PDA

View Full Version : "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?



Hicks
12-09-2006, 08:58 PM
Last time I heard something like that happening in our locker room, a certain #15, 23, 91 was still here. Now Jackson is causing problems (for anyone that missed it, Jackson said or did something at half-time for Carlisle to keep him away from the team during the entire second half of tonight's game in Cleveland). Is anyone going to defend him on this, or can we all admit that he probably needs to go to another team?

Eindar
12-09-2006, 09:01 PM
I never bought that Jackson was going to "buy in". You can't go from cursing out a coach and being involved in altercations at a strip club to being a saint. That sort of turnaround requires several years, not a couple months.

Quis
12-09-2006, 09:04 PM
35% from the field and conduct detrimental to the team?!?!

AWESOME!

Jermaniac
12-09-2006, 09:14 PM
OKAY RICK HAS WENT UP A NOTCH IN MY BOOK. You know how I used to say he was afraid of Jackson. Well he is not afraid anymore. Props to you Rick, you run the team not Stephen Jackson. Jackson should kiss Rick Carlisle in the *** everytime he comes to practice for the crap Rick lets him get away with.

If he played anywhere with Riley,Avery,Phil,Pop and he played like he plays here he would never get off the bench. The guy is not that good and he isnt worth the drama, if he was good I wouldnt care what he does but he aint good.

Too bad he has 0 trade value.

Shade
12-09-2006, 09:15 PM
Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me 16492131894 more times, shame on me.

Jack is Ron with half the talent.

BruceLeeroy
12-09-2006, 09:18 PM
Jackson has been playing well the last week but its this type of thing that bothers me even more than his usual foolish play. How can any locker room in the league be cohesive when you got such a selfish attitude on a TEAM? How can a coach feel comfortable with a player who disrespects him regularly? I am very pleased with Ricks decision to bench him. Shoulda happened long ago when this BS started.

Trader Joe
12-09-2006, 09:18 PM
I gave Jack the benefit of the doubt I really did. I tried to look past his problems. I have had enough. Getting tossed from the game by refs for Ts? I can live with, its emotion. Getting tossed from the game by your coaching for moaning all the time? I have had enough. Get him out of town. I jusst don't think anyone will take him. Something tells me this situation is far from over.

#31
12-09-2006, 09:21 PM
Just another day with the Pacers, nothing unusual here... :unimpress

ABADays
12-09-2006, 09:28 PM
Wow - anybody know what happened?

pizza guy
12-09-2006, 09:29 PM
I gave Jack the benefit of the doubt I really did. I tried to look past his problems. I have had enough. Getting tossed from the game by refs for Ts? I can live with, its emotion. Getting tossed from the game by your coaching for moaning all the time? I have had enough. Get him out of town. I jusst don't think anyone will take him. Something tells me this situation is far from over.

I'm with you one this one. I thought he had been doing well...now we're stuck trying to get rid of a player no one will want.

Destined4Greatness
12-09-2006, 09:31 PM
Please if Jack needs to go, then alot of players need to go.

You going to tell me that JO shooting shot after shot just to get his isn't conduct detrimental to the team, its just another type.

Am I mad abotu this yes. But players that:

Shoot because they have to get theirs **** me off more.
Miss half the season yet call themselves franchise players, **** me off more.
And of course those players that just don't give a **** **** me off more.

Like I said in the offseason, trade em all. JO, Jack, Tinsley, Runi, etc. Only guy from the brawl team that should still be here is Feisty.

Destined4Greatness
12-09-2006, 09:32 PM
I'm with you one this one. I thought he had been doing well...now we're stuck trying to get rid of a player no one will want.

We have alot of those, hmm poor management methinks.

ajbry
12-09-2006, 09:37 PM
I'm so disappointed in Jack. After his past couple games, the game-winner, his lockdown defense, and great team play, I thought we wouldn't have anything to worry about. Now he just throws it all away basically. ******* it.

Trader Joe
12-09-2006, 09:37 PM
Please if Jack needs to go, then alot of players need to go.

You going to tell me that JO shooting shot after shot just to get his isn't conduct detrimental to the team, its just another type.

Am I mad abotu this yes. But players that:

Shoot because they have to get theirs **** me off more.
Miss half the season yet call themselves franchise players, **** me off more.
And of course those players that just don't give a **** **** me off more.

Like I said in the offseason, trade em all. JO, Jack, Tinsley, Runi, etc. Only guy from the brawl team that should still be here is Feisty.

Question: How does this thread have ANYTHING to do with JO? How are you not in trouble for trolling?

Shade
12-09-2006, 09:39 PM
Please if Jack needs to go, then alot of players need to go.

You going to tell me that JO shooting shot after shot just to get his isn't conduct detrimental to the team, its just another type.

Am I mad abotu this yes. But players that:

Shoot because they have to get theirs **** me off more.
Miss half the season yet call themselves franchise players, **** me off more.
And of course those players that just don't give a **** **** me off more.

Like I said in the offseason, trade em all. JO, Jack, Tinsley, Runi, etc. Only guy from the brawl team that should still be here is Feisty.

There's a reason that Jack, and not those others players, is the one sitting out for "conduct detrimental to the team."

And for all the crap I hear about Tinsley's attitude, I have yet to see any evidence of it anywhere.

pizza guy
12-09-2006, 09:42 PM
I'm so disappointed in Jack. After his past couple games, the game-winner, his lockdown defense, and great team play, I thought we wouldn't have anything to worry about. Now he just throws it all away basically. ******* it.

ajbry, I was waiting for your post in this thread. I was expecting it to be a feeble attempt at defending him, or no post at all. Don't take that the wrong way, I like reading what you write, you're just the bonafide captain of the JackWagon. This response isn't what I was expecting. I'm not hating on you for defending him in previous posts, not at all, but it's nice to see someone own up to their mistakes. ;) It's a dark day for you, and the other JackWagoneers, and the team...again...

At least what you posted here was relevant to the thread, unlike some other poster.

Destined4Greatness
12-09-2006, 09:45 PM
Shade putting words in my mouth, doesn't make me think more of your opinion. I never said anything about Tinsleys attitude. Whats that saying about assuming.

pizza guy
12-09-2006, 09:45 PM
There's a reason that Jack, and not those others players, is the one sitting out for "conduct detrimental to the team."

And for all the crap I hear about Tinsley's attitude, I have yet to see any evidence of it anywhere.

Two things, Shade. I'm with you on Tinsley's attitude. I was one of those that used it as a reason to get rid of him, but I've paid much closer attention to this aspect of Mel Mel and realize that he doesn't have a bad/pouty attitude. He makes bad decisions based on stupid things, and is extremely inconsistent; but I don't see this bad attitude either.

Second, where did you quote that from? I don't see that post anywhere...:confused:

;)

Shade
12-09-2006, 09:49 PM
Shade putting words in my mouth, doesn't make me think more of your opinion. I never said anything about Tinsleys attitude. Whats that saying about assuming.

I was actually just addressing it since I see that a lot on here and I don't feel that Tins belongs in that category.

