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

The Pacers have never had that one player

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Pacers have never had that one player

    I've read several places on here, that the Pacers should try to build a team more like the Pistons if they want to win a championship.

    The Pistons are an extremely rare case.

    If you look at ANY modern championship team in the NBA, each of them had that one special player. That one player that was taken extremely early in the draft. That one player you can easily build an entire franchise on.

    The Pistons are the ONLY team that didn't have that one player. The Pistons are the exception to the rule. They won a championship with several very good players, but let's be honest, the Pistons don't have a top 5 player in the NBA, like any other modern championship team. We could argue all day about who Detroit's best player is. You can't count on building a championship squad like that. Did it work for the Pistons? Obviously, but like I said, they're an exception to the rule. Let's look at the past champions besides the 2004 Pistons.

    1999, 2003: Spurs(Duncan)
    2000-2002: Lakers(Shaq)
    1991-1993, 1996-1998: Bulls(Jordan)
    1994-1995: Rockets(Hakeem)
    1989-1990: Pistons(Isiah)
    1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988: Lakers (Magic)
    1981, 1984, 1986: Celtics
    1983: Sixers: (Dr. J)

    Isn't it fascinating that since 1980, only 7 franchises have won NBA championships? The Sixers were the only single time winner.

    That's every NBA champion since 1980. What do they all have in common? They had that one superstar, that one player you could count on to lead you to the promise land, that special guy who you knew would take over when the game was on the line. That's how you build a championship team. Outside of 2004, a team of "several good players", but no superior superstar never wins the championship.

    Let me clearly state that I am not knocking the Pistons at all. Their formula worked for THEM, but no other franchise can count on putting several very good players together like that and taking home the big prize.

    The Pacers have never had that special player. Reggie was an exciting player to watch. But let me clearly state, while he is a first ballot hall of famer, he was never one of THE BEST players in the NBA. The BEST meaning top 5 or so. Reggie found a niche, and road it for 18 years. That brought alot of excitement to Indiana, and it was a great ride. But Reggie was never a player that was on par with Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, whomever.

    Do the Pacers have that special player in Jermaine O'Neal? The answer to that question will determine the future of the Pacers for the next several years. JO has the talent, that's obvious. But if JO can turn into the perfect leader, the guy you can count on to take you all the way, then we may see a banner hanging from Conseco a couple of years down the road.

  • #2
    Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

    it should be mentioned that this isn't the FIRST time the Pistons have pulled this off.

    The bad boys had all-stars, yeah. But so does this current one. They just dont get the acclaim, because they didnt have enough time in their younger years to make names for themselves.

    the 1989 Pistons didn't have a 20ppg scorer. They didnt have a 10-assist passer. They didnt even have a 10-rpg rebounder.

    That team had no dominant player. Just a bunch of stars that sacrificed to win. It irritates me that people say Isiah was the superstar of that team, because he was NO WHERE NEAR what he was in the early 80's. You could go entire GAMES and not realize he was on the court. Did he take the big shots? Yeah. But so does CHauncey Billups, does that make him a superstar?

    This team plays the exact same freaking team concept that the pistons of old did. Joe built the team the same way his old one was built.

    And by the way: check out the Spurs. Duncan is just another part of that team now, he doesn't dominate everything. They don't spread it out quite like the pistons do, but they come damn close.

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

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

      Originally posted by Kstat
      it should be mentioned that this isn't the FIRST time the Pistons have pulled this off.

      The bad boys had all-stars, yeah. But so does this current one. They just dont get the acclaim, because they didnt have enough time in their younger years to make names for themselves.

      the 1989 Pistons didn't have a 20ppg scorer. They didnt have a 10-assist passer. They didnt even have a 10-rpg rebounder.

      That team had no dominant player. Just a bunch of stars that sacrificed to win. It irritates me that people say Isiah was the superstar of that team, because he was NO WHERE NEAR what he was in the early 80's. You could go entire GAMES and not realize he was on the court. Did he take the big shots? Yeah. But so does CHauncey Billups, does that make him a superstar?

      This team plays the exact same freaking team concept that the pistons of old did. Joe built the team the same way his old one was built.

