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

Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

    Now that our offseason has begun, it's time to take a look at what we have. We need to make a couple of big changes, and possibly more depending on the attitudes left in the locker room. It may not end with the players, either. A time of change is upon us, and all we can do is pray TPTB make the right calls. Below are all of the current Pacers, and where I'd like to see them head to. After them comes Rick Carlisle.

    Who I want to keep:

    Danny Granger
    ------------------
    How do you not keep this kid. Hell, not only keep, you start and let him blossom as the starting Small Forward of the future (and practically the present already). All he needs to develop is some drives to the basket, and he can do it all. I could rave about him for a looong time.

    Sarunas Jasikevicius
    ------------------
    I think Sarunas gets too much flak. I understand why people don't like him, but I can't stand to see such venom for a 1st year player, 30 or not. I think if you put him at the 1, where he belongs, and he gets his confidence back, combined with a better understanding of the league, he still has a chance of being an OK player in the league. I still believe in him, but it won't happen if he isn't given the chance to play where he's comfortable. HE IS NOT A SHOOTING GUARD. PERIOD!

    Anthony Johnson
    ------------------
    No, I'm not just saying this because of his 40 point game. (Damn, how nuts is it to read that? Not as much as typing it!) AJ is not a starter. Not for a serious contender. I'm happy to keep him as a backup, but I'll always take issue with how often he handles & shoots the ball instead of passing or getting the team going offensively. But you know what, it may be the coach as much as it is him.

    Scot Pollard
    ------------------
    Scot is the closest thing left to a Warrior around here. He's tough, he boxes out, he battles, he plays defense, and he gives it his all, even when hurt. Combine that with his fun attitude and wit, and I think you have to try to re-sign him for the minimum or so. A good locker room guy too, I'd wager. I really like Scot.

    Eddie Gill
    ------------------
    Not a pretty basketball game, but for what he does bring, plus his great attitude, who better to be the emergency PG on any team? You can't do any better for this role, so you keep him.

    Who I could take or leave:

    Jermaine O'Neal
    ------------------
    I'm done pretending he's a contender's #1 guy. Done. He is not, nor will he ever be a champion by his own merit. He will follow someone else to a title. I think he's closer to Antonio McDyess than he is Tim Duncan. A great talent, but not the guy to carry you to the promise land. THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU FOOLISHLY TRADE HIM. The ONLY reason you do that is if you get a BETTER guy in here to be Batman, and he can't mentally handle that being taken away from him. If he can learn to be the #2 guy to a stud wingman or guard, I'm more than happy to hold onto him. He's still a good guy, he still tries to be his best, but he'll never be a superstar player.

    Peja Stojakovic
    ------------------
    He did nothing to help himself in this series. He's a great shooter, he's not as limited at everything else as people think, and I think he'd be an asset. But I've heard through the grape vine he doesn't like Rick, and that this team's lack or professionalism really turned him off, and I don't blame him for either of those. I do blame him, however, if this had anything to do with him sitting out so many games. WE HAVE NO PROOF THAT HE DID. So let's try not to put our "conspiracy caps" too quickly on this. My guess? It's more likely he simply felt he couldn't move well enough to get open or do much of anything. I think with a diff. coach he may shine here, but then you have to think about his role with Danny Granger on the team. I'd rather have Granger start next year. Would Peja handle being a bench player? It's probably as likely as Jermaine handling being Robin in a Pacer uniform, unfortunately. At this point I just hope we find a team this summer that could really use a guy like Peja that has a player we could use, and make a deal. Nice having you Peja, but it's just not going to work.

    Austin Croshere
    ------------------
    Austin really disappointed me in this series. Just absolutely worthless when he wasn't hot from downtown. But how much of that is Austin Croshere and how much of that is Rick Carlisle saying "You are out there to spread the floor"? I wouldn't be shocked if that's the real reason he was so 1-dimensional. Not that he was ever a multi-layered offensive player, but he wasn't even crashing the boards in this series, or moving around a whole heck of a lot. I've seen a lot more from Austin, and I'm not convinced what we saw in this series is the "new" Cro. He has an expiring contract now, and if you can get something good for him, you do it, but I would be satisfied with re-signing him next summer for a small contract. Austin Croshere being a Pacer for life wouldn't offend me at all.