Shade
12-09-2006, 10:05 PM
I just saw someone on another forum refer to him as "Distraction Jackson." Perfect nickname.

aceace
12-09-2006, 11:04 PM
Iversons looking better all the time!

Shack80
12-09-2006, 11:30 PM
Iversons looking better all the time!
No he isn't just a different problem. We need to see a fresh start. Dump Jack for something, perhaps a long shot, or eat a contract for a decent pick. That or just bench him, he has used up his chances.

CableKC
12-09-2006, 11:38 PM
Has there been any official comments on what happened?

For those that watched the game.....did SJax do anything on the court that was considered out of the ordinary that got Carlisle p*ssed off enough to bench him?

or

Does it appear that everything happened after they left the court?

BTW....on a related not.....did anyone else watch NBA Fastbreak a couple of nights ago ( when the Pacers beat the Magic )?

Ric Bucher specifically said that Carlisle and SJax were getting along.....especially with all that went on before.....Carlisle specifically reached out to SJax ( I would guess )...on and off the court to build a better relationship.

Jermaniac
12-09-2006, 11:56 PM
(On commenting on being disciplined by coach Rick Carlisle at halftime): “No, I’m cool.”

LMAO, I knew it was because Rick took him out of the game. I knew it, the guy looks his wife is cheating on him when he is taken out of a game.

I saw Al about to check in for him last night against the Blazers, and he tried to wave Al off so he can stay in the game and Rick made him come out.

Unclebuck
12-09-2006, 11:58 PM
What is no one using links anymore?


http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/quotes_061209.html

Just
12-10-2006, 12:02 AM
I'm so disappointed in Jack. After his past couple games, the game-winner, his lockdown defense, and great team play, I thought we wouldn't have anything to worry about. Now he just throws it all away basically. ******* it.

Agreed. This is dissapointing, but if we didn't trade him after the Night Club fiasco, I'm not going to pretend to myself that we're going to trade him now. Jack is a Pacer for a year or two, probably...

ajbry
12-10-2006, 12:11 AM
(On commenting on being disciplined by coach Rick Carlisle at halftime): No, Im cool.

LMAO, I knew it was because Rick took him out of the game. I knew it, the guy looks his wife is cheating on him when he is taken out of a game.

I saw Al about to check in for him last night against the Blazers, and he tried to wave Al off so he can stay in the game and Rick made him come out.

Honestly, I think it's pretty damn cool that Jack always wants to play. Even if he doesn't go about it the right way sometimes, it still means that he cares a lot about winning and the game itself.

Jermaniac
12-10-2006, 12:14 AM
Everyone wants to play all the time. You think Foster,Sarunas,Danny,Josh,Rawle wouldnt mind playing the minutes Jackson gets and get the shots Jackson gets. Some of these guys play a minute, they make one mistake and they get taken out, you never hear any of them cussing out Rick Carlisle.

Stephen Jackson has done this AT LEAST 5 times, AT LEAST. Probably more then that.

McKeyFan
12-10-2006, 12:16 AM
Wanting to be on the court is no particular virtue.

3rdStrike
12-10-2006, 12:40 AM
Honestly, I think it's pretty damn cool that Jack always wants to play. Even if he doesn't go about it the right way sometimes, it still means that he cares a lot about winning and the game itself.


I think if Jack cares about winning then Jack would respect Carlisle and would understand that him playing more does not improve the Pacers chances of victory at all.

I swear I feel bad for Rick for this incident. There's no excuse to blow up on your coach in public. Goodness knows what goes on behind closed doors. If I were Bird I'd ship him out ASAP.

At minimum, I'd give him the Kenyon Martin treatment (and Kenyon AFAIK isnt half the problem that Jack is).

It's pretty damn clear that Jack is not "cured" and will continue to make the Pacers organization look bad.

Jeez, the amount of good will that Carlisle showed to this guy...after the shooting incident I would have traded or at least made him inactive, but Carlisle puts him into the rotation ASAP, makes excuses for his poor play at every corner, etc.

And what does Jack, the guy on trial this year who was in the brawl two seasons ago do less than 30 games into the season? He blows up at Carlisle, like he is supposed to get some kind of special treatment. Like he's a superstar.

That's Jack's biggest problem, in my opinion. His perception of his talent versus the reality of his talent are way, way different.

Raskolnikov
12-10-2006, 01:12 AM
I saw Al about to check in for him last night against the Blazers, and he tried to wave Al off so he can stay in the game and Rick made him come out.
Saw that too. The thing is, he came out for Al, but then right away got back in for someone else, I think for Baston. It was strange...

flakcatcher
12-10-2006, 01:13 AM
OKAY RICK HAS WENT UP A NOTCH IN MY BOOK. You know how I used to say he was afraid of Jackson. Well he is not afraid anymore. Props to you Rick, you run the team not Stephen Jackson. Jackson should kiss Rick Carlisle in the *** everytime he comes to practice for the crap Rick lets him get away with.

If he played anywhere with Riley,Avery,Phil,Pop and he played like he plays here he would never get off the bench. The guy is not that good and he isnt worth the drama, if he was good I wouldnt care what he does but he aint good.

Too bad he has 0 trade value.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but QFT.

McKeyFan
12-10-2006, 01:14 AM
"Well . . . okay then!"

CableKC
12-10-2006, 02:30 AM
Honestly, I think it's pretty damn cool that Jack always wants to play. Even if he doesn't go about it the right way sometimes, it still means that he cares a lot about winning and the game itself.
I would agree with you if Carlisle was stupid enough to pull SJax ( or anyone else ) when he is hitting every shot ( which probably has happened before ).....but if SJax ( or anyone else ) couldn't hit the side of a barn and Carlisle wanted to pull him ( I'm talking about any game...not the Blazers game ).....then he should realize that its better for him to sit....for the good of the team.

bulldog
12-10-2006, 02:36 AM
You can have one player like Jack on a team, especially if there's an alpha dog to keep him in line. That's how San Antonio won with him.

But with Tins, Jax, Runi, and other playing time/headcase issues, and the baggage of Artest, I think we have too many things going on at once, and JO talks too much and delivers too little to keep them in line.

I also think its too much to hope Rick can take care of all these issues, NBA coaches for the most part are neutered as it is. Sure, Jerry Sloan in Utah runs a tight ship, but he has the right personnel, for example as soon as Carlos Arroyo (a talented player) complained he was shipped out.

I'm pulling for a Jax or Tins trade. Not saying they're awful, not saying they could never contribute to a winning team, I just think they're harming this particular team more than helping. I don't think we can move forward without moving one of these guys. Too many problems going on at once.

Los Angeles
12-10-2006, 02:56 AM
I've missed 5 of the last 7 games. Didn't even record them or anything. And when I read threads like this, it does nothing but confirm that I don't really give a **** anymore.

That thought would be depressing if it weren't so liberating.

Oh well. :(

Beowulfas
12-10-2006, 04:12 AM
But with Tins, Jax, Runi, and other playing time/headcase issues

:confused:
Runi?

Robertmto
12-10-2006, 04:35 AM
:confused:
Runi?

Yea, he's a PG on the team - he usually comes in when the Ps are dwn by about 20 - and if they weren't they soon will be.

