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

What was that last night?

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

    What was that last night?

    Don't the Pacer players know how to throw a party, especially on ESPN?

    After watching last night’s debacle it was easy to see where the true weakness of this Pacer basketball team is.
    fficeffice" />>>
    There is no HEART.
    >>
    There is no INTENSITY.

    Don't blame the coach, or the management. They don't play the games and they don't go to the Bars. But someone has to be responsible...Gee heres a concept, lets make these guarenteed contract players responsible. Lets make the players agents responsible, better yet lets make the NBA players union responsible. But n, its easier to blame the Pacer head coach and top brass because they put the team together. God forbid the players ever put in opt out clauses when things arn't going their way. God forbid that any of these players try to understand the meaning of the words disipline or defensive concept.

    The Pacers management:
    >>
    One can surely see that the reason the Pacers did not make another move is simple…no one wanted to make a fair market trade. Once the playoffs end for this club (1st round) there will be some issues to take care of.
    >>
    Issue number 1, Jamal Tinsley. Jamal has grown more and more apathetic. I wish he would show the same spark he does when he’s out clubbing. Jammal consistently makes poor decision after poor decision. He throws the ball away at the wrong time every time and constantly gets beat by his man to the basket. Ron Artest covered many times for Jammal on defense, but Troy Murphy and Danny Granger have no clue on how to move their feet and position themselves defensively.
    >>
    Issue number 2, Jermaine O’Neal. Some say Jermaine is having a career year. When your paid 17 million a year, every year better be a career year. I do not feel bad for O’Neal at all. He takes superstar talent and half a brain. O’neal just does and does it without thinking. Unlike Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett , who do use their noggin when they play, O’Neal has never learned to do that. Personally I don’t think Jermaine ever will “get it”. You can take it to Vegas and bet that Jermaine will be traded this summer, right now it looks like Boston or Memphis. He will be part of a trade with Jamal Tinsley to which ever team gets the number one pick. It will be Jermaine and Tinsley for either Gasol or Pierce and their number one pick….Yes, it will happen and only because neither of these teams are winning, the Pacers still manage to win some games…O’Neal and Tinsley are good for .500 seasons, something that has eluded the Celtics and the Grizzlies for a while now. The trades may take more then one player to even up the salaries, but it’s coming.
    >>
    Issue number 3. Troy Murphy. If ever there was a big man that needed to go to big mans camp and work on his footwork and anticipation skills, Troy’s the one. I like that he can somewhat shoot the ball, but his inconsistency has to be changed. That comes from the player and a player that needs to dedicate himself to his craft. Troy has skill, but it needs to be cultivated and refined.
    >>
    Issue number 4. Danny Granger. One night on and one night off. It’s starting to look like Danny is hitting that rookie wall. But wait, Danny’s not a rookie. He has trouble finishing at the basket. He has trouble initiating contact to draw fouls and has become a defensive liability because he doesn’t know how to rotate weakside. But then again neither does Murphy. I understand practice time is at a premium, but when you have played over 100 games the last two years, what don’t you understand by now?

    Issue Number 5. Jeff Foster. Does not finish atthe rim and can't shoot the ball. You only need 8 points a night from Foster, maybe only 7 rebounds, but you do need the points. Jeff's defense is horrid and he does not block out correctly ofn the defensive end. He gets many of his rebounds on the offensive glass because he's not a part of the offense and continously roams around the basket. Thats why he gets the boards he gets.
    >>
    Sure there is more, but these are the issues that I feel are important. Now The Jermaine lovers are going to say its not Jermaines fault, but that’s where they are wrong and I have over 16 million reasons why its his fault. The main thing why its his fault is because Jermaine will not CALL anyone out in that locker room. His will needs to be forced on these guys, becasue if they don't look up to him, they don't look up to anyone.

    Everybody just wants to be friends, not winners.

    There is a difference between the two in the pro game.

    Its called $$$$$
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: What was that last night?

    Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
    Don't blame the coach, or the management. They don't play the games and they don't go to the Bars

    Nice read Smash, but one problem and disagreement. Who put this team together and who sets the rotation?

    #1 Donnie and Larry put together this heartless team.

    #2 Rick Carlisle decides who rides the bench and who plays. Seems he has no problem playing those with no heart.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: What was that last night?

      I completely agree. There's little doubt in my mind that Tinsley and O'Neal will be gone in the offseason. O'Neal's already hinted about demanding a trade for a couple years now with his "if I can't lead this team to a championship, we need to cut ties" talk. He'll privately ask for a trade this offseason if he hasn't already. What harm can it do? Conseco is already becoming increasingly empty. You might as well start over and build the fanbase up again over the next 10 years rather than let them to continue to sour on this team over the next 2 or 3.

