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

Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

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

  • Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

    You may hate Jackson, but he makes some good points here.

    Here is the NY Post version of this. Seems to have a little more bite.

    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...nets/65443.htm


    POWERLESS PACERS BREAKING DOWN
    By MARC BERMAN

    May 3, 2006 -- The most painful part of Peja Stojakovic's absence is having to start - and end - with rookie small forward Danny Granger.

    Vince Carter exposed the Pacers' inexperience in the final minute, first pump-faking reserve Fred Jones to create space for a wide-open jumper, then blasting past Granger on the game-winning drive-by with 28.9 seconds left to secure the 92-86 Meadowlands victory.

    Stephen Jackson couldn't help himself in talking about Granger's lax D on the penultimate play.

    "We knew he was going to shoot it, we didn't think he'd give it up so easy," Jackson said. "It was a straight-line drive. We'd rather him shoot a jumper. We didn't play the proper defense on him. I wish I would've gotten him, probably would've made it tougher."

    There's been dissension in the Pacers' locker room all season, and now it may be coming to a head. Jackson put it out there that perhaps some guys should "suck it up" like himself.

    "I'm injured, too," said Jackson, who has a bad knee. "Thank God I've found a way to suck it up. I wouldn't miss the playoffs for nothing. I don't know if they are or not. That's for them to look in the mirror at themselves if they feel they can play and they're not playing. I'm saying I know I'm hurt but I'm still playing. You can't expect everything from everybody. It's unfortunate. God's punishing us for some reason. We need everybody healthy."

    Physically and mentally, the Pacers are falling apart - now one game away from extinction. With three starters missing, the Pacers couldn't withstand the Nets and Carter in the end.

    Stojakovic missed his third game of the series with knee swelling. Jeff Foster, their best big-man defender, was a late scratch, his back tightening during warm-ups. And Jamaal Tinsley appears done for the year.

    "I've seen this team wear down mentally for the first time since I've been a Pacer," Jermaine O'Neal said candidly after finishing with a modest 19 points. "When we've gone through situations like we've gone through, there's no daylight. We can't get a break. We feel we get stable, then we lose Peja, then lose Jeff at shootaround."

    On Carter's wonderful lefty dunk, O'Neal didn't come close to breaking it up with a hard foul. Foster might have taken Carter's head off.

    "Shot-blocking is timing," O'Neal said. "Usually a player takes two dribbles. He's up in the air in one dribble, he's so athletic."

    O'Neal also said he had four fouls and was perhaps saving them for overtime.

    marc.berman@nypost.com

  • #2
    Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...p-350303c.html


    New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
    Indy end, it's
    painful for Pacers

    Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

    The Indiana Pacers are running out of starters, bodies and time, the worst combination of all when you're trying to advance in the NBA playoffs against a healthy team featuring a nearly unstoppable Vince Carter.
    Already minus Peja Stojakovic, the Pacers went down to the Nets last night, 92-86, without Jeff Foster, their best post defender and one of their top rebounders. Foster came down with a back injury in the morning shootaround, which forced coach Rick Carlisle to have his team play zone for about 30 possessions.

    "That's more zone than we played the entire year," he said. "But it gave us a chance to hang in the game."

    That it did. But it couldn't do anything for the Pacers at the other end. They fell behind in the series, 3-2, because they scored only seven points in the final 4:00, even with the Nets, struggling themselves to find scoring, leaving the game for the Pacers to steal.

    "It was an uphill battle," Carlisle said. "But we've been undermanned for two years straight."

    The manpower problems started when they went into the stands and fought the fans in Auburn Hills. From that point on, through suspensions, injuries and all the Ron Artest histrionics earlier this season, they have not been able to put an entire team out on the floor. Their run of bad luck has continued in this first-round series, with Stojakovic, their best outside shooter, KO'd in three of the five games because of a knee injury. Without him, they're 0-3.

    "It's very difficult," said Jermaine O'Neal. "We're not able to give our best shot because, obviously, we don't have our best team out there."

    The way the Pacers took them down to the wire at the Meadowlands without two starters, the Nets might not want to see Indiana at full strength. And they probably won't see the Pacers that way tomorrow night at Conseco Fieldhouse when they try to advance to the second round for the first time in the Carter era. It doesn't sound as if Stojakovic is going to be ready to return to this series, even if there's a Game 7 Saturday.

    Carlisle called Stojakovic's injury, "a significant situation."

    "It's tough to gauge when he'll be back," he said. "Your players have to make sure they're OK, they're 100%, before they play. Because there are so many lightning-quick players in the playoffs and so many lightning-quick situations."