;)
:stirthepo

indygeezer
12-10-2006, 06:59 AM
Uh, anyone but me notice that Rick did what he was supposed to do? Obviously he listened to what Bird had to say at the end of last season and is doing what he was told to do. MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE.

Putnam
12-10-2006, 11:37 AM
"Well . . . okay then!"


"Don't forget his profile Ed."


"Turn to the right!!"

SycamoreKen
12-10-2006, 12:43 PM
Is this excuss enough to sit him until at least after the trial? He is probably untradeable until then anyway.

JayRedd
12-10-2006, 02:03 PM
Is this excuss enough to sit him until at least after the trial? He is probably untradeable until then anyway.

Hopefully, he's "voidable" by then.

What a shame. I think he has been playing great basektball all year, even factoring in the shooting inconsistency.

McKeyFan
12-10-2006, 04:04 PM
"Don't forget his profile Ed."


"Turn to the right!!"

;)

pacers31tc
12-10-2006, 04:41 PM
Could we get anything at all for Jack? Everything else aside, could we get some/any young player with potential and move Jack to somebody who's willing to take a chance?

Just yesterday before the game I was looking at all the box scores my brother and I have taped to the door and said "Holy crap! Jack's had 2 good games in a row!" Then this happened.

:suicide4:

CableKC
12-10-2006, 05:15 PM
Is this excuss enough to sit him until at least after the trial? He is probably untradeable until then anyway.
I didn't realize this....but his courtcase could easily be a reason why we wouldn't be able to trade him.

Why would a team take him on ( before the courtcase is settled ) if there is a chance that he will be found guilty?

Even if it looks like he won't be found guilty......he would likely have very little trade value.

Like it or not....we will likely be stuck with SJax for the near future.

BTW...when is his court date?

Is it before or after the trade deadline?

Slick Pinkham
12-10-2006, 05:24 PM
Could we get anything at all for Jack?

I think that he has NEGATIVE trade value. We will have to give up MORE to have sombody else take him.

Billy King: Hey, Donnie, you can have AI and a pickfor Jermaine!

Donnie Walsh: Fine Billy, but can we throw in Jackson?

Billy King: Uhmmm... No... make that HELL NO!!!!!

ALF68
12-10-2006, 05:50 PM
Last time I heard something like that happening in our locker room, a certain #15, 23, 91 was still here. Now Jackson is causing problems (for anyone that missed it, Jackson said or did something at half-time for Carlisle to keep him away from the team during the entire second half of tonight's game in Cleveland). Is anyone going to defend him on this, or can we all admit that he probably needs to go to another team?
BTW, where is Seth?

SycamoreKen
12-10-2006, 06:15 PM
I didn't realize this....but his courtcase could easily be a reason why we wouldn't be able to trade him.

Why would a team take him on ( before the courtcase is settled ) if there is a chance that he will be found guilty?

Even if it looks like he won't be found guilty......he would likely have very little trade value.

Like it or not....we will likely be stuck with SJax for the near future.

BTW...when is his court date?

Is it before or after the trade deadline?

The trade deadline is the 16th Thursday of the season, which by my count is Feb. 22. Jackson's courtdate is Feb. 12th.

tdubb03
12-10-2006, 06:19 PM
Man, right when he was winning me over to. The field goal percentage is atrocious, but he'd been playing well besides that. See ya in Philly Jax!

BlueNGold
12-10-2006, 06:24 PM
Rick has finally heard the criticism, and uncomfortably, managed to discipline Jack. I am surprised he found his backbone.

Now, can management find some way to rid us of this cancer. It's "up to them". I would think they could at least trade him for some garbage that has a shorter contract.

BlueNGold
12-10-2006, 06:34 PM
Man, right when he was winning me over to. The field goal percentage is atrocious, but he'd been playing well besides that. See ya in Philly Jax!

He has had some good games lately. He was doing the same to me as well. Big disappointment. He is nothing but a....

I would rather watch the Pacers lose more games if they played hard and showed some maturity.

PacerMan
12-10-2006, 07:19 PM
Iversons looking better all the time!

We have yet to get rid of our second distraction, bad attitude player in 2 years and you want to PICK UP another????????????????????????????????????????

NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

PacerMan
12-10-2006, 07:22 PM
"Don't forget his profile Ed."


"Turn to the right!!"

One of my favorite movies of all time.

Naptown_Seth
12-11-2006, 01:02 AM
Okay, I'm the Jack defender, so here's my skewed view...

Rick ripped him in CLE. Rick benched him in the 4th a few weeks ago too. Rick also already moved him from starting to the bench.

Until CLE Jack has put up with this without a tirade, without complaints to the press and certainly without telling Mike Wells about how he can't figure out Rick's system and needs more touches.

Jack within the last few weeks even said he needs less touches because he's shooting like crap (something roughly along those lines). He's been pretty accepting and honest about his poor shooting, and definitely has improved his effort in every other area.

We were all certain that the tougher tech rules would put Jack into deep trouble, but instead he's been a near saint. 1 tech and even that was not a blow-up. Last year Jack ran out something like 6 techs in the first 2 months for comparison, and that was without the harsh tech rules they had in place to start this season.


Okay, so the point is this - the dude got torn up by James (according to the recap, still haven't seen it) and got frustrated. Guess what, MANNING got frustrated today in Jacksonville. Heck, I think every Colt defender committed a personal foul in the 4th quarter out of frustration.

So Jack got pulled (deserved probably), threw a frustration fit (inappropriate) and got sent packing for the game by Rick (100% deserved). One thing I like about Rick and that I thought worked great with Ron that first season was that he would scold him but then let him prove himself the next night out. I forget which pair of games it was in the 61 win season, but one bad loss featured a VERY RARE public call out by Rick in the press regarding Ron's poor play.

The key is that the very next game Ron was back in his same role, played very well and was then appropriately credited in the press by Rick for his play. I expect the exact same process with Jack.

You handled your frustration like a teenager and got sent to your room for it. Will you show some maturity and straighten up, or will you continue to be a jerk about it? If he gets back in line then why wouldn't you want him playing for the Pacers?

The whole point of punishment and rules enforcement is to get players to FOLLOW THE RULES. If this gets him to do that then you've solved the problem. Move on. It doesn't require trades and drastic measures. Frankly I think you lose the respect of other players if you knee-jerk react in the same manner that the player you're scolding just did.

Rick continues to show a guiding message of maturity and respect with how he publically handles players. He almost always softens the reality for the press. He avoids getting hard core with anyone or being disrespectful.

What that buys him in the locker room IMO is the ability to say to Jack or anyone "I just behaved like an adult after you went off on me, so I have every right to expect you to handle things the same way."

If THAT is too much for Jack or any player, THEN you bench, trade, or cut them.



BTW, I in no way think Jack sees himself as a superstar. I think Jack takes the game very personally, like he appears to do everything, and gets serious attitude about it. He doesn't like being beat on the court and he get PO'd. He doesn't like getting pulled because it says to him "you are stinking up the place" and he doesn't want to hear that. He sees Ron in the stands and thinks "us vs them, its war" instead of "hmm, I need to get Ron out of there for everyone's safety".

