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

Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

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

  • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    Lets all take a step back can we please on Roy Hibbert.

    This is what Roys 5th season? This is a guy that dealt with Obrien for 3.5 years of his career and many know the negative impact that created with Danny. He went from a tough nosed player to primarily a 3 pt shooter and digressed from there. he is only now developing more into vintage Artest and not Peja.

    Many of us i think felt Obrien along with poor pg play and a lack of a structured offense all had to do with Roys lack of develpment to some degree.

    now he has the max contract and some will say that is the problem. i think primarily in perception fans expect more from a MAX player. imo Hibbert is worth 10M with the duration of his worth around 13 M prob by time it expires. he is not rediculously overpaid but the term Max implies it.

    i think intelligent pacer fans knew this was a possibility. Hibbert did not dominate the Magic last year with no D12.

    Hibbert is PAID for his D. I believe we will appreciate Hibbert more in the PLAYOFFS because thats when it becomes a half-court game. Hibbs expectations based on the playoffs and a max contract and all the swooning he rcd and i think he just hasnt found his niche. He will perform well in the PLAYOFFS. a big man like him will pay dividends defensively.

    i wonder if his physical regime has been changed and the extra weight is affecting his overall game. i think Hibbert will be fine but one issue i would really like the pacers to resolve is getting a BIGMAN coach. i really believe it would be worth the investment.

    for example, Hibbert wanted to shoot before a gaem he said and Vogel was the only guy he could get to work with him. Are the pacers that cheap they cannot get a big man coach or is there no one to be found.

    Get our max center a big man coach that can help him develop his game and serve as a mentor throughout the season. There has to be someone available that would be an ideal fit.

    Hibbert is overpaid by 4 mil. I believe that relates to being overpaid by 30%. I never felt Hibbert would be a 20/12 guy, but he's not even the player he was last year. His max contract he received was based off of Hibbert's last season accomplishments. Expecting the same stats after receiving a max contract isn't at all unreasonable. Unfortunately, Hibbert isn't producing those stats for the money, and people aren't happy after he got a max contract. If he was being paid 10 mil for what he's presently producing, people wouldn't be nearly as unhappy. Take that extra 4 mil savings, and the Pacers could have used it in better upgrading the bench.

    As far as getting Hibbert a BIG MAN coach, I have to laugh. Not b/c I don't agree with you, but Walsh never would b4, so why expect him to do it now? I pleaded for the FO to get a big man coach for David Harrison, Walsh in control. I asked for one when Hibbert was drafted, Walsh was in control. Plumblee could use a big man coach, Walsh in control. Checkbook Donnie will overpay to keep players, but won't pay for an on staff QUALITY big man coach. NEVER HAS NEVER WILL. Orlando got Ewing to work with Howard, Lakers got Jabbar to work with Bynum, etc.

    Under Bird, Walton worked with Hibbert a "few" weeks one off season. Another off season Hibbert on his own worked out with Duncan.

    I've never understood the philosophy of not spending to develop a big man. Yet, they retained Billy Keller to help players with shooting. Big men need more help developing their game than the rest of the players. Bottom line is Walsh isn't going to bring in a big man coach to help the bigs. Any help they get will be by coaches presently on staff or fellow big men like DWest.

    I felt Hill was overpaid, but at least Hill's game has improved to the point he's not blatantly overpaid like Hibbert. In the month of December, Hill shot 43% compared to 38% earlier in the season. Hill's elevating his game where as unfortunately Hibbert hasn't to the point his game has regressed. How can anyone be happy with Hibbert being given a max contract and with his play not feel he's overpaid? Like BEAST 23 said Hibbert needs to put on some big boy pants and grow a pair. Only he can improve his play and game. If all he can be is a single didgit scorer, do some rebounding, and play good "D", then he's WAY OVERPAID to the point of looking like an albatross contract for the future.

    STEP UP BIG MAN! Show us you are worth your max contract!

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

      Roy HAS to get a mean streak. He just has to, if he wants to really be a more consistent player, he blames himself, but instead he needs to project that energy out on the other team if that makes sense.


      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
        I think Jimmy and Roy are responsible for Roy's confidence issues.
        Roy had confidence issues in college, long before JOB came along. In fact, in his One-on-One with Mark Monteith (obligatory reference) interview, he talked about G'town using a two-pronged approach on him coaching-wise - the head coach would beat him up for failures while an assistant would help prop him up mentally. One of the biggest issues with how JOB treated him was that there was no Mike Brown or other assistant who took on the job of being Roy's prop.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          Hibbert is overpaid by 4 mil. I believe that relates to being overpaid by 30%. I never felt Hibbert would be a 20/12 guy.
          Marc Gasol is not a 20/12 guy. Is he overpaid?

