PDA

View Full Version : I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .



McKeyFan
01-02-2010, 06:05 PM
1. The team goes on another five game win streak with the vet heavy lineups, or any lineup for that matter. Heck, make it four.

2. O'Brien returns to the lineup and strategy that won us five games in a row and we LOSE five games in a row. Make it four, or even three.

The second option can't happen until Granger returns. But it would include heavy doses of Hibbert, Watson, DJones, Rush, Tyler, and Solo, with Granger playing the four.

It's likely that we will never get to see Jim O 'Stubborn return to the five game win streak formula in order to retest it. Why? We are left to conclude that he:

1. Thinks it is silly to not play vets and guys with great stats like Murphy. In other words, too stubborn to try it.
2. Is being told by top brass to keep the value high by playing big contract players.
3. Has some kind of relationship with the vets that makes it difficult for him to bench them.
4. Is personally insulted by the talk of returning to the win streak, offended by comments by DJones, etc. In other words, it's not an ideological problem of preferring vets or insisting on certain players that compliment an up tempo system, it's a personal grudge thing.

I can't think of another reason. I mean, there's probably fifty funny ones like JOB and Uncle Buck making a bet to see who can defend insanity the longest.

So, until one of those two things happen, and they may never, I will continue to invoke the five-game win streak as evidence that this team CAN win games regularly but the coach refuses to allow them to try.

Infinite MAN_force
01-02-2010, 06:22 PM
I truly believe the "lack" of murphy had something to do with it, I don't care what anyone says. I won't just dismiss it as a fluke. Our defense was clearly better during that stretch, and that was with Hibbert getting heavy minutes too.

Cherokee
01-02-2010, 06:29 PM
IMO the 5-game win streak is vastly overrated (other than the fact that 5 wins are 5 wins). Aside from Boston, the rest of that 5-game win streak was against four teams with a combined 35-92 record. Big whoop.

McKeyFan
01-02-2010, 06:36 PM
IMO the 5-game win streak is vastly overrated (other than the fact that 5 wins are 5 wins). Aside from Boston, the rest of that 5-game win streak was against four teams with a combined 35-92 record. Big whoop.

But we haven't done a very good job since the streak of beating teams even with losing records.

:whoknows:

sportfireman
01-02-2010, 07:20 PM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=48822


i say no it wasnt a fluke THAT TEAM did what it took to win, hustle and play defense......that team played defense and seemed as if they were hungry to win.

i believe we were one of the top teams in blocks........ and its seems like the younger guys have almost given up........why???????? who knows, maybe because coach automaticaly put vetreans coming off injuies right back in the starting line up and taking minues from the young guys who were winning.

my starters: watson, rush, d.jones, granger, hibbert
bench: price, head, dun, tyler,solo/jeff............IMO.......that team equals wins

this was my post on the other 5 win thread and i still firmly believe it wasn't a fluke

simply put we have stopped playing that style of bball and we've suffered.
we have stopped playing the guys who played that style of of bball and we've suffered.

IMO if the young guys don't get playing time soon they will want out of here pretty soon..........and i dont blame them. i mean the vets aren't winning the young guys at least play with heart..........3 of our vets are heartless t.j., murphy and dunleavy......without granger they are the leaders and thats what they show and you expect the young guys trying to learn from the vets and show heart.................yeah right:rolleyes:

my opinion bench the vets.............play the young guys........like i've said before we can't do any worse.

Justin Tyme
01-02-2010, 08:10 PM
1. The team goes on another five game win streak with the vet heavy lineups, or any lineup for that matter. Heck, make it four.

2. O'Brien returns to the lineup and strategy that won us five games in a row and we LOSE five games in a row. Make it four, or even three.

The second option can't happen until Granger returns. But it would include heavy doses of Hibbert, Watson, DJones, Rush, Tyler, and Solo, with Granger playing the four.