Personal. Battles. That's how he filters life. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it's not the same as "I'm the greatest, you can't question me."

I think the dude needs to learn how to deal with this stuff. It would make him a better player. Already this year I think his effort to not argue calls has made him a better teammate, along with his effort to reduce some of his FGAs.

I'd rather have Rick keep improving him (he's much better than he was 2 years ago IMO), than to give up and take a talent hit trying to move a known problem player. This assumes that he will continue to respond well to Rick's efforts of course.

Like I said after the road trip, if they are tired then they can prove it with the ORL and POR games. So to Jack I say that if he F'd up and realizes it and respects his coach, then he has a great opportunity to prove it in the next couple of games. Go play some great team ball, do what RC asks you to do, and consider his POV if he asks you to hit the bench.

Fail that simple test and you won't have a single fan left in your camp.

Naptown_Seth
12-11-2006, 01:09 AM
I've missed 5 of the last 7 games. Didn't even record them or anything. And when I read threads like this, it does nothing but confirm that I don't really give a **** anymore.

That thought would be depressing if it weren't so liberating.

Oh well. :(
Orlando game was extremely impressive, Portland game was pretty solid despite a dip that seemed to hit when starter Baston went out and Harrison came in (JO out with injury).

It's certainly not all doom and gloom. A win vs CHI and DET would turn the CLE game into less than a speed bump, more so if Jack is a good part of those wins.

Peck
12-11-2006, 02:02 AM
Okay, I'm the Jack defender, so here's my skewed view...

Rick ripped him in CLE. Rick benched him in the 4th a few weeks ago too. Rick also already moved him from starting to the bench.

Until CLE Jack has put up with this without a tirade, without complaints to the press and certainly without telling Mike Wells about how he can't figure out Rick's system and needs more touches.

Jack within the last few weeks even said he needs less touches because he's shooting like crap (something roughly along those lines). He's been pretty accepting and honest about his poor shooting, and definitely has improved his effort in every other area.

We were all certain that the tougher tech rules would put Jack into deep trouble, but instead he's been a near saint. 1 tech and even that was not a blow-up. Last year Jack ran out something like 6 techs in the first 2 months for comparison, and that was without the harsh tech rules they had in place to start this season.


Okay, so the point is this - the dude got torn up by James (according to the recap, still haven't seen it) and got frustrated. Guess what, MANNING got frustrated today in Jacksonville. Heck, I think every Colt defender committed a personal foul in the 4th quarter out of frustration.

So Jack got pulled (deserved probably), threw a frustration fit (inappropriate) and got sent packing for the game by Rick (100% deserved). One thing I like about Rick and that I thought worked great with Ron that first season was that he would scold him but then let him prove himself the next night out. I forget which pair of games it was in the 61 win season, but one bad loss featured a VERY RARE public call out by Rick in the press regarding Ron's poor play.
The key is that the very next game Ron was back in his same role, played very well and was then appropriately credited in the press by Rick for his play. I expect the exact same process with Jack.

You handled your frustration like a teenager and got sent to your room for it. Will you show some maturity and straighten up, or will you continue to be a jerk about it? If he gets back in line then why wouldn't you want him playing for the Pacers?

The whole point of punishment and rules enforcement is to get players to FOLLOW THE RULES. If this gets him to do that then you've solved the problem. Move on. It doesn't require trades and drastic measures. Frankly I think you lose the respect of other players if you knee-jerk react in the same manner that the player you're scolding just did.

Rick continues to show a guiding message of maturity and respect with how he publically handles players. He almost always softens the reality for the press. He avoids getting hard core with anyone or being disrespectful.

What that buys him in the locker room IMO is the ability to say to Jack or anyone "I just behaved like an adult after you went off on me, so I have every right to expect you to handle things the same way."

If THAT is too much for Jack or any player, THEN you bench, trade, or cut them.



BTW, I in no way think Jack sees himself as a superstar. I think Jack takes the game very personally, like he appears to do everything, and gets serious attitude about it. He doesn't like being beat on the court and he get PO'd. He doesn't like getting pulled because it says to him "you are stinking up the place" and he doesn't want to hear that. He sees Ron in the stands and thinks "us vs them, its war" instead of "hmm, I need to get Ron out of there for everyone's safety".

Personal. Battles. That's how he filters life. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it's not the same as "I'm the greatest, you can't question me."

I think the dude needs to learn how to deal with this stuff. It would make him a better player. Already this year I think his effort to not argue calls has made him a better teammate, along with his effort to reduce some of his FGAs.

I'd rather have Rick keep improving him (he's much better than he was 2 years ago IMO), than to give up and take a talent hit trying to move a known problem player. This assumes that he will continue to respond well to Rick's efforts of course.

Like I said after the road trip, if they are tired then they can prove it with the ORL and POR games. So to Jack I say that if he F'd up and realizes it and respects his coach, then he has a great opportunity to prove it in the next couple of games. Go play some great team ball, do what RC asks you to do, and consider his POV if he asks you to hit the bench.

Fail that simple test and you won't have a single fan left in your camp.

I'm pretty sure it was vs. the Nets & it is when he got his "conduct detrimental to winning" benching.

Again you make a good point, but the Pacers do have to take the fans into consideration on this one. The guy was public enemy # 1 even before the shooting spree at the club. He's had some solid games but unless this is put to bed, and fast, this could cause some more of those home court boo's to return.

What's sad is that we have to keep talking about player discipline and our team. After everything we have been through for the past 4 years we still have to talk about this.

It's time to stop putting lipstick on a pig (as Bball says) & really look at whether or not the franchise wouldn't be better off without this entire core of players. Getting rid of all three is not likely, but two of the three probably should go & one of the three needs to go.

I know it would not be popular on here, but I can tell you the average Pacer fan would understand if the team just came out & said we are starting fresh & to do that we have to be rid of all distractions no matter how good that player is.

I think that we have the talent to be competative again in 2-3 years. Again this won't be popular on here but I'll say it anyway, we are 2-3 years now from being competative. By competative I mean we have a legitimate shot at being one of the 4-6 best teams in the NBA & able to compete for a title.

I'll just go ahead & say that I believe that with adaquate replacements, in other words either threw draft or trade our teams record without JermaIne, Jackson & Jamaal would be the same or close to the same with them.

So why not give the rest of the players who are not causing any problems a reward by getting rid of the trouble now.

Hmmmmm.... this all sounds oddly familiar.

Bball
12-11-2006, 02:20 AM
I'll just go ahead & say that I believe that with adaquate replacements, in other words either threw draft or trade our teams record without JermaIne, Jackson & Jamaal would be the same or close to the same with them.

I just read these numbers and I haven't taken time to confirm them so feel free to correct them if they are wrong...



Indiana is only 89-88 (.503) in the 177 regular-season games since the brawl. (The Pacers have a) 120-57 record (.678) in the identical number of games before the brawl.

What is it again why we're worried about keeping this core together at all costs?

-Bball

ALF68
12-11-2006, 11:31 AM
I'm pretty sure it was vs. the Nets & it is when he got his "conduct detrimental to winning" benching.

