PDA

View Full Version : Are the Pacers better without Brad?



NewYawk
03-30-2004, 12:30 PM
I'm sure this thread has popped up before, but the reg. season is winding down; the Pacers are on the verge of clinching the 1 seed in the East and homecourt throughout; the Pacers main competetion for the 1 overall seed is the Kings and Brad Miller.

So, the question is: are the Pacers better without Brad?

Pollard was supposed to be the guy to come in here and provide rebounds and defense: something Brad wasn't very good at. Instead, Foster has been that guy. Overall, the Pacers are better defensively and on the boards without Brad. Meanwhile, in Sac-town, the kings have become the best passing team in the league with Brad. However, defensively, they are not as good as last year. This leads me to believe Indy is better off without Brad Miller. While I like Brad, defensively he is not very good. He does not use his body well, and gets frustrated easy when things aren't working out (see the Boston series last year). By contrast, Foster has stepped up his game big time, and has developed into a fine post defender, and excellent rebounder, and one of the best "glue guys" in the league. He and JO compliment each other extremely well, and their tandem allows them to bang in the paint with anyone.

I know Brad's an All-Star, but that's sometimes fluff. Vince Carter is an All-Star, and he stinks IMHO. I'd rather have a 6'11'' defender/rebounder than a 7' passer. I'm not saying Foster is "better" than Brad, but that he's a "better fit" for the Pacers than perhaps Brad was.

Harddrive7
03-30-2004, 12:54 PM
Wow...PEEECK!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

Slick Pinkham
03-30-2004, 12:57 PM
-Brad
-Isiah
+Carlisle

= major improvement

;)

Harddrive7
03-30-2004, 12:58 PM
-Brad
-Isiah
+Carlisle

= major improvement

;)


Yeah Carlisle is a very dominate post player that takes tons of pressure off JO. :D

Ragnar
03-30-2004, 01:01 PM
Pollard was supposed to be the guy to come in here and provide rebounds and defense: something Brad wasn't very good at

Brad certainly didnt defend last year or this year for that matter but I think that is coaching. For example no one and I mean no one thought of Tinsley as someone who would play defense last year. Now he does so I think Brad would have played D here under Rick.

As to the rest well we have gone over it a lot but here is the basic point I will make.

We will or at least have a very good chance of making the NBA finals with or without Brad (although he could certainly help against the Pistons now that they have Sheed) But we will lose in that NBA finals to the Lakers because we have no one to contain Shaq.

I know people are going to say that if we face Shaq it is because Brad was able to defnd Shaq but that is absurd. No one on the Kings plays any D other than Doug Christie and he is no Ron Artest.

If Shaq has a bad series but they still win we will have traded the one guy who has the size to contend with Shaq for a piece of crap third string center.

bulletproof
03-30-2004, 01:01 PM
I'll only say that I'd rather have Rick than Brad. For that reason alone, we are better. That's fairly evident.

Ragnar
03-30-2004, 01:09 PM
I'll only say that I'd rather have Rick than Brad. For that reason alone, we are better. That's fairly evident.

I would agree with that.

Unclebuck
03-30-2004, 01:17 PM
When I saw the title of this thread, I said to my self, Please God no, I was hoping maybe it was a joke or a play on words, but sweet fancy Moses, it wasn't. Yes I watched "Seinfeld" last night. Classic episode last night, "they tried to lamb, but they cheesed him" I laugh everytime I hear that line, it was the bootlegging episode where Elaine dances.

Sorry to get off topic. I am tired of discussing this.

Have at it

ChicagoJ
03-30-2004, 01:19 PM
Not really. But we are so much better without Isiah that it makes up for losing Brad.

:devil:

NewYawk
03-30-2004, 01:30 PM
Not really. But we are so much better without Isiah that it makes up for losing Brad.

:devil:

Can we please lay off the Isiah talk? This is about Brad Miller and the Pacers. Not Isiah Thomas.

Hicks
03-30-2004, 01:32 PM
We're better without Brad because of Carlisle and his staff. If we had Isiah (sorry Yawk) and still lost Brad, we would be worse.

ChicagoJ
03-30-2004, 01:48 PM
Not really. But we are so much better without Isiah that it makes up for losing Brad.

:devil:

Can we please lay off the Isiah talk? This is about Brad Miller and the Pacers. Not Isiah Thomas.

I was just playing (thus the :devil: smiley).