It's likely that we will never get to see Jim O 'Stubborn return to the five game win streak formula in order to retest it. Why? We are left to conclude that he:

1. Thinks it is silly to not play vets and guys with great stats like Murphy. In other words, too stubborn to try it.
2. Is being told by top brass to keep the value high by playing big contract players.
3. Has some kind of relationship with the vets that makes it difficult for him to bench them.
4. Is personally insulted by the talk of returning to the win streak, offended by comments by DJones, etc. In other words, it's not an ideological problem of preferring vets or insisting on certain players that compliment an up tempo system, it's a personal grudge thing.

I can't think of another reason. I mean, there's probably fifty funny ones like JOB and Uncle Buck making a bet to see who can defend insanity the longest.

So, until one of those two things happen, and they may never, I will continue to invoke the five-game win streak as evidence that this team CAN win games regularly but the coach refuses to allow them to try.


Well, I don't see a 5 game win streak this season or next... not as long as Jimmy is at the helm with Bird guarding his back. I have resigned myself to not expecting wins, but just wanting to see the players play as a team like they did in that infamous 5 game win streak. Does that say how bad this team is that Bird constructed with James O'Stubborn coaching it!?!?

Anthem
01-02-2010, 08:40 PM
Great post, McKeyfan.

Also, just in fairness: that same team DID lose a game... they're not undefeated without Murphy. So nobody's saying the team would currently be 31-0. But I find it hard to believe that team wouldn't be better than 9-22, especially since this is supposed to be the easy part of our schedule.

BlueNGold
01-02-2010, 08:51 PM
I know the TWolves are bad, but we are up 62-34 without our starting PG and starting PF in the game. Combine that with the fact our all-star SF is not dressed...and Dunleavy is not 100%.

Those who don't see how more athleticism and energy affects the game, need to watch closely.

Naptown_Seth
01-03-2010, 02:31 AM
Yep. I guess some of us are just morons for thinking that somehow you had the potential for better overall basketball by relying a lot more on Rush, Roy, McRoberts, and Price with your "vets" being mainly Watson, Head and DJones.

It would have been nice to have at least 1 more big available, either Foster or Tyler, and even then IMO McRoberts is at a point that he can outplay the older Foster and the less athletic Tyler.

How can the writing not be on the wall for Troy and TJ? And frankly while this was a "better" game for Dunleavy, he still looked iffy and was often killed on defense, not to mention the pass that darn near bounced off his head to start the game or the point blank layup miss (badly).

Minny isn't great, but with Love back it's not like they are drastically worse than teams like Memphis. And Love had a good enough game to foul out two of the better Pacers defenders.

Roy had a strong game going right at Jefferson who is considered a pretty strong center.


The entire game the repeating thought in my brain was "finally, now was that so bad"? It was pulling teeth and took 3 frontline injuries and painfully bad PG play for 100 games, but we finally got to see a rotation close to what we are looking for complete with tons of play working off Roy's low post game.

Forget the win, let's talk about how much more enjoyable the quality and style of basketball was.

Hicks
01-03-2010, 02:36 AM
Great post, Hicks.


..... thanks?

Anthem
01-03-2010, 08:20 AM
..... thanks?
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Unclebuck
01-03-2010, 11:04 AM
I will continue to invoke the five-game win streak as evidence that this team CAN win games regularly but the coach refuses to allow them to try.



To be honest my head is about to explode.

Lets see who we beat in the 5 game winning streak, plus one I guess is what it will be called.

Nets
Knicks - who were playing terible at the time
Wizards at home, talk about a team in turmoil
Warriors at home - a truly awful team
Celtics - at home a quality win, no matter how bad the Celtis were that night
T-Wolves at home after playing the night before.

Besides the Celts, what is the winning %of the other 5 teams, lese than 30% and yet those 5 gams plus 1 are used as the model of how things can turn around.

