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

Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

    This one's for Jay. I've alluded to these before, but I felt like bringing them out.

    So you have chemistry concerns, too. But you've just stood back and said "none of our concerns match." What in the world are your concerns? Two of the top players on the team have to be restrained from each other, but some other mysterious chemistry problem bothers you even more. What is it, I'm dying to know???
    Our two top players got in a tiff, but it looks like they've worked that out. My bigger issue is one of "team" chemistry, not chemistry between two star players. This discussion requires some setup. Here goes.

    When Donnie started "rebuilding on the fly" after the 2000 Finals, he did it thoroughly and completely. He didn't want to take the team into the lotto (an approach that I hate as well), so he didn't give away our players for scraps and hope for a good draft pick. He traded away established talent for developing talent and picked players in the drafts that were the same age as the players on the team (not exactly, but he picked to HSers before he began picking ready-to-play college seniors). He took old and traded not just for young, but for same-age-young. He looked at problem areas and assembled lots of possible solutions (e.g., SF was a problem when we lost to Chicago, so Walsh went out and got 3 new small forwards).

    All of these things are good things. Now fast forward to today. Do you know the biggest difference that I see between, say, us (minus the effects of the brawl and aftermath) and the Spurs (my favorite for this year's championship)? San Antonio has a team that fits together. We have an awesome collection of talent.

    The same thing is true of Detroit. When they picked up McDyess or Carlos A, it was immediately obvious how that player fit into the rotation and team concept. The average observer knew what that player was supposed to bring to the table. If a player didn't fit in, that player was moved, even if Dumars didn't get value in return. For that matter, look at the team Riley's put around Shaq and Wade. I said before the season that those two weren't enough to make a contender, and I think this season has proven me right. Their point guard from nowhere is exactly what they need to make that team work. Udonis is perfect for a 4-man paired with Shaq.

    Now look at the Pacers. Assume everybody's healthy and back. Who's the best starting center? Dale Davis, certainly. But before he got here, who? Foster? Pollard? Croshere? These guys are 75% redundant with each other. They each have minor advantages over the others, but they're pretty much the same. Look at shooting guard. Does Jax play the two, and move Freddy to third-string? Does he play the 3, and move Bender to third string? Who backs up JO? Does Harrison play a single minute?

    Our depth has been invaluable in a season like this. But that's no reason to have depth. It has kept us from tanking in a terrible season, but it won't win us a championship. Quality, not quantity, is going to do that. Nobody plays 12 men in the playoffs. Walsh has been, so far, unwilling to trade quantity for quality.

    This is enough to get this thread started. I'd say my biggest concern with "team chemistry" isn't the "chemistry" part, it's the "team" part. This group of talented players has been assembled with an eye towards collecting talent, not putting together a rotation to win a championship. People hated Zeke's rotations, but no possible rotation could make sense with the team he was given. Carlisle's wouldn't have been any better if he hadn't lost players to trade and injury. There is no way to put together a decent rotation with this group without arbitrarily and permanently benching some decent players that, in all fairness, deserve a chance to play.

    This post is way too long, and it's only one issue. I wish I had Jay's brevity. For the third time, I'll say it. When at full strength, we don't have a team. We have an incredible collection of talent. It actually reminds me of the Lakers after they aquired Shaq and Kobe but before they traded away Rice, Jones, and Nick the Quick. That was the year 4 of the 5 Western Conference All-Star starters were from the Lakers (Kobe was on the bench). I think they lost in the second round that year.
    This space for rent.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

    I think a team is emerging from that collection of talent.

    AJ is showing that he is capable of carrying a fair portion of Tins' load when he becomes starter. I still think a better 3rd PG would be a good addition in the offseason.
    I think a SG spot of Jax and Freddy will offer a lot of flexability, something we had nothing of at that position in the finals last season. I hope Rick can balance having a consistant rotation against being able to adjust when one of those two isn't working.
    You could improve our backup SF over James Jones, but presuming Artest isn't suspended then you aren't going to be talking about too many minutes, and Jax can also fill in here.
    JO and DD in the middle with Artest on the perimeter with Jax/Freddy chasing down guards is an awesome defensive and offensive lineup. Foster is a great backup for the 4/5 spots.