Again you make a good point, but the Pacers do have to take the fans into consideration on this one. The guy was public enemy # 1 even before the shooting spree at the club. He's had some solid games but unless this is put to bed, and fast, this could cause some more of those home court boo's to return.

What's sad is that we have to keep talking about player discipline and our team. After everything we have been through for the past 4 years we still have to talk about this.

It's time to stop putting lipstick on a pig (as Bball says) & really look at whether or not the franchise wouldn't be better off without this entire core of players. Getting rid of all three is not likely, but two of the three probably should go & one of the three needs to go.

I know it would not be popular on here, but I can tell you the average Pacer fan would understand if the team just came out & said we are starting fresh & to do that we have to be rid of all distractions no matter how good that player is.

I think that we have the talent to be competative again in 2-3 years. Again this won't be popular on here but I'll say it anyway, we are 2-3 years now from being competative. By competative I mean we have a legitimate shot at being one of the 4-6 best teams in the NBA & able to compete for a title.

I'll just go ahead & say that I believe that with adaquate replacements, in other words either threw draft or trade our teams record without JermaIne, Jackson & Jamaal would be the same or close to the same with them.

So why not give the rest of the players who are not causing any problems a reward by getting rid of the trouble now.

Hmmmmm.... this all sounds oddly familiar.
I agree with you, how many do overs does Jack get? I think that Jack and Tinman have to go in order for the fanbase to come back. Jack has poisoned the water and there is no way to purify it as long as he is here. I wonder what it will take for a certain poster to finally face the facts and agree that Jack has to go.

Putnam
12-11-2006, 12:19 PM
The whole point of punishment and rules enforcement is to get players to FOLLOW THE RULES. If this gets him to do that then you've solved the problem. Move on. It doesn't require trades and drastic measures. Frankly I think you lose the respect of other players if you knee-jerk react in the same manner that the player you're scolding just did.


Aw, c'mon. You can't use the term "knee-jerk" with respect to a player who's been trouble for more than two years.


Some people do not ever learn to follow the rules, and punishment / enforcement does not benefit them. They interpret punishment as hostility towards themselves, or else they shrug it off ("I'm cool!") as meaningless.

For all his capabilities on the basketball floor, Stephen Jackson has never been very honest. Club Rio happened three days after he publically pledged that he was all about the team. His fans may defend his right to do what he did, but no one can argue that spending the night as he did was consistent with the promise.

I contend that Jackson is never going to reform or change his ways. You might say, "Jackson is such a great 2-guard that he's worth a little drama." But you can't reasonably say, "This one-game suspension is going to set Jack straight, and from here on he'll be a model citizen."

waxman
12-11-2006, 12:24 PM
You don't put up with this much crap from a Superstar.... let alone a marginal player who is easily replaceable. I like his passion when he can focus it, i like his game when he can simplify it. Too bad he can do neither on a consistant basis.

Rick and the TPTB have given him plenty of slack... IMO....mainly because they saw his passion. They saw him as a vocal leader in the lockeroom and on the court that could get everyone to "buy in". The whole situation is just too polluted for there to be any long term success... between the fanbase, ownership, teammates, coaching staff, and front office, there are too many parameters and stipulations involved... for any real goals to be met.

Naptown_Seth
12-12-2006, 01:16 AM
There's a reason that Jack, and not those others players, is the one sitting out for "conduct detrimental to the team."

And for all the crap I hear about Tinsley's attitude, I have yet to see any evidence of it anywhere.
BTW, since I'm all about fair play and responded to the Tinsley attitude question, I wouldn't be caught dead suggesting that Jack doesn't have a long line of attitude problems.

I saw him get into it with both AJ and Tinsley at the same time because he put a shot up quick when they were trying to kill the clock and milk a lead to the end.

Not long after he had his JO confrontation. He's obviously been into it with Rick before. He used to be a nightmare with refs, but I would STRONGLY argue that he cured that issue about JAN-FEB last year and it carried over to this season so far.

Tinsley's issue has MOSTLY been health, at least that's what I often found myself defending the last 2 seasons - typically when people wrap his stint in the doghouse as another "injury" season when in fact of available games he played most of them after the Anderson injury made room for him again.

Jack's issue has been entirely his attitude on the court. It's not just as simple as arguing and getting ticked, and in fact Harrison dusts him in that regard. It was more often his frustrated "who cares" moods that would pop up and how he would have big mental lapses at times.

I defended Jack against the "he ALWAYS sucks" rants, because that's not accurate. The problem specifically with him has always been just like his shot, his whole game comes and goes, often in the same game.


So bottom line, if you ever see me talking up Jack's positives don't mistake that for me suggesting he has no flaws. He's had some real gems in the meltdown and attitude department. However I do think that overall he's made progress and does want to be a productive teammate rather than just a star.



Putnam - it's a knee-jerk to go from not being benched to being sent packing for arguing with RC...unless something was already laid out in private regarding this. Plenty of great players have had REPEAT flare-ups during points of high frustration.

Rick has established the pace of the build-up IMO. Certainly the team could make the case you are making, they could say "it's just been too much" which is basically what they did with Ron. Ron's single moment wasn't trade worthy (once he said "sorry, I didn't mean it"), it was just that by then they were saying "we just don't feel like dealing with this stuff anymore".

My one argument here would be that while Jack has been frustrated during games, the "trouble" he is more commonly associated with is the off-court stuff and perhaps the techs to start last season (and the year before). In other words I think another off-court incident would have been MUCH worse for his situation with the team than this.

If you replace Rio with him getting into a bad fight with Rick instead, enough to make the press and so forth, and then you followed something like that with this, then this is a "time to go" situation. As it stands it's 2 different types of things, and the latest one is a lot less conflicting withe being a good teammate.



You don't put up with this much crap from a Superstar
Rape accusation is worse than the Rio thing. Getting your coach and teammate sent packing is much worse than getting mad because you are being benched. Where in the world did you come up with "you don't take this much from a superstar" from?

Vince Carter got to hold his own strike in Toronto just to get traded. AI would still be in Philly if he wasn't asking to be moved, despite skipping fan appreciation night, CONSTANTLY bickering with Brown, and the chasing down his girl with a pistol and no-shirt in the middle of the night.

Just tracking down all the stories to fill out this list could take hours.


It's time to stop putting lipstick on a pig
That's what RC's action and then Bird's (assume) suspension were. All I'm saying is that you go with a process that allows a player to improve and show that his actions didn't match his interest and desire to help the team.

Right now people just want Jack gone, period, so they are intolerant. It's wasteful to let pride eliminate a productive solution.

What would be wrong with Jack returning to action, showing better respect for the coach and continuing the play he's been showing all season (with his shot continuing to improve we would hope)? The fact that people don't want that tells me that they are ready to cut their nose off to spite their face.

I'm not that type of person.


But you can't reasonably say, "This one-game suspension is going to set Jack straight, and from here on he'll be a model citizen."
His techs dropped way off last year in the 2nd half, right after his aruging in the LA game for how they were calling Kobe. I've said it several times, his next tech was about a month later and was for catching the ball coming out of the net (honestly I thought it was stupid call by the refs). This was in a game where Foster and Granger started mixing it up with Cavs players.

