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

Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

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

    Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

    Give me a minute to post all these. I realize some are repetitive, so if you only read two, read the column by Bob Ryan and the column by Dan Shaunesy


    I found the info on how many screems Reggie ran off of interesting (81)

    Pierce lets it get away
    By Steve Bulpett/ Celtics Notebook
    Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - Updated: 07:19 AM EST

    Paul Pierce got the touches he wanted last night, but admittedly his touch failed him. He had 27 points and seven boards, but he gave the ball away six times in the 90-85 Game 5 loss to Indiana.

    I can't turn the ball over six times,'' the Celtics captain said flatly. ``The ball's in my hands a lot, and I'm too good of a player to have six turnovers. But that's part of the game and you've got to live with it. I've just got to move on.

    Right now our backs are against the wall, but I think this team is going to respond. When our backs have been against the wall all year long we've been able to bounce back and respond to the adversity. We go back and get one in Indiana and come back here for Game 7 and see what happens.''



    Doc Rivers admitted he had trouble integrating Antoine Walker [news] after his one-game suspension, but Pierce wasn't going to blame his teammate.

    It's not about Antoine; it's about the team,'' he said. ``Guys have got to be able to come in here and accept their roles. We're not worried about Antoine. He's going to come around. We're not even worried.''

    Everyone shares blame

    Most of Celtics nation is struggling today to figure out how their lads can so easily get away from sharing the ball which is so critical to their success. Rivers believes he knows.

    Because we've been together eight months and because we're still learning how to be a good basketball team,'' he said. ``And we are going to be a good basketball team, and I'm hoping that it's this year. But that's the reason. I don't know when Indiana put their team together, but I guarantee whoever that coach was is not there anymore probably and he was saying, `Guys, you've got to trust each other.' That's what happens.''

    Blount gets benched

    Mark Blount [news] was the only Celtic not to play. It was his first DNP since returning to the club with 27 games left in the 2002-03 season. Including playoffs, he had appeared in 209 straight games prior to last night. . . .

    Saturday was the first time the Celts had used Pierce, Ricky Davis, Delonte West, Gary Payton and Raef LaFrentz as a starting five. They had used 14 different lineups in the first 85 games.

    Last night's five of Pierce, Davis, Payton, LaFrentz and Walker was actually used twice in the regular season. The Celts were 1-1 in those games. . . .

    Rivers reported that Reggie Miller ran off 81 picks in Game 3 alone.

    ``I mean, that's just an amazing number of picks for a human being to keep running off of,'' he said. ``So you think of the guys who are guarding him - who have to go through those picks. He's just different. That's what makes him great.'' . . .



    Rivers had talked about inviting rehabbing Red Sox pitcher David Wells to the FleetCenter. He didn't need to.

    ``I saw him on the street (yesterday) and he told me he was coming to the game,'' Rivers said.

    When one wise guy asked if he'd seen Wells outside of a fast food restaurant, Rivers replied, ``As a (matter of) fact, he was on his way to work out. That's a fact.'' . . .

    Last night's Hero Among Us was former Tufts basketball star George Mazareas, who played professionally in Greece. The resident of Nahant was diagnosed two years ago with ALS and has helped raise more than $150,000 for research.

    Move is above board

    Rivers was asked about the timing of Jamaal Tinsley's comeback and a possible conspiracy and cracked, ``I never believe in those things. You have to check with other coaches for that. I'm not one of them. I don't like coach (and) conspiracy being connected anymore. That's a bad way to go.''

    The reference was to Houston coach Jeff Van Gundy being fined for suggesting a conspiracy against Yao Ming. In light of that, Rivers was asked if he was concerned he could get penalized for saying Miller is getting ``farewell tour'' calls.

    ``No, I wasn't. . . . because they would have called already,'' he said.

    http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...format=&page=2
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

    http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...rticleid=81524

    Celtics fall off the Pace -- Home loss means 3-2 deficit
    By Steve Bulpett
    Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - Updated: 07:11 AM EST

    The Celtics came back to The FleetCenter looking for some home cooking in their 2-2 first-round series with the Pacers.

    What they got was a Three Stooges special - burnt toast and a rotten egg.

    And possible elimination tomorrow night in Indianapolis.

    The Celts trailed for the evening's last 44:43, failing to make the critical plays down the stretch in a 90-85 defeat.

    Paul Pierce [news] had 27 points, but his six turnovers were part of the Celts' 22 giveaways that led to 27 Pacer points.



    Not a lot more needs to be said.

    Jermaine O'Neal led Indiana with 19 points, just two in the last quarter.

    The Celts were down six after an Anthony Johnson trey and teetering a bit when Antoine Walker [news] was summoned with 6:57 left. He'd been on the pine for more than 10 minutes, and the fact he was struggling when last on the court led to a mixture of boos and cheers when he returned.