          Tyson Chandler is not a 20/12 guy either. Is he overpaid? Wasn't he crucial on the Mavs championship run?

          I feel that sometimes people get too caught up in numbers and words such as "max" and fail to see the real value of a player.
          Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
          Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

          Panopticon

          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            Hibbert is overpaid by 4 mil. I believe that relates to being overpaid by 30%. I never felt Hibbert would be a 20/12 guy, but he's not even the player he was last year. His max contract he received was based off of Hibbert's last season accomplishments. Expecting the same stats after receiving a max contract isn't at all unreasonable. Unfortunately, Hibbert isn't producing those stats for the money, and people aren't happy after he got a max contract. If he was being paid 10 mil for what he's presently producing, people wouldn't be nearly as unhappy. Take that extra 4 mil savings, and the Pacers could have used it in better upgrading the bench.

            As far as getting Hibbert a BIG MAN coach, I have to laugh. Not b/c I don't agree with you, but Walsh never would b4, so why expect him to do it now? I pleaded for the FO to get a big man coach for David Harrison, Walsh in control. I asked for one when Hibbert was drafted, Walsh was in control. Plumblee could use a big man coach, Walsh in control. Checkbook Donnie will overpay to keep players, but won't pay for an on staff QUALITY big man coach. NEVER HAS NEVER WILL. Orlando got Ewing to work with Howard, Lakers got Jabbar to work with Bynum, etc.

            Under Bird, Walton worked with Hibbert a "few" weeks one off season. Another off season Hibbert on his own worked out with Duncan.

            I've never understood the philosophy of not spending to develop a big man. Yet, they retained Billy Keller to help players with shooting. Big men need more help developing their game than the rest of the players. Bottom line is Walsh isn't going to bring in a big man coach to help the bigs. Any help they get will be by coaches presently on staff or fellow big men like DWest.

            I felt Hill was overpaid, but at least Hill's game has improved to the point he's not blatantly overpaid like Hibbert. In the month of December, Hill shot 43% compared to 38% earlier in the season. Hill's elevating his game where as unfortunately Hibbert hasn't to the point his game has regressed. How can anyone be happy with Hibbert being given a max contract and with his play not feel he's overpaid? Like BEAST 23 said Hibbert needs to put on some big boy pants and grow a pair. Only he can improve his play and game. If all he can be is a single didgit scorer, do some rebounding, and play good "D", then he's WAY OVERPAID to the point of looking like an albatross contract for the future.

            STEP UP BIG MAN! Show us you are worth your max contract!
            im not sure Hibbert will ever find that mean streak. early in his career i had hopes but now i expect him to always be a tip in guy and not a put back DUNK in your face player.

            im not blaming OBRIEN. i pointing out that throughout Hibbs career its been Obrien, lack of pg play, lack of structured offense.. so on. no more excuses. Hibbs needs to play like an All start center.

            regarding walsh, all those centers you mentioned have one key difference btw them and Hibbert. Hibbert is well paid. its totally nuts not investing in him with a big man coach.

            centers take longer to develop so im not ready to say Hibbert has reached his ceiling. problem is and i said it right after he got schooled by Duncan in SA to start the season and everyone freaked out.

            Hibbert is soft. nothing wrong with that. he will never have DWEST mean streak. he is more of a Smits type of guy.. but way more passionate.. just missing the killer instinct.

            god if i was 7'2 i would play like a total D*CK on the court. I think Hibbs has low bball IQ for a center. his footwork is terrible at times. his positioning is terrible at times.

            Barkely was 6'4 and played like he was 6'10. Hibbert is 7'2 and plays like he is 6'9. i have to attribute it to low-average bball iq.

            he needs a bigman coach to mentor him on the court and somewaht off the court during cold spells.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
              i have to attribute it to low-average bball iq.
              I get what you are saying here, but I can't agree. Roy has smarts both on and off the court. But he is a congenital softy. He is the classic gentle giant. All his problems stem from this foundation.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                Marc Gasol is not a 20/12 guy. Is he overpaid?

                Tyson Chandler is not a 20/12 guy either. Is he overpaid? Wasn't he crucial on the Mavs championship run?

                I feel that sometimes people get too caught up in numbers and words such as "max" and fail to see the real value of a player.

                AGAIN, Hibbert got paid for what he accomplished last season. Compare that with this season, and yes he's OVERPAID.


                I'm glad you asked about Marc Gasol!! Early last season I stated Gasol was better than Hibbert, and I'd trade Hibbert for Gasol. You'd have thought I was a baby, puppy, and kitten killer by many for even suggesting such an outlandish thing.