    Jeff Foster
    ------------------
    It seems Jeff is starting to physically break down. That doesn't mean he still can't play effective basketball for years to come, but he's not what he used to be. I find him to be worthless in the playoffs against any team with size, and he's always been a 0 offensively, which is a big liability whenever he's expected to be a starter. We need to find somebody that puts him on the bench. I could really take him or leave him. No, let me put it this way: As a backup, I'll take him. As a starter, I'll leave him.

    David Harrison
    ------------------
    David is struggling. I don't know if he will ever "get it" or not. I agree with those that have said it's time to let him sink or swim. Give him the starting spot, give him 25+ minutes, and let him foul out with 6 fouls instead of 4. That's the only way to absolutley know for sure if he's what we're looking for, or if it's time to cut bait. I love the way he takes up space, which helps us out on both sides of the floor, but he must become more disciplined defensively, and he must learn to drop his issues with the refs. Only then will he conquer his foul issues, by improving his reputation as he gains more experience in his 3rd year.

    Who I want to see gone:

    Jamaal Tinsley
    ------------------
    First of all, forget the speculation on his attitude, though I've seen enough smoke that I think there's some truth to it. My issues with Tinsley are first and foremost his health, which he rarely has, and his game. He can be brilliant, absolutley brilliant. Then he turns the intelligent half of his brain off and his skill doesn't know what to do with itself as he turns the ball over, gets lazy fouls, goes one-on-one too much, and gets technical fouls and pisses off the other team. In the end he is simply too unreliable to stay. He needs to go.

    Stephen Jackson
    ------------------
    I've come so far with Stephen. I was high on him when we traded for him, and as the 2004-05 season started. But ever since he came back from the 30-game suspension from the brawl, he's never quite been the same. His dark side has shown, far too often, and it is ugly. As much as it's said he gets along with everybody, I think he just as often will go over-the-top pissed off on anyone and everyone in that locker room, and that's a distraction no team needs, certainly not one interested in a deep playoff run or a championship. And I haven't even talked about his game yet. For every hot shooting night, he'll have 4 bad ones. His defense is good to very good at times, but other nights he gets lazy. When he holds onto the ball for more than 3-4 seconds, something bad is almost guarunteed to happen. It's ugly. He's also a turnover waiting to happen, and he makes lazy passes and takes shots at inopportune times/places. All that adds up to someone who is never the answer as the starting 2 on a team looking for glory. Goodbye, Jack.

    Fred Jones
    ------------------
    And we come to Freddy Jones. Honestly he doesn't deserve to be associated with the two bozos above him, but I don't want him back either. He may be OK as the backup two, and I'm very tempted to put him back in the "take or leave" section, but he's been a one-trick pony for a while now, and I doubt he ever learns to not jump to pass, or to drive left, or to know when and when not to take shots. Love his attitude, love his enthusiasm, love it when he brings the house down on the opponent with a furious stuff. Pretty good D, but he's too short to slow down the greats or even the very atheletic that have more than 2 inches on him. We could do worse for a backup 2, though. This is the part where I almost said I was going to move him back into the "take or leave" section, but then I remembered. He's gonna want to get paid bigger $$$ this off-season, and a team desperate for a SG will give it to him. He is NOT worth overpaying to keep, and thus he remains in the "I want them gone" section.

    Let's talk about Rick Carlisle:
    Let me get this out of the way: Rick Carlisle is a great coach. You will not find many who are flat-out better than he is.

    However, he has flaws and they are serious. His offensive strategy is a joke. It's counter-productive, it's un-exciting, and practically every player he's coached, good egg or bad, has one time or another complained about it, and for good reason. It's a prevent offense, and it needs to go. He also seems to grind on his players. Maybe the offense is why, maybe it goes deeper than that. But without proof I won't go into speculation here. Defensively, he's pretty good. But I think he tries to make tempo too much of a factor, and it kills the offense. At this point, I think the players and the fans need a fresh start on the offensive side of the ball, and if Rick can't or won't do that, you either hire an assistant coach who will, or you fire Rick Carlisle. Think very hard before you cheer in agreement. Firing Rick is a dangerous move to make. There may not be anyone nearly as good out there to replace him with, so warts and all he may be the best thing we can have right now, and if that's the case you have to think very seriously about holding onto him until an opportunity presents itself.