    Walker quickly swayed the wayward followers by hitting a runner to make it 75-71. After an exchange of hoops by Stephen Jackson and Gary Payton, Walker again scored in the lane to make it a two-point game.

    Reggie Miller and Pierce traded treys, and Pierce followed an O'Neal jumper with a runner reminiscent of game attendee John Havlicek. But Jackson beat the 24-second clock with a trey and Pierce made just 1-of-2 from the line at the other end to leave Indiana ahead 85-81 with 2:18 left.

    The next three times they had the ball they produced a Pierce turnover and missed shots by Pierce, Raef LaFrentz and Walker. Dale Davis hit a free throw with 34 seconds left to make it a five-point game, but a Marcus Banks [news] drive was followed by two Johnson foul shots with 27.6 left.

    When Pierce missed a trey and the Celts couldn't handle the ball on the carom, it was over. Miller added ice with two from the line, giving him just 12 points for the game - but in a winning effort.

    The third quarter brought mangled music to the Celtics ears. Until the last three and a half minutes.

    Prior to that, the C's heard mainly the boos of their losing the faith-ful. They had fallen behind by 10 again, but after getting it to eight they missed three shots on their next two possessions - two of them treys that would have tightened things considerably.

    When Walker turned the ball over twice in a short span and the Celts slipped further back, the crowd voiced its displeasure. Walker was removed with 5:32 left and the home team down 12. Things would get worse before they got better, with James Jones' trey putting the Pacers ahead by 10 and sending Doc Rivers for a timeout at 4:07.

    Pierce hit a pair of free throws coming out of the break, and Miller answered with a jumper from the left.

    Pierce then went back to the line and hit another pair to start an 11-1 Celtics small-ball kick to the third quarter finish line.

    When Ricky Davis opened the final frame with a jumper, the difference was a mere three - 70-67 - but the Celts blew three chances to gain further, turning the ball over on their next three possessions. The last was a hard to fathom 24-second clock violation - not exactly what you'd expect from a team trying to fast break its way back to the lead.

    But at least the Celts had established that they were going to get further looks at this one as the night grew later.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

      http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...rticleid=81540


      Walker out of step
      By Mark Murphy
      Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - Updated: 07:32 AM EST

      Antoine Walker is the first to admit that this playoff series has largely left him on the side of the road.

      ``It's not going well for me individually in this series,'' the Celtics forward said after returning from his one-game suspension to score 10 points and grab seven rebounds in last night's 90-85 loss to the Pacers in Game 5. ``But we have to keep fighting, and I'm just trying to do my part.

      ``It's not going to be perfect. I'm not going to be perfect. We try to be perfect. It's just one of those situations where I didn't come through. I need to be a little bit more effective down low for this team.''

      Beyond another shaky shooting performance - a 5-for-13 night that dropped his percentage for the series to 39.3 (24-for-61) - Walker never seemed to mesh with the lineup.

      He was pulled with 5:32 left in the third quarter to that phenomenon that is all his own in Boston - a crowd reaction that was equal parts boos and cheers - and didn't return until 6:57 was left in the fourth.

      He did a lot of thinking - some of it while slapping teammates on the back as they returned to the floor after a timeout - and probably some lip biting as well.

      ``It was a tough decision for the coach,'' Walker said of sitting on the bench in the second half. ``I missed a layup and had a turnover, and he decided to go with a smaller unit. It was a playoff game, Game 5, and you have to respect that. I would have loved to have been out there on the floor. But the guys did a terrific job getting back in and making it a five-, seven-point game.

      ``When they put me back in I just tried to contribute,'' Walker said. ``But it's tough. Any competitor, any player who plays and loves this game, is going to want to be out there in the fire. It's just a situation where the coach went the other route.''

      But coach Doc Rivers said the chemical inaction from Walker's return to the lineup was not the forward's fault.

      ``Antoine fit in pretty easy, but our guys then stood around and watched Antoine be Antoine,'' he said. ``That's not Antoine's fault. I thought Antoine tried to just fit in, and I told him that was the wrong thing to do. Just be you. [continue]

      ``It reminds me of when we lost Gary (to injury) and won a couple of games without him. Then everyone was saying, `Don't put in Gary,' which was ridiculous. We need Gary in there, just like we need Antoine.

      ``Antoine is the reason we're sitting here now, and we need him as a team. What happened tonight was not his fault. Antoine put some undue pressure on himself, and that's just the way things go.''

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

        http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...rticleid=81543

        Ainge-O'Neal jabs lack real punch
        By Michael Gee/ Opinion
        Recent Columns by Michael Gee
        Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - Updated: 07:40 AM EST

        Jermaine O'Neal is a busy man. One might even say he's overbooked, what with being the only chance the Indiana Pacers have to win their opening-round playoff series with the Celtics.