      And by the way: check out the Spurs. Duncan is just another part of that team now, he doesn't dominate everything. They don't spread it out quite like the pistons do, but they come damn close.

      The Duncan in 1999 and 2003 was a little more dominant than today, and that's the years the Spurs won their rings. Will they this year? That remains to be seen.

      You make a good point with the Pistons' title teams, but still, I think most people would agree that Isiah was the Pistons' best player. Was he really superior to anyone else on the team? No, but I think he was a little ahead of anyone else.

      With the 04 Detroit team, it's really impossible to decide who the best player in the team was, it's pretty easy with any other championship team.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

        Originally posted by vapacersfan
        First of all, I dont think Reggie will be a first ballot hall of famer. But thats a debate for another day.

        As for this thread, I honestly beleive EVERY NBA team could win a NBA title if they followed the forula the Pistons (and Spurs) use. Granted TD is a great player, but he isnt forced to do everything.

        I think everything has to fall in place, but I dont think you need a team full of all-stars in order to win it all.

        Now as for who that player is for us, I think if we ever win a NBA title if will be because others step up, and JO isnt forced to carry the team. He will have to hit big shots, and he will def. be the go to guy, but if we do win one, I bet you it will be because JO took on more of a Timmy D role (and thats means not only JO has to step up, but so do his teammates)

        I agree, everything has to fall into place perfectly. You have to have a little luck to win it, I think everyone knows that.

        Yes, the role players MUST step up. But you have to have that one player that steps up, that one player that you can count on to will you to victory. That's what JO must become.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

          Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
          The Pacers have never had that special player. Reggie was an exciting player to watch. But let me clearly state, while he is a first ballot hall of famer, he was never one of THE BEST players in the NBA. The BEST meaning top 5 or so. Reggie found a niche, and road it for 18 years. That brought alot of excitement to Indiana, and it was a great ride. But Reggie was never a player that was on par with Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, whomever.


          I agree on everything you said, except this part, its super FOOLISH... Not just because it hurts me that you said that Reggie was NEVER one of the best players in the NBA. But you say that Reggie wasnt on par with Jordan etc. One thing you are forgetting is to ask yourself WHY? Why was Jordan winning all the time? Why is Shaq winning still all the time... Why didnt Miller get a ring? etc.

          Jordan was surrounded by dominant players at their position, all-stars & great players like Pippen, Rodman, Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc, BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Paxson etc. Phil Jackson? Heck! He even had David Stern on his side overrating him... What would happen if Jordan switched place with Reggie? Would Jordan still get some rings without any great players in Indiana? I dont think so... Would Reggie be classified as the greatest player to ever play the game if he played with team and manage to get maybe even more rings? Reggie was almost Alone on Offense in his prime and STILL managed to get close so many times.

          Shaq (the best center today) had Kobe (one of the best SG) and they had Phil Jackson and a crazy team who always step up.
          Kobe does not have Shaq anymore right? He didnt even managed to get his team to the Playoffs...
          Shaq did switch team, but now he have even greater players in his team and they have big chance of being this years champions...

          Isiah? 90s? Pistons? = TEAM PLAY, TEAM OFFENSE/DEFENSE

          As u can see, its ALL about Team play my friend... Reggie NEVER had any All-Star player in his team, until it was to late, until he got old. But
          This year the Pacers was 100% Champions with that lineup we had, until November 19...

          Never understimate Greatness my friend, Reggie at 39 was so good than most of players in NBA will ever be. WTF are u talking about, Reggie was the most special player the Pacers will never have!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

            Originally posted by 3ptmiller


            I agree on everything you said, except this part, its super FOOLISH... Not just because it hurts me that you said that Reggie was NEVER one of the best players in the NBA. But you say that Reggie wasnt on par with Jordan etc. One thing you are forgetting is to ask yourself WHY? Why was Jordan winning all the time? Why is Shaq winning still all the time... Why didnt Miller get a ring? etc.