For the longest time, every thread ended up as a Brad Miller debate. Lately, they've all ended up as Isiah debates.

I'd rather talk about neither topic.

MagicRat
03-30-2004, 02:15 PM
Not really. But we are so much better without Isiah that it makes up for losing Brad.

:devil:

Can we please lay off the Isiah talk? This is about Brad Miller and the Pacers. Not Isiah Thomas.

I was just playing (thus the :devil: smiley).

For the longest time, every thread ended up as a Brad Miller debate. Lately, they've all ended up as Isiah debates.

I'd rather talk about neither topic.

What happened to your poll?

Slick Pinkham
03-30-2004, 02:24 PM
Brad is a very good player and we would be much better off with him than without him.

HOWEVER, losing Brad has been apparently overcompensated for, by improvements in the play of:

Ron- wow, from talented distraction to all-star*
JO- natural maturation
Tinsley- defensively challenged erratic streetballer to solid PG**
Jeff- high energy guy who fouls out in 15 minutes to one that doesn't
Al- healthier and with a defined and consistent role


*Ron just happened to change his behavior dramatically shortly after a coaching change, though OBVIOUSLY these changes CAN'T be related. :rolleyes:

**Seemed to learn by sitting, having the message transferred from his backside to his brain. OBVIOUSLY the previous coach would have done the same thing, after all, he held dear the concept that consistent playing time and a defined role must be earned. :rolleyes:

NewYawk
03-30-2004, 03:00 PM
We're better without Brad because of Carlisle and his staff. If we had Isiah (sorry Yawk) and still lost Brad, we would be worse.

I agree. No need for apologies. Carlisle is a better coach than Isiah.

ChicagoJ
03-30-2004, 03:47 PM
Not really. But we are so much better without Isiah that it makes up for losing Brad.

:devil:

Can we please lay off the Isiah talk? This is about Brad Miller and the Pacers. Not Isiah Thomas.

I was just playing (thus the :devil: smiley).

For the longest time, every thread ended up as a Brad Miller debate. Lately, they've all ended up as Isiah debates.

I'd rather talk about neither topic.

What happened to your poll?

Its way down there. Not sure its worth a BUMP but here's the link:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1369


PS - I voted for Isiah. :P

NewYawk
03-30-2004, 03:56 PM
Not really. But we are so much better without Isiah that it makes up for losing Brad.

:devil:

Can we please lay off the Isiah talk? This is about Brad Miller and the Pacers. Not Isiah Thomas.

I was just playing (thus the :devil: smiley).

For the longest time, every thread ended up as a Brad Miller debate. Lately, they've all ended up as Isiah debates.

I'd rather talk about neither topic.

What happened to your poll?

Its way down there. Not sure its worth a BUMP but here's the link:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1369


PS - I voted for Isiah. :P

How about you do what normal, intelligent folks do when they see a thread they don't want to read:

They don't read it, and the don't post on it.

:rolleyes: :shakehead:

Slick Pinkham
03-30-2004, 04:49 PM
We're better without Brad because of Carlisle and his staff. If we had Isiah (sorry Yawk) and still lost Brad, we would be worse.

I agree. No need for apologies. Carlisle is a better coach than Isiah.

semantics.

Let me get this right,

My opinion of Isiah: an OK coach-- I never called him a bad coach, though others have
My opinion of Carlisle: very good coach

and this makes you froth and foam furiously at me because,

Your opinion of Isiah: very good coach (coach-of-the-year caliber)
Your opinion of Carlisle: very very good coach

Is this right?

Your rating for coaches reminds me of when I walk into a convenience store and want a fountain soft drink. I see 4 sizes of cups and think "small, medium, large, and extra-large". They are actually marked "large, jumbo, extra super jumbo, and extra supremo ultimate jumbo". I get the smallest size, a "large", and take it to the counter and say "That's all, just one small drink." Now if you were the kid behind the counter, you would rant and rave about what an idiot I was because I didn't realize that the smallest size was a "large".



I think coaches can be bad, OK, good, or very good;

you think (apparently) they can be bad, very good, very very good, or ultimate grande supremo.

:neutral:

ABADays
03-30-2004, 04:54 PM
I think we are different - that's all.

Theshop
03-30-2004, 05:34 PM
I think Carlisle will be considered among the best coaches of his era.

waxman
03-30-2004, 06:06 PM
Where did this myth start that Brad Miller could somehow contain Shaq???? Is it because Shaq threw a punch at him once and got ejected???
Whatever the case its pretty funny...