I am at a loss to even argue this anymore, seems surreal to me, I really at times think I am living in the Twlight Zone. I've used every argument already and yet the 5-game winning streak legend continues to grow and yet is changes over time. If you go back and look at those games Ford was perhaps the most important player in 3 of the 5 games he played great against the Celts, Wiazards and hit three huge shots late at NY. And yet so many use Ford as the example of a player who needs to sit. If these 5 games are the model then Ford needs to play 40 minutes per game and his play during that time proves it. Isolating 5 gamesof an 82 games season is absurd of course.

90'sNBARocked
01-03-2010, 01:16 PM
I am at a loss to even argue this anymore, seems surreal to me, I really at times think I am living in the Twlight Zone. I've used every argument already and yet the 5-game winning streak legend continues to grow and yet is changes over time.

LOL, it is amazing

As I said in an earlier post it is the most glorified "5 game winning streak" in the history of the Indiana Pacers!

Really to me what was a lot more telling was the 8 game losing streak

How come thats not discussed?

Hicks
01-03-2010, 02:48 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't make me change it back to its original form. :-p

Hicks
01-03-2010, 02:50 PM
The reason the argument doesn't hold up that the 5-win streak was meaningless because of the opponents is because subsequently we played those teams again and LOST to them. Yes, ONE of those was with the same group, but the rest, the majority, were not. And the one that was, we had to shoot ourselves in the foot to lose.

90'sNBARocked
01-03-2010, 02:54 PM
The reason the argument doesn't hold up that the 5-win streak was meaningless because of the opponents is because subsequently we played those teams again and LOST to them. Yes, ONE of those was with the same group, but the rest, the majority, were not. And the one that was, we had to shoot ourselves in the foot to lose.

The most significant thing about the streak is that it was actually a streak. 1 or 2 games in a row, could be considered a fluke, 5 games will not

The bad thing is we probably will never see that line up again

The reason we won with that line up to me is simple, it was our best mix of athleticism, defense , and scoring,

Ford, Jones, Rush, Granger. Hibbert

Loved it, and apparently so did a lot of the players

Sookie
01-03-2010, 03:00 PM
Here's the thing with Ford. And I noticed it in the preseason.

Ford is a bipolar player, or was, in the preseason.

If you track his +/- numbers, they strongly correlate with whether the team wins or not.

Which suggests that with Ford in the game, the team goes as Ford goes.

He was decent during that five game stretch. The Pacers won. He was terrible though, for most of the rest of the year.

And here's the thing, it is awful for the team to have to depend on something like that. Watson and Price. Solid. They don't dominate the ball, and they aren't up and down. Take Ford out of the lineup, and suddenly the team game isn't dependent on what Ford does, it's depended on what the team does.

Infinite MAN_force
01-03-2010, 03:54 PM
Forget the win, let's talk about how much more enjoyable the quality and style of basketball was.

This. Forget the win is right. They were playing like a team out there and the oncourt chemistry was visibly much much better. I don't understand how buck fails to see this.

imawhat
01-03-2010, 05:13 PM
To be honest my head is about to explode.

Lets see who we beat in the 5 game winning streak, plus one I guess is what it will be called................

In the NBA, there is no such thing as a meaningless 5 game winning streak.

If I thought you could be convinced, I'd explain why the winning streak was significant and the concrete differences in our play during the streak and otherwise. But I don't.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 10:02 AM
In the NBA, there is no such thing as a meaningless 5 game winning streak.

If I thought you could be convinced, I'd explain why the winning streak was significant and the concrete differences in our play during the streak and otherwise. But I don't.

Every game is meaningful - that is correct. The T-Wolves game was meaningful, and the Knicks game was meaningful. Every game has equal weight, every 5-game stretch of games has equal weight - but the key word is equal. You cannot isolate 5 games and act that that could be duplicated over a longer period of time.

Bball
01-04-2010, 10:10 AM
Every game is meaningful - that is correct. The T-Wolves game was meaningful, and the Knicks game was meaningful. Every game has equal weight, every 5-game stretch of games has equal weight - but the key word is equal. You cannot isolate 5 games and act that that could be duplicated over a longer period of time.