                Gasol

                10-11 season
                11.7/7/2.5
                Gets max contract for those #'s.

                11-12 1st year of max contract
                14.6/ 9/ 4
                Please note the "increase in production" of 3 pts, 2 rebs, and 1.5 Ast per game after getting a max contract.

                12-13 season
                14.4/ 7.5/ 4 at 48% FG and 87% FT

                Throw in the fact Gasol is a tougher player and the answer to your question of is Gasol an overpaid player is an overwhelming NO!!! He's worth what he's being paid.


                Hibbert

                11-12 season
                12.8/8.8/1.7 at 49.7% FG and 71% FT.
                Stats Hibbert got MAX contract.

                12-13 1st year of MAX contract.
                9.6/8/1.7 at 40% FG and 64% FT.

                Down 3 pts in scoring, almost 1 rebound, almost 10% in FG%, and 7% in FT%. This doesn't shout MAX player, it shouts OVERPAID!

                Hibbert is not as strong physically or mentally as Gasol who deserves the MAX contract. Barkley a week or so ago on tv said Gasol was the 2nd best center in the NBA not Hibbert.


                Edit: The sad thing is that for Bird's 1st 2 years he scouted the Euro players, and in the 2007 draft Bird traded Orlando for the 39th pick and drafted Stanko instead of drafting Marc Gasol who was drafted at #48 by the Lakers.
                Last edited by Justin Tyme; 01-04-2013, 03:10 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                  Walsh DID have a big man coach under Isaiah Thomas. It's not the GM who's choosing whether we have a big man coach, it's the head coach who chooses his assistants.

                  O'Brien didn't want a big man coach, and Vogel hasn't pursued one either. That's on Vogel, not Donnie.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Jim O'Brien is not an incurable disease, he's just a dude that coached here for several really unsuccessful years, he's not part of Roy's issues anymore, whatever they are. And if he is part of Roy's issues still, well then we have a HUGE problem
                    When I was young, a friend made a terrible error in judgement. He recklessly drove a car and his best friend was killed. The deceased boy's mother spoke in my friend's behalf at his sentencing for manslaughter. She forgave him and spoke some of the most powerful words that I have ever heard spoken.

                    The woman, who was also like a second mother to my friend, told him "Scars are an indication of where you've been. Lee, you mustn't allow them to be a limitation on where you are going."

                    I think the same thing holds true for Hibbert. He is well beyond the scars inflicted by his former coach. What he does with his career is totally on himself and no one else.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Walsh DID have a big man coach under Isaiah Thomas. It's not the GM who's choosing whether we have a big man coach, it's the head coach who chooses his assistants.

                      O'Brien didn't want a big man coach, and Vogel hasn't pursued one either. That's on Vogel, not Donnie.
                      That is a cop out. The FO can easily tell Vogel that they want to bring in a big man coach if they wanted to.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Walsh DID have a big man coach under Isaiah Thomas. It's not the GM who's choosing whether we have a big man coach, it's the head coach who chooses his assistants.

                        O'Brien didn't want a big man coach, and Vogel hasn't pursued one either. That's on Vogel, not Donnie.

                        Who was this "big name quality" big man coach?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          Who was this "big name quality" big man coach?
                          I don't think he used the term you have in quotes there.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                            The whole idea of "big man coach" has always bothered me. Correct me if I am wrong, but a big man coach has to be an ex-NBA player who was a "big man" OK, but then why don't teams hire a point guard coach, or a shooting guard coach.....you get more point. Why can't Frank Vogel coach Roy as well as he coaches George Hill. I mean do we need Bill Walton to coach Roy, but Frank is fine to coach George Hill.

                            I mean is the center position that specialized that only a very select few can proplerly coach the position.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                              Why do people always talk about needing a big man coach but never a point guard coach, or a shooting guard coach, or a wing coach? That is what gets me. I think the idea of a big man coach is vastly overrated.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                The whole idea of "big man coach" has always bothered me. Correct me if I am wrong, but a big man coach has to be an ex-NBA player who was a "big man" OK, but then why don't teams hire a point guard coach, or a shooting guard coach.....you get more point. Why can't Frank Vogel coach Roy as well as he coaches George Hill. I mean do we need Bill Walton to coach Roy, but Frank is fine to coach George Hill.

                                I mean is the center position that specialized that only a very select few can proplerly coach the position.
                                I don't know Vogel's playing history, but to be honest I don't understand why the NBA doesn't have specialized coaches like football because yes there are a lot of nuances that you might not pick up on if you didn't actually play the position. I certainly wouldn't trust an ex-Center to be good at coaching a Point Guard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X