PDA

View Full Version : I have a serious question for PDers



Robertmto
05-11-2008, 01:52 AM
After reading through thousands of posts on here after the brawl days I've noticed something, yet no one else had ever seem to bring it up (or at least have a serious debate about it)

Would you rather have a team full of "thugs" (smh) that wins their games, plays defense, makes it to the playoffs, and actually has a legitimate shot at doing something in the playoffs.

Or would you rather have a team full of players with no "off the court issues" that can't do a damn thing on the court. (sorry 07-08 Pacers)

I've seen comments referring to not wanting Melo because of his "rep", I've seen people swear up and down that trading SJax was a GOOD thing for this team WHEN IT COMES TO A BASKETBALL STANDPOINT. I've seen people say don;t trade for Marcus Williams because of his "character", I've seen people say trade Quisy and Shawne because of their "character". I've seen people saying don;t draft Mayo because of his "character" (although i wouldn't want him because he's horrid at basketball :p) And of course there is the Ron Ron thing.

So to those whom it may concern: is PR really that important to YOU, that you are willing to go through multiple losing seasons just so you can say "well at least we're squeaky clean!"

CableKC
05-11-2008, 02:04 AM
Is it a really black and white question where the "milk drinkers" will never improve and be destined to be nothing more then a 1st round exit?

or

Is it just going to take longer for the "milk drinkers" to improve to the point where they can contend?

Robertmto
05-11-2008, 02:07 AM
Is it a really black and white question where the "milk drinkers" will never improve and be destined to be nothing more then a 1st round exit?

or

Is it just going to take longer for the "milk drinkers" to improve to the point where they can contend?

well if u ask me, the current team has no chance to do anything

JayRedd
05-11-2008, 02:07 AM
If it meant getting back to the Finals, I'd happilly take a squad of JKidd, AI, Ron Ron, Chuckster and Shawn Kemp with Rodman, Latrell, Jack, Vernon Maxwell, Vin Baker, Damon Stoudamire, Anthony Mason, Olden Polynice, Qyntel Woods and Jayson Williams on the bench.

Robertmto
05-11-2008, 02:09 AM
If it meant getting back to the Finals, I'd happilly take a squad of JKidd, AI, Ron Ron, Chuckster and Shawn Kemp with Rodman, Latrell, Jack, Vernon Maxwell, Vin Baker, Damon Stoudamire, Anthony Mason, Olden Polynice, Qyntel Woods and Jayson Williams on the bench.

thsi is how I am too, but it seems as if we are in the minority

JayRedd
05-11-2008, 02:11 AM
Pretty sweet criminal list here, btw.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/07/nba-players-that-get-in-trouble-with_20.html

AesopRockOn
05-11-2008, 02:13 AM
He may not get us to the mountaintop,
but he'll get us to the playoffs.

And that's all we want.

SoupIsGood
05-11-2008, 02:36 AM
The goal is to win consistently, with the corollary here being that you aren't going to win consistently with a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases. Why is the choice between rooting for idiots and winning and rooting for "milk-drinkers" and losing when this isn't really the case?

I want to Pacers to take steps toward being a consistent winner again. One of those steps happens to be fleecing the team of its idiots. Another would be acquiring players whose bodies won't break down halfway through the season. Another is cutting salary. Etc etc. To me this is all part of a larger problem, so there really is no "well at least we're squeaky clean!" except as far as the being squeaky-clean is part of getting back on the winning track. So there is no "We suck, but at least we're squeaky clean!" but there is possibly a "We suck, but seem to have a clear plan in place that leaves hope for the next few seasons!"

#31
05-11-2008, 03:25 AM
Pretty sweet criminal list here, btw.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/07/nba-players-that-get-in-trouble-with_20.html

All due respect to Olden Polynice and his nice criminal achievements.
But WOW..... Jayson Williams? Manslaughter + i read somewhere that he shot his dog with a shotgun, then pointed the shotgun at his teammate Dwayne Schintzius and told him to clean up the remains of the dog.

:eek:

Bridge
05-11-2008, 04:25 AM
This question has been asked multiple times btw.

The OP seems to think we should still have SJAX. This team still wouldn't be doing anything if we had him.

The problem right now is that we have a bunch of "thugs" who won't win anything, and can't get healthy enough to see the court. I would support and cheer for a group of good guys who are terrible and hussle before I could stand behind some thugs shooting up strip clubs. There is no defending someone doing that sort of thing. The best game I have seen the Pacers play was the first game after the brawl against Orlando. Those six players played an amazing game.

I don't enjoy watching players whine and moan after every call or no call. I want to put a box of Midol in JO's locker. Play the game.

This isn't just on the players though. TPTB haven't sat on any of our players like they should have. Stern does not punish the players, especially his "superstars". The players feel like they can get away with anything. Look at how Goodell is cleaning up the NFL.

Soup said it pretty well. Why shouldn't we aim to get good players as well as good human beings? We souldn't have to choose which of the two we would prefer. It should be expected that they perform well on and off the court. The players don't compete, and they are a PR nightmare. Lets get rid of the problems, and build a team that will compete.

rexnom
05-11-2008, 04:58 AM
This question has been asked multiple times btw.

The OP seems to think we should still have SJAX. This team still wouldn't be doing anything if we had him.

The problem right now is that we have a bunch of "thugs" who won't win anything, and can't get healthy enough to see the court. I would support and cheer for a group of good guys who are terrible and hussle before I could stand behind some thugs shooting up strip clubs. There is no defending someone doing that sort of thing. The best game I have seen the Pacers play was the first game after the brawl against Orlando. Those six players played an amazing game.

I don't enjoy watching players whine and moan after every call or no call. I want to put a box of Midol in JO's locker. Play the game.

This isn't just on the players though. TPTB haven't sat on any of our players like they should have. Stern does not punish the players, especially his "superstars". The players feel like they can get away with anything. Look at how Goodell is cleaning up the NFL.

