. You just lost me. I don't care if he can shoot the three or not. The three-point shot is vastly overused/ overemphasized.

                                Unlike some of our other poor shooters from out there, Marquis is bright enough/ disciplined enough to realize that is not a strength of his game and he rarely shoots from out there.
                                I don't care if he can either. I think you and I are the only two on this forum that believe the three-point shot is overrated. I think the three-pointer can help just as much as it can hurt. Long missed shots often lead to fast breaks for the opposition. If you don't have a team that's fast enough to keep up with the opponent on a fast break, you're not going to win very many games.

                                My point about Daniels and three-pointers was the fact that it's the only thing he's not too good at. As someone else acknowledged in this thread, our point guard was left wide open at the three-point line many many times during the season. A lot of that had to do with Tinsley's inability to hit the three. If our point guard made the opposition pay for leaving him open, not only would the point guard be deadlier, but so would our entire team. But then too, in all of our past success, I can't remember the last time we had a starting point guard that hit more than 36% beyond the arc... Which brings me back to your point of the three being overrated...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X