    Vision of the Future:
    This team needs a LOT of work. Next year, the changes must be enough that we as fans along with the team feels like it is a true fresh start. Enough so that the past two years are dead and gone, and this new season will be independent of those two seasons, for good or bad. It must feel like a new team, even if 2/3s of the players are back. TPTB need to pick a tyle and mold the team to fit it. Right now we have a cube coach and a bunch of sphere players. Something must give. I think our offense needs a ton of work, so I'd start there. We need a creator, but we could always use better shooters, too.

    What do I really want:
    What I really want are guard that are fast, quick, can score around the basket, and can control the ball (read: not turn it over so damn much). We have a slow backcourt and it kills us on both sides of the ball. If we get some fast guards we can ball-hawk on defense, and we can get better penetration on offense, which will open up a lot of opportunities for everyone on this team. We could always use better big men. If there's a player even resembling Dale Davis in this draft, we need to pick him. A true tough (read: not a cheap-shot, flopping, fake-tough) guy in the paint would be huge for this team. You need that or a Brad Miller type of center (who's tough enough in his own right, but he's no Dale Davis in that department by a long shot) to put next to Jermaine O'Neal for him to flourish. He must have pressure taken off of him, or he'll fail and break down. A fast/quick/finishing guard is my #1 wish, a bruiser bigman #2.

    Do heads need to role in upper-management?
    Some of you are going to suggest Donnie Walsh and/or Larry Bird need to go, and you'd be wrong. Especially if you want DW gone. You can hate their flaws. You can hate that people defend those flaws to epic fanboy proportions, but you can never let that blind you to the overwhelming good he brings to this franchise. The odds of us finding someone better for the Pacers is much less likely than finding a better coach than Rick, and that's not looking promising either. No, neither should go. Donnie Walsh for what he's done and can still do, Larry Bird because he's still got time to shine in the future. I think he should get a 2-3 year grace period FREE OF WALSH before he's truly considered a hot-seat GM. Right now it's an odd tandem that you don't often see, and until DW is gone you can't truly judge Larry yet. People LOVE to hate Bird because of his past as a player, as a man, and his obnoxious Indy fans in the 80's/90's, but this is a new day, and a new role. It's time to hope for the best, even in all of your doubts, because it's too soon to make a huge decision like firing the guy. He and Donnie need to stick around.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

    Walsh and Bird gone requests are not that extreme. Ultimately, they are responsable for this assembalge of players.

    Agree that JO is not a #1 on a contender but could be a dominant contedning #2.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

      I can't really say I disagree with much of anything you said. Good post.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

        Agree with 99% of the post. The only thing I disagree about is Fred Jones because it really all depends on how he does in the off-season. If he could learn to use his other hand, he could become one of the dominant SGs in this league..but until he does that he's always going to be a TO prone SG who can only go in one direction. Other then that, that's exactly how I, and many others feel about this team.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

          I love Rick as coach, but if he is not the coach anymore I could live with that for two reasons. I'm am sicker than I can explain of the constant b*tching about his offense. I'm just sick and tired of the complaints. Secondly, we do need a new culture.

          I cannot foresee any possiblity or scenerio where JT and jax can or will come back next season

          I think J.O is 50-50 right now.

          Freddie is probably 75% chance he's gone.

          Obviously Gill and Pollard are gone.

          Foster might get traded in a package and the same with Cro because with his expiring contract he has some trade value for the 1st time in 6 years.

          Harrison I hope is gone, he might have some trade value, same with Saras, I would look to trade him.

          Wow, so who's left. Granger and AJ. Championship here we come.

          That is just off the top of my head.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

            Originally posted by Hicks
            Jermaine O'Neal
            ------------------
            I'm done pretending he's a contender's #1 guy. Done. He is not, nor will he ever be a champion by his own merit. He will follow someone else to a title. I think he's closer to Antonio McDyess than he is Tim Duncan. A great talent, but not the guy to carry you to the promise land. THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU FOOLISHLY TRADE HIM. The ONLY reason you do that is if you get a BETTER guy in here to be Batman, and he can't mentally handle that being taken away from him. If he can learn to be the #2 guy to a stud wingman or guard, I'm more than happy to hold onto him. He's still a good guy, he still tries to be his best, but he'll never be a superstar player.
            Welcome to the club.

            Seriously though, the more I look at the situation, the more closely it comes to resemble what happened with Vince Carter in Toronto. He's a very good player, but just not capable of being a Number One guy within the offensive framework on a championship-calibur team. He's not a primary option in that regard, nor is he a guy who is suited to being the number one leader. These are the same things that were brought up at the end of Vince's stint in Toronto. JO would be far better being a secondary player on a team, with someone to help lead the way (just as Kidd has done with Vince in New Jersey).