        Danny Ainge has a few items on his plate as well. Being head of basketball operations for the Celts is a full-time job even at playoff time. At the very least, Ainge has to do preliminary skullwork to decide which nine trades he'll pull in which order if worst comes to worst and the C's lose the series.

        So it's just as well both men dropped their long-range disagreements over the officiating during the series before the Celts dropped Game 5 last night, 90-85. Frankly, they should know better than to take part in such a low-rent off-day controversy. Their war of words, make that verbal joust, no, make that play-date spat, had all the dramatic tension of the series, which saw dismal blowouts from the start in three of the first four games.

        Strip the boilerplate away from the argument, and what's left is two accomplished millionaires sticking their tongues out at each other in the aftermath of Antoine Walker [news]'s ejection in Game 3 and one-game suspension for Game 4.

        O'Neal: Antoine started it, they've been trying to hurt my shoulder the whole series.

        Ainge: Jermaine started it and Antoine got caught retaliating. Crybaby. He should shut up.

        O'Neal: No, you shut up!

        Edifying, huh? Has David Stern really sissified the NBA to this extent? Is this all fans can expect in the way of booable villains in the postseason?

        A one-game suspension? A $10,000 fine for O'Neal? That's not worth Stephen A. Smith raising his voice. Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy, never previously known as colorful, has already drawn a $100,000 fine and a threatened lifetime ban for his vivid conspiracy theories. Now there's a guy doing his part to keep the playoffs fan-tastic.

        Ainge should be above banal banter. He was one of the game's most delightful villains in his playing days, despised by the entire nation outside Route 128. The man had his finger bitten by Tree Rollins in an on-court brawl, for heaven's sake. He knows what a proper playoff side issue is all about. [continue]
        O'Neal's still young, and he's carrying a big responsibility here, one that might be too much for any player. Imagine filling Ron Artest's shoes in the controversy department. It calls for a fine blend of creativity and asocial temperament not found in many humans.

        On the other hand, O'Neal has already drawn a 25-game suspension for his part in the most astonishing NBA donnybrook of them all, the riot with the fans in Detroit last November. Those events, replayed only slightly more often than the Zapruder film, showed that O'Neal has what it takes to turn a few seconds of hot-blooded foolishness into a week's worth of cable news blather. Stern may not like that, but Chris Matthews' bookers were grateful.

        Not that this basketball follower approves of violence or harsh words. NBA players are too big and strong for serious confrontations not to become very dangerous for anyone within a half-mile of the dispute. But pro basketball is the most operatic of games, and without passion and excess, opera is well, just loud singing in a foreign language.

        It's only the first round. Maybe the Celts and Pacers are saving their unsportsmanlike arias for the next series.

        If so, that's good thinking. Winner gets Detroit.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

          This one is more from the Pacers perspective

          http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...rticleid=81549

          Pacers handle the pressure
          By Stephen Harris
          Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - Updated: 07:28 AM EST

          With three personal fouls in the first half, Indiana forward Stephen Jackson spent 12 of the first 24 minutes of last night's Game 5 against the Celtics occupying a seat on the bench. This did not go unnoticed by some of the noisier and more aggressive Celtics fans seated nearby, a couple of whom delighted in taunting Jackson with remarks like, ``Sit down, Jackson, warm that bench,'' and, ``Hey Jackson, you like that seat?''

          Jackson answered his tormenters in the best means possible, tossing in an improbable long bomb of a 3-pointer that, as much as any single play, was the key to the Pacers' 90-85 victory at the FleetCenter.



          Jackson's 25-footer, over some pretty decent defense from Antoine Walker [news], staked the Pacers to an 85-80 lead with 2:38 left - a margin sufficient to send Indiana home for tomorrow night's Game 6 with a 3-2 series lead.

          ``That was great defense by 'Toine,'' said Jackson. ``You can't play defense no better than that. I was blessed to hit it. I mean, if I take that shot again, I can't promise you I'd make it.''

          It may not have been a high-percentage shot by Jackson, but the Pacers found ways to do whatever it took to win last night.

          The key stretch of play for the Pacers began about midway through the third quarter, when the quick, young Celtics began applying intense fullcourt pressure. The Pacers wilted briefly, with turnovers on two successive trips, but stayed composed to close out the win.

          ``At the end we did a really good job against the pressure,'' said Indiana coach Rick Carlisle. ``There was a period there when we could have cracked, but we didn't. Mentally and emotionally, we just stayed calm and executed. We had some guys make some big plays, obviously. Reggie (Miller) hit a big 3, and Jack (Jackson).''

          Said Jackson: ``We're not buckling under pressure. When the crowd gets into it and a team is making a run, we have enough confidence in ourselves to stay calm and get back in the game.''