    For the Pacers, lightning struck in the final 30 seconds. For all their problems, they trailed by only three, 89-86, with a chance to still pull out the game. All they needed was one more stop.

    "There was no fatigue factor," the Pacers' Fred Jones said. "At that point of the game, with one stop to win the game, you're not worried about being tired. You're trying to do your best to get a stop. We just didn't get it."

    What they got was their No.1 nightmare: Carter flashing through the left side of their defense with only O'Neal left to beat at the basket. Carter went up. But O'Neal, with three blocks in the fourth quarter, surprisingly stayed down on the floor.

    "As a shot-blocker, you try to time everything," O'Neal said. "You hope that you can make a perimeter player take two-three dribbles. But he took just one, he's so athletic. I had four fouls and I wasn't quite sure if the game was going overtime. It happened so quick. My best decision was to step up to try to take the charge. But he leaned to the side."

    And the next thing the Pacers knew, there was Vinsanity at the Meadowlands in the form of a rim-rattling dunk that put the Nets up 91-86. Jones missed a final three and that ended it. Down the stretch, rookie Danny Granger, Anthony Johnson and Jones wound up taking the biggest shots. Not a proven playoff scorer among them, as opposed to the players Nets relied on.

    "Vince's abilities as a player are breath-taking," Carlisle said. "But he has brought his game to another level since he's come to Jersey. He really has."

    In the last two games, with Kidd struggling to make an outside shot and the rest of the Nets being strictly hit-and-miss as late-game shooters, Carter has been Mr.Dependable. As the Nets have recovered from a 2-1 series deficit, Carter has averaged 31 ppg on 22-of-39 shooting, with 21 rebounds and 14 assists.

    "This isn't any news flash," Carlisle said. "This guy's a great player and now he's a great playoff player."

    And lest we forget, he's playing against a depleted team, running out of time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

      Jack gets a bumb rap on here. You have to respect a guy who plays every single night.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

        This is just kinda entertaining

        http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...p-350310c.html


        New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
        With these teams, playoff
        time proves too tame

        Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

        In search of an NBA series devoid of controversy, David Stern last night landed softly at the Meadowlands for a relaxing vacation. Here, in his own quiet backyard, was a Game 5 between two teams lacking in wrath and cheap shots. Nobody was screaming about foul calls. Nobody was grabbing an opponent's private parts in anger.
        What universe is this, exactly? With 50.3 seconds left, with Fred Jones on the line and the game still very much in doubt, Austin Croshere took out his mouth piece, chatted amiably with Vince Carter lining up along the paint, until Jones buried two free throws to cut the lead to three.

        Nice game, Vince.

        No pushing. No shoving. No sneering. That is not to say the Nets are a dull or unworthy team. If you were searching for a reason to believe they can play beyond mid-May, then you should have been in East Rutherford to watch all the gears flying in motion during a 92-86 victory over Indiana that felt often like it should have been a 20-point win.

        The Nets came out of the locker room for the second half, ran like gazelles on greenies, ripped off seven straight points in 73 seconds to remind everybody they still have legs. They finished off the ailing Pacers in the final two minutes with a couple of long-range bombs from Richard Jefferson and Carter, and then a pretty Carter dunk for a five-point lead with 29 seconds left.

        "Not my thing," Carter said, of the lefthanded finish. He was just trying to draw the foul, Carter said, but it turned into much more than that.

        All night, Carter played within himself, yet in a place outside the known realm of most humans. He finished with 34points on 13-of-24 shooting, plus seven assists and 15rebounds. "This isn't any news flash," Rick Carlisle said. "He's been a great player. Now he's a great playoff player."

        Nenad Krstic held his ground, wrestled for 11 rebounds. Jason Kidd, whose wayward shots have come to resemble Tim Wakefield knucklers, choreographed things with 15 assists. Cliff Robinson came off the bench to make some veteran plays.

        You never know, especially now with the unexpected problems that Miami is experiencing. The Nets just might get to the Pistons, lose to them instead of to the Heat.

        And as they advance into the spring, the Nets behave like perfect gentlemen - a commissioner's dream, a columnist's worst nightmare. No trash talk. No dissension. Lawrence Frank couldn't write a headline with 200 fluid ounces of printer's ink. You can almost see the coach's mom saying, "Lawrence, if you have nothing good to say about someone ..."

        So he says not much at all, like the rest of his guys. Even Carter, once the bane of Lenny Wilkens' existence, says nothing anymore. "I'm just one small piece of a big puzzle," Carter said. He almost sounded like he believed it.

        All around the league, tempers are flaring this time of year. Superstars like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James are getting all the calls, while Steve Nash can't buy a simple timeout when he is screeching for one.