Soup said it pretty well. Why shouldn't we aim to get good players as well as good human beings? We souldn't have to choose which of the two we would prefer. It should be expected that they perform well on and off the court. The players don't compete, and they are a PR nightmare. Lets get rid of the problems, and build a team that will compete.
Seth has got an early competitor for "most offensive" - watch out Nap!

maragin
05-11-2008, 06:25 AM
If it meant getting back to the Finals, I'd happilly take a squad of JKidd, AI, Ron Ron, Chuckster and Shawn Kemp with Rodman, Latrell, Jack, Vernon Maxwell, Vin Baker, Damon Stoudamire, Anthony Mason, Olden Polynice, Qyntel Woods and Jayson Williams on the bench.

I'm not sure why I bother to post sometimes, since Jay has already said what I'm thinking.

d_c
05-11-2008, 06:30 AM
The players feel like they can get away with anything. Look at how Goodell is cleaning up the NFL.


He's got a long ways to go.

rexnom
05-11-2008, 06:54 AM
The goal is to win consistently, with the corollary here being that you aren't going to win consistently with a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases. Why is the choice between rooting for idiots and winning and rooting for "milk-drinkers" and losing when this isn't really the case?

I want to Pacers to take steps toward being a consistent winner again. One of those steps happens to be fleecing the team of its idiots. Another would be acquiring players whose bodies won't break down halfway through the season. Another is cutting salary. Etc etc. To me this is all part of a larger problem, so there really is no "well at least we're squeaky clean!" except as far as the being squeaky-clean is part of getting back on the winning track. So there is no "We suck, but at least we're squeaky clean!" but there is possibly a "We suck, but seem to have a clear plan in place that leaves hope for the next few seasons!"
This is the key. Obviously, I think most of us would mortgage the future/soul of the team for just one championship a la Miami or Boston. However, what's the point of winning 61 games and reaching the ECF if your second best player is going to meltdown in the most important game of the season? And then destroy the possibility of contending single-handedly the next two seasons?

Also, I seriously doubt that JayRedd's team would win anything simply based on the lack of chemistry that team would have. The goal in Pacerland these days needs to be consistency. If you have nutcases and "thugs," oftentimes that distracts and affects consistency negatively. As I said in the Josh Howard thread though, I couldn't care less about off-the-court stuff as long as it doesn't affect on-the-court stuff, which it often does, unfortunately.

I think the GSW trade results aren't really debatable (the Dubs won that one). However, I think the pure Jack-Dunleavy swap idea holds considerable merit for the aforementioned reasons. Jack is better, no doubt, but Dunleavy is consistent and you know what you'll get from him, night in and night out. Dun's a better fit for an organization looking for on-and-off the court consistency. For an organization like GS, which needed some extra talent in the backcourt, Jack was worth the price/risk.

Twes
05-11-2008, 07:09 AM
The reality is if the team is winning it's a lot easier to put up with some off the court nonsense.

It would be nice to have core superstar players that aren't idiots off the court so that they could plug in a Rodman or Artest occasionally without changing the whole face of the team.

I still love the crazy shutdown ability of Artest.

As long as we're hypotheticially building the next generation of Pacers though we might as well build it with guys who win AND haven't been arrested.

Erik
05-11-2008, 09:19 AM
One thing that I think about is using these players sucsess as examples to young people. You can show them that if you are a good citizen and work hard you can acheive things, or you can show them that you can live however you want and as long as you have talent you will still win and be rich.

idioteque
05-11-2008, 10:30 AM
In theory I don't care about character. All winning teams have had some bad apples, hell, even MJ was far from really clean and Reggie as well.

But have a team with a lack of good character bit us in the *** four years ago and has derailed this franchise. So I don't blame the people who want milkdrinkers. And hell, why can't we have a winning team full of pretty good citizens. Look what Portland has done with their franchise. They'll be contending for the title in 2-3 years and be doing so for maybe the next 6 or 7 years at least. That's what I would prefer.

rm1369
05-11-2008, 10:49 AM
The goal is to win consistently, with the corollary here being that you aren't going to win consistently with a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases. Why is the choice between rooting for idiots and winning and rooting for "milk-drinkers" and losing when this isn't really the case?



There are plenty of teams that have won with players that many fans seem to consider "idiots/criminals/nutcases". SJax and Rasheed come to mind. If having "milk drinkers" is really the key to winning then why has the team gotten worse the more of them we add? Why have the ultimate "milk drinkers", Dun and Troy, never sniffed the playoffs? Surely with those two, Travis, and Danny we should have enough to get to the playoffs in the weak east. Or is the truth simply that talent is more important?

I keep hearing how this team was destroyed by "thugs". I don't believe that. This team was destroyed by injuries and poor managment. Injuries that have kept key talent off the floor and poor managment reactions to the few real issues the team has had - namely Ron Artest. Without injuries a core of JO, DG, Sjax, JT, and Foster would still be a contender in the east. Without poor managment the teams future would be much brighter than it is now. IMO, fans have latched on to the off court stuff primarily because the on floor product is poor. Let's see how many fans turn in their Colts tickets after KK's run in, the Harrison shooting, and the signing of Rhodes.

The truth is that the key to building a team is balance and on court chemistry. Meaning that you can certainly win with players that you wouldn't want to watch your kids. IMO, you have to look past the headlines and figure out who causes true on court issues that restrict winning. I want no part of Ricky Davis, Stephon Marbury, or Zack Randolph, but I'd take SJax or Rasheed Wallace in a heart beat. I just hope TPTB understand the difference, because it doesn't appear many fans do.

SoupIsGood
05-11-2008, 11:21 AM
There are plenty of teams that have won with players that many fans seem to consider "idiots/criminals/nutcases". SJax and Rasheed come to mind. If having "milk drinkers" is really the key to winning then why has the team gotten worse the more of them we add? Why have the ultimate "milk drinkers", Dun and Troy, never sniffed the playoffs? Surely with those two, Travis, and Danny we should have enough to get to the playoffs in the weak east. Or is the truth simply that talent is more important?



Yeah, but there's almost always a core group of players with an actual head on their shoulders to keep that one troublemaker in line. I'm not saying that having a team full of "milk-drinkers" is the key to winning, but that having a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases is pretty obviously not. And that's what the question was.