          Jackson's description of the intense and physical nature of this oddly on-again, off-again series: [continue]

          ``I would analyze it as a legal pitbull fight. That's what it's been like,'' he said. ``These guys are coming out playing hard. We're coming out playing hard. It's just about who wants it the most.

          ``(Last night), we just wanted it more than they did. We put ourselves in another position (tomorrow) where we've got to play with a sense of urgency and not come back here and have to deal with this crowd again.''

          The remarkable Miller, still a wonderful player at the age of 39, didn't agree his team wanted it more.

          ``They're young,'' said Miller. ``This team is very war-tested. We've been through a lot of playoff series. These guys have played a lot of playoff games. They've seen every type of situation, and played these type of high-caliber games with mood swings back and forth.

          ``We came up with a lot of big stops. I don't necessarily think we wanted it more. Obviously, the guys in the other locker room wanted to win, too. But we won it on the defensive end.''

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

            Is the word (news) in there after a comment about Walker in each article intended to mean, "Yeah, it's news that he does not make this team better" or something to that affect?
            Two=the number 2
            Too=means "also"
            To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

            Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
            They're=they are
            There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

            Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

              Now to the Globe. Some great comments by Bid in this one



              http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...ard_to_figure/
              What's up next hard to figure
              By Dan Shaughnessy, Globe Columnist | May 4, 2005

              Think you've got a handle on this Celtics-Pacers playoff series? Good for you. The rest of us have watched every minute of the first five games and have no idea what's going to happen next.

              ADVERTISEMENT

              Trying to predict anything in this series is like trying to guess what Cher might wear to the Oscars or what Dylan might sing the next time he's at the Orpheum. Nothing means anything. And everything means nothing. And I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. And Jermaine O'Neal is the Walrus.

              The Celtics have too much youth and athleticism. They are better when Antoine Walker is back at the hotel or on the bench. They'll win the series.

              No. The sage Pacers have the experience and the cool runners to counterpunch Boston's kids. The Pacers don't get rattled. They'll win the series.

              Last night in Game 5 at the New Garden, the Celtics spit up a chance to take charge of this weird first-round bakeoff, losing, 90-85. They never led after 4-2. They committed 22 turnovers and failed to finish on the fast break. They showed flashes of their new, young brilliance, but Paul Pierce backtracked into forcing things and Antoine spent the majority of the second half on the shelf and the Green are on the threshold of extinction as they head to Hoosierville for Game 6 tomorrow night.

              "Obviously this is a disappointing loss for us," said Celtics coach Doc Rivers. "We kept giving up back to 'em. I think the turnovers were the biggest factor in the game. It was us trying to make things happen instead of making the next pass. One team had better composure than the other team. We rushed shots. That's not the way you play winning basketball."

              "You can't assume anything," said Pacers coach Rick Carlisle. "Our guys did a great job of hanging in. There was a period when we could have crashed and we did not. The team that is hungrier and more desperate usually plays better and wins."



              Pacers boss Larry Bird, who knows a thing or two about the playoffs, poured himself a Miller Lite after the game, sat on a couch, and said, "Did you think we were going to quit? You knew we wasn't going to quit. We've been through so much this year. These guys are tough and I think we're going to win a championship before I'm done here."



              It should be abundantly clear by now that there is no trend here. No pattern. No indication of what may happen next. The Celtics won Game 1 by 20 after leading by 37. Then the Celtics blew a home game, losing a close one. Then the Pacers routed the Green in Indianapolis and we figured that was it for the locals. Walker was suspended for Game 4 and it looked like all was lost. Then the Walker-less Celtics administered the worst beating in Pacers playoff history -- at Indiana. After that one, we started making our reservations for Detroit. Certainly the Celtics would wrap this up in two games.
              Then came last night. A bad loss for the Celtics. A loss in a game the Celtics should have won going away. They came into the night with everything in their favor and they flopped miserably.

              Ricky Davis kept his spot in Rivers's starting lineup. After two days of speculation, it was Delonte West going to the bench to make room for Antoine. Meanwhile, veteran guard Jamaal Tinsley returned to action for the visitors.

              None of it amounted to a hill of Boston baked beans. The Pacers led by as many as 10 in a stupendously flat first quarter, which ended with Indiana ahead, 23-21. Carlisle's guys led, 50-42, at intermission and most Celtics fans would agree that the biggest local thrill of the first two quarters came when Tom Brady's face appeared overhead on the big board. We can safely say that this was the first time Brady and Bird were under the same roof, but that was of little consolation to those who came to the gym hoping to see the Celtics put a vice-like grip on the series.

              The Celtics spun their wheels in a third quarter, committing five more turnovers. A 3-pointer by James Jones (he's got range from here to eternity) made it 67-52 with 4:07 left in the quarter, and brought silence to the Vault.