Is that what anyone is saying about the 5 game win streak? That's not what I've been getting from the debate.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 10:26 AM
Is that what anyone is saying about the 5 game win streak? That's not what I've been getting from the debate.

The debate has been varied, so it is hard to keep track of. One part of the debate is we won 5 games straight and then Murphy came back into the lineup and we started losing. So he is to blame. Sure no one says that and yet they will suggest that when they post the pacers record with Murph and without Murph.

it gets very confusing when it comes to Ford though. Most don't want Ford to start or even play much if any, and yet Ford was perhaps the most important player during the streak and he certainly was in 3 of the 5 games.

Another aspect is many suggest the style of play was different - this is mentioned by D. Jones. I personally don't see the different style many are suggesting.

Every team goes through good and bad stretches of play - but you have to even it out. The Celtics just lost 3 straight games - sure each of those games count in the standings and who knows they might not have homecourt against certain teams because of those three games, but those three games will have no lasting impact on the season as a whole.

Pacers went through a 5 games stretch where they played weak opponents and they played well enough to win those games - it was just a 5 game stretch - I just don't see anything meaningful or significant in those games. Put another way 5 games in the NBA represents 6% of the season. 6% of an NFL season is 1 game -do we ever place that much significance on 1 game ion the NFL

McKeyFan
01-04-2010, 10:52 AM
The debate has been varied, so it is hard to keep track of. One part of the debate is we won 5 games straight and then Murphy came back into the lineup and we started losing. So he is to blame. Sure no one says that and yet they will suggest that when they post the pacers record with Murph and without Murph.

it gets very confusing when it comes to Ford though. Most don't want Ford to start or even play much if any, and yet Ford was perhaps the most important player during the streak and he certainly was in 3 of the 5 games.

Another aspect is many suggest the style of play was different - this is mentioned by D. Jones. I personally don't see the different style many are suggesting.

Every team goes through good and bad stretches of play - but you have to even it out. The Celtics just lost 3 straight games - sure each of those games count in the standings and who knows they might not have homecourt against certain teams because of those three games, but those three games will have no lasting impact on the season as a whole.

Pacers went through a 5 games stretch where they played weak opponents and they played well enough to win those games - it was just a 5 game stretch - I just don't see anything meaningful or significant in those games. Put another way 5 games in the NBA represents 6% of the season. 6% of an NFL season is 1 game -do we ever place that much significance on 1 game ion the NFL

I saw in the other thread where you mention that this issue has got you as riled up as anything has since 2000.

Well, me too. But for the opposite reason, I guess.

First, your premise that TJ Ford was key to the five game streak. I disagree with that. It's not my recollection. I recall Watson being the more important point guard. I don't have stats or tivo in front of me, so I can only argue by memory.

What's clear in my memory, and backed by current events, is that TJ's defense was a limiting factor for the team. And it was Watson's defense, along with his ability to distribute the ball, that helped the winning, not TJ.

That five games streak looked a lot like the Minny game: guys moving well, finding each other for good assists, running for loose balls, tipping out rebounds, helping out on defense, blocking a lot of shots.

It's an intangible, but a huge and very noticeable one. Without TJ and Murph on the court, there is a sense of "we can make this happen" on defense and "let's pass this around for a good shot" on offense.

What was Dahntay talking about with "style"? One thing could be heavy use of Hibbert, giving us a post up threat and an effective inside out offense. Also, the aggressive defense causes turnovers, leading to fast breaks.

But mostly its a mindset, which may be a better word than "style." It's clear they have the mindset when that group plays. They believe that can actually compete on the defensive side, and that they can actually work for a good shot on the offensive side (not just jack a long shot or watch TJ go one on one).

As I noted in another thread, this crew got shellacked last night against the Knicks but won handily against the Wolves. That's .500, a ton better than what we've been seeing. Let's give them a few more games to prove whether they can keep up this .500 pace, since the five game streak "never happened," (well it was against all terrible teams).