    If DD/JO/Artest/Jax+Freddy stay healthy and unsuspended and we manage the PG position between Tins/AJ/?, I think we'll be in great shape. Wait until we know which areas we need more help in and then look to move Pollard, Bender or Cro.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

      hmmm...my post was pretty similar to the one you just made in the 'shaq like presence' thread anthem. Donyell seems like he would be a good fit backup 3/4 spots, but i wonder if your really going to have enough minutes and capspace to get a player of that calibur for our backup.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

        Don't forget, Bender can be VERY effective backing up the 2,3, and the 4.

        (Ducking....running)
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

          Before the season started, my biggest worry was who would get consistant minutes and would we not create more problems by reducing minutes of some emerging players.
          We have indeed a formidable group of talented young players, But lookingto next year I see less problems then could have arisen this year had 11/19 not happened.
          What could have happened this year is that Hulk would have gotten no minutes and therefore would be far less developped, JB could have been healthy, creating more "PT" problems, we would have had a problem with FJ's pt and so on.

          As it stands now, barring major changes, roles for next year seem close to defined, with 2 spots open for a small internal competition for starter position.

          3 players will start without any discussion next year (and would now would they be available) being JO, Ron & Mel.

          DD is a gift from above for more reasons then his current play, he is simply imo the ideal man to learn Hulk the tricks of the trade and he is the type of player that loves to do so. meeaning that Hulk will see even more rapid improvement, I see him moving into the strating 5 position somewhere halfway through the season. Until then DD and Jeff will play, I think DD will play less minutes (which is a good thing at his age) and Jeff will play less to, bringing Hulk in the front court rotation.

          Staring at 2 would be interesting, imo it is not a clear case that jax will start, "roles" on the team will be defined and I still feel that he is not the heir apparent some of you think he may be. His shotselection will have to improve to get any form of confidence from RC and therefore FJ will factor in heavily in the starters race for that position, also possible would be a trade and upgrade there, because it will be clear that the bench will be short on minutes for to many players that have performed so valiantly this year.
          For balance purposes I would not be amazed if FJ started and Jax would become 6th man.

          In the frontcourt rotation there is little room left, spot minutes for Polly if he stays, which for lockerroom reasons and heart would not be a bad idea, but valuable is not the right word there.
          Cro has once again proven that if he is to rely on spot minutes he can not perform, it would be bet to actively help the man move, despite that I love what he gives us when he starts, with all players ready to play the chances are about -10 that he will start one game next year.
          "letting him go" for free would still be a just reward, anything we get in return is profit since Cro is relegated to the end of the bench next year.
          If Hulk developes as we all hope and think then the 3rd scoring thread in front court will come from Hulk, where as DD and Jeff will take care of the major Rb's.

          Between Fred/Jax/Ron there are few minutes left at the 2-3 and in actual fact JJ could be the "security" against JB again not playing, who ever get's that role is not seeing that many minutes anyway, ot of the 96 minutes available I see the 3 above taking about 90.

          That leaves the PG and IF AJ is capable of giving the same as he is doing the last 3 weeks, then I am happy there, but some young talent in the mix there would be great.

          With this we have a semi-solid 8-10 man rotation with spot minutes for "talent" and "role-players", the 8 man playoffs rotation is more or less set this way.

          Now the big question is can that group "gel" together to make that illusive "chemistry" we are talking about?
          With more or less defined roles, the type of players on the field (and that is one of the reasons I have Jax coming of the bench) fits a well gelled group.