              The Pacers fought harder for the loose balls. They rebounded better. They were more careful with the basketball. And every time the Celtics went on any semblance of a run, Carlisle (trained in the School of Chuck Daly) would call a timeout.

              With Antoine sitting passively on a milk crate next to the bench, the Green made a strong run late in the third, cutting the Pacers lead to 70-65 for the start of the fourth quarter.

              Walker was still on the crate for the start of the fourth as Rivers used three rookies, Marcus Banks, and Davis on the court. With the Pacers leading by 6 and 6:57 left in the game, Rivers finally put Walker back in the game. He'd been on the bench for more than 11 minutes. He scored almost immediately on a running finger roll across the lane. Another Walker basket, this one a floater in the lane, cut the deficit to 77-75. The Celtics hadn't been this close since 25-23. Carlisle, naturally, called time. He always does.

              "I don't care what anybody says, they are better with Antoine in there," said Bird. "I love it when he's on the bench."

              A banker by Pierce made it 82-80, but Boston never got back in it. Pierce missed shots and turned the ball over. Then Antoine missed. The grizzled Pacers rode it out.

              In a sense, there's something reasonable about all of this. These 2004-05 Celtics have been playing games since October and we really don't have a handle on them. It's a team with almost no definition. That's why even though it looks dark now, it would be a mistake to count them out. They always seem to do the opposite of what we expect and right now that is a very good thing.

              Dan

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...t_for_tinsley/
                Good start for Tinsley
                Pacers bolstered in battered backcourt
                By Michael Vega, Globe Staff | May 4, 2005

                Jamaal Tinsley dropped the first hint he was coming back to the Pacers' starting lineup when he walked off the FleetCenter's parquet floor after yesterday morning's shootaround and declared, "I've been cleared to play."

                ADVERTISEMENT

                It was now up to coach Rick Carlisle to decide his fate. After huddling one last time with the team's medical staff in the afternoon, Carlisle dialed up Tinsley's hotel room a couple hours before game time and gave him the green light.

                Not just to play, but to start against the Celtics in Game 5.

                "Literally, this has been an hour-to-hour saga, trying to get Jamaal ready," Carlisle said. "He obviously hung in and did a great job considering he has only played 40-some minutes in three months, but we needed, I think, the spiritual lift of having him out there."

                After the Pacers absorbed their worst playoff loss in franchise history, a 110-79 blowout Saturday night at Conseco Fieldhouse in Game 4, Carlisle knew his team was in dire need of a lift. After being forced to cobble together a backcourt from a roster of physically battered guards, Carlisle was hoping Tinsley's return to the starting lineup for the first time since Feb. 23 would be precisely the type of chess move that would help sway momentum in his team's favor.

                "It's like playing checkers and getting kinged," said Stephen Jackson, who had 15 points. "J.T. was big for us. Any time you can go on the road in the playoffs and get off to a start that we did considering he has been out for so long, that shows what he means."

                Tinsley gave the Pacers a huge lift in last night's 90-85 victory over the Celtics, helping Indiana take a 3-2 lead in this best-of-seven series. Tinsley made the most of his opportunity by scoring 6 points on 3-for-9 shooting and dishing out seven assists in 28 minutes to help the Pacers return home for Game 6 one victory away from advancing to the second round against -- gulp -- Detroit.

                "I was just happy to even be out there," Tinsley said. "Not even to be starting, but to be playing at all."

                Tinsley feared his season was over when he struggled to recover from a bruised left foot he suffered at Philadelphia Jan. 31.

                He watched the last 29 games of the regular season from the end of Indiana's bench.

                "It was a big test for me, being out three months, especially not being out there with my teammates," Tinsley said. "But to get the opportunity to come out here in the playoffs, it was a big game."

                Tinsley bounded onto the floor during the introductions. After surviving a seven-minute whirlwind, Tinsley motioned to backup guard Anthony Johnson on the Pacers' bench that it was time to come and get him. Seven minutes in, and Tinsley was gassed.

                "I was winded," Tinsley acknowledged. "I'm still winded, just talking to you all."

                Afterward, Tinsley was weary and sore. But it all felt so good to him.

                "This is going to be a big task because this certainly is the most activity he's had in three months," Carlisle said. "We are going to take a deep breath and cross our fingers that when he wakes up tomorrow he doesn't have a lot of soreness. He's been doing better every day, but certainly this is a different kind of task and a different kind of challenge.

                "He's got a game under his belt and hopefully he can build on it, and we can build on it."

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                  Whenever Bob Ryan writes soemthing its worth reading, usually


                  http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...e_seen_it_all/


                  It's clear to see the Pacers have seen it all
                  By Bob Ryan, Globe Columnist | May 4, 2005

                  The problem with playing a team such as the Indiana Pacers is there are no troubles they haven't seen, no situation they haven't been in, and no team that fazes them, least of all a screwball group such as our lovably flawed Boston Celtics.