There is only one player that can come close to "containing" or even matches up somewhat and that is Yao... Any other team in IMO has to use a combination of full court pressure (to take time off the shot clock), fronting the post and hard double teams to have a chance against him.

Back on topic...Jeff and Brad both worked well for different reasons... Brad because he can score from 15'+ to open up the low post, he's a good passer and has great court awareness.....Jeff because he also has great court awareness, doesn't need the ball offensively..., gets extra possessions, plays tough D and gives 100% all the time.

The big difference is Carlisle.... and the continued maturity of a young team.

NewYawk
03-30-2004, 06:07 PM
We're better without Brad because of Carlisle and his staff. If we had Isiah (sorry Yawk) and still lost Brad, we would be worse.

I agree. No need for apologies. Carlisle is a better coach than Isiah.

semantics.

Let me get this right,

My opinion of Isiah: an OK coach-- I never called him a bad coach, though others have
My opinion of Carlisle: very good coach

and this makes you froth and foam furiously at me because,

Your opinion of Isiah: very good coach (coach-of-the-year caliber)
Your opinion of Carlisle: very very good coach

Is this right?


No. I will once again ask you not to take my views and stretch them into something incorrect. I have often called Isiah a "good coach." I called him a candidate for COY before the post All-Star slide, as did many folks. You can go back through any numbers of posts and you'll see I did not paint Thomas the way you are ASSUMING I do. I could be a jerk and simply tell you to download the latest version of "Hooked on Phonics", but i'm not going to write that with meaning.

I will simply ask you to read more carefully before you assume anything about me. You are very quick to paint me as a "Thomas for President" poster. I have never said Isiah was great, or even very good. He was good at coaching, and very good at player development.
I got upset with your earlier posts comparing Indy's slide last year with NO's: an unfair, incorrect comparison. More often than not, we agree on many things. Please, look at the details, and don't assume. My beef with posters is when they paint Thomas as a "bad" coach. That's unfair, IMHO.

Slick Pinkham
03-30-2004, 06:14 PM
My beef with posters is when they paint Thomas as a "bad" coach. That's unfair, IMHO.

They you should never have had any beef with me, because I never said he was a bad coach, and also never said the coaching of Tim Floyd is comparable. I pointed out that Boston sportswriters have labelled his New Orleans team as "vulnerable" in the playoffs, exactly as they did with Indiana last year. This proves that they don't have to "hate" someone to criticize them. Boston fans and press would much rather have Isiah as a GM than Ainge right now, for the most part.

I have to add that I firmly believe it is fine to fire an "OK" coach when you know that a very good one is available.

If I've got a hot dog on my plate but find out that some Maine lobster is available instead, that hot dog goes in the trash. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't good enough considering something better was available.

Suaveness
03-30-2004, 07:39 PM
I'm so sick of talking about Brad. Enough.

Snickers
03-30-2004, 07:55 PM
54+ > 42

MSA2CF
03-30-2004, 07:58 PM
Here we go again...............

Nunca terminará hasta el triunfo de Pacers el campeonato sin Brad Molinero.

(It will never end until the Pacers win the championship without Brad Miller.)

MagicRat
03-30-2004, 08:20 PM
How about you do what normal, intelligent folks do when they see a thread they don't want to read:

:rolleyes: :shakehead:

I guess, based on this, the answer to the question is "how about you do what normal, intelligent folks do.....compare last year's record to this year's record"......

:rolleyes: :shakehead: :P

MSA2CF
03-30-2004, 08:27 PM
Amo Yawk Nuevo... que él está viniendo siempre para arriba con los asuntos más polémicos, que es sobre cuál están los tableros del mensaje realmente.

:box:


(I love New Yawk...He is always coming up with the most controversial topics, which is what message boards are really about.)

(:box:)

bulletproof
03-30-2004, 08:32 PM
I'm so sick of talking about Brad.

I don't see how that's possible. Each discussion about Brad covers new and exciting ground and brings us all closer to coming to some sort of agreement on the matter.

MSA2CF
03-30-2004, 08:37 PM
I'm so sick of talking about Brad.

I don't see how that's possible. Each discussion about Brad covers new and exciting ground and brings us all closer to coming to some sort of agreement on the matter.

Estoy de acuerdo.