            Jordan was surrounded by dominant players at their position, all-stars & great players like Pippen, Rodman, Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc, BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Paxson etc. Phil Jackson? Heck! He even had David Stern on his side overrating him... What would happen if Jordan switched place with Reggie? Would Jordan still get some rings without any great players in Indiana? I dont think so... Would Reggie be classified as the greatest player to ever play the game if he played with team and manage to get maybe even more rings? Reggie was almost Alone on Offense in his prime and STILL managed to get close so many times.

            Shaq (the best center today) had Kobe (one of the best SG) and they had Phil Jackson and a crazy team who always step up.
            Kobe does not have Shaq anymore right? He didnt even managed to get his team to the Playoffs...
            Shaq did switch team, but now he have even greater players in his team and they have big chance of being this years champions...

            Isiah? 90s? Pistons? = TEAM PLAY, TEAM OFFENSE/DEFENSE

            As u can see, its ALL about Team play my friend... Reggie NEVER had any All-Star player in his team, until it was to late, until he got old. But
            This year the Pacers was 100% Champions with that lineup we had, until November 19...

            Never understimate Greatness my friend, Reggie at 39 was so good than most of players in NBA will ever be. WTF are u talking about, Reggie was the most special player the Pacers will never have!

            I never said Reggie wasn't great, and I'm certainly not dishing him at all.

            But, let's all take our number 31 jerseys off for one second and answer this question.

            I was implying that Reggie was never a top 5 player. If someone would have asked you who the top 5 players in the NBA during any point of Reggie's 18 year career, could you have honestly listed Reggie as one of them?

            Come on.

            I certainly hope you aren't trying to equate Reggie to Jordan. Reggie would NOT be considered the greatest player in the game had he switched players with MJ, because Reggie simply wasn't as good as MJ.

            The stats aren't even close, while you could count on Reggie to hit some big shots, you could always count on MJ in the playoffs to WILL your team to victory. I'm not knocking Reggie, but MJ was the greatest player of the era. No matter who MJ played with, he was going to get rings. The players he had by his side were far from "dominant", as you implied. Outside of Pippen, they were all role players. Great players like MJ make role players shine.

            Reggie certainly was not alone on offense. Rik Smits was huge during the 1995 playoffs, outplaying Patrick Ewing. Are you forgetting Jalen Rose's scoring ability when he was here?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

              I'd join in this discussion because my extreme hope is that the NBA is moving away from being star-driven to team-driven.

              But I'm too stunned at trying to deal with someone calling BJ Armstrong or Steve Kerr great players.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                I'd join in this discussion because my extreme hope is that the NBA is moving away from being star-driven to team-driven.

                But I'm too stunned at trying to deal with someone calling BJ Armstrong or Steve Kerr great players.

                I know, it was shocking to hear.

                But please, give some insight.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                  Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                  I'd join in this discussion because my extreme hope is that the NBA is moving away from being star-driven to team-driven.

                  But I'm too stunned at trying to deal with someone calling BJ Armstrong or Steve Kerr great players.
                  .....and if you really think about it, Kucoc was overrated as hell. He could shoot and pass, but defensively, he made Dirk look like ron artest. He also rebounded like a WNBA small forward.

                  I see Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman/Grant. Other than that, throw in 4 or 5 random role players and you win titles.

                  I thought Bill Cartright was the worst center to win 3 straight titles.

                  Until I trembled in terror of Luc Longly.

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

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                    Reggie was almost Alone on Offense in his prime and STILL managed to get close so many times.
                    Methinks you are not giving guys like Rik enough credit. IIRC, I always thought Rik Smits was the most important player on those teams. Reggie couldn't do it alone. When Smits was on, the Pacers almost always won. Jalen was a pretty good offensive player when he was here too, although he couldn't guard my grandma. Saying that Reggie was a one-man show offensively is a slap in the face to Reg's supporting cast from the 90s, IMO.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                      Hmm....I seem to recall a guy named Mark Jackson averaging 10 assists per game....I can assure you they weren't all to reggie.

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

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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        Hmm....I seem to recall a guy named Mark Jackson averaging 10 assists per game....I can assure you they weren't all to reggie.
                        Well, there's the problem... Any of those 10 not going to Reggie is shots Reggie didn't get!

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                          Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                          I never said Reggie wasn't great, and I'm certainly not dishing him at all.