                  ADVERTISEMENT

                  "With two minutes left," said Scot Pollard, "I went into the huddle and said, `Guys, they cannot beat us in a close game.' I had confidence we'd make the big plays down the stretch."

                  I know what you're thinking: Easy for him to say, now that the 90-85 Indiana Game 5 victory is in the books.

                  But it truly is easy for him to say because, like a great many of the Pacers, he has been involved in countless meaningful games. He knows what separates the men from the boys in playoff basketball, and he had seen nothing in the first four games to convince him that the Celtics had what it takes to defeat a seasoned team such as his in the last two minutes of a game in which his squad was already in possession of the lead.

                  Granted, neither Scot Pollard, nor anyone else, has ever seen a series that has unfolded quite like this one, in which the Celtics have twice followed up blowouts by losing the next game at home.

                  "Crazy, man," agreed one Larry Bird.

                  But even if the details are new, the concept is not. Once you've been around a while, you learn the essential dynamics of playoff basketball. You come to understand that momentum is a laughable concept. In baseball, they say momentum is only as good as the next day's starting pitcher. In this sport, momentum is, well, what exactly?

                  How many times must we see that when Team A wins by a whopping margin that the carryover effect is almost always nil, unless, of course, it's a series-clinching game, in which case the momentum is final? But if it's anything other than a series-clinching game, it really doesn't matter if you lose by 50 or by 1. An L is an L, and you've just got to turn the page and move on.

                  And we have just the right Old Guy to drive home the point. Say hello to Reggie Miller, who has been involved in a series or two.

                  "After Game 1 [a 102-82 Boston triumph in which the Celtics led by as many as 37], I said, `You can't get too high or too low,' " Miller explained. "After Games 2 and 3 [the Pacers winning by 3 and 23, respectively], I said you've got to keep an even keel. After Game 4, when we lose by 30, the same is in effect as in Game 1. You can't get too high if you're them or too low if you're us. Now I'm sure the same is in effect after this." Continued...


                  The Pacers understand why they've lost and why they've won. Indiana knows that when the Celtics find a way to get out on the open floor, they have usually enjoyed success. The Pacers also know that when they've kept the Celtics from doing that, the Green and White have struggled.

                  ADVERTISEMENT

                  What's interesting about this series, and what stamps it as somewhat original, is the fact that for most of the action one team or the other has imposed its will on the other for an entire evening.

                  "I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it," said Pollard, whose back-to-back, second-quarter jumpers ignited his team. "One team gets ahead, and just stays there. I may be wrong, but I don't think there have been many lead changes."

                  Such was the case last evening. Boston's only lead was 4-2.

                  It's basically about tempo, although Celtics coach Doc Rivers did point out that what really aggravated him last night was that his team really did get out on the open floor a sufficient number of times to do some damage, only to self-destruct in the process. "Of our 22 turnovers, I'll bet 16 were on the open floor," he observed. That figure may be a tad hyperbolic, but there is no doubt that the Celtics were not exactly the '86 Celtics in the finishing department last evening.

                  But they did find a way to chop a 15-point third-quarter deficit (67-52) to 2, at 77-75 with 5:01 left. But the record will show they never got closer.

                  That's because Indiana made more big plays at both ends, culminating in a big-time, left-wing 3-pointer by Stephen Jackson, the loquacious forward. With Antoine Walker serving as an extra piece of clothing, Jackson found a way to sink a rather magnificent shot at a very big moment, the Pacers leading, 82-80, at the time.

                  " 'Toine couldn`t have played any better defense," declared Jackson. "It wasn't one of my normal, confident shots. Thank God it went in."

                  After that, it was a matter of making sure the Celtics didn't score, and that's something the Pacers were sure they could do.

                  "Those guys are talented," said Jermaine O'Neal, "but we're a little more experienced. Our defense gives us an opportunity to win every night."

                  Back to Mr. Pollard. "They rely on their athletic ability," he said. "If the shots go in, fine, but they weren't getting open looks."

                  The fact is Boston's possessions in the final two minutes were dreadful. One was uglier than the next. After a Paul Pierce banked runner had created that 82-80 situation with 3:06 left, the Celtics didn't score another basket until a meaningless layup by Marcus Banks with 28.6 seconds left, the horse having long since departed the barn for parts unknown.

                  Rivers talked about his team needing to trust itself, and how there still is time for that development to occur. The Pacers made reference to the fact that many of them have been to either the NBA Finals or conference finals, and that the one thing they've learned for sure is that defense is what gets you there. Having already learned the truth about offense, they just kind of let that take care of itself.

                  OK, so what if the Celtics find a way to win tomorrow night? Does that mean the Pacers will be worried about a Game 7 back here on Saturday?