NewYawk
03-31-2004, 10:55 AM
How about you do what normal, intelligent folks do when they see a thread they don't want to read:

:rolleyes: :shakehead:

I guess, based on this, the answer to the question is "how about you do what normal, intelligent folks do.....compare last year's record to this year's record"......

:rolleyes: :shakehead: :P

Um, what's this about?

MagicRat
03-31-2004, 11:34 AM
Um, what's this about?

For clarification:


How about you do what normal, intelligent folks do.........

:rolleyes: :shakehead:



So, the question is: are the Pacers better without Brad? ?

"How about you do what normal, intelligent folks do.....compare last year's record to this year's record"......

:rolleyes: :shakehead: :P

Note the :P . And here's a :) and a :D .........

NewYawk
03-31-2004, 11:58 AM
It is my personal belief that we are better now without Brad. I'm hoping my questions reaches a much broader issue: the overall talent is not nearly as important as people make it out to be. Jeff is clearly a better fit now, and i'm not so sure we'd be as good with Brad still here.

Gyron
03-31-2004, 12:02 PM
New Yawk,

Do you constantly have to drag up the two topics that do nothing but cause bickering and people harassing you? I'm really starting to think you like people calling you names and such even if it's just their opinion.

Please can we stop bringing up the following two subjects?????
1. Whether or not we should have kept brad miller and any variations of that.
2. Whether IT was a good coach or a mediocre coach or any variation of said topic.

PLEASE!

edited for REALLY BAD SPELLING

NewYawk
03-31-2004, 12:34 PM
New Yawk,

Do you constantly have to drag up the two topics that do nothing but cause bickering and people harassing you? I'm really starting to think you like people calling you names and such even if it's just their opinion.

Please can we stop bringing up the following two subjects?????
1. Whether or not we should have kept brad miller and any variations of that.
2. Whether IT was a good coach or a mediocre coach or any variation of said topic.

PLEASE!

edited for REALLY BAD SPELLING

Two things:

1) I don't constantly bring up Brad Miller or Isiah Thomas. This is the only thread I've created on Brad Miller. And in regards to Thomas, I think I've only created one thread about Thomas, and it was about how disappointed I am in his handling of the Knicks. All my other posts about Thomas have been IN RESPONSE to someone else. So, to say I constantly bring up Thomas and Brad Miller is inaccurate.

2) If you don't like threads I create, DON'T READ THEM AND DON'T RESPOND TO THEM! I know this will be hard for you to take, but your opinions on what I can and can't post mean absolutely NOTHING to me. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore me. Because apparently this thread (with it's 20 something posts) is worthy of discussion by more than a few posters in here.

Sorry, but I absolutely can't stand people who ask me not to post certain things when it's obvious people still want to talk about them. If you think the issue is stale, ignore the thread. Don't click on it. Don't respond to it. It's THAT simple. Asking someone not to post something just because YOU think it's a stale issue is stupid.

bulletproof
03-31-2004, 01:04 PM
New Yawk,

Do you constantly have to drag up the two topics that do nothing but cause bickering and people harassing you? I'm really starting to think you like people calling you names and such even if it's just their opinion.

Please can we stop bringing up the following two subjects?????
1. Whether or not we should have kept brad miller and any variations of that.
2. Whether IT was a good coach or a mediocre coach or any variation of said topic.

PLEASE!

edited for REALLY BAD SPELLING

Two things:

1) I don't constantly bring up Brad Miller or Isiah Thomas. This is the only thread I've created on Brad Miller. And in regards to Thomas, I think I've only created one thread about Thomas, and it was about how disappointed I am in his handling of the Knicks. All my other posts about Thomas have been IN RESPONSE to someone else. So, to say I constantly bring up Thomas and Brad Miller is inaccurate.

2) If you don't like threads I create, DON'T READ THEM AND DON'T RESPOND TO THEM! I know this will be hard for you to take, but your opinions on what I can and can't post mean absolutely NOTHING to me. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore me. Because apparently this thread (with it's 20 something posts) is worthy of discussion by more than a few posters in here.

Sorry, but I absolutely can't stand people who ask me not to post certain things when it's obvious people still want to talk about them. If you think the issue is stale, ignore the thread. Don't click on it. Don't respond to it. It's THAT simple. Asking someone not to post something just because YOU think it's a stale issue is stupid.


Gotta say, I agree with New Yawk here. If people don't want to discuss a particular subject, the thread will simply wither and fade away. It's not anyone's right here to tell someone else what subjects not to discuss.

