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 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Kobe was the best player on a team that went to three straight Finals and won two of them (back to back). Duncan's Spurs only went to back to back Finald one time and never could win consecutive titles. It's a very big deal when you can go through that playoff grind, win the title, and then do the exact same thing the next season. Kobe's apex was more successful than Duncan's apex.

    The above reasoning also plays a major factor into why Larry Bird isn't better than Magic Johnson. To win back to back titles puts you in a rare group.
    Isiah Thomas was better than Larry Bird. Interesting take. I mean, Isiah won back to back titles as the best player.

    Kobe won 5 titles but should have won more. He and Shaq should have dominated the last decade.

    Give me Duncan over Kobe. 17 years between all-NBA teams, 15 years between all-NBA first teams. Kobe's a bigger star, but Duncan had a better career.
    Last edited by shags; 04-13-2016, 07:14 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      The Kobe hate is strong in these parts.

      But I disagree with those that think Duncan has had a better career. More consistent? yes. But Kobe's peaks were a lot higher than Duncan's. It's just that his valley's were lower as well.

      But there's a reason you won't be seeing this type of farewell tour for Tim Duncan. And it's not because he played for the Spurs.

      To many of this generation, Kobe is iconic. Hell to many, he's even more than that. Pretty much any wing player playing right now has said they grew up idolizing the guy. I think that's understated a bit.

      I do understand the argument for Duncan wholeheartedly. But for someone as HATED as Kobe is, to be receiving such love right now is due to the respect those have of him and what he's done. Tim Duncan is a GREAT GREAT player. Kobe is an icon. For that, he's had the better career IMO.
      Not to discredit Kobe's farewell tour, because I think it's been pretty great, but the reason you wouldn't see a farewell tour for Duncan is he'd never allow it. Duncan will retire at the end of some season, probably in the same vein John Stockton did.

      Comment


      • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

        Bird had to go through Magic Johnson to win a championship. Kobe had to go through Dwight Howard and the Boston retirement home.

        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


        • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

          I hope Miami loses tonight. So they would play Cleveland in the second round.

          Sent from my Nexus 5X

          Comment


          • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Bird had to go through Magic Johnson to win a championship. Kobe had to go through Dwight Howard and the Boston retirement home.
            Yeah, and both of those teams beat Lebron's teams in those respective seasons.

            Who cares what their ages were? They were just two years removed from a championship (would have been three straight Finals if not for the 09 KG injury), and two years later had Miami on the ropes at 3-2. Reggie Miller was older than 2010 KG/Pierce and the same age as Shuttlesworth when he led the Pacers to the Finals in 2000 . Fun fact - elite players can still be really good through their mid 30's.

            3 of the 5 teams that the Spurs beat in the Finals weren't anything to write home about: Fluke 8 seed Knicks in 1999, the 2003 "well the East is so bad but someone has to make the Finals" Nets, and the 2007 Cavs (an absolutely pathetic one man show roster). The 05 Pistons and the 2014 Heat were only great Finals opponents for SA.

            You're really tipping your extreme biases by downplaying the quality of the 2010 Celtics. They completely smoked the Cavs and Magic.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-14-2016, 06:53 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Yeah, and both of those teams beat Lebron's teams in those respective seasons.

              Who cares what their ages were? They were just two years removed from a championship (would have been three straight Finals if not for the 09 KG injury), and two years later had Miami on the ropes at 3-2. Reggie Miller was older than 2010 KG/Pierce and the same age as Shuttlesworth in 2000 when he led the Pacers to the Finals . Fun fact - elite players can still be really good through their mid 30's.

              3 of the 5 teams that the Spurs beat in the Finals weren't anything to write home about: Fluke 8 seed Knicks in 1999, the 2003 "well the East is so bad but someone has to make the Finals" Nets, and the 2007 Cavs (an absolutely pathetic one man show roster). The 05 Pistons and the 2014 Heat were only great Finals opponents for SA.

              You're really tipping your extreme biases by downplaying the quality of the 2010 Celtics. They completely smoked the Cavs and Magic.
              I'll just never understand how the 2004-05 and 2005-06 Lakers with Shaq and Kobe didn't contend for a title.

              And of course no one mentions know how Kobe Bryant got away with rape and broke the DeAngelo Russell bro code with Shaq after he did it.

              Comment


              • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                Originally posted by shags View Post
                I'll just never understand how the 2004-05 and 2005-06 Lakers with Shaq and Kobe didn't contend for a title.
                Huh?

