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

Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

    http://sportsradiointerviews.com/201...time%E2%80%9D/

    Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: “I just think he’s one of the most overrated coaches of our time”
    May 11, 2011 – 6:00 am by Chris Fedor
    In the few short days since the Lakers got swept by the Mavericks, there’s already been a wave of conversation amongst fans and the media about Phil Jackson, his remarkable career, and where he belongs in the all-time pantheon of great coaches. It’s easy to argue that he belongs at the top of the list, but there’s a point to be made as well that he might be a tad bit more overrated than his decorated ring collection might suggest. Here’s the deal though — this conversation is being played out publicly in a pretty tame manner. Wouldn’t it be more fun to hear what an unabashed trained enemy of Jackson has to say about his coaching legacy?

    Enter Scot Pollard, a key contributor on the Sacramento Kings during their brief rise to prominence not long ago. Pollard’s game might not have been all that memorable (except for his atrocious free throw shooting), but even if you don’t recall much about his contributions in those classic Kings-Lakers battles, you’ll probably have a quick ‘ah-ha!’ moment if you saw his picture.



    In addition to hearing him talk about Jackson, Sacramento residents and fans of the Kings will be pleased to hear Pollard talk about the city he played the most significant years of his NBA career in. He loves the place, and he’s relieved and damn pleased that the Kings weren’t taken away from the passionate residents of Sac-Town.

    Pollard joined Grant Napear on KHTK in Sacramento to discuss

    Why he feels Phil Jackson is overrated:

    “Oh man. I just think he’s one of the most overrated coaches of our time. He’s only had the greatest players of our era on his teams. Put him in charge of the Sacramento Kings this year, and I don’t mean to offend Sacramento fans, but put him on a team with no Hall-Of-Famers on it at least no one that has established themselves as a Hall-Of-Famer already, put him as the Head Coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers right now and let’s see how he does next year with no Hall-Of-Famers on the team. That’s all I’m saying. I respect his championships, I respect his ability to get egos in line and get them in the same direction, but I just think he’s overrated because he’s only had the greatest players of our generation. (Host: That’s like saying Joe Montana was an overrated quarterback because he had the best receiver in history to throw to, he had a great offensive line, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, and John Taylor. You can say that about a lot of people that are great.) I have a championship because my teammates and I’m not saying that’s not a valid point. All I’m saying is I would like to see Phil Jackson coach a team that doesn’t belong in the playoffs. I think he could get the Orlando Magic to the playoffs and the Dallas Mavericks to the playoffs. I’m not sure he could get Cleveland to the playoffs next year. Joe Montana was a player, a great player and a Hall-Of-Fame player and you could’ve put me in charge of the San Francisco 49ers when Joe Montana was playing with all those players you were talking about, I might’ve gotten them to the playoffs. I’m not saying I’m a football coach by any means. I just think he is partially a benefactor of circumstance, that’s all I’m getting at. I think if you put him in charge of a team without at least one or two future Hall-Of-Famers on it and I’m not sure he’s going to get you a championship ring. I doubt that.”

    On the idea that great coaches need great players and it goes hand-in-hand:

    “I agree and he got Ron Artest to buy in. I’m totally on board with his managing of egos. I believe some coaches can make a team like the Cleveland Cavaliers, I love Byron Scott. I really do. I think he’s better than his record indicates. I’m just saying there are certain coaches that can take a team like the Cleveland Cavaliers this year because they had a poor year and can turn them around to a playoff team, maybe not a champion, but a playoff team. There are certain coaches that can do that. All I’m saying is Phil Jackson has never done that. He has never taken a team that wasn’t a playoff team and turned them into a playoff team. The players that played for him turned into a playoff team.”

    How excited he is that the Kings will remain in Sacramento for at least one more season

    “Absolutely. That’s why when they said hey we’re going to have a rally would you want to come out I said absolutely because Sacramento was my NBA home. It was the place I played the longest by a long shot, a place I loved the most, and the place I was most productive as an NBA player. It’s definitely my NBA home, I would love to be involved with the organization. I’m still working on that. Maybe tomorrow I can rub elbows with the right person and get an excuse to move out to Sacramento. I love that place and I want to be out there, but as you know nobody retires to California. If I get an income then it is possible to deal with the cost of living out in California. You need a job to live there. That’s what I’m looking for. Hopefully that works out, but if not I’m still going to be a big fan of Sacramento. I’m really excited and so proud of the fans and the whole community of Sacramento that really rallied around the Kings organization and really forced the NBA to give us another year to figure this out. Hopefully this works out and hopefully there can be a realistic arena plan put together. There have been rumors of Pollard Pavilion being the name of it. I don’t have 400 million in my pocket, but if somebody wants to name it that anyway I’m not going to say no. I’m not going to request it, but if somebody says we’re going to put all the money up and we just want to use your name I’ll say okay. (Host: As long as you don’t have to pay for naming rights?) Yeah I will put my two dollars in which is pretty much what I have going for me right now. Seriously I’m really excited about the city getting behind this and having another year to get a realistic plan together because the Kings do belong in Sacramento, the NBA needs the Kings in Sacramento, and Sacramento obviously needs the Kings in Sacramento. I just think it’s a great fit for both the city and the league as a whole. I just hope the lockout doesn’t get in the way too much and the businessmen, the politicians, and the city of Sacramento are able to get this done. Guess what Sacramento? It’s up to everybody. As you’ve already shown right now you can make a difference. I’m talking to everybody in this city that’s listening and the politicians as well and the people with the big bucks. We have to figure out a way to get this done, we have a year to do it, and I believe we can.”
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