Gyron
03-31-2004, 02:17 PM
I didn't tell anyone that they couldn't dicuss anything.

Let me clarify that.

Basically I was simply asking why we have to keep rehashing the same damn two subjects all season. I think we have all read and heard just about everything that can be said on the two subjects. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. To me it just appears as though we are beating the heck out of a dead horse.

Discuss it all you want, I just think all that can be said has been and its pointless to continue bringing them up. We understand different people have different view points and there is no chaning their mind, so....why continue?

As for New Yawk, my point there was it seems like every time he posts, it usually has something to do with IT being a "Very good coach" and now he brings up Brad Miller. And he doesn't do it in a way where you can give your opinion without it sounding argumentative. I know I'm exageratting a little here, but still. His tone in posts is aggressive and very argumentative and seem to only bring up the contriversial subjects just to get attention and get people to post things back at him and begin the bickering and name calling. And then he ask's why people come back at him the way they do.

Just my point of view. And you're both right. No one here except Hicks has the right to say what can and can't be discussed, so by all means, please continue to rehash a the two subjects that have been beaten into the ground endlessly.

:deadhorse: (you can even imagine me as the dead horse if it makes you feel better.)

Bball
03-31-2004, 02:47 PM
I've never heard BMiller's willingness to be a team player be questioned. That in and of itself makes the basic question hard to answer (if not impossible).

Are the Pacers better without Brad Miller?
Take a look at the record. Yes, the Pacers are better off this year and it just so happens they are without Brad Miller.

A deeper question would be WHY the Pacers are better off this year and if the lack of BMiller has anything to do with that.

That, we may never know.

I'm not sure where the idea has crept up that Brad wasn't a good defender or rebounder tho I've seen those things suggested.

Having a real coach changes lots of things. Real coaches tend to be able to do more with less. But that doesn't mean real coaches need less to succeed.

The only question mark on Brad was his conditioning and/or ability to sustain his play throughout a complete season. Both sides have ammo here.

Therefore, the team is better without BMiller... but it may have nothing to do with BMiller's absence... It is even possible that they would be improved yet again with Brad Miller's presence (edit: All else being equal).

-Bball

NewYawk
03-31-2004, 03:34 PM
Gyron, I disagree. If "all that can be said has been and its pointless to continue bringing" these issues up, then no one would have responded to this thread. If I had created this thread, and after ZERO responses I was annoyingly bumping it up to the top of the list, then I'd see your point. However, the multiple posts to the thread seem to undermine your assertion that these issues are "dead horses." And again, if you don't like it, ignore it. If that sounds "aggressive and very argumentative", I'm sorry. I don't intend to troll, or to insight arguments. I seek discussion, and hopefully through a little mindless dialogue (because, let's face it, this IS sports we're talking about, and I am goofing off on my job typing this) an interesting statement can emerge giving new insight into the issue. I also disagree with how you're describing my attitude towards other posters. I have not called other people names. I may say something like, "Asking someone not to post something just because YOU think it's a stale issue is stupid." That does not insult YOU per say, just the notion. If you took that as me saying YOU were stupid, that was clearly not my intention. I don't insult people UNLESS they throw mud first.

BBall: you make some good points, though I disagree on the whole "real coach" issue, obviously. Brad was not a good post defender, nor was he a better rebounder than Foster. Watch the Boston series to see how great Brad is at post defense. Better still, watch the Kings this year. He's not horrible, but he's also not good. On a good night, he's slightly above average. Carlisle is a better coach than Thomas, but I'm not sure we'd have the same success with Brad here, coached by Carlisle.

Slick Pinkham
03-31-2004, 03:51 PM
And in regards to Thomas, I think I've only created one thread about Thomas, and it was about how disappointed I am in his handling of the Knicks.

wrong again.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1340

Unless you want us to believe that a thread about how Rick Carlisle should be fired after a 1st round playoff loss was not really trolling for an opportunity to prop up your best buddy IT.

Gyron
03-31-2004, 03:53 PM
Aren't we all goofing off at work posting on the boards? :laugh:

Ok, well I have just been noticing a trend when it comes to peoples response of your posts and I seem to be taking your posts the same way they are so I guess that's where my observations come from but hey I've been wrong before and will be many more times in the future, so....

My point about Brad, to prove I'm not the only one who thinks that we have already covered this issue over and over........What were some of the first responses you recieved to this post?