Except the Celtics. That game actually never happened.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 11:15 AM
Ford's 5 game stats.
1) At New York - played 28 minutes, scored 16 points, including 6 huge points in the last 2 minutes to seal the win

2) Wizards - 40 mins - 18 pts, 10 rebs. Go back and read Peck's comments after this game and how he described how well Ford played. I was at this game and Ford was our best player. Peck made several comments about how good Ford's defense was on Gilbert

3 - G. State - injured only played 4 mins

4) Celts - just coming back from injury - 17 mins , 10 pts

5) At NJ - played 32 minutes 7 pts, 6 rebs, 4 assists.


The biggest factor against the Wolves - the Wolves played a horrible 1st half, and the Pacers were on fire from three point range. The second half the Wolves clearly outplayed the Pacers - outscoring the P's by 17 points . I don't think that was a good game. Sure, if the pacers can hit 10 threes in most games they will have a chance to be in the games. But play that way tomorrow night and it is a double digit loss to the Magic - assuming the Magic are near what they normally are


The group that played the past two games is not the same group that played during the 5 game winning streak. so I don't see how any comparisons are be drawn

PaceBalls
01-04-2010, 11:16 AM
I thought TJ played quite well in those games, especially on defense. I remember being pleased with our PGs. I think the biggest key to that winning streak was we had our best defensive players out there, not just the starters, but the bench as well.
We had no Murph or Dunleavy, and there were scrappers at all positions. Danny at the 4 especially made the team quick. It was definately small ball minus Hibbert and I wonder how much the matchups were just more favorable for those teams we played.

At any rate, to discount our team's play during the 5 game win streak compared to the crap we have seen since is unrealistic, or even just up to Danny injury. The difference is night and day. Whether that be Murph and Dunleavy or a coaching strategy change, or maybe just the coach's lack of confidence in his team that was playing so well caused the players to be apathetic, something went horribly wrong after the 5 game win streak.

Also can we really compare the Celtics 3 game losing streak to our 5 game win streak? except as they are complete opposites? Celtics were without Rondo, Paul and Garnett. Omg, they lost 3 games, who could've guessed that would happen? We were actually missing our supposed key players too (Murph, Dunleavy, Foster) yet played the best basketball of the season. Go figure.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 11:28 AM
Also can we really compare the Celtics 3 game losing streak to our 5 game win streak? except as they are complete opposites? Celtics were without Rondo, Paul and Garnett. Omg, they lost 3 games, who could've guessed that would happen? We were actually missing our supposed key players too (Murph, Dunleavy, Foster) yet played the best basketball of the season. Go figure.

You are making my point. My overall point is that it is not wise to isolate 5 games or 3 games and act like those games are any more important than the other 77 or 79 games.

The defense was a little better during that 5 games stretch, but there were other games where the defense was also good. (it was not good only during the 5 game stretch) This season except for games here and there, usually on Sunday the defense has been OK - the offense has been more of a problem.

McKeyFan
01-04-2010, 11:35 AM
Ford's 5 game stats.
1) At New York - played 28 minutes, scored 16 points, including 6 huge points in the last 2 minutes to seal the win

2) Wizards - 40 mins - 18 pts, 10 rebs. Go back and read Peck's comments after this game and how he described how well Ford played. I was at this game and Ford was our best player. Peck made several comments about how good Ford's defense was on Gilbert

3 - G. State - injured only played 4 mins

4) Celts - just coming back from injury - 17 mins , 10 pts

5) At NJ - played 32 minutes 7 pts, 6 rebs, 4 assists.

I don't see that as heavily persuasive. The only thing that is maybe relevant is six points in the last couple minutes against the Knicks. But that's only because he's the only one with the ball in his hands down the stretch. We could have easily won by passing it around down the stretch as well.

I think you're reaching by saying TJ was a critical factor in the five game streak. As far as trends go, he was playing less and doing less during the streak. The trend was toward more Watson in terms of playing time AND leadership.