                Comment


                • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Pau Gasol was no where near the player nor near as important to those Laker championship teams. Not even close.

                  I will never understand the overrating of Pau Gasol and his importance in order to downplay how good Kobe was during those championship series.
                  Especially since Pau Gasol never won a playoff game before he joined Kobe with all those Grizzlies teams that got swept. He got a pass for that Dirk OTOH was always called a choker and many thought Cuban was an idiot for sticking with him as long as he did. Despite taking a team to the Finals and losing. I agree Duncan won't get this type of tour because well people tend to forget he exists he's a quiet fundamental dude who got the job done just like his game. Fitting exit to go quietly.

                  Kobe was flashy star who got the job done and gets a lot of attention good and bad a fitting exit for him as well.

                  Difference is nobody really dogs Duncan for having help winning titles but Kobe its used against him that I never understood and found it rather laughable considering nobody wins an NBA title by themselves. The last couple of titles the Spurs won he didn't even win MVP. Nobody throws that in his face either.

                  Then again Duncan is too "boring" to hate for people. Kobe is polarizing and completely unapologetic about it.
                  Last edited by Basketball Fan; 04-13-2016, 09:28 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                    The Lakers game is a bit too late for me to stay up with work tomorrow and all so I'll have to record it. Its been a rough couple of months for my sports fandom. First Manning now Kobe its time though for both but still a part of my childhood is ending

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Huh?
                      Because when you are arguing players as great as Duncan and Kobe, you're nitpicking to find a difference. And the bottom line is the valleys Kobe had in the prime of his career (2004 to 2007, before the Lakers got Pau Gasol) were his own doing.

                      Kobe was accused of rape, and probably got away with it, considering the civil suit and the $4 million "I'm sorry" ring he gave his wife. After that happen, he threw Shaq under the bus DeAngelo Russell-style. Heck of a teammate, that Kobe Bryant!!!

                      If Kobe and Shaq could have co-existed, Kobe would have more titles than 5. The 2004-05 and 2005-06 Lakers should have had Shaq and Kobe. They didn't, in large part due to Kobe, who could only be satisfied winning if he were the #1 option.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                        Originally posted by shags View Post
                        Because when you are arguing players as great as Duncan and Kobe, you're nitpicking to find a difference. And the bottom line is the valleys Kobe had in the prime of his career (2004 to 2007, before the Lakers got Pau Gasol) were his own doing.

                        Kobe was accused of rape, and probably got away with it, considering the civil suit and the $4 million "I'm sorry" ring he gave his wife. After that happen, he threw Shaq under the bus DeAngelo Russell-style. Heck of a teammate, that Kobe Bryant!!!

                        If Kobe and Shaq could have co-existed, Kobe would have more titles than 5. The 2004-05 and 2005-06 Lakers should have had Shaq and Kobe. They didn't, in large part due to Kobe, who could only be satisfied winning if he were the #1 option.
                        Lost in all of this is that Shaq wanted to get paid for doing half the work(always accused of being fat and lazy never conditioning) and he was aging Buss didn't want to do it so off he went. He went for the younger dude. If the roles were reversed they would've dumped Kobe as well.

                        Sure Kobe was a part of it but really Shaq was hardly an innocent here the dude bounced from how many teams? Yet he was never the problem apparently.... pays to be a media darling.


                        Yet despite all the drama Kobe has been a Laker his entire career.

                        I also never thought Kobe was guilty I followed the case the chick wasn't credible at all. But people believe whatever they want. As for him ratting out Shaq probably not cool but its not as if he was secretly recording someone saying these things he probably didn't think it would become public. I question why D'Angelo ever recorded Nick Young at all but beyond that if he wins nobody cares about that either

                        Same with Kobe he started winning people didn't care about much else.

                        I don't think Shaq/Kobe were ever going to win more than they did if not for Phil they probably wouldn't have won 3 because he taught them to coexist to begin with.

                        In the end Kobe got the last laugh because he won two without Shaq and one more than him.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                          Originally posted by shags View Post
                          Because when you are arguing players as great as Duncan and Kobe, you're nitpicking to find a difference. And the bottom line is the valleys Kobe had in the prime of his career (2004 to 2007, before the Lakers got Pau Gasol) were his own doing.

                          Kobe was accused of rape, and probably got away with it, considering the civil suit and the $4 million "I'm sorry" ring he gave his wife. After that happen, he threw Shaq under the bus DeAngelo Russell-style. Heck of a teammate, that Kobe Bryant!!!