Jay@Section222 wrote:
"For the longest time, every thread ended up as a Brad Miller debate. Lately, they've all ended up as Isiah debates.

I'd rather talk about neither topic."

Suaveness posted:

"I'm so sick of talking about Brad. Enough. "


And how about this post.....

http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1369 I believe the top 58% of the votes in that poll covered what I am saying.....


My basic point , again, is that.....


Talk about Brad and IT all you want, I think you'll continue to get the same basic responses over and over, no matter how many times they are brought up.....

Now if Brad Miller does something new and exciting we should discuss, great! Or even IT and what he's doing with the Knicks, but to continue to argue about wether Brad should have stayed or whether IT was a good coach is pretty much pointless now. Brad's Gone and IT is no longer the coach of the pacers so......Nothing new will come of that in my mind.

Anyways, I think I have covered my position and I'm not going to push it anymore.....

NewYawk
03-31-2004, 04:13 PM
And in regards to Thomas, I think I've only created one thread about Thomas, and it was about how disappointed I am in his handling of the Knicks.

wrong again.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1340

Unless you want us to believe that a thread about how Rick Carlisle should be fired after a 1st round playoff loss was not really trolling for an opportunity to prop up your best buddy IT.

It's not an opportunity to prop anybody up. That thread was a hypothetical, and it involved and was cetnered around Rick Carlisle with a passing reference to Thomas.

Again Tom, LEARN TO READ before you post something so pathetically general, and pass it off as a lame attempt to prove me wrong. That thread was not about Isiah Thomas. It was about Rick Carlisle, and the expectations he SHOULD be held to. Obvious difference.

I'm ignoring you now. What you just did is pathetic and trollish in nature.

Bball
03-31-2004, 04:32 PM
BBall: you make some good points, though I disagree on the whole "real coach" issue, obviously. Brad was not a good post defender, nor was he a better rebounder than Foster. Watch the Boston series to see how great Brad is at post defense. Better still, watch the Kings this year. He's not horrible, but he's also not good. On a good night, he's slightly above average. Carlisle is a better coach than Thomas, but I'm not sure we'd have the same success with Brad here, coached by Carlisle.

You might subsitute 'experienced' coach for 'real' coach for what I was saying. It would be a more diplomatic and likely more appropriate term for my point.

-Bball

Bball
03-31-2004, 04:48 PM
It's not an opportunity to prop anybody up. That thread was a hypothetical, and it involved and was cetnered around Rick Carlisle with a passing reference to Thomas.

Again Tom, LEARN TO READ before you post something so pathetically general, and pass it off as a lame attempt to prove me wrong. That thread was not about Isiah Thomas. It was about Rick Carlisle, and the expectations he SHOULD be held to. Obvious difference.
.

This does bring up something that I am not clear on.

You think Isiah was a good coach (or maybe a very good coach) but you think Carlisle is better.... correct?

Why then do you argue that Carlisle should get only one year... one chance to get the Pacers past the first round? Why shouldn't he be accorded at least 2 years if not the 3 that Isiah had?

I will expand this. If you would say it is because Isiah was unfairly treated and should've been allowed to finish the job (which is another point I think you've argued but I could've misunderstood) then I am still at a loss as to why it is Carlisle's head you want (in light of the fact you say that Carlisle is a better coach and your's would not be the minority opinion on that)?

-Bball

ChicagoJ
03-31-2004, 04:49 PM
Aren't we all goofing off at work posting on the boards? :laugh:

Ok, well I have just been noticing a trend when it comes to peoples response of your posts and I seem to be taking your posts the same way they are so I guess that's where my observations come from but hey I've been wrong before and will be many more times in the future, so....

My point about Brad, to prove I'm not the only one who thinks that we have already covered this issue over and over........What were some of the first responses you recieved to this post?

Jay@Section222 wrote:
"For the longest time, every thread ended up as a Brad Miller debate. Lately, they've all ended up as Isiah debates.

I'd rather talk about neither topic."

Suaveness posted:

"I'm so sick of talking about Brad. Enough. "


And how about this post.....

http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1369 I believe the top 58% of the votes in that poll covered what I am saying.....


My basic point , again, is that.....


Talk about Brad and IT all you want, I think you'll continue to get the same basic responses over and over, no matter how many times they are brought up.....