The biggest factor against the Wolves - the Wolves played a horrible 1st half, and the Pacers were on fire from three point range. The second half the Wolves clearly outplayed the Pacers - outscoring the P's by 17 points . I don't think that was a good game. Sure, if the pacers can hit 10 threes in most games they will have a chance to be in the games. But play that way tomorrow night and it is a double digit loss to the Magic - assuming the Magic are near what they normally are

I think you miss a lot of intangibles and a lot of the human factor, which Obie is particularly bad at catching. First, why did they hit so many threes? Maybe because the Hibbert inside/outside offense was working well?

Second, it's very typical that a huge lead gets widdled down. The question is whether you can hold on. To me, the critical part of that game was in the last minute or two when JOB subbed Hibbert back in because we couldn't score. Roy hit a big, big basket down in the low post, then had a couple more assists to win the game.

The human factor here is that Hibbert has the mentality to score and win games down the stretch. He's a gamer (very unlike Rush). To say "I don't think it was a good game" is just plain myopic.



The group that played the past two games is not the same group that played during the 5 game winning streak. so I don't see how any comparisons are be drawn

Be fair. Of course it's not the exact same group. But no Murph, no Foster, and very little TJ is the obvious comparison. I could argue that this crew won in spite of no Granger and Hansbrough, further strengthening the five game win streak argument. Why are you being so irrational about all this? It just seems so unlike you.


2) Wizards - 40 mins - 18 pts, 10 rebs. Go back and read Peck's comments after this game and how he described how well Ford played. I was at this game and Ford was our best player. Peck made several comments about how good Ford's defense was on Gilbert

Those stats aren't relevant because the Wiz are a terrible team with a terrible record.

:D

BlueNGold
01-04-2010, 09:59 PM
The defense was a little better during that 5 games stretch, but there were other games where the defense was also good.

The defense has never been as good as during that period. Let me tell you only 1 reason why.

When Granger was playing PF, he helped Hibbert tremendously by protecting the paint. Danny had 2 blocks in three of those games...and never had more than 1 in any other game. He also had 16 boards against Golden State during that stretch. It is a terrible shame that the Pacers don't maximize his abilities by giving him an opportunity to be a huge mismatch. Sure, he may have problems with Duncan and JO, but so do the rest of our PF's....and Danny would make JO pay dearly on the other end of the court. Goodness, he handled Garnett pretty well during the streak........and he would roast 8 out of 10 other PF's on a stick.

When he's guarding the perimeter, the Pacers lose out on his ability to block shots and steal from slower bigs. That was part of the swarm factor in those games. He's not had double figure boards in any other game...because he's always guarding the perimeter....which is a complete misuse of his abilities.

Honestly, I find it odd, that no one seems to think of Granger as a PF. He is a strong, athletic, 6'9" guy. Yes, he can shoot lights out, but he can still defend the PF position better than most of our bigs. He has the athleticism and length to handle the position 80-90% of the time. If he doesn't you just throw McBob, Foster or someone bigger in...who will do just fine against the 7 footers.

PaceBalls
01-04-2010, 10:47 PM
You are making my point. My overall point is that it is not wise to isolate 5 games or 3 games and act like those games are any more important than the other 77 or 79 games.

The defense was a little better during that 5 games stretch, but there were other games where the defense was also good. (it was not good only during the 5 game stretch) This season except for games here and there, usually on Sunday the defense has been OK - the offense has been more of a problem.

Buck, I think that is just a bit far fetched logic man. You are pretty much saying anything can happen so discount that 5 game win streak, when your expample given with Celts and Pacers are such completely different happenstances. The Celts lost those games like everyone thought they should, because they were missing their best players. The Pacers on the other hand are missing 3-4 of their "best" players and in spite of that win 5 games in a row, playing the best basketball of the season. How can there not be something to that?

mcampbellarch
01-04-2010, 11:13 PM
I will stop invoking the brief period of 2010 where we were undefeated.