This year he has 1 tech so far. Okay, so SOMETHING CHANGED. How and why?

If you take the time to really watch him you see that he's adopted a much more productive method of TALKING to refs, asking, listening and respecting them. This is a LEARNED behavior and came from someplace or someone.

So you give him a chance to prove that he can alter his interactions with the coach in a similar manner.


Say what you will about Spree's ego but he didn't keep choking coaches and he happened to make NY and Minny better teams when he joined them. Golden St drew a necessary line due to the type of interaction between player and coach, but overall they lost out on the deal. It's not like losing Spree suddenly made them better. What would have made them better was to get Spree and PJ to see eye to eye and get on the same page before it got to that point.

Shamboubou
12-12-2006, 04:21 AM
Jax messes up again and some people act surprized that it happend. The best prediction for future behavior is past behavior. This is who we have with S Jackson, this is who we will always have with him.

The bad thing is there is nothing that you can really do with him. Were pretty well stuck.

Putnam
12-12-2006, 08:48 AM
This all makes a lot of sense, I have to admit.


[Jackson's] techs dropped way off last year in the 2nd half, right after his aruging in the LA game for how they were calling Kobe. I've said it several times, his next tech was about a month later and was for catching the ball coming out of the net (honestly I thought it was stupid call by the refs). This was in a game where Foster and Granger started mixing it up with Cavs players.

This year he has 1 tech so far. Okay, so SOMETHING CHANGED. How and why?

If you take the time to really watch him you see that he's adopted a much more productive method of TALKING to refs, asking, listening and respecting them. This is a LEARNED behavior and came from someplace or someone.

So you give him a chance to prove that he can alter his interactions with the coach in a similar manner.

Say what you will about Spree's ego but he didn't keep choking coaches and he happened to make NY and Minny better teams when he joined them. Golden St drew a necessary line due to the type of interaction between player and coach, but overall they lost out on the deal. It's not like losing Spree suddenly made them better. What would have made them better was to get Spree and PJ to see eye to eye and get on the same page before it got to that point.


I'm not optimistic that Jackson can keep to the straight and narrow. But Seth's point about the reduction in technical fouls must be acknowledged. In that respect, at least, Jackson has changed for the better.

NPFII
12-12-2006, 09:12 AM
My problem with Jack is NOT his off-court behaviour with the brawl, the pot, the guns, and what-not. It doesnt help, but that's NOT the problem...
It's NOT that he's a streaky shooter, and that some nights he's on and some nights he's off.
It's NOT his attitude towards the refs , the technicals, and his "emotions" on the court
It's NOT his attitude towards Rick and the questioning of decisions
It's NOT for lack of effort or individual talent, which I think he has both

The problem is that he plays for himself. He's a selfish player who always looks for HIS shot, and to beat HIS defender 1on1. He has no passing game, no court vision, no understanding of pace or momentum, and generally no concept of TEAM.

Stephen Jackson has yet to realize that there's no I in TEAM. His perception of his own individual capabilities cloud his effectiveness as a team player. He hasn't realized that if he made an extra pass (just for example) he'd be (a) getting more extra passes from teammates, and (b) confusing defenses and he himself would be more open next time. He doesnt distinguish between a good shot and a bad shot, as long as their HIS shots and have some chance of going in.

This kind of player is detrimental to a TEAM. That's why I don't like Stephen Jackson, and would love to see him traded.
Unfortunately for the Pacers there are several other players with the same attributes, who get most of the playing time. Most of them need to go as well, and then... maybe them... a team can be molded. AMEN.

waxman
12-12-2006, 02:54 PM
Rape accusation is worse than the Rio thing. Getting your coach and teammate sent packing is much worse than getting mad because you are being benched. Where in the world did you come up with "you don't take this much from a superstar" from?

Where did i come up with that?.... it's not string theory. Its called hyperbole. In an attempt to accurately quantify my utter frustration with Jack. I guess i should have worded it....IF I were the owner I wouldn't take this much crap from a Superstar.... Jack certainly isn't a superstar....and I'm not an owner. So... Its my opinion.




Vince Carter got to hold his own strike in Toronto just to get traded. AI would still be in Philly if he wasn't asking to be moved, despite skipping fan appreciation night, CONSTANTLY bickering with Brown, and the chasing down his girl with a pistol and no-shirt in the middle of the night.

I couldn't give two ****s what how other organizations deal with their players.



Just tracking down all the stories to fill out this list could take hours.[/b]

Seems like you got plenty of time on your hands.... track away.


The Pacers are in the sports business... the Simons are asking the League for a larger share of TV profits. Conseco has lots of empty seats and $4.00 tickets for sale. The organization must be hurting a little bit,,,, from 2 1/2 seasons of embarassing turmoil and distractions...it has damaged the relationships inside the lockeroom with the fanbase, with coaches, the Front Office and the League.

What was the poll yesterday?.... win at any cost..... or win with class. Well we tried winning at all costs and it got us 2 1/2 years of Blowback. I'll quote Donnie from yesterday.

"The Pacers have had a good value system in which respect for fans, referees, coaches, players and front office has always existed," said franchise CEO & President Donnie Walsh. "The last couple of years, there has been a breakdown of that in some instances. We're making it clear we won't tolerate anymore breakdowns in that value system."


The Pacers are in the business of winning with class... not a rehabilition center for troubled, marginal youth. Especially after they've had 2nd and 3rd chances already.

Naptown_Seth
12-12-2006, 08:53 PM
Okay, how many of you watched the Cavs game? How many of you have watched the sequences in question that led up to this "behavior"?

I just went through it and honestly I think Jack probably had a point. Here's what happened...

Jones hits a 3 to make it a 17 point game (started the 2nd as a 15 point game), timeout Pacers, Jack returns.

- Al puts up an ugly turnaround miss

- Lebron drives it up on the rebound but is turned away by James, Marshall beats Granger on the boards. In-bounds to Jones, he PICKS UP HIS DRIBBLE and Jack gets caught peeking thinking he's going to pass to James outside, James backdoors him for the dunk. Not a great play by Jack, but not a lack of effort. Jones being stuck with no dribble changes the situation and a lot of times it becomes a double team.

- Jack's 3 rolls around and back out. Not a bad shot and it almost went.

- Tins gets switched to Marshall, Jack comes to help but Tins fouls first. In-bounds eventually the ball ends up with James up top, Vare sets the PnR, James goes off it and then shoots a FADE 3pt shot from 1-2 feet behind the arc already and makes it.

Denari's quote "You can't defend that". It was just stupid and if Jack shot and missed a shot like that people would hate him for it. James didn't make his name taking that on a regular basis.

- Saras makes a jumper off an in-bounds

- Pacers go zone, Cavs miss and foul on rebound

- Saras drives and gets tied up, barely gets it to Al underneath who then has it taken away from him by James.

- Jack defends James, he dumps to Snow wide left. Snow runs the Give and Go off of Varejao and walks in for the layup. Poor defense by Al. He's supposed to step over and stop that.