Anthem
05-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Really? This hasn't been discussed?

Regardless, a team full of dysfunctional players won't win you a championship.

PacerPete
05-11-2008, 11:57 AM
Would you rather have a team full of "thugs" (smh) that wins their games, plays defense, makes it to the playoffs, and actually has a legitimate shot at doing something in the playoffs.

Or would you rather have a team full of players with no "off the court issues" that can't do a damn thing on the court. (sorry 07-08 Pacers)



These are just two possible scenarios. Why are thugs winners and no OTCI are losers? How about the other two?
3. Thugs that won't win anything. We've approached this already. This is more likely than thugs who win IMO.
4. No OTCI who are winners. But this cannot be achieved until we've cleared our roster of thugs or at least have our thugs in check.

sweabs
05-11-2008, 12:05 PM
well if u ask me, the current team has no chance to do anything
O RLY?

We've also discussed this topic many times post-brawl.

CableKC
05-11-2008, 12:33 PM
well if u ask me, the current team has no chance to do anything
Unfortunately, you didn't answer my question. If the milk drinkers can continue to improve over time and slowly build confidence, cchemistry and consistency and become competitive.... Then I will take the milk drinkers. But if you are saying that the only team that will ever win us a championship is the "bad apples" and that the "milk drinkers" will never improve nor get past the first round, then I ( obviously ) choose the "bad apples".

But assuming that the "milk drinkers" can improve and slowly build the championship level team over time, then I choose the "milk drinkers". I want a team that I can be proud of, not the laughingstock of the league. If it means being patient and building the team the right way, then so be it.

Major Cold
05-11-2008, 12:42 PM
I had no idea that DeShawn Stevenson was a sex offender. Or at least arrested for it.

NBA is not for the faint of heart.

Since when did Bird say that there is a no tolerance policy?

OT: The Chief smokes the peace pipe.

croz24
05-11-2008, 01:52 PM
whatever it takes to win a championship within the rules for me

Hicks
05-11-2008, 03:46 PM
After reading through thousands of posts on here after the brawl days I've noticed something, yet no one else had ever seem to bring it up (or at least have a serious debate about it)

Would you rather have a team full of "thugs" (smh) that wins their games, plays defense, makes it to the playoffs, and actually has a legitimate shot at doing something in the playoffs.

Or would you rather have a team full of players with no "off the court issues" that can't do a damn thing on the court. (sorry 07-08 Pacers)

I've seen comments referring to not wanting Melo because of his "rep", I've seen people swear up and down that trading SJax was a GOOD thing for this team WHEN IT COMES TO A BASKETBALL STANDPOINT. I've seen people say don;t trade for Marcus Williams because of his "character", I've seen people say trade Quisy and Shawne because of their "character". I've seen people saying don;t draft Mayo because of his "character" (although i wouldn't want him because he's horrid at basketball :p) And of course there is the Ron Ron thing.

So to those whom it may concern: is PR really that important to YOU, that you are willing to go through multiple losing seasons just so you can say "well at least we're squeaky clean!"

Let's get the obvious out of the way first.

Both are extremes, and neither is ideal. What you want of course is a good-character team that wins big.

Now, if I view the question as "forced to choose between extremes", depending on the definition of "thugs", I take the character team.

If by "thugs" we mean they smoke pot or something the same or "lighter", then I take that team that wins.

If by "thugs" we mean they are involved in shootings, other violence, heavier drugs, or heinous crimes, then I don't accept that.

If by "thugs" we're talking questionable behavior during a game or during practice or during any other team-related event, such as Ron Artest actions (breaking things, going after fans, flipping off crowds, getting suspended because he keeps flagrant fouling in stupid/unnecessary ways, faking injuries to pout, acting like a jackass showoff by flexing in front of the opponent's bench), then I don't accept that.

If by "thugs" we're talking questionable behavior during a game or during practice or during any other team-related event, such as Stephen Jackson actions (cussing/yelling at the officials too much/often, cussing/yelling at the coach) then I'm more on the fence. I was ready to see him go when he did because other things had lowered my tolerance for "nonsense", but if that was the only or the worst thing happening over a stretch of seasons, I might be willing to put up with it in small doses. Maybe. I still wouldn't be happy.

Ultimately, I think any team is going to have SOME baggage, but I think you want that to come from anyone OTHER than your best player(s) so that it's more of a side-show, easier to get rid of, and usually less distracting to everyone (the team and the fanbase). You also want anything that happens to be the exception, not the standard, and to not cross your personal "line in the sand" in terms of tolerance. I think the majority of honest fans will put up with "some" things to a point if the team is doing well. When things are not going well, the tolerance level drops.

Infinite MAN_force
05-11-2008, 03:51 PM
I didn't read the whole thread... so forgive me if I am reiterating stuff already said but...

-I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive
-I prefer to root for a team that I can get behind on a personal level


Who are the most successful sports franchises of the last 10 years? Oh yeah, you mean the San Antonio Spurs? The Colts? The Patriots? (prior to last year)I rest my case... Ideally you want good character guys who besides just pure basketball talent are great TEAMMATES and UNSELFISH. That is a winning formula right there.

I would take our 90s pacers sqaud who never won it all over any other team. I loved that team. Of course the ultimate goal is a championship, but I would not feel very good about getting their with a team full of ****heads.

Hicks
05-11-2008, 04:05 PM
I'm a little disturbed by the mentally some seem to carry.

It that appears to say, "Winning is more important than whether or not you are, or try to be, a good person".

Should I then be lead to believe that, as an elementary teacher, that is the message my kids should be taught? That winning means you can do whatever you want as long as it's not "the worst" of bad things?

JayRedd
05-11-2008, 04:29 PM
If Charles Manson could shoot 45% from three, I'd want him on the Pacers.

These people aren't my role models. In fact, about 33% of the League seems to be douchebags I wouldn't want to hang out with.

They are just very good at my favorite sport. That's my only qualification for wanting them in blue and gold.

Hicks
05-11-2008, 04:40 PM
If Charles Manson could shoot 45% from three, I'd want him on the Pacers.