                  Get real. It will be just another big game for a team that truly understands what the NBA playoffs are all about.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                    Home invasion
                    Pacers take control of series as Celtics flat at FleetCenter
                    By Shira Springer, Globe Staff | May 4, 2005

                    To hear Paul Pierce tell it, what went wrong for the Celtics in Game 5 was the "little things." Make that a whole lot of little things. Poor ball movement, turnovers, bad decisions down the stretch. Perhaps what happened last night at the FleetCenter was easier for Boston to digest when broken into bite-size pieces. And the ramifications of the Celtics' 90-85 loss to the Pacers are understandably large.

                    ADVERTISEMENT

                    The Celtics now trail the Pacers, 3-2, in their best-of-seven series. Indiana has a chance to win the series at Conseco Fieldhouse tomorrow night. Perhaps more significantly, the Celtics seem unprepared mentally and out of sorts. How else can you explain why Boston fell behind by as many as 15 points before summoning energy and intensity? The Celtics were as unpredictable as ever in Game 5, just when they seemed ready to take control of the series. When coach Doc Rivers figures out a sure-fire way to win, they fall embarrassingly flat before a sellout crowd.

                    Antoine Walker, back in the starting lineup after a one-game suspension, does not deserve the blame. Jamaal Tinsley, who returned to Pacers' starting lineup after being sidelined for more than two months with a bruised left foot, does not deserve all the credit.

                    Truth be told, the game came down to tempo. Boston never established the tempo it wanted against Indiana, as evidenced by the fact that the visitors took the lead early in the first quarter and never relinquished it. Even when the Celtics did find a way to run, they struggled to convert. They cannot survive by scoring 10 fast-break points and finishing with a total somewhere in the 80s. It should come as no surprise that in its three losses Boston averaged 80 points. In two wins it averaged 106.

                    "Of all the things that drove me nuts [last night], it was that we did force the tempo and we just kept giving it back to them," said Rivers. "Our fast break was horrendous. For us, we have to convert in the open court. We failed to execute the break, and that was frustrating for me, but I was happy we got into it. I thought our guys tried so hard that they made mistakes. You could see Indiana let the game come to them. That was the difference."

                    That was particularly true down the stretch. The Pacers executed when the Celtics could not. It was a test of nerves down the stretch as both teams went for big shots, many of them as the shot clock expired. Pierce hit an 8-foot runner with 3:06 remaining to bring Boston within 2 (82-80). The Celtics would come no closer, falling victim to missed field goals, missed free throws, and turnovers. The Celtics lost their composure while the Pacers stayed determined in the closing minutes.

                    Stephen Jackson hit a 3-pointer from the left wing with no time left on the shot clock and 2:38 left on the game clock, giving the Pacers an 85-80 lead. Pierce then made one of two free throws with 2:18 remaining. But Raef LaFrentz missed a 13-footer that was clearly not the shot the Celtics wanted and Walker could not find the mark on a 3-pointer from the left wing. When Dale Davis stepped to the line with 34.8 seconds remaining and made one of two, he gave Indiana an 86-81 lead. A driving layup by Marcus Banks brought Boston within 3 (86-83), then the home team dared Indiana to make free throws. And the Pacers did.

                    ADVERTISEMENT

                    "I would analyze this series as a pit bull fight," said Jackson. "That's what it's been like. These guys have come out playing hard and we have been playing hard. It's about who wants it the most and [last night] we wanted it more . . . We put ourselves in a position where we've got to come home and play with a sense of urgency."

                    Judging by the way the Pacers played last night, they are more than capable of mustering a sense of urgency. The Pacers certainly seized their opportunity to take an early lead and take the crowd out of the contest. Leading, 23-21, at the start of the second, Indiana took off on a 6-0 run. Looking utterly clueless in their halfcourt offense, the Celtics trailed the Pacers, 50-42, at halftime.

                    The Celtics did not figure out what to do until late in the third quarter. Trailing by 15 after a 3-pointer by James Jones, the Celtics finally pressured the ball and applied defensive intensity, paving the way for a second-half comeback. By the end of the third, the Celtics' deficit had shrunk to 5 (70-65), courtesy of an 11-1 run to close the quarter.

                    "Right now, our backs are against the wall, but I think this team is going to respond," said Pierce. "When our backs have been against the wall all year long, we've been able to bounce and respond to the adversity." Bouncing back to force a Game 7 would be no little thing.

                    © Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.


                    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb..._invasion?pg=2

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                      http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...up_to_victory/


                      Including Walker in the mix didn't add up to victory
                      By Peter May, Globe Staff | May 4, 2005

                      It was left to Jermaine O'Neal to dismiss the Antoine Walker detractors, whose numbers may have grown last night.

                      ADVERTISEMENT

                      "They can't win without Antoine," O'Neal said after the Celtics didn't win with Antoine, dropping a 90-85 decision and now facing elimination tomorrow night in Indianapolis to the resilient Pacers. "Don't start writing those stories about how they're better off without Antoine. They can't win without him."