Now if Brad Miller does something new and exciting we should discuss, great! Or even IT and what he's doing with the Knicks, but to continue to argue about wether Brad should have stayed or whether IT was a good coach is pretty much pointless now. Brad's Gone and IT is no longer the coach of the pacers so......Nothing new will come of that in my mind.

Anyways, I think I have covered my position and I'm not going to push it anymore.....

You left out...

Here we go again...............

and

When I saw the title of this thread, I said to my self, Please God no, I was hoping maybe it was a joke or a play on words, but sweet fancy Moses, it wasn't. Yes I watched "Seinfeld" last night. Classic episode last night, "they tried to lamb, but they cheesed him" I laugh everytime I hear that line, it was the bootlegging episode where Elaine dances.

Sorry to get off topic. I am tired of discussing this.

Have at it


Lastly, there are only nine replies that actually address the subject of the thread. Most of the rest are tangents such as this one, are in Spanish (can somebody translate, by the way?), or the collective groans of posters that just didn't want to do this again. So yes, there has been some reply, although nothing new. If we ran the same thread next week, we'd get the same nine responses.

Gyron
03-31-2004, 04:55 PM
Thanks Jay, I didn't post them all because I thought it might be excessive, but I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that has this opinion.

:nod:

NewYawk
03-31-2004, 05:30 PM
It's not an opportunity to prop anybody up. That thread was a hypothetical, and it involved and was cetnered around Rick Carlisle with a passing reference to Thomas.

Again Tom, LEARN TO READ before you post something so pathetically general, and pass it off as a lame attempt to prove me wrong. That thread was not about Isiah Thomas. It was about Rick Carlisle, and the expectations he SHOULD be held to. Obvious difference.
.

This does bring up something that I am not clear on.

You think Isiah was a good coach (or maybe a very good coach) but you think Carlisle is better.... correct?

Why then do you argue that Carlisle should get only one year... one chance to get the Pacers past the first round? Why shouldn't he be accorded at least 2 years if not the 3 that Isiah had?

I think Rick Carlisle is a great coach. However, baring any unforseen disasters (an injury, or something like that), if Carlisle does not win against an 8th seed that will, potentially, have a losing record, my assesssment of his coaching ability is wrong. He stinks, and isn't worth jack squat. There is absolutely no excuse for Indy to lose. None. Carlisle was hired because it was thought he would take Indy to another level, and it looks like he has.

However, should the team lose to an 8th seed, Carlisle's reputation as a coach would be severely damaged, and for good reason. Isiah had a young team, a revamped roster. He was teaching 20-year-olds how to dribble and play defense. Carlisle doesn't have that. He said it himself. He inherited a veteran team. If he lost in the first round, it would be unforgivable. That's why.

I will expand this. If you would say it is because Isiah was unfairly treated and should've been allowed to finish the job (which is another point I think you've argued but I could've misunderstood) then I am still at a loss as to why it is Carlisle's head you want (in light of the fact you say that Carlisle is a better coach and your's would not be the minority opinion on that)?

I'll clarify: if Carlisle loses in the first round, my assessment of him is wrong, and he is NOT a better coach than Isiah Thomas.

I don't think Isiah necessarily deserved to finish the job. However, he was treated unfairly. He should have been fired in May or June. Not August.

Slick Pinkham
03-31-2004, 05:39 PM
Starting a thread asserting that Rick Carlisle should be fired if the Pacers lose in the 1st round

and

Claiming that the thread "was not about Isiah Thomas"

is the silliest argument I've ever heard you make. Wow, that says a lot.

The only reason for anyone to bring up the notion of RC being fired after a playoff loss is to hear someone say "no" and then shout "Nanny Nanny Boo-Boo, look what happened to Isiah". Any other explanation is patently dishonest.

It would be as if I started a thread saying that Anthony Johnson is the best point guard on the Pacers, lauded him on his skills, said he should play 40 minutes a game, and then claimed that my argument has nothing to do with Jamaal Tinsley.

Now I'll put on my New Yawk hat:

'nuff said. Simple as that. Obvious. If you don't understand, you're a moron. Stop being a troll. Learn to read. Come back when your get a clue.

Those are your everyday throwaway lines, your favorite sayings. Did I miss any? How does it make you feel when someone is so arrogant and condescending?

OK, I'll take off my New Yawk hat and act civil once again.

Thanks for expressing your views. Lets agree to disagree, though we mostly agree. Please try to stop frothing off at the mouth with anger and incivility just to make yourself feel bigger somehow.