These people aren't my role models. In fact, about 33% of the League seems to be douchebags I wouldn't want to hang out with.

They are just very good at my favorite sport. That's my only qualification for wanting them in blue and gold.

Which is to say that winning is all that matters, correct? That appears to be enough for you, but it's certainly not for me. I could not disagree with you more.

Dece
05-11-2008, 05:29 PM
Everyone knows Charles Manson isn't tall enough, he'd just be another combo guard without true point guard skills. Duh.

I'm with Sir Charles, they ain't role models, shut up and jam. (That is to say, I don't care what you do with your time, win the game.)

JayRedd
05-11-2008, 05:32 PM
He may just be a tweener, but he's got that killer instinct you just can't teach.

Oneal07
05-11-2008, 05:34 PM
Pretty sweet criminal list here, btw.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/07/nba-players-that-get-in-trouble-with_20.html


lol. . .Wow. a lot of domestic violence and battery charges

owl
05-11-2008, 05:41 PM
If Charles Manson could shoot 45% from three, I'd want him on the Pacers.

These people aren't my role models. In fact, about 33% of the League seems to be douchebags I wouldn't want to hang out with.

They are just very good at my favorite sport. That's my only qualification for wanting them in blue and gold.

Baloney!! I believe that anyone who says this is in denial. Of course they are a role model.
Maybe not one you look at first but they definitely have an impact on what people do.

rexnom
05-11-2008, 05:42 PM
He may just be a tweener, but he's got that killer instinct you just can't teach.
Seth's got even more competition for most offensive...yikes. Now, who's making the "if Hitler had Calderon's AST-TO ratio, I'd take him as our starting PG" joke?

JayRedd
05-11-2008, 06:02 PM
I said they aren't my role models. Sure, they were at one point. Then I turned 16.

If parents want to let their kids behave like Kobe Bryant, that's their business.

I'm just saying, it never mattered to me and, ironically, the main reason I'm a Pacers fan now is because Reggie was sort of a prick and I thought that was cool when I was like 10.

Dece
05-11-2008, 06:13 PM
Yea, the whole reason I fell in love with Reggie was the trash talk, the flaunting, the cape, and letting all of new york know they choked.

Someone behaving like that these days would be a "bad apple" and we wouldn't want him in Pacerland, right?

BlueNGold
05-11-2008, 06:29 PM
While the terms "thug" and "milk drinker" are thrown around, I think it's missing the point. Some teams would probably benefit more from one or the other depending on what is needed chemistry-wise. We should be interested in building a team with enough talent to win championships. Just because the Pacers chose to build their team on a foundation of sand...and later had to cut bait...does not mean all franchises make the same mistake or that a future Pacer franchise has to do so either. If other clubs can build competitive teams without long rap sheets, infamous brawls and a history of cracking in the playoffs even when they were intact, it seems reasonable to think the Pacers can do the same. In fact, we did do it about a decade ago.

As for the Trail Pacer issue, it was not about getting rid of one or two players of questionable character and taking a talent cut in the process. It's about acquiring an entire starting line-up...or at least 5-7 players of questionable character and/or poor durability without having any leadership. You can thank management for those bright decisions. The issue with the brawl team had to do with the mix of players...the chemistry so to speak. Lots and lots of talent, but incredibly poor chemistry. That team had no mature leadership but was instead overly loaded with young, immature and selfish me-first players. It was similar to having a house full of kids with no parental guidance. That usually results in police intervention...which it did.

So, while I don't expect a team full of milk drinkers...in fact, a little attitude can give you a needed edge....having the worst character team in the NBA is not usually a winning formula either.

The Pacers built a league-wide reputation for a reason. The truth is, most teams in the NBA, except the Portland Trail Blazers, have never had such a reputation. The brawl was one of the worst and embarrassing incidents in professional sports history and I would prefer a so-so talent team over the team that didn't even play because they were suspended. The truth is, Britton Johnson is not as good as the milk drinker Dunleavy...

JohnnyBGoode
05-11-2008, 06:40 PM
I said they aren't my role models. Sure, they were at one point. Then I turned 16.

If parents want to let their kids behave like Kobe Bryant, that's their business.

I'm just saying, it never mattered to me and, ironically, the main reason I'm a Pacers fan now is because Reggie was sort of a prick and I thought that was cool when I was like 10.


Well, he taught you well.

kester99
05-11-2008, 06:41 PM
Manson got a lot out of a not particularly talnted team.

But seriously, I don't think it's too much to ask for a team which stays out of trouble, mostly, and can contend as well. It's a lot to ask, but not too much.

BlueNGold
05-11-2008, 06:44 PM
Yea, the whole reason I fell in love with Reggie was the trash talk, the flaunting, the cape, and letting all of new york know they choked.

Someone behaving like that these days would be a "bad apple" and we wouldn't want him in Pacerland, right?

Unlike some of the Pacer clowns, Miller had class. While he was hated by the opposition, he was respected as a professional. You don't earn the right to show the choke sign without backing it up on the floor with exceptional skills and acting like a professional off of it. The same sign by ANY of these pacers would not be viewed positively because of numerous reasons.

Hicks
05-11-2008, 06:46 PM
Those things that made some of you Reggie fans are things I'm not proud of, and Reggie is my all-time favorite Pacer. I can't defend those actions.

JayRedd
05-11-2008, 06:49 PM
Sorry, BlueNGold...Reggie was seen as a giant punk until about 1998.


Well, he taught you well.

Touche'.

Infinite MAN_force
05-11-2008, 06:52 PM
Yea, the whole reason I fell in love with Reggie was the trash talk, the flaunting, the cape, and letting all of new york know they choked.

Someone behaving like that these days would be a "bad apple" and we wouldn't want him in Pacerland, right?


Trash talking is a little different. On the court Reggie was known to be unselfish to a fault, Larry Brown even criticized him for this. Reggie was a great teammate and leader who took over the game only when he had too. He was not a me-first player or someone concerned with his own stats.

Reggie yelling at Spike Lee or calling out john starks adds to the spectacle of it all, Troy Murphy getting in Dirk's face in the mavs game early in the season? That was awesome. That kind of stuff is a different story.