                      They did win, rather easily, without Walker in Game 4 last Saturday in Indianapolis. Walker watched the rout from his hotel room, serving a one-game suspension. The Celtics welcomed him back into the starting lineup last night -- and Walker didn't have his A game when he needed to. He was on the bench when the Celtics made their best and biggest run of the night, and he was on the floor when the team couldn't overcome the Pacers down the stretch.

                      Walker acknowledged, "It's not going well for me in this series right now."

                      No, it's not. He's averaging 14 points a game -- second most on the team -- on 39 percent shooting. Those are not the numbers Walker delivered after The Trade. In his 24 regular-season games with the Celtics, he averaged 16.3 points on 44 percent shooting. In this series, he's attempted only seven free throws in 137 minutes; he had none last night. That tells you that despite an increase in low-post play and presence, he's still not getting calls. Or maybe he's not getting fouled.

                      He will surely take some hits for last night from all sides. He makes for a convenient dartboard, which is one of his attributes here, believe it or not. Still, it's pretty silly, especially when you think of where the Celtics would be had he not come back.

                      As Doc Rivers put it, "Antoine is the main reason I'm sitting here. It would be ludicrous not to bring him back."

                      The coach is right. Rivers never wavered about reinserting Walker into the starting lineup. "Antoine fit in pretty easy," Rivers said. "Our guys kind of stood around and watched Antoine early. That's not Antoine's fault."

                      Who knows why they watched, because it wasn't pretty. Walker struggled early, missing some short jump hooks, the kind of shot he's adopted since returning to the Celtics. He ended up with 10 points in 31 minutes. But he also had seven rebounds (tying the team high) and three assists (tying the team high), and made two big hoops in the fourth when the Celtics were threatening to overtake the Pacers.

                      It didn't happen. Stephen Jackson made a huge 3-pointer over Walker ("It was great defense by 'Toine, you can't get any better than that. I was blessed to hit it," Jackson said) and then, with the Celtics down, 85-81, he missed his third 3-pointer of the night, a decent look from in front of the Pacers' bench. Continued...

                      But what many will take away from this game was Walker's plus-minus for the night. He was replaced by Raef LaFrentz with 5:32 left in the third quarter during two made O'Neal free throws. After the makes, the Pacers led, 62-50. Walker sat and watched as the Celtics, using full-court pressure, battled back to make it a 5-point game after three (after Indy had blown the lead out to 15 on two occasions).

                      ADVERTISEMENT

                      He did not return to the game until 6:57 remained -- and Indiana's lead was 6. That gnawed on him a bit after the fact.

                      "It's a tough decision for a coach, down 10 points, 12 points," Walker said. "I just missed a layup and had a turnover and he decided to go with another unit, a smaller unit. Playoff game, Game 5, you gotta respect that. I would have loved to have been out there on the floor. The guys did a terrific job getting us back in the game and when we put me back in, I just tried to come in and contribute.

                      "But it's tough," he went on. "Any competitor, any player who plays this game and loves this game, you want to be out there in the fire. It was just one of those situations where the coach went the other route."

                      When Walker did come back, he quickly made his presence felt with one of those off-balance, quirky, running layups he takes now and then, to make it a 4-point game (75-71 Indiana). He made another one that brought the Celtics to within 77-75, the closest they'd been since 25-23, early in the second period. That hoop came with 5:08 to play. He had only one other shot the rest of the way, the missed trey in the final minute.

                      "To be honest, it's basketball," Walker said, when asked about the numerous ups and downs of the night. "It's not going to be perfect. I'm not going to be perfect. I need to be a little bit more effective down low for this team."

                      He needs to be himself again. Somehow, that was good enough up to now. And there's still time.

                      © Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                        Originally posted by BigMac
                        Is the word (news) in there after a comment about Walker in each article intended to mean, "Yeah, it's news that he does not make this team better" or something to that affect?
                        No - it meant it was news that he was playing any defense.
                        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                          For some of us oldtimers, doesn't this series remind you of when the Pacers played the Celtics in 1991 and 1992. Celts had all the experience but different players were injured from game to game, the pacers were the younger and much more athletic team, but really did not know how to win close tough playoff games.

                          Reading Pollard's quote in Ryan's column reminded me of this

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                            Going back to the first article, Could anyone tell me why Tinsley's coming back when he did would indicate a conspiracy? I couldn't figure that one out.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles

                              Do you get from the quotes from Rivers and the rest of the celtics, they are already feeling beaten in the series?

                              I'm not saying they are going to lay down, nor will they not come in a win in Indy, but they really sound like in those quotes that they think its over.

                              Comment

                              Previous template Next
                              Working...
                              X