                          If Kobe and Shaq could have co-existed, Kobe would have more titles than 5. The 2004-05 and 2005-06 Lakers should have had Shaq and Kobe. They didn't, in large part due to Kobe, who could only be satisfied winning if he were the #1 option.
                          A lot of assumption here.

                          You're accusing Kobe of getting away with rape, and then criticizing him for "snitching" on Shaq for committing adultery. "Lol Kobe is all bad, Shaq is all good!"

                          The Kobe and Shaq breakup was just as much on Shaq as it was on Kobe, but Kobe gets the brunt of the blame. Even if Kobe were to blame, the Lakers could have gotten elite talent for Shaq as opposed to the poo poo platter they received. If that happens, there's no telling what could have happened during those valley years. Duncan on the other hand has always had superior coaching and a strong supporting cast.

                          Also I find it totally hypocritical to come down on Kobe for "only being satisfied winning if he were the #1 option", yet his first three rings won with Shaq are often dismissed because he wasn't the clear cut #1 option. How can he be satisfied with winning as 1A, if his detractors aren't? Not totally fair if you ask me.

                          But with all of that said, it's all personal preferences. Has nothing to do with someone's game in any way. This is where personal biases seem to cast a shadow over things

                          Comment


                          • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                            Interesting stuff this makes me feel kind of old though

                            http://thebiglead.com/2016/04/13/kob...eer-1996-2016/

                            Kobe Bryant: So Much Has Changed in the 20-Years Since His NBA DebutI

                            Kobe Bryant played his first NBA game on November 3, 1996. Kobe played 6-minutes off the bench in a Lakers win over the Minnesota Timberwolves. He went 0-for-1 from the field and had 1 rebound and 1 block. Fellow rookie Derek Fisher played 13 minutes. Current Lakers coach Byron Scott played 19 minutes. 24-year old Shaquille O’Neal had 35 points and 19 rebounds.

                            Man, things sure were different twenty years ago. Here are some more things that are not the same now as they were then..


                            The #1 movie in America was Romeo + Juliet.



                            It was homecoming weekend on 3rd Rock From the Sun.



                            Hank Scorpio offered Homer new job on The Simpsons.



                            Mulder saw the field where he died on The X-Files. (Spoiler alert?)



                            Chris Rock hosted Saturday Night Live hours earlier. The Wallflowers performed “One Headlight.” Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough to keep the Macarena by Los Del Rio from being the #1 song in America.



                            America was two days away from re-electing Bill Clinton. Bob Dole and Ross Perot had know idea what was about to happen.

                            Barry Sanders rushed for 152 yards and a touchdown on 20 carries in a Lions loss to Brett Favre and the Packers.

                            Clay Matthews Jr., the father of Pitch Perfect 2’s Clay Matthews III, sacked Kerry Collins 3 times in a Falcons win over the Panthers.

                            ESPN radio personality Danny Kanell dueled CBS radio personality Boomer Esiason as the Giants beat the Cardinals, 16-8.

                            Yahoo! radio personality Sean Salisbury threw two touchdown passes in a Chargers win over Jim Harbaugh and the Colts. The Michigan coach’s social media channels were eerily quiet after his 18-of-44, 4-interception performance that day.

                            In fact, no one said anything on social media that day. Kobe Bryant has been playing so long there wasn’t social media. And now he’s retired. Time to bring back Los Del Rio.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

                              The Kobe and Shaq breakup was just as much on Shaq as it was on Kobe, but Kobe gets the brunt of the blame. Even if Kobe were to blame, the Lakers could have gotten elite talent for Shaq as opposed to the poo poo platter they received. If that happens, there's no telling what could have happened during those valley years.
                              They got Lamar Odom out of it Caron Butler wasn't bad either, Brian Grant though...

                              At the time it seemed rather stupid but looking back its not as bad as I remembered.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 12th Annual NBA Random Thoughts Thread 2015-2016: These are Attack Eyebrows

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                They got Lamar Odom out of it Caron Butler wasn't bad either, Brian Grant though...

                                At the time it seemed rather stupid but looking back its not as bad as I remembered.
                                Poo poo platter is probably over the top. But Shaq was still elite. I'll always believe they could've gotten better than two starters (Although Odom was the second most important piece on those championship teams IMO)
                                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 04-13-2016, 09:52 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X