SycamoreKen
05-11-2008, 06:54 PM
I checked the list to see how many of those "trouble makers" are or have been with the Spurs during their 4 in 9 run. Four of them have been including Kurt Thomas. They have also brought in Nick Van Exel in his waining days.

I think the balance is most important. Unfortunately for us, we had one guy who really sunk the ship and are still trying to get out from under it. If Detroit had never happened then the rest of what followed would not have been such a big deal. Unfortunately, that's the way it went.

Arcadian
05-11-2008, 06:55 PM
I want to go back to the days when we had crotch grabbin, gum throwin, class acts who won on a consistent basis.

BlueNGold
05-11-2008, 07:03 PM
Sorry, BlueNGold...Reggie was seen as a giant punk until about 1998.

Yes, he pushed the envelope on the court even as a young player. He also had a few scuffles on the court, but so has Larry Bird. Scuffles on the court are not why our Pacers had the rep. they did. The difference is, he kept almost all of it on the court rather on W. 38th street or in front of the Conrad. I also don't recall any fire arms or drugs involved.

As for the choke sign, he already had enough "cred" by the time he gave the choke sign to pull it off. No player on this team has earned the right at this point. Even if they did do it, it would be a minor, minor issue in comparison to the saga.

BlueNGold
05-11-2008, 07:05 PM
I want to go back to the days when we had crotch grabbin, gum throwin, class acts who won on a consistent basis.

Yes, that would be fine...although it might depend on whose crotch is getting grabbed. Also, I could go with more gum throwing and less grenade throwing...

MyFavMartin
05-11-2008, 10:13 PM
I think San Antonio has done it the right way. I also have to think that Detroit doesn't seem to have many off court issues and plays ball the right way - five on five. Other organizations I got to give props to would be Utah and Houston. Orlando and NO are also coming along nice.

Anthem
05-11-2008, 10:29 PM
Yes, he pushed the envelope on the court even as a young player.
Try 30. Reggie matured into being classy because he played longer than almost anybody in the league.


The difference is, he kept almost all of it on the court rather on W. 38th street or in front of the Conrad. I also don't recall any fire arms or drugs involved.
Gold Club.

Reggie was a jerk all through his 20s. He flopped like crazy, talked smack to refs/fans/opposing players, didn't defend, didn't pass, etc.


As for the choke sign, he already had enough "cred" by the time he gave the choke sign to pull it off. No player on this team has earned the right at this point.
Jermaine has had more big games in the playoffs than Reggie had, at that point. Heck, TINSLEY has done as much as Reggie had when "the choke" went down.

BlueNGold
05-11-2008, 10:37 PM
Gold Club.

Reggie was a jerk all through his 20s. He flopped like crazy, talked smack to refs/fans/opposing players, didn't defend, didn't pass, etc.

Jermaine has had more big games in the playoffs than Reggie had, at that point. Heck, TINSLEY has done as much as Reggie had when "the choke" went down.

Hey, sorry. I was a Pacer fan and liked Reggie at the time.

BTW, if you want to suggest flopping = Fire arms and talking trash = taking drugs....not sure what to say.

In any event, Tinsley doesn't even deserve an honorable mention in the regular season let alone the playoffs. Jermaine was a bust in the playoffs at this point as we look back and you can stick a fork in him now. Neither of those part-time players deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph with the great one....

Edit: As for the Gold Club, no charges were even made against Miller. In fact, there is no proof at all Miller did anything wrong there. There were allegations by the mafia attempting to prime the pump for bribes....and nothing was proven in the case. No athletes were convicted, including Ewing. The mafia couldn't even tell the difference between Dale and Antonio Davis who filed a counter suit. There's quite a big difference between going to a strip club and being a John. Neither are what a milk drinker would do I suppose, but the latter requires quite a bit more proof before you tag someone with it.

jeffg-body
05-12-2008, 12:17 AM
Good post Robertmto. There's always a thin line of what people will accept on a winning team and what they will tolerate with a team that is losing.

Robertmto
05-12-2008, 02:01 AM
Well yes I was looking at t as two extremes, and i'm surprised by the answers. I don;t see a fan doesn't want to win at any (barring extremes this time) cost

rexnom
05-12-2008, 02:07 AM
Lord Helmet said it best in the Colts forum...if you are consistently contending (and won a championship a year back) then a lot more will be tolerated than if you are bottom feeding.

Robertmto
05-12-2008, 02:08 AM
Lord Helmet said it best in the Colts forum...if you are consistently contending (and won a championship a year back) then a lot more will be tolerated than if you are bottom feeding.

that does make sense. And it probably explains the common fans, but i am much more interested in the diehards

croz24
05-12-2008, 04:43 AM
interested in the diehards? there's diehard sports fans in the city of indianapolis? hmm...news to me...

Speed
05-12-2008, 08:46 AM
I've read none of these posts, but I will. after I comment.

Guys who know how to play the right way. I say this every summer. Guys with high B ball IQ and instincts. Guys who make others around them better. Guys who sacrifice for the team.

I don't really care if what they do off the court. With that said, if you are constantly suspended or a distraction to the team for off court stuff that does effect what happens on the court.

I don't know these guys, I don't care what they do in there spare time, as long as they are in shape when its go time and have there mind right when they are at work.

Tinsley for example, he takes it too far with his 3 incidents off the court, but thats not just it. It's Phoenix, its the Non public suspensions, its the eating hot dogs from the vendors at the game his first year in the league and not being in shape. It's the pouting on the bench, on the court. And again its Phoenix.

Lamar Odom was Mic'd up yesterday and he has had a past with dope and has been called aloof and injury prone, but the dude was telling the players in the huddle to quit holding the ball on offense, move the ball, keep the ball moving. This guy gets it, or seems to, I wouldn't have guessed that he understood it so well, but I think now he might.

So no, I don't care for Paul Pierce giving the Bloods killer sign, but if he was a guy who makes others around him better and takes care of his business, I wouldn't really care.

I'm not saying to my kids, hey look I want you to look at Paul Pierce to see what a functional adult should be.