          Fred and DD know their role and are happy playing it, they do not need shots, they have not really a streaky thing, so they are solid when needed, we have more then enough outside threat with JT & FJ that can shoot well enough to keep defense honest and are not in "need" of a shot to not play on the strength of our front-court.
          None of our proposed 5's will "need" to score, but Hulk is certainly capable and Jeff & DD are more then adequate to pick up the spoils.
          Hulk & DD are certainly capable of boxing out, leaving room for JO to play his game.
          Ron, well Ron is Ron and adding him as a threat to that group is like completing the perfect puzzle, including his defense.
          Defense with that group; Hulk/Jeff are the weak spots and that is not something to get to worried about I would say

          "Momentum" and "honesty at defense" are kept well with Jax and AJ (in current form) coming of the bench to keep a spread offense and intense defense.

          In other words, if that core stays together, we have a well fitted contender.
          Between 11 and 15 is room for whatever they want to do, barring another season from hell we do not require those players that much, so in the end we have a group that fits perfectly (finally) but any of those players leaving and in particular Ron would mean we are left with a completely unbalanced group.

          Though I share your feelings in a big way towards the current season (well at least did when it started) I have far less that feeling now.
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

            I don't think our roster is so messed up.

            PG: Tinsley starts, AJ backs him up. Tins gets 28 minutes, AJ gets 20.

            SG: Jackson starts, Fred backs him up. In certain matchups Fred sees small amounts of PG, likely for defense on bigger PGs. Jackson gets 30 minutes, Fred gets 18.

            SF: Artest starts, Jackson fills in the minutes when Ron sits. Ron gets 40 minutes, Jackson gets 8.

            PF: O'Neal starts, Bender backs him up if he's healthy, if not Croshere. O'Neal gets 38-40 minutes, Bender or Croshere gets 10-8.

            C: Davis starts, Foster backs him up, unless Harrison beats him out for the position in practice or training camp. Pollard plays backup against a team with a huge C. Davis gets 28 minutes, Foster or Harrison gets 20.

            The ones who only play in garbage time or serve the on the IL are James Jones, Eddie Gill, Scot Pollard unless it's against a big C team, and whichever bigs don't play between Bender v Cro, and Foster v Harrison.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

              The only difference I would see from Rick's perspective is that Jeff would be the first big off the bench, regardless of whether he would be substituting in for Jermaine or Dale.

              I think Jermaine, Dale and Jeff will pretty much cover the 96 minutes, leaving very little time at all for Bender, Croshere or Pollard. The left-overs will probably go to Harrison.

              With Pollard's expiring contract, there is absolutely no way that he will be on our roster through the entire 2005-2006 year. So you can almost be certain that we will be looking at a new player sometime before the trading deadline. I suppose we can watch what the Pacers do with their draft pick to provide a clue whether Pollard will be used to acquire a frontcourt or a backcourt player. But I think that the package containing Pollard will be big enough to bring back a player that will take minutes out of the rotation.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

                Yes, that thought occured to me. Probably Rick will find a way to play Jeff no matter what.

                Of course, what that means is Rick will have to choose 2 of these three to play if all are healthy: Bender, Harrison, and Foster. I think unless he shows marked improvement, Hulk's going to lose this one.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

                  Originally posted by Anthem
                  Our depth has been invaluable in a season like this. But that's no reason to have depth. It has kept us from tanking in a terrible season, but it won't win us a championship. Quality, not quantity, is going to do that. Nobody plays 12 men in the playoffs. Walsh has been, so far, unwilling to trade quantity for quality.
                  I forgot that we were of the same opinion re: depth.

                  I understand your point, and I've chuckled a bit at some of the responses below. I even counted that one of them had twelve players in thier rotation.

                  I'm not sure I ever expressed it effectively in my other thread, but chemistry, youth, and too much depth/ not enough 'quality' were my three primary concerns when I started that outline.