            Originally posted by Hicks
            If there's a player even resembling Dale Davis in this draft, we need to pick him. A true tough (read: not a cheap-shot, flopping, fake-tough) guy in the paint would be huge for this team.
            Not to sound like a broken record, but we need to do all we can to acquire Shelden Williams.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

              Agree with most of your assesment except a couple of things

              1 - I disagree with your take on Rick. He has done incredibly well given the circumstances.

              When looking at results that Rick has acheived, we should look at the circumastances and the personnel with which he did that. Rick is not here to have an entertaining offense, he is here to do whatever it takes to win and he has done a fine job of it, considering the circumstances. I give Rick a complete pass.

              2 - I am not sure what you mean by AJ's having a bad atitude. I am just curious as to what you saw that made you think that way. Sure he could have passed in the last posessions of a few regular season games, but I think he did not pass because of talent limitations (hard for everybody to have a vision like Jason Kidd or the like) than because of atitude issues. He can be a starter in the regular season but would not cut it in the playoffs for a team with championship aspirations.
              ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                Another thing I'd like to point out.

                If we were to get a new coach, I hope people do not become disappointed when AJ is not the same player. AJ's success is in main part due to the coaching style of Rick (in my opinion).

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                  I agree with most of what you said.

                  I disagree about AJ's "supposed" bad attitude. I just don't see it, I guess. But other than that, I agree with you.
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                    I should probably edit the AJ attitude thing out. I wrote that when I was just starting this post, and I don't even remember why I thought of it.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                      Keep
                      Danny Granger
                      David Harrison
                      Jermaine O'Neal
                      Anthony Johnson
                      Scot Pollard
                      Fred Jones

                      TRADE AWAY ASAP
                      Peja
                      Jackson
                      Tinsley

                      Trade away, whenever you get around to it

                      Saras (Only because he is the odd man out when we bring in a new PG)

                      Stay or Go, doesn't matter
                      Croshere
                      Gill
                      Foster


                      Please Draft (One of them, or heck two if we can )
                      Ronnie Brewer
                      Rudy Fernandez
                      Shelden Williams
                      Jordan Farmar


                      Look into maybe Hiring
                      Rick Adelman
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                        Did anyone hear what Jackson said? I would guess he was asked about if he thinks he'll be gone and what not, and he was like, "I really don't care, if I'm not here. As long as I am playing basketball and feeding my family, I'm fine." He went on to say, "Will I be happy if I'm not here? No, but as long as I am playing basketball, I'm fine."

                        It was something like that.
                        Super Bowl XLI Champions
                        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                          Originally posted by Lord Helmet
                          Did anyone hear what Jackson said? I would guess he was asked about if he thinks he'll be gone and what not, and he was like, "I really don't care, if I'm not here. As long as I am playing basketball and feeding my family, I'm fine." He went on to say, "Will I be happy if I'm not here? No, but as long as I am playing basketball, I'm fine."

                          It was something like that.
                          I don't like Stephen Jackson but you really can't take this seriously.

                          He's played bad this series and they just lost an elimination game. On top of that, he's always a bonehead in front of the media. The guy wants to play here but none of the fan-base really likes him that much. I like his passion for the game but he does not fit into our game plan. He'd be a productive bench player for us but we can't afford to keep him.

                          On a side note, After listening to JO, I definitely want to keep him and I think the Pacers top brass will keep him. He's got a point about always being bodied up constantly every single game and he is taking a physical beating from season to season simply because he's the only low post threat. Nazr Mohammed is looking awfully nice right now. If not him, then get O'Bryant in the draft.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                            er, why Nazr?
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Hicks surmises the 2006 Indiana Pacers heading into the offseason

                              Originally posted by Moses
                              On a side note, After listening to JO, I definitely want to keep him and I think the Pacers top brass will keep him. He's got a point about always being bodied up constantly every single game and he is taking a physical beating from season to season simply because he's the only low post threat. Nazr Mohammed is looking awfully nice right now. If not him, then get O'Bryant in the draft.
                              While it may be valid, this line of reasoning from JO could just as easily be interpreted as excuses. I, too, would welcome Nazr. I don't see why so many people just buy JO's press quotes at face value.
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X