I liked George Gervin as a young kid. I didn't try to emulate him and grow up to be the person he was. (I really don't even know what kinda guy he was)

So do I want the group of guys I play with on Sundays to be Pro ball players, hell no. They all, mostly, understand the game, but you have to have talent and physical attributes as well.

It's like Boyle would say, you can't win in the NBA without talent. It sounds obvious, but its true.

I had thought that Chicago was doing it the right way. Get a bunch of big time college program- mature high IQ players like Ben Gordon, Kurt Henrich, Deng, Duhon, and Noah, but they were bad this year, so maybe that's not right.

I do really think that many of the guys the Pacers have now are those smart type players, but they don't have the talent.

I guess if you could mesh Atlanta and Indiana, you may have a contender.

I digress, but I guess my answer is I don't care what kind of off the court person they are as long as they aren't the kingpin of an interstate dog fighting ring and that anything they are into doesn't get them in a position where they effect the team, makes me no never mind.

For the record, Tinsley and S Jackson drove me crazy for the crap they do ON the court, I could care less that they have to go to court.

JohnnyBGoode
05-12-2008, 09:37 AM
I've read none of these posts, but I will. after I comment.

Guys who know how to play the right way. I say this every summer. Guys with high B ball IQ and instincts. Guys who make others around them better. Guys who sacrifice for the team.

I don't really care if what they do off the court. With that said, if you are constantly suspended or a distraction to the team for off court stuff that does effect what happens on the court.

I don't know these guys, I don't care what they do in there spare time, as long as they are in shape when its go time and have there mind right when they are at work.

Tinsley for example, he takes it too far with his 3 incidents off the court, but thats not just it. It's Phoenix, its the Non public suspensions, its the eating hot dogs from the vendors at the game his first year in the league and not being in shape. It's the pouting on the bench, on the court. And again its Phoenix.

Lamar Odom was Mic'd up yesterday and he has had a past with dope and has been called aloof and injury prone, but the dude was telling the players in the huddle to quit holding the ball on offense, move the ball, keep the ball moving. This guy gets it, or seems to, I wouldn't have guessed that he understood it so well, but I think now he might.

So no, I don't care for Paul Pierce giving the Bloods killer sign, but if he was a guy who makes others around him better and takes care of his business, I wouldn't really care.

I'm not saying to my kids, hey look I want you to look at Paul Pierce to see what a functional adult should be.

I liked George Gervin as a young kid. I didn't try to emulate him and grow up to be the person he was. (I really don't even know what kinda guy he was)

So do I want the group of guys I play with on Sundays to be Pro ball players, hell no. They all, mostly, understand the game, but you have to have talent and physical attributes as well.

It's like Boyle would say, you can't win in the NBA without talent. It sounds obvious, but its true.

I had thought that Chicago was doing it the right way. Get a bunch of big time college program- mature high IQ players like Ben Gordon, Kurt Henrich, Deng, Duhon, and Noah, but they were bad this year, so maybe that's not right.

I do really think that many of the guys the Pacers have now are those smart type players, but they don't have the talent.

I guess if you could mesh Atlanta and Indiana, you may have a contender.

I digress, but I guess my answer is I don't care what kind of off the court person they are as long as they aren't the kingpin of an interstate dog fighting ring and that anything they are into doesn't get them in a position where they effect the team, makes me no never mind.

For the record, Tinsley and S Jackson drove me crazy for the crap they do ON the court, I could care less that they have to go to court.


So, win at all costs is what you are saying? Or is it winning at half costs? Murder is not ok for your players, but wife beating is? NBA players are paid employees and as such should be held to the same standards as you and I are, by our employers. All off court incidents effect the team, whether they are big or small incidents.

Speed
05-12-2008, 09:59 AM
So, win at all costs is what you are saying? Or is it winning at half costs? Murder is not ok for your players, but wife beating is? NBA players are paid employees and as such should be held to the same standards as you and I are, by our employers. All off court incidents effect the team, whether they are big or small incidents.

It's a good question. Does it effect the team then ya, I'm against it. Do I need my players to be pristine, nope, I don't care.

I could flip the question and say do all my players have to go to church and not drink, well no, what do I care.

All of the big off court infractions do effect the team and there do matter, but if a guy wants to go to a strip club or whatever, it doesn't matter to me, if it doesn't effect the team or his performance.

Now a shootout at a strip club and you're hit by a car is different.

Also, I don't WANT them to be wife beaters, but I'm not a person who believes these guys should be role models in any way. We ALL are against wife beating, its an extreme example.

I guess I'm usually conservative in how I approach things, but in this case I don't care that much.

I'd like every athelete to be Peyton Manning, but that isn't the case nor would I expect to be.

Lastly, I do think there is a diference between guys who make mistakes and between wife beating and going to a strip club, discreetly. For the record, I don't go to strip clubs, even if my wife WOULD approve of it, but if you want to go I don't think any less of you. It's a free country.

Unclebuck
05-12-2008, 10:20 AM
I'm late to this thread. I have only read the first post by mto

My first and immediate gut reaction is this - I can live with a team full of "thugs" but the city of Indianapolis cannot deal with that right now - the pacers reputation within the city is too low right now

Hicks
05-12-2008, 11:04 AM
interested in the diehards? there's diehard sports fans in the city of indianapolis? hmm...news to me...

You do know where you are posting, right?

Naptown_Seth
05-12-2008, 11:23 AM
Seth has got an early competitor for "most offensive" - watch out Nap!
At first I was going to say that I can't compete with that. But then I thought "sack up chump, you've got way worse stuff than that in the bag, you're an A-class d***head".* Plus it's still only May, gotta save the good stuff for the home stretch.




PS - thugs please


PSS - not thugs per se, but let's say that I don't think the line between Reggie or Dale's character and Jackson and JO's is all that defined. I saw a crowd of fans go nuts when Dale came in and laid the smackdown foul on whichever Piston it was in his first game, or when Det mixed it up with Ewing. Fans LOVE the tough guys and even post-brawl plenty of Pacers fans were behind those guys sticking up for themselves against an out-of-control mob of drunks (several of which had clearly worse criminal backgrounds than any Pacer player).