I was out of town over the holiday and caught up on the games last weekend - capped off by the dismal performance yesterday. There is bad, and then there is remarkably bad. Those poor kids without back-packs.

Still confused as to why TJ didn't see any time Sunday. Nice to see Deiner though.

PacersHomer
01-05-2010, 12:55 AM
5 game win streak? Don't talk about a 5 game win streak! I just hope they can win another 5 games!

/Mora

BlueNGold
01-05-2010, 11:03 PM
2. O'Brien returns to the lineup and strategy that won us five games in a row and we LOSE five games in a row. Make it four, or even three.

The second option can't happen until Granger returns. But it would include heavy doses of Hibbert, Watson, DJones, Rush, Tyler, and Solo, with Granger playing the four.


Good luck seeing this line-up lose 5 in a row. Even without Granger and Hans, there is simply more passion with this group...and actual NBA level defense. Add Granger and Hans and I think you have a reailistic shot at 5 W's in a row again at some point.

The Cavs trade could not come fast enough.

owl
01-05-2010, 11:11 PM
How about a hearty hoorah for Mckey fan. This game tonight sure supports the
5 game win streak philosophy.

BlueNGold
01-05-2010, 11:14 PM
How about a hearty hoorah for Mckey fan. This game tonight sure supports the
5 game win streak philosophy.

Yup. He is the Chairman and CEO of the 5 game win streak club. I'm just happy to be a member.

I think membership is growing...;)

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 11:30 PM
How about a hearty hoorah for Mckey fan. This game tonight sure supports the
5 game win streak philosophy.

Which is what. Play anyone but Murphy and Ford and win (even though Ford was a huge factor in 3 of the 5 wins).

PaceBalls
01-05-2010, 11:37 PM
Which is what. Play anyone but Murphy and Ford and win (even though Ford was a huge factor in 3 of the 5 wins).

Well you got one of the two guys right there IMHO. See sig to guess which one.

DaveP63
01-05-2010, 11:38 PM
If there's smoke...

McKeyFan
01-06-2010, 09:20 AM
Uncle Buck, I had a revelation overnight as to why you are so upset about this five game win streak argument.

You don't love Troy or TJ. That's not the problem.

It's Jeff Foster.

owl
01-06-2010, 09:52 AM
If there's smoke...

That's what I am thinking. There is something to the argument.

Unclebuck
01-06-2010, 10:14 AM
Uncle Buck, I had a revelation overnight as to why you are so upset about this five game win streak argument.

You don't love Troy or TJ. That's not the problem.

It's Jeff Foster.

No, that isn't it at all.

BlueNGold
08-21-2012, 10:04 PM
.

imbtyler
08-21-2012, 10:30 PM
.

STOP IT! :censored:

McKeyFan
08-21-2012, 10:42 PM
Well, you've brought back a couple oldies but goodies, B&G.

I reread through it and thanked Imawhat's post #19 two and half years after the fact. His point is still quite relevant.

BlueNGold
08-21-2012, 10:46 PM
Well, you've brought back a couple oldies but goodies, B&G.

I reread through it and thanked Imawhat's post #19 two and half years after the fact. His point is still quite relevant.

The 5 game winning streak was a clear signpost in the JOb era that some passed right on by while others connected with at a deep level...and saw things clearly. Sorry for the multi-bump for those with thin skins...but it was an important part of Pacer history...;<)

beast23
08-22-2012, 11:11 AM
...Sorry for the multi-bump for those with thin skins...but it was an important part of Pacer history...;<)
Anything that brings up the "unnamed one" is, how do you say it, irrelevant. As such, it is a piece of Pacers history that is better forgotten.

Hicks
08-22-2012, 11:16 AM
You might in the future consider starting a new thread and using it to link back to / quote from multiple old posts, so there's no confusion and so those threads stay in the appropriate time period of the forum if/when people go looking for them to see what was being said back then. Bumping them shifts them forward in time and makes them 'disappear' from their original time period.