        Nothing like that at the Meadowlands. The Nets simply piped in their usual unbearable level of background sound (no more than 94 decibels permitted, Stern insisted) and got down to business.

        "It's not just about Kobe, LeBron, Dwyane and Duncan," Stern was saying before the game, decrying the cult of the superstar. Then Stern talked up the Detroit Pistons and as many Nets as he could name, which was surprisingly very nearly a handful.

        It must be a tremendous relief for Stern to come to New Jersey these days, and not only because he is a river's breadth away from the Knicks. "Only an issue for New Yorkers," Stern said of Larry Brown's guys. The Nets are more Stern's kind of team - smartly managed in the player personnel department, forever hustling for a new arena.

        Stern said he was more confident than ever that the Nets would get to Brooklyn, and that in the meantime they were drawing fans and playing fine basketball in Jersey. "The best of both worlds is going on here," Stern said.

        The Nets, now up 3-2, head for Indiana. Stern feels good about that. Somehow, so do the Pacers.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

          http://bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJp...Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2


          It's time for N.J. to put Indy out of its misery
          Wednesday, May 3, 2006

          By ADRIAN WOJNAROWSKI
          SPORTS COLUMNIST


          EAST RUTHERFORD -- Across the final moments, on a fabulous, flying lefty jam, Vince Carter pushed past this blight of a basketball game, past the unfolded arms of Indiana's Jermaine O'Neal and into a far more beautiful place. One inspired drive, one clinching basket, one picturesque ending to an eyesore of a Game 5.

          In the end, Carter finished with a flourish, 34 points and 15 rebounds on Tuesday night, his greatness a saving grace for these Nets, forever looking like they can turn it on, and turn it off, whenever the spirit so needs to be summoned.

          Despite this 92-86 Game 5 victory, the way the Nets are playing, the way they're letting the Pacers hang around in this series when they should be down for the count, you get the idea that Game 7 is inevitable back here on Saturday. Unless the Pacers are close to fumes, there's still no reason to believe they'll go easily into the summer.

          Perhaps the Nets can put the Pacers away in Game 6 in Indianapolis, but they've hardly shown the inclination for such staying power in this best-of-seven series. These beleaguered, stripped-down, bare-bones Pacers shouldn't be hanging so long, so tough, but they're still standing with Game 6 at Conseco Fieldhouse. They're still a tougher out than the Nets ever expected in this series.

          Truth be told, the Nets should've been doing a dance on the Pacers' playoff grave, pounding them into a final submission. Somehow, they found themselves hanging on for dear life Tuesday, contributing to one eyesore of a basketball game.

          Down the stretch, the Nets kept clanking jumpers. They tossed passes away. They trampled the Pacers for offensive fouls. Whenever they would create distance on these Pacers, who were without starters Peja Stojakovic and Jeff Foster, they would come back over and over. After Jacque Vaughn committed a gruesome foul some 40 feet from the basket with 50.3 seconds left, Fred Jones' free throws had the Pacers within a basket inside the final minute.

          It's unreal that the Pacers are still slugging it out in this series, unreal that their depleted roster is still trading body blows with the Nets. It isn't too much to ask for these Nets to be playing better ball, to be living up to the talent and expectation that had them a rising contender to make a run in these playoffs.

          The Nets are beating the Pacers three games to two now, but it's hard to get too worked up over their chances to go deep into the playoffs. Still, the Nets have made this series so much harder than it needs to be.

          "It's a very talented team and a very deep team," Nets coach Lawrence Frank was selling on Tuesday night, but beyond the brilliant O'Neal, no, this isn't a very talented Pacers team. Willful? Resourceful? Stubborn?

          Yes, yes and yes. Yet, the talent pales to the Nets on the floor. They threw some junk defense and turned the Nets into restless jump shooters, bringing more pitiful shooting from the perimeter. "The Pacers played more zone [Tuesday] than they probably played all year combined," Frank said.

          Right now, the Nets aren't winning on resolve, but talent. If the Pacers just Jeff Foster to return for Game 6 from his sore back, they'll probably find a way to get back to Jersey for Game 7. To impress people, the Nets need to take control of Game 6, survive the Conseco hostility and put the Pacers away.

          "Play like you want it," Indiana's little Anthony Johnson yelled to his teammates in the first quarter, something that the Pacers hasn't had to be told twice in this series, nor this season. Under-manned, overmatched, they've shown an iron will.