    I envy Phil Jackson for the success he has had, and I do think sometimes people go overboard in giving him too much credit (go figure, at times we even go overboard in blaming coaches too much for loses) but no way is he the most overrated. While I may hate his teams for killing the Pacers changes at an NBA title, all you have to do is look at his teams before he came on board. Was he given lots of help? Yes, a crap ton of talent indeed. However, I think it is unfair to call him overrated, even if you hate the man with a burning passion, which I dont (I save all my hate for David Stern and NBA refs)

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

      Gotta love Scott Pollard. I hope he gets a job here in Sacramento, I'd love to see him around town haha.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

        Scots like a flaming troll, but without the internet or a message board. Always good for a laugh, though.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

          I agree that Jackson is overrated, but he isn't the most overrated. That reward goes to Larry Brown.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

            I love it when critics kind of hurriedly and casually give Jackson a bit of credit for "managing egos." As someone who is a manager in a situation with a lot less pressure and spotlight shined on me than Phil Jackson has had, I want to say that I think people underestimate just how hard managing egos and helping make a group of people a team really is.

            I don't think he's the best ever, nor do I think he's overrated. Of course his particular circumstances and players impacted his coaching success - that's kind of like saying the sun shines. I don't think we should fault his coaching bonafides for being subject to luck and chance like everyone else, and while we don't know if Phil could take a group of underachievers or less talented players and significantly improve them, we also don't know that he couldn't, so for me that's kind of
            "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

            "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

            "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

              I agree.
              In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                I can't say I disagree.

                I mean he's only coached teams with at least 2 superstars. And not just superstars, but top 5 players in the world. That doesn't seem to be that difficult.
                Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                  I agree with Pollard for the most part. That's not to say Jackson isn't a great coach, but he will never put to rest the questions about whether he can coach a team without a superstar player or two. He simply has never done it.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                    Jackson won't return to coaching to coach a bottom feeder. IF he returns, it will be with a team he where feels he can continue his legacy. That you can take to the bank.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                      I think Phil's the greatest coach in any sport in my lifetime. You can argue that he only won with Hall of Fame caliber superstars, but honestly there have been a lot of coaches that have had those players that haven't won any titles. Also consider the fact that A.) Phil got Jordan and Kobe to play something of a team game, whereas he wouldn't under any other coach (and honestly, they might have needed Phil as much as Phil needed them) and B.) he wasn't just some random lucky guy that got hired to coach the Lakers. The Lakers hired him because he was the best coach in the world and they needed him to turn a good team into a great one. And you have to admit that he did that.

                      I can't even begin to comprehend how or why someone would call a coach with 11 rings overrated. Scot Pollard has always been a joke to me, former Pacer or not. I'd feel pretty damn good to have that "overrated" coach in charge of my team any day.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        I agree with Pollard for the most part. That's not to say Jackson isn't a great coach, but he will never put to rest the questions about whether he can coach a team without a superstar player or two. He simply has never done it.
                        No he hasn't and never will, but why should he? If every time you put yourself out on the market for a coaching gig it's the elite teams with the elite talent that come calling, you're always going to take those jobs.

                        NBA coaches are going to always want the best talent that gives them the best chance to win. If the best teams think that highly of Phil, then it behooves him do what's best for him and give himself the best chance to win a championship.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                          I agree, let's see Phil actually have to take a team out of the crapper and make it into a contender. Especially since he wouldn't have the support of the refs either......
                          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                            Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                            I can't say I disagree.

                            I mean he's only coached teams with at least 2 superstars. And not just superstars, but top 5 players in the world. That doesn't seem to be that difficult.
                            How many titles did those teams win without him though? Sure Phil has been lucky having great players, but what great coach hasn't?

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Scot Pollard on Phil Jackson: "He's one of the most overrated coaches of our time"

                              The fact that Jordan and Bryant support him the way that they do, says enough.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X