                  Originally posted by Anthem
                  This is enough to get this thread started. I'd say my biggest concern with "team chemistry" isn't the "chemistry" part, it's the "team" part. This group of talented players has been assembled with an eye towards collecting talent, not putting together a rotation to win a championship. People hated Zeke's rotations, but no possible rotation could make sense with the team he was given. Carlisle's wouldn't have been any better if he hadn't lost players to trade and injury. There is no way to put together a decent rotation with this group without arbitrarily and permanently benching some decent players that, in all fairness, deserve a chance to play.

                  This post is way too long, and it's only one issue. I wish I had Jay's brevity. For the third time, I'll say it. When at full strength, we don't have a team. We have an incredible collection of talent. It actually reminds me of the Lakers after they aquired Shaq and Kobe but before they traded away Rice, Jones, and Nick the Quick. That was the year 4 of the 5 Western Conference All-Star starters were from the Lakers (Kobe was on the bench). I think they lost in the second round that year.
                  Thanks, Anthem, for your response.

                  Now I've got to run to a meeting, I'll try to finish my thoughts on this topic later...
                  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

                  • #10
                    Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

                    I think our team is fine. It showed signs before the brawl of being a great team, and I think they will be next year. Jackson is a key guy in this...he is a VERY good team glue.
                    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

                      Originally posted by Anthem
                      Our two top players got in a tiff, but it looks like they've worked that out. My bigger issue is one of "team" chemistry, not chemistry between two star players. This discussion requires some setup. Here goes.
                      Okay, to call it a "tiff" is to assume that it was a one-time, isolated event, right?

                      What if Ron was one of the three players JO identified after the 2002-03 season?

                      What if this "tiff" had been brewing for a long time?

                      "If" those are true - and I'm not saying they are I'm just asking a question - if its not a one-time event - how sure are you that they've worked things out?

                      You see, as I mentioned in my thread, I don't think Ron is reliable for many, many reasons. And I generally love JO. But my concern about his prima donna attitude has been growing, fueled by the whole "only 'my' team is allowed on the team plane" nonsense he pulled.

                      My chemistry concerns are not exclusively directed at Ron.

                      My all-time favorite Pacer player was incorrectly labeled as a chemistry problem when he was traded for some Pooh and spare change in 1992. I'm not so blinded by my mistrust of Ron to cause me to think he deserves all the blame for everything that might be wrong with the team chemistry.
                      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

                      • #12
                        Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)



                        If there's one sentance that, in a nutshell, shows (in my not-so-humble opinion) the difference between Dumars and Donnie, it's this one:
                        Originally posted by Defective Detective
                        If a player didn't fit in, that player was moved, even if Dumars didn't get value in return.
                        Don't let Peck fool you. The key differentiator between Dumars and Donnie isn't that Dumars takes more risks. I don't even think it's that Dumars wants a championship more (certainly he doesn't want it more than Bird). It's that Dumars is willing to come out as the "loser" of a given deal if it makes the team better. Donnie's not.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

                          And I generally love JO. But my concern about his prima donna attitude has been growing, fueled by the whole "only 'my' team is allowed on the team plane" nonsense he pulled.

                          I couldn't agree with this more as far as the team chemistry debate goes. I think this issue is still very open. The talk here about JO's ability to fit into the current offensive direction of the team also speaks to his willingness to play team ball, IMO. The team plays better getting balanced production with many involved. That often corresponds to him being out. I like JO in general, but he still has to prove/define this whole leadership thing to me as being about what's best for the team. I'm not convinced he's as on the team thing as he says, but rather still has some of that individual orientation driving him, even if subconsciously. This also speaks to concerns others have voiced about the not being a true #1 option guy. I think that's probably on target, but JO has to take the mindset that it's not an insult to his talent/play on an individual level. It's about the team's success. No question he'd still be a big-time guy for the team and a leader.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

                            This space for rent.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Anthem's Dark Side Thread (for Jay)

                              Well, this year we've made a lot of trades to dump players that we didn't come out the winners.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X