                          I certainly hope you aren't trying to equate Reggie to Jordan. Reggie would NOT be considered the greatest player in the game had he switched players with MJ, because Reggie simply wasn't as good as MJ.
                          No I agree that your not dissing Reggie, but If Reggie would have had the supporting cast that Jordan had, He would have easily had MJ's rings on his Fingers right now.

                          I in no way want to demean the careers or importance of Rik Smits,Sam Perkins, or Mark Jackson, they were all great players.However, Jordan had a help with the MONSTER rebounding of Dennis Rodman, the amazing help of Scottie Pippen (who never really got the apreciation he deserved), Harper,and Kerr.

                          Both Reggie and Michael are outstanding clutch and franchise players, but the only thing that I think that MJ has on Reggie is the AWESOME dunking abilities. I honestly believe that if Reggie had been a Chicago bull, and Michael an Indiana Pacer, their life and team roles would be totally reversed.

                          We can discuss this for years, but we would all still have the same opinion we started with.
                          Life without water is tough, life without air is hard,life with one leg only is wobbly, Life without Reggie Miller, is impossible.

                          Do Not Trade Austin

                          Originally posted by Conrad Brunner
                          Veteran Austin Croshere, the longest-tenured Pacers player on the roster, has proven reliable when called upon, invariably ready to step in regardless of the circumstance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                            Originally posted by 8.9_seconds
                            No I agree that your not dissing Reggie, but If Reggie would have had the supporting cast that Jordan had, He would have easily had MJ's rings on his Fingers right now.

                            I in no way want to demean the careers or importance of Rik Smits,Sam Perkins, or Mark Jackson, they were all great players.However, Jordan had a help with the MONSTER rebounding of Dennis Rodman, the amazing help of Scottie Pippen (who never really got the apreciation he deserved), Harper,and Kerr.

                            Both Reggie and Michael are outstanding clutch and franchise players, but the only thing that I think that MJ has on Reggie is the AWESOME dunking abilities. I honestly believe that if Reggie had been a Chicago bull, and Michael an Indiana Pacer, their life and team roles would be totally reversed.

                            We can discuss this for years, but we would all still have the same opinion we started with.
                            i don't really chime in tOo much, but all i can say to that is "WOW" i about choked on my popcorn chicken after reading that.

                            i loved watching reggie miller play, and i understand where the bias comes in... but i just watched a player this year in LeBRON JAMES do more statistically in one season then reggie ever did in his career.
                            he averaged more points, assist, rebounds, steals, and blocks then reggie ever came close to.

                            and with that said he's still light years behind jordan, too me that makes reggie a bit further behind then LeBRON.. now if you want to talk about a body of work, and clutchness- well then it's JORDAN > REGGIE > lebron (incomplete)

                            i'm not even saying lebron is on reggie's level, but i do know he is more of a complete all around player then reggie is.

                            jordan was an all around player.. reggie was not... but he was darn good.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                              Originally posted by KING JAMES
                              i don't really chime in tOo much, but all i can say to that is "WOW" i about choked on my popcorn chicken after reading that.

                              i loved watching reggie miller play, and i understand where the bias comes in... but i just watched a player this year in LeBRON JAMES do more statistically in one season then reggie ever did in his career.
                              he averaged more points, assist, rebounds, steals, and blocks then reggie ever came close to.

                              and with that said he's still light years behind jordan, too me that makes reggie a bit further behind then LeBRON.. now if you want to talk about a body of work, and clutchness- well then it's JORDAN > REGGIE > lebron (incomplete)

                              i'm not even saying lebron is on reggie's level, but i do know he is more of a complete all around player then reggie is.

                              jordan was an all around player.. reggie was not... but he was darn good.
                              respectable post, I see and understand what your saying.

                              hehe I am pretty biased aren't I? Well I have been called the anti-indytoad before.
                              Life without water is tough, life without air is hard,life with one leg only is wobbly, Life without Reggie Miller, is impossible.

                              Do Not Trade Austin

                              Originally posted by Conrad Brunner
                              Veteran Austin Croshere, the longest-tenured Pacers player on the roster, has proven reliable when called upon, invariably ready to step in regardless of the circumstance.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X