      This team needs a fresh start, in more ways than one. It means actually rebuilding, not "rebuilding on the fly" or "restoration." And it also means --as much as I hate to say it--not signing Donnie Walsh to another contract. Let him go. And this is coming from a huge Walsh fan. But the franchise needs a new direction and vision, for better or worse. Hand Bird the reins and see if he sinks or swims.

      Force Carlisle into the front office and bring in a coach that will develop younger players. A coach that is likable and that will make the team fun to watch. If Carlisle still wants to coach, then cut ties. He's a good coach, but he's the last thing a young, developing team needs.

      I know what I'm advocating here. This kind of plan could potentially force the Pacers to languish in lottery-ville for a LONG time. But I think it could be worth it. Just making the playoffs hasn't amounted to too much except good (and bad) memories.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: What was that last night?

        OK then who do we trade JO for? I don't see this happening. We pretty much had a fresh start by bringing all the new players we have. I for one don't want to see us trade JO, not sure we would get anything equal. We need a guy or two that can shoot on the perimeter and defensive help. Why trade JO, because he is upset. He should be, but he is also under contract, making 20 million a season.
        Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: What was that last night?

          Originally posted by odeez View Post
          OK then who do we trade JO for? I don't see this happening. We pretty much had a fresh start by bringing all the new players we have. I for one don't want to see us trade JO, not sure we would get anything equal. We need a guy or two that can shoot on the perimeter and defensive help. Why trade JO, because he is upset. He should be, but he is also under contract, making 20 million a season.
          No, we're not going to get anything equal. But we need to rebuild, so that's the point. His contract is much too restrictive and we don't have any other attractive pieces on this team (that we'd want to give up) or high enough draft picks in order to get better than we are now.

          Trading JO isn't about getting better now. It's about getting a fresh start. Will the team suck for a least a few years? Yes. Will it hurt the fanbase? Yeah. But they're already fleeing the Fieldhouse in droves.

          Keeping an unhappy JO is not going to do any good. If he doesn't get traded, then he'll be forced to go public with his trade request, THEN we really won't get any true value for him. At least this summer we might get a high draft pick.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: What was that last night?

            Originally posted by odeez View Post
            OK then who do we trade JO for? I don't see this happening. We pretty much had a fresh start by bringing all the new players we have. I for one don't want to see us trade JO, not sure we would get anything equal. We need a guy or two that can shoot on the perimeter and defensive help. Why trade JO, because he is upset. He should be, but he is also under contract, making 20 million a season.
            Trading him will be our choice this offseason. Opting out will be his choice next offseason. Take your pick at which scenario you'd rather have to deal with.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: What was that last night?

              Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
              No, we're not going to get anything equal. But we need to rebuild, so that's the point. His contract is much too restrictive and we don't have any other attractive pieces on this team (that we'd want to give up) or high enough draft picks in order to get better than we are now.

              Trading JO isn't about getting better now. It's about getting a fresh start. Will the team suck for a least a few years? Yes. Will it hurt the fanbase? Yeah. But they're already fleeing the Fieldhouse in droves.

              Keeping an unhappy JO is not going to do any good. If he doesn't get traded, then he'll be forced to go public, THEN we really won't get any value for him. At least this summer we might get a high draft pick.
              Ok, until JO publicly comes out and says I want traded, then we keep him and build around him. But he owes Donnie his career, not that he wouldn't be this good now, but DW gave him his shot here, that stands for something. You may be right about the fan base, but in my mind they will be back (we just have to get rid of TINS). We have other players that we can trade to get pieces around JO. You don't just find JO's laying around, and unless we get Garrnett, then we keep him. Granger, Quis (as long as he stays healthy), and IKE are those fresh young players you are talking about. If you can come up with a trade with JO that brings us to the promise land than show me, but until then I say keep him. After a beat down like we have gotten these last couple of games, the emotional response is extreme. But trading JO has to make sense for team, and I am not sure that trading him and going young is the way to go, not yet, maybe this summer, but we still have a season to play out.
              Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: What was that last night?

                Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                fficeffice" />>>
                Issue number 2, Jermaine O’Neal. Some say Jermaine is having a career year. When your paid 17 million a year, every year better be a career year. I do not feel bad for O’Neal at all. He takes superstar talent and half a brain. O’neal just does and does it without thinking. Unlike Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett , who do use their noggin when they play, O’Neal has never learned to do that. Personally I don’t think Jermaine ever will “get it”. You can take it to Vegas and bet that Jermaine will be traded this summer, right now it looks like Boston or Memphis. He will be part of a trade with Jamal Tinsley to which ever team gets the number one pick. It will be Jermaine and Tinsley for either Gasol or Pierce and their number one pick….Yes, it will happen and only because neither of these teams are winning, the Pacers still manage to win some games…O’Neal and Tinsley are good for .500 seasons, something that has eluded the Celtics and the Grizzlies for a while now. The trades may take more then one player to even up the salaries, but it’s coming.
                >>
                While I agree with every bad thing said about O'Neal, there is no way in hell that were getting the #1 pick and the other team's best player.

                Now we may get Delonte West and the pick. Or some serviceable player from Memphis and the pick. But no way Gasol or Peirce.

                Unfortunately, I don't see the Pacers moving JO on. JO will have to pull an Artest to get traded. How do I know this? Because Artest had to pull an Artest to get traded. So in the mean time we must all take a cue from the Captain about our Pacers hopes for the future.
                House Name: Pacers

                House Sigil:


                House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: What was that last night?

                  One good thing:

                  Although the game was on national TV, nobody saw it because of the Oscars.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: What was that last night?

                    Originally posted by Diamond Dave View Post
                    JO will have to pull an Artest to get traded. How do I know this? Because Artest had to pull an Artest to get traded.

                    I like that. A post that includes reason, sarcasm, a rhetorical question, the captain and humor. I wish I could erase all of my posts and only post that section I quoted 2 minutes before you did.
                    I'm in these bands
                    The Humans
                    Dr. Goldfoot
                    The Bar Brawlers
                    ME

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: What was that last night?

                      Originally posted by odeez View Post
                      We have other players that we can trade to get pieces around JO. You don't just find JO's laying around, and unless we get Garrnett, then we keep him. Granger, Quis (as long as he stays healthy), and IKE are those fresh young players you are talking about.
                      Others players such as whom to return significant pieces to go around JO? Especially given that the ones I think could net anything decent you appear to want to keep around him, too.

                      Murphy, Dunleavy, Tins all have contracts too big and long for their levels of performance. Can't imagine we could do much with them. Foster and Williams?

                      I don't know. The idea of completely cutting ties with this whole hell that started with Artest and the brawl is sounding better to me with each passing drubbing that our guys apathetically allow to be imposed on them. I include RC in that statement.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: What was that last night?

                        If the coach and management are in no way responsible for how the players play, then why do they exist in the first place?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: What was that last night?

                          /ranton

                          This team has gotten rid of all its Warriors. First it was AL (the old AL), then it was Reggie, then it was Ron, (though that was his own doing, but I still wish they could have worked it out) then it was Stephen Jackson and AL again. Who else is left that is a real warrior type player? DA maybe, but he can't be the man, he is a great addition off the bench. Granger maybe? Same thing. Maybe in another year.

                          What are we left with? soft overpaid finesse players. I wish it could have been what I thought it was after the 04 season. Because we are on the road to mediocrity/subpar for years after that last trade with JRs and Murphs contracts. If JO leaves... lottery for years. Good luck trying to get a free agent to come to Indiana. It's not like this is Miami or NYC even.

                          Our starting five has to be the biggest group of pansies in basketball. Yeah yeah JO is great and all but he isnt a BANGER. He isn't Dale and never will be. He can block some shots but he isn't the guy who is going to defend the low post. He is probably better than Troy, but GOD... who isnt.

                          I know all you guys love seeing all the points being scored when everyone is hitting and I've heard "it's fun to watch" so many times I could puke.

                          I hate it.

                          I want to see games in the 70s and 80s with the oppenent not being able to score for 10 mins straight. Bring back the DEEF.


                          /rantoff

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: What was that last night?

                            And yes, "everyone wants to be friends not winners" sums this crap up beautifully.

                            Everyone wants good character guys on the team, but at what cost? at the cost of being a crappy basketball team? Give me some warriors with attitudes over some weak soft nice guys anyday. I don't watch the Pacers play ball to get moral inspiration. I watch them to see great basketball and see the best players in the world excel at the their craft... or I used to =/

                            /rantoff

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: What was that last night?

                              Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
                              everyone wants to be friends not winners
                              Pretty much sums up the Grant Hill era in Detroit.

                              To be fair, the guys they dealt were neither.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X