Game Thread 12/18: Pacers vs. Celtics
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:42 pm
Turner listed as questionable due to a sore thigh.
This could be a tough one.
This could be a tough one.
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1649498
Jstock12 wrote:Anything that's not a blowout I'll be happy with. Let's just try to stay competitive.
cruwinas wrote:Jstock12 wrote:Anything that's not a blowout I'll be happy with. Let's just try to stay competitive.
Why so pessimistic? Of course, if Turner is a no go - that's a problem. But Domas can man the C position for 38-42 minutes (he is young), and Horford will have a difficult time with Domas speed, agility and brute strength. Boston in the early season overachieved greatly. No the scouting report about how they defend is out, Pacers have enough offensive firepower to overwhelm them. Pacers D?
Against Brooklyn it was NASTY. If the team could dedicate to play D the same way all the time and take pride in their D - that's just too good. Because on offense they have plenty of capable scorers.
I don't now Vegas line, but I give Pacers a 66.67% to get W.
We'll see.
Jstock12 wrote:cruwinas wrote:Jstock12 wrote:Anything that's not a blowout I'll be happy with. Let's just try to stay competitive.
Why so pessimistic? Of course, if Turner is a no go - that's a problem. But Domas can man the C position for 38-42 minutes (he is young), and Horford will have a difficult time with Domas speed, agility and brute strength. Boston in the early season overachieved greatly. No the scouting report about how they defend is out, Pacers have enough offensive firepower to overwhelm them. Pacers D?
Against Brooklyn it was NASTY. If the team could dedicate to play D the same way all the time and take pride in their D - that's just too good. Because on offense they have plenty of capable scorers.
I don't now Vegas line, but I give Pacers a 66.67% to get W.
We'll see.
Not pessimistic, but realistic. I guess it's a personal preference when it comes down to sports. Less frustration when your team loses, because of lower expectations. Always expecting only a win can be miserable.
Jstock12 wrote:Tatum is GOOD.
HoopsMalone wrote:Good test to see where yall are at. I'd like to check out the 2nd half of this game so hopefully we blow the knicks out
cruwinas wrote:Jstock12 wrote:Anything that's not a blowout I'll be happy with. Let's just try to stay competitive.
Why so pessimistic? Of course, if Turner is a no go - that's a problem. But Domas can man the C position for 38-42 minutes (he is young), and Horford will have a difficult time with Domas speed, agility and brute strength. Boston in the early season overachieved greatly. Now the scouting report about how they defend is out, Pacers have enough offensive firepower to overwhelm them. Pacers D?
Against Brooklyn it was NASTY. If the team could dedicate to play D the same way all the time and take pride in their D - that's just too good. Because on offense they have plenty of capable scorers.
I don't now Vegas line, but I give Pacers a 66.67% to get W.
We'll see.
cruwinas wrote:Jstock12 wrote:cruwinas wrote:
Why so pessimistic? Of course, if Turner is a no go - that's a problem. But Domas can man the C position for 38-42 minutes (he is young), and Horford will have a difficult time with Domas speed, agility and brute strength. Boston in the early season overachieved greatly. No the scouting report about how they defend is out, Pacers have enough offensive firepower to overwhelm them. Pacers D?
Against Brooklyn it was NASTY. If the team could dedicate to play D the same way all the time and take pride in their D - that's just too good. Because on offense they have plenty of capable scorers.
I don't now Vegas line, but I give Pacers a 66.67% to get W.
We'll see.
Not pessimistic, but realistic. I guess it's a personal preference when it comes down to sports. Less frustration when your team loses, because of lower expectations. Always expecting only a win can be miserable.
No misery for me. Every game I expect the teams that I like to go out and fight like that:
cruwinas wrote:So... pacers can play good defense just a quarter per game? Played yesterday nice, swarming DD for one quarter and that's it?
Nuntius wrote:cruwinas wrote:Jstock12 wrote:Anything that's not a blowout I'll be happy with. Let's just try to stay competitive.
Why so pessimistic? Of course, if Turner is a no go - that's a problem. But Domas can man the C position for 38-42 minutes (he is young), and Horford will have a difficult time with Domas speed, agility and brute strength. Boston in the early season overachieved greatly. Now the scouting report about how they defend is out, Pacers have enough offensive firepower to overwhelm them. Pacers D?
Against Brooklyn it was NASTY. If the team could dedicate to play D the same way all the time and take pride in their D - that's just too good. Because on offense they have plenty of capable scorers.
I don't now Vegas line, but I give Pacers a 66.67% to get W.
We'll see.
Boston right now is one of the best teams in the league. Only Houston and Golden State have played better basketball than they have.
Nuntius wrote:cruwinas wrote:Jstock12 wrote:Anything that's not a blowout I'll be happy with. Let's just try to stay competitive.
Why so pessimistic? Of course, if Turner is a no go - that's a problem. But Domas can man the C position for 38-42 minutes (he is young), and Horford will have a difficult time with Domas speed, agility and brute strength. Boston in the early season overachieved greatly. Now the scouting report about how they defend is out, Pacers have enough offensive firepower to overwhelm them. Pacers D?
Against Brooklyn it was NASTY. If the team could dedicate to play D the same way all the time and take pride in their D - that's just too good. Because on offense they have plenty of capable scorers.
I don't now Vegas line, but I give Pacers a 66.67% to get W.
We'll see.
Boston right now is one of the best teams in the league. Only Houston and Golden State have played better basketball than they have.