- Harrington is trying to feed Granger. Jack has a better passing lane but Al forces it himself and it is tipped by Hughes and goes right to James who is already on the move. James just goes full speed past Harrington, Jack runs ahead and tries to cut off and defend the play. When that fails he tries to foul James before he can get a good shot up. It's too late and James gets the make and one (he misses it).

This transition was created by Harrington's bad pass out on top, the worst place you can give up the ball.

- Tins drives and gets the foul, shoots FTs

And then comes the big play...

- The Pacers WERE in zone (so not matched up). Since then there was a timeout where Hughes entered for Varejao. This makes the Cavs SMALL. The Pacers haven't had a regular defensive set since then to match up properly.

Jones
Snow
Hughes
James
Marshall

Pacers have in the game Tinsley, Saras, Jackson, Granger, and Al

Saras defends Jones bringing it up, Tinsley is on Hughes. Al is clearly on Marshall.

Then you see Jackson and he's shouting and pointing to James. Is this "I got him" or is this "Danny, you're on James" or was it even supposed to be zone still? I have STRONG doubts that the matchup was supposed to be Danny on Snow so Jack could play James. I think Jack defended James fairly well in this game, but still at this point James is the 2nd biggest guy on the court and is playing PF.

So the play begins with Jack drifting to the lane as Danny APPEARS to be coming over to get James after Jack called it out. Problem is that Snow comes to the lane and this is why Danny has moved there, he hasn't realized he's supposed to be on James (or he wasn't supposed to be). Either way it looks to Jack like Danny is coming to James, but when Snow breaks off some screens and goes the other way Danny goes with him even as Jack is too.

JACK realizes this, Danny does not. Jack rushes to close back out on James but the pass is already on its way and James goes in for a layup.

Let me stress this again. Both players are defending Snow. Jack is in good position for it and it does look like Granger might be going to James. Jack REALIZES BEFORE THE BALL IS PASSED TO JAMES. He figures out the problem but it's just too late with the floor spread like the Cavs have it.

After the make Jack is still clearly confused and talks (TALKS) to Granger. He is pointing and stuff in a way that says "I thought" and "Don't you have" and so on. Granger is just going back up court oblivious to the play.

Tins posts and is fouled. Jack and Granger then both talk at the FT line. Jack puts his palm out in the "what's going on" gesture, still clearly confused about the situation. He obviously thought that Danny was on James based on how he pointed at James and then followed Snow.

Jack puts his hands on his hips as they talk (they look casual, this is in NO WAY heated). They both look toward the sideline before the camera cuts away. My guess is this is DA being subbed for Jackson.

Keep in mind that unless Danny really was supposed to be defending Snow while Jack was on James that Jackson hasn't really done anything wrong. The previous dunk was off a bad pass by Harrington and this play was due to Granger defending the wrong guy.


DA comes in, gives Jack a slap as he goes out, and in the background you can see Jack's feet at the bench. He is talking to someone. A long shot of the FT seems to show that it is RC (too far to be sure who is talking to who, could be Chuck talking instead).

Jack again has palms out in the "pleading my case" gesture. He still believes he wasn't wrong on the play. It doesn't look heated but it's hard to tell from this shot.

Jack finally heads to the end of the bench. This is where he must mutter something because as he sits RC stands up and literally points to the locker room. At this point Buckner insightfully notes "they're sending Jack in (to the game)"...whoops, not quite. ;)


Okay, so I'm not saying a player should have a free pass to speak to his coach however he wants too, but I am saying that I'm pretty curious about the exchange and if RC was blaming Jack. If that was the case then I certainly understand why Jackson would be upset.

If Granger truly was matched up with Snow by Rick and Jackson missed it then it was a pretty poor screwup on his part. Maybe that's what happened but honestly I doubt it. On offense Granger was the PF, just as he was at PF much of last year.


Summary - Jack was probably right about the play on court, took exception when he felt like he was being blamed, made an obviously lightening rod remark (F you or perhaps worse) and got sent packing. He was wrong even in that situation to take it so personal.

I'm a RC fan but I'm a little suspicious of this sequence. Someone was really wrong on that play and if it wasn't Jack and RC pulled him for it anyway...doesn't seem productive to me.

I know one thing for sure, DA wasn't coming in to defend James which suggests to me that Jack was defending Snow (otherwise you go with Daniels). Maybe RC just wanted to small down even more I suppose.


Now the suspension a day later, that's intriguing. Does that mean that the argument carried on? Does that mean that his comment was truly that offensive? I mean he goes from sitting down to kicked out in seconds, so there wasn't time to say too much. How nasty could the comment have been?

Peck
12-13-2006, 12:59 AM
Okay, how many of you watched the Cavs game? How many of you have watched the sequences in question that led up to this "behavior"?

I just went through it and honestly I think Jack probably had a point. Here's what happened...

Jones hits a 3 to make it a 17 point game (started the 2nd as a 15 point game), timeout Pacers, Jack returns.

- Al puts up an ugly turnaround miss

- Lebron drives it up on the rebound but is turned away by James, Marshall beats Granger on the boards. In-bounds to Jones, he PICKS UP HIS DRIBBLE and Jack gets caught peeking thinking he's going to pass to James outside, James backdoors him for the dunk. Not a great play by Jack, but not a lack of effort. Jones being stuck with no dribble changes the situation and a lot of times it becomes a double team.

- Jack's 3 rolls around and back out. Not a bad shot and it almost went.

- Tins gets switched to Marshall, Jack comes to help but Tins fouls first. In-bounds eventually the ball ends up with James up top, Vare sets the PnR, James goes off it and then shoots a FADE 3pt shot from 1-2 feet behind the arc already and makes it.

Denari's quote "You can't defend that". It was just stupid and if Jack shot and missed a shot like that people would hate him for it. James didn't make his name taking that on a regular basis.

- Saras makes a jumper off an in-bounds

- Pacers go zone, Cavs miss and foul on rebound

- Saras drives and gets tied up, barely gets it to Al underneath who then has it taken away from him by James.

- Jack defends James, he dumps to Snow wide left. Snow runs the Give and Go off of Varejao and walks in for the layup. Poor defense by Al. He's supposed to step over and stop that.

- Harrington is trying to feed Granger. Jack has a better passing lane but Al forces it himself and it is tipped by Hughes and goes right to James who is already on the move. James just goes full speed past Harrington, Jack runs ahead and tries to cut off and defend the play. When that fails he tries to foul James before he can get a good shot up. It's too late and James gets the make and one (he misses it).

This transition was created by Harrington's bad pass out on top, the worst place you can give up the ball.

- Tins drives and gets the foul, shoots FTs

And then comes the big play...

- The Pacers WERE in zone (so not matched up). Since then there was a timeout where Hughes entered for Varejao. This makes the Cavs SMALL. The Pacers haven't had a regular defensive set since then to match up properly.

Jones
Snow
Hughes
James
Marshall

Pacers have in the game Tinsley, Saras, Jackson, Granger, and Al

Saras defends Jones bringing it up, Tinsley is on Hughes. Al is clearly on Marshall.