* offending myself, that's gotta be worth something

Naptown_Seth
05-12-2008, 11:30 AM
He may just be a tweener, but he's got that killer instinct you just can't teach.
Come on, we all know Manson was the COACH, not the star player. Dude could get killer game out of a 5'4" hippie-freak, imagine the motivation he could get into Harrison's brain. He'd send him home with Magical Mystery Tour and Hulk would go 20-10 for 3 months straight and change his name to Blue Jay.

Of course Tinsley would switch to saying "And one your mother should know." Mike would be Squeaky Clean Fromme, naturally. You don't want to know what Foster would paint on the walls of the opponent's locker room.

croz24
05-12-2008, 11:47 AM
You do know where you are posting, right?

it was sarcasm...95% of "sports fans" in the indianapolis region are nothing but bandwagon fans. this is a bandwagon city and always will be...yes, the people who post on this board are "diehards"...

QuickRelease
05-12-2008, 12:02 PM
The problem right now is that we have a bunch of "thugs" who won't win anything, and can't get healthy enough to see the court.

See, this kind of thing really gets on my nerves. We color the whole bunch by the actions of a couple. We do not have a "BUNCH OF THUGS" on this team. We have a couple (who will be out of here at the first opportunity), as well as the injury prone (which I'm still trying to figure out how being injury prone makes one a thug). The definition in your post seems to fit one player, and that's Jamaal, and he hasn't played for a bulk of the season. The support still wasn't there for the "good guys" who busted their butts in his stead.

Speed
05-12-2008, 12:15 PM
Harrison's brain.

There is two words I didn't think I'd ever see in the same sentence. :)

Putnam
05-12-2008, 01:12 PM
See, this kind of thing really gets on my nerves. We color the whole bunch by the actions of a couple. We do not have a "BUNCH OF THUGS" on this team. We have a couple (who will be out of here at the first opportunity), as well as the injury prone (which I'm still trying to figure out how being injury prone makes one a thug). The definition in your post seems to fit one player, and that's Jamaal, and he hasn't played for a bulk of the season. The support still wasn't there for the "good guys" who busted their butts in his stead.


Aw come on, fellas!

Exactly how many bananas are in a "bunch?" Can't say? That is because the number is imprecise.

I think Bridge chose the word "bunch" in order to avoid setting a number or giving a list that would be disputed. Then johnnybegood comes back and insists it isn't "a bunch" but rather "a couple." That is also a vague term, but one that implies a deliberate low-ball figure, since "a couple" usually means two and the Pacers certainly have no fewer than 4 players with blots on their record.

The point is this: yes, the whole team is tarred by the same brush. That is the way it is. That is the way the masses always perceive groups that are in disfavor. Try being Black or Hispanic for a while and see how fair and reasonable you are treated as an individual. Try being the only American in a muslim city at the start of the Iraq War, and see whether the typical muslim man on the street appreciates that George Bush didn't consult you.

Yes, the whole Pacers team is tarred by the same brush. Until the whole roster is clean (whatever that means) and the team's reputation is changed (however long that takes), the label "thugs" is going to be applied to the Pacers by the general public. It is incorrect and unfair to judge Foster according to Tinsley's behavior, but that is how people usually do it. We've got to stop being so indignant. A lot of PD members like to say, "Screw the casual fan." But Herb Simon and Jim Morris cannot afford to say that. There aren't enough diehards to make the team profitable. They need the casual fan.

Robertmto
05-12-2008, 03:10 PM
My first and immediate gut reaction is this - I can live with a team full of "thugs" but the city of Indianapolis cannot deal with that right now - the pacers reputation within the city is too low right now

that seems to be the main problem. The "city" said they would coem to more games if the thugs were gone.

However, the city also doesn't attend the games without thugs because the team loses.

Ultimate Catch-22?

Robertmto
05-12-2008, 03:13 PM
See, this kind of thing really gets on my nerves. We color the whole bunch by the actions of a couple. We do not have a "BUNCH OF THUGS" on this team. We have a couple (who will be out of here at the first opportunity), as well as the injury prone (which I'm still trying to figure out how being injury prone makes one a thug). The definition in your post seems to fit one player, and that's Jamaal, and he hasn't played for a bulk of the season. The support still wasn't there for the "good guys" who busted their butts in his stead.

i know there isn;t a "bunch of thugs" on this team. But there was on the team before this, which was probably 200% better

JohnnyBGoode
05-12-2008, 04:49 PM
I'm late to this thread. I have only read the first post by mto

My first and immediate gut reaction is this - I can live with a team full of "thugs" but the city of Indianapolis cannot deal with that right now - the pacers reputation within the city is too low right now

I can't believe that you posted this. Has someone kidnapped you and made you post this under duress. This post is very unBuck like.;)

Since86
05-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Gold Club.

Are you really trying to compare a sex scandal and Tinsley's crew shooting up downtown?

Reggie may have been a jerk, but grabbing yourself and flopping aren't crimes last time I checked. I was a little young during the 90's so they might have changed the laws since then though, I really don't know.

You can paint Reggie as a jerk who rubbed opposing fans the wrong way until you go blue in the face, and it doesn't even come close to comparing to JO, Tinsley, Ron, or Sjax.

Tell me the last time Reggie was suspended for the remaining year, or for even 15 games? Tell me the last time Reggie was put in handcuffs, booked/fingerprinted, or had any type of charges brought against him.

When Reggie does anything close to the antics that the above players have done, then you can bring him into the discussion, but until then it's two completely different situations.

Being a jerk doesn't mean you've committed crimes while in a jersey, or at a club. Allegations that you had sex with strippers is such a horrible thing. What next? Did he rip the tag off of his mattress too?