          All in all, the Nets couldn't hold a lead with superior talent on the floor, with a raucous noise in the building. After going down 10 points early in the third, the Pacers would get the game back even. After the Nets started the fourth quarter with a 72-65 lead, it wouldn't be long until the Pacers were within 72-70 on Stephen Jackson's throw-back jam, and suddenly, it was 72-72 on Jones' breathless run-out and lay-in.

          "You've got to give them credit for coming back," said Jason Kidd. "We've got a lot of respect for them."

          The Pacers have earned it. The Nets are still a mystery, still an enigma. The way that they were wildly up and down in the regular season has translated into the playoffs. There's still time for the Nets to get moving here, still the personnel to show that they're serious about making a deep run into the Eastern Conference playoffs.

          No, the Nets don't need to apologize for leading this series 3-2 today. Yet, they shouldn't be too pleased with themselves, shouldn't be taking any bows. Enough is enough. If the Nets want to show everyone something, the mission is simple: Once and for all, put the Pacers away for the summer. The Nets shouldn't dare let this series get back to the Meadowlands on Saturday, letting the Pacers live to see a Game 7.

          This series never needed to be this dangerous, this dramatic. That's on the Nets, and so is Thursday night now.

          Enough is enough.

          E-mail: wojnarowski@northjersey.com



          Copyright © 2006 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
          Copyright Infringement Notice User Agreement & Privacy Policy
          Print | Close

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

            Originally posted by Ragnar
            Jack gets a bumb rap on here. You have to respect a guy who plays every single night.
            Unless he blabs to the press about it and criticizes his teammates.

            It's one thing to rail on your teammates face-to-face or in the locker room, and another to air our your beefs, thump your chest, and call yourself the good guy in public.

            How can you not respect him LESS for making statements like these?

            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

              Yep, you don't go to the press. I know everybody lauded Cro back in November, but IMO that was wrong too, and, unlike the spin back then, it didn't help at all.

              If Jack is back next year, there's a serious disconnect between the fans and management.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                Originally posted by pacertom
                It's one thing to rail on your teammates face-to-face or in the locker room, and another to air our your beefs, thump your chest, and call yourself the good guy in public.



                How do you know he hasn't? How do you know that this isn't his last attempt to get his teammates to show some sack and man up? Because thats what its coming across to me as...a teammate who is extremely frustrated by those on his team that are milking their injuries instead of fighting through them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                  If Jack is hurt, he should sit out... I sure wish he wouldn't have been playing last night.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                    GO JACK - CALL THE ***** OUT

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                      Jax comments..............Peck's comments about Jax taking a couple of plays off (remember? He Tivo'd them)......Slick's comments re: Jax carping at refs.


                      I think I'll believe Slick and Peck.


                      Jax should shut up and play. Ordinarily I like Playoff Jackson....but NOT when I hear that shyte.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                        Given his turnover propensity, low FG%, constant carping at the officials, and otherwise dumb play, I wish Jackson was the guy who would take a few games off.

                        Problem is... I don't think Jack is thinking of his team when he plays in pain, and I don't think he's thinking of his team when he makes these statements. Its still all about making Stephen Jackson look like he shouldn't be the scapegoat.

                        Remember, last year in the first round he was "called out" - but not by name - for his sloppy play then. And he went for a big ole' pity-me fest.

                        No matter what he says or does, he finds a way to make the team chemistry even worse.

                        Re-read this thread to see what he had to say/do last spring...

                        http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=11575
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                          Note to Stephen Jackson: Talk to Grant Hill about the wisdom of playing with an injury. If he had the chance to go back to when he was playing in Detroit he'd do things differently. At least I hope he would.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                            Originally posted by Mr._Basketball
                            How do you know he hasn't? How do you know that this isn't his last attempt to get his teammates to show some sack and man up?
                            That's irrelevant.

                            When he has complained in private or not, it's not right to single out your teammates to the media, especially when you are still alive in the playoffs.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Stephen Jackson is critical of Granger, and players who aren't playing

                              Wow...those comments really **** me off. Jackson should STFU.

                              First of all, criticizing Granger for what happened on Vince's last play? The kid is a rookie in his first playoff series. Give him some credit...he's having to guard an 7-time all star in his first playoff series and otherwise had a pretty damn good game. But instead, Jackson is going to the media and calling him out stating he could have done a better job? Hmmm...way to be a good teammate. I know that would personally bother me if I was in Granger's position.

                              Second of all, calling out Peja in the media is just stupid as well. We all realize you're playing injured, so good for you. But once you start making these types of remarks, it's like you're just fishing for the compliments and adoration at the expense of your own teammates. Once again, not good for team chemistry at all. Does he want a cookie or something?

                              Man, I can't wait for this guy's departure this offseason.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X