Then you see Jackson and he's shouting and pointing to James. Is this "I got him" or is this "Danny, you're on James" or was it even supposed to be zone still? I have STRONG doubts that the matchup was supposed to be Danny on Snow so Jack could play James. I think Jack defended James fairly well in this game, but still at this point James is the 2nd biggest guy on the court and is playing PF.

So the play begins with Jack drifting to the lane as Danny APPEARS to be coming over to get James after Jack called it out. Problem is that Snow comes to the lane and this is why Danny has moved there, he hasn't realized he's supposed to be on James (or he wasn't supposed to be). Either way it looks to Jack like Danny is coming to James, but when Snow breaks off some screens and goes the other way Danny goes with him even as Jack is too.

JACK realizes this, Danny does not. Jack rushes to close back out on James but the pass is already on its way and James goes in for a layup.

Let me stress this again. Both players are defending Snow. Jack is in good position for it and it does look like Granger might be going to James. Jack REALIZES BEFORE THE BALL IS PASSED TO JAMES. He figures out the problem but it's just too late with the floor spread like the Cavs have it.

After the make Jack is still clearly confused and talks (TALKS) to Granger. He is pointing and stuff in a way that says "I thought" and "Don't you have" and so on. Granger is just going back up court oblivious to the play.

Tins posts and is fouled. Jack and Granger then both talk at the FT line. Jack puts his palm out in the "what's going on" gesture, still clearly confused about the situation. He obviously thought that Danny was on James based on how he pointed at James and then followed Snow.

Jack puts his hands on his hips as they talk (they look casual, this is in NO WAY heated). They both look toward the sideline before the camera cuts away. My guess is this is DA being subbed for Jackson.

Keep in mind that unless Danny really was supposed to be defending Snow while Jack was on James that Jackson hasn't really done anything wrong. The previous dunk was off a bad pass by Harrington and this play was due to Granger defending the wrong guy.


DA comes in, gives Jack a slap as he goes out, and in the background you can see Jack's feet at the bench. He is talking to someone. A long shot of the FT seems to show that it is RC (too far to be sure who is talking to who, could be Chuck talking instead).

Jack again has palms out in the "pleading my case" gesture. He still believes he wasn't wrong on the play. It doesn't look heated but it's hard to tell from this shot.

Jack finally heads to the end of the bench. This is where he must mutter something because as he sits RC stands up and literally points to the locker room. At this point Buckner insightfully notes "they're sending Jack in (to the game)"...whoops, not quite. ;)


Okay, so I'm not saying a player should have a free pass to speak to his coach however he wants too, but I am saying that I'm pretty curious about the exchange and if RC was blaming Jack. If that was the case then I certainly understand why Jackson would be upset.

If Granger truly was matched up with Snow by Rick and Jackson missed it then it was a pretty poor screwup on his part. Maybe that's what happened but honestly I doubt it. On offense Granger was the PF, just as he was at PF much of last year.


Summary - Jack was probably right about the play on court, took exception when he felt like he was being blamed, made an obviously lightening rod remark (F you or perhaps worse) and got sent packing. He was wrong even in that situation to take it so personal.

I'm a RC fan but I'm a little suspicious of this sequence. Someone was really wrong on that play and if it wasn't Jack and RC pulled him for it anyway...doesn't seem productive to me.

I know one thing for sure, DA wasn't coming in to defend James which suggests to me that Jack was defending Snow (otherwise you go with Daniels). Maybe RC just wanted to small down even more I suppose.


Now the suspension a day later, that's intriguing. Does that mean that the argument carried on? Does that mean that his comment was truly that offensive? I mean he goes from sitting down to kicked out in seconds, so there wasn't time to say too much. How nasty could the comment have been?


It may be neither.

Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.

Bball
12-13-2006, 01:05 AM
It may be neither.

Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.

I wonder if Jackson had just waited until after the game and then ripped into Carlisle, Walsh, Bird et al in the coach's office if that would've been OK and if Carlisle would've revamped his rotation to get Sjax more minutes following that?

-Bball

ALF68
12-13-2006, 02:05 PM
It may be neither.

Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.

I know one thing for sure, if I ever do need an attorney I'm calling Seth.

Peck
12-13-2006, 02:20 PM
I wonder if Jackson had just waited until after the game and then ripped into Carlisle, Walsh, Bird et al in the coach's office if that would've been OK and if Carlisle would've revamped his rotation to get Sjax more minutes following that?

-Bball

Oh sweet irony.:D

ChicagoJ
12-13-2006, 05:35 PM
Now, can management find some way to rid us of this cancer. It's "up to them". I would think they could at least trade him for some garbage that has a shorter contract.

I'm not opposed to garbage with a longer contract. :twocents:

This isn't going to be a "playoff" season anyway. Bite the bullet and experiment with some of the young players the Mavericks tossed our way.

Naptown_Seth
12-14-2006, 02:40 AM
It may be neither.

Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.Yeah, that's true. That's typically the hard core debates I'm having, stuff where it's clearly image/rep tainting the view of 2 similar plays...ie, Danny forces a quick 3 it's okay, Jack does it and it's "there he goes again" even if DG ends up taking more 3s on the night and shoots it poorly.

My thing is about accurate evaluation of the actual play because I want to know what is or isn't working, how things broke down or went well. But I'll concede without question that Jack has put himself in a tough spot. Honestly I had no problem with RC sending him to the locker room. I just wondered what the initial reason for yanking him was.


Hey, I'm just happy someone got to read all that, it took a good chunk of time to review and write up. :D

Peck
12-14-2006, 03:52 AM
Yeah, that's true. That's typically the hard core debates I'm having, stuff where it's clearly image/rep tainting the view of 2 similar plays...ie, Danny forces a quick 3 it's okay, Jack does it and it's "there he goes again" even if DG ends up taking more 3s on the night and shoots it poorly.

My thing is about accurate evaluation of the actual play because I want to know what is or isn't working, how things broke down or went well. But I'll concede without question that Jack has put himself in a tough spot. Honestly I had no problem with RC sending him to the locker room. I just wondered what the initial reason for yanking him was.


Hey, I'm just happy someone got to read all that, it took a good chunk of time to review and write up. :D


I always read everything you write. Hey, it's not often I find someone who out does me in pure word usage on these boards so I have to read what your saying.;)

I'll say what I said early in the season. I wish to God Jax hadn't had that stupid fight at the nightclub. I honestly think the fans could have moved on past what they thought of him. However unfortuneatly every thing he does is magnified because of past behavior.

What is that old saying "past performance is the best indicator of future performance" or something like that.

I think the fans right now are using that with Jax. Hey I even said last season he was getting an unfair shake with the fans. I've never seen the fans talk about or feel about one of our own players the way many/most did last season. Hell it was so bad up in my section that I couldn't salute America because of the boo's distracting me & that was just from one guy.:cool:

For his sake he MUST stop doing anything that will appear to be negative towards the team.

Missing some shots will get him some boo's but then again it will get Tinsley or Harrington some as well.

But the fans will not tolerate his berateing the coaching staff.

He keeps his nose clean in regards to that from here on in & he'll be fine, for the most part.