EDIT: If you remember the Gold Club allegations, they said that the club owner paid his dancers to have sex with celebrities. So Reggie wasn't even accused of paying for it. Unless having sex with someone that you aren't married too is a crime, he didn't do anything illegal.

naptown_baller
05-13-2008, 07:56 PM
One thing I hate first of all is labeling these guys as thugs. They aren't thugs they are just young guys that grew up in bad neighborhoods. A lot of them don't know how to manage money and fame so it gets them in trouble. Also, I don't like how people look down on players that get caught with marijuana or smoke it. I mean come on. It is as common if not more than underage drinking. It is not that big of a crime. Also, supposedly, Michael Beasley smokes it almost everyday and says it makes him play better. I'm not saying it's ok to smoke and play, but ya get my point.

Los Angeles
05-13-2008, 08:56 PM
You can't look at this in a vaccuum.

The character issue is the VERY REASON we have a terrible team to this day. The off-color behaviors of our players DESTROYED OUR FRANCHISE.

I'm deeply offended at the suggestion that the better players in the league are trouble makers. That's a big heaping pile of BS right there.

I'm offended by the idea that good guys always finish last. That's another pile of horse crap.

Every team will have one or two players that get in trouble either in the press or with the law. It happens and it's part of the game.

But in the Pacers' situation, it was more than one or two.

And finally, if you think Jackson would have been capable of his numbers while getting booed by the home crowd, I hope to see you at a Poker table sometime soon. Daddy needs a new car.

Anthem
05-13-2008, 09:51 PM
Tinsley's crew shooting up downtown?
What's the latest with that, by the way? We had a ton of breathless commentary the morning of, and I haven't heard much since then. Regardless, the last I heard it was less "Tinsley's crew shooting up downtown" and more "Tinsley trying to avoid getting carjacked."


Reggie may have been a jerk, but grabbing yourself and flopping aren't crimes last time I checked.
Never said they were. I was just refuting the idea that Reggie was always classy.

Dece
05-13-2008, 11:26 PM
Tinsley getting shot at is him shooting up the town on this message board, didn't you get the memo?

Peck
05-14-2008, 04:33 AM
You can't look at this in a vaccuum.

The character issue is the VERY REASON we have a terrible team to this day. The off-color behaviors of our players DESTROYED OUR FRANCHISE.

I'm deeply offended at the suggestion that the better players in the league are trouble makers. That's a big heaping pile of BS right there.

I'm offended by the idea that good guys always finish last. That's another pile of horse crap.

Every team will have one or two players that get in trouble either in the press or with the law. It happens and it's part of the game.

But in the Pacers' situation, it was more than one or two.

And finally, if you think Jackson would have been capable of his numbers while getting booed by the home crowd, I hope to see you at a Poker table sometime soon. Daddy needs a new car.

Hear Hear...

:buddies:

Naptown_Seth
05-14-2008, 12:57 PM
And finally, if you think Jackson would have been capable of his numbers while getting booed by the home crowd, I hope to see you at a Poker table sometime soon. Daddy needs a new car
Was getting boo'd, DID put up his numbers. You just took a bad beat and lost daddy's pink slip.

The only problem Jack had was poor outside shooting for the first few weeks after being hit by a car. If the booing was "getting to him" then you would expect to see his numbers get worse, not better as they did.


The Pacers were not destroyed by off-color behavior. They were destroyed by making player deals based on fan reaction to those behaviors. Unless we know that games were lost because guys were dealing with off-court issues or were fighting with each other because of them to the point of losing games.

Since86
05-14-2008, 01:17 PM
The Pacers were not destroyed by off-color behavior. They were destroyed by making player deals based on fan reaction to those behaviors. Unless we know that games were lost because guys were dealing with off-court issues or were fighting with each other because of them to the point of losing games.

You're 100% correct. Ron going finally breaking and going into the stands had nothing to do with the demise of the Pacers. What really brought this team down was TPTB giving in and trading him to Sactown.

Oh wait, that's right, they STOOD BY HIS *** until he said he wouldn't play here and wanted a trade.

The deals that destroyed the Pacers were the deals that brought players in who had off-color behavior, not sending them packing. The mistake was bringing them in, in the first place, not booting their *** to the door like they should have a long time before it.


Games were lost because of their antics. How many games difference, record wise, would it have been if Ron didn't go into the stands and no one was suspended?

How much better do you think Jax would have played had he not been hit by a car?


In all that you say, I honestly can't believe you don't think chemistry has anything to do with having a successful team. Like you can just stick anyone together and they will produce regardless of their feelings towards you. It affects teams at every level, whether it's Jr. high, or college, let alone the NBA.

EDIT: It's getting to the point where I don't think you believe some of the stuff you say. You just think of something to further your argument in defense of Jax, regardless of what common sense and experience tells you.

Los Angeles
05-14-2008, 06:36 PM
Was getting boo'd, DID put up his numbers. You just took a bad beat and lost daddy's pink slip.

The only problem Jack had was poor outside shooting for the first few weeks after being hit by a car. If the booing was "getting to him" then you would expect to see his numbers get worse, not better as they did.


The Pacers were not destroyed by off-color behavior. They were destroyed by making player deals based on fan reaction to those behaviors. Unless we know that games were lost because guys were dealing with off-court issues or were fighting with each other because of them to the point of losing games.

So in multiple posts throughout the season, you talk about how Jackson has had a career year with the Warriors. And now you want to claim that his numbers in Indiana were equivalent to his latest year in Oakland?

06/07 - Indiana
PPG - 14.1
APG - 3.1
RPG - 2.6

07/08 PPG - Golden State
PPG - 20.1
APG - 4.1
RPG - 4.4

But in the end, the stats don't matter. Poker isn't just about statistics and percentages, it's about knowing your opponent. All this time and you still don't understand just how bad Jackson's presence damaged this franchise year in and year out. That makes you a player with a tell, and I would have a field day with your tell.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that remembers the day Jack went AWOL and sent the entire team off tilt when they had to run around all afternoon looking for him. No, he was not impervious to the hostile environment in Indiana.

And no, he didn't hit the same numbers in IN as he did in GS. I'm sure you'll get out your calculator in a vain attempt to prove that somehow they were the same. You needn't bother. Jackson's time here was done. The move did him good. And I feel that over time the move will do us good particularly when it comes to rebuilding fan trust in the team and the team's trust in each other.

As usual, just my two cents. And my pink slip which is securely in my hands.