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

Though it won't happen...

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

  • #46
    Re: Though it won't happen...

    I've been cordial, honest, and accomidating throughout this entire thread.
    Oh.

    OK.

    ed:

    We won't talk about 3 straight 1st round exits. The most recent being the worst.

    We won't talk about the collapse last year - which led to our worst playoff performance.

    We won't talk about the rotations or lack of a late game plan.

    We'll just talk about how nice you are.

    Isiah did enough to earn his dismissal. More than enough. It's done, it's over and we're better off because of it. The team moves forward while others stay behind. Catch up, there's some good basketball being played by Carlisle's team.

    ------------------------------------------------

    My apologies are probably due. I'm sure this whole scenario has been debated here before at least once or thrice and I really don't want to get everyone going agin. It's just that there's a definite love for Isiah from NY here and I just don't get it. IT served a purpose - still unsure what that was. Now - Carlisle is in charge, doing better than IT and the team is performing well better than last year. I don't get why NY keeps hyping IT and defending him.

    Anyway.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Though it won't happen...

      The team moves forward while others stay behind. Catch up, there's some good basketball being played by Carlisle's team.



      Hey, can I use that line next time someone grouses about losing Brad?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Though it won't happen...

        However, it is just as delusional to dismiss Thomas's accomplishments as it is to say we'd win 70 games with him still as coach.

        -snip-

        131-115 record in three years as Pacers coach.

        3 straight years of playoff appearances. 5-10 in the playoffs.

        Took a dismantled Finals roster with an average age of 24 (the youngest team 3 years running) to the playoffs, and was competitive in each series. For some perspective, Paul Silas coaches (I believe) the youngest team in basketball right now. They will make the playoffs with a losing record in one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent memory. Thomas never lost more than 40 games, always maintained a winning record, and improved the team each year he was coach.

        -snip-

        He was good. The facts say he was. You can have your personal opinion about him, his methods, etc. He should have done this, benched this guy, played that guy, called a timeout, whatever. However, the facts say he was good. What degree of good is debatable, but to call Thomas "bad" or "medicore" screams ignorance and/or blind hatred.

        That's your definition of good?

        In my world, that qualifies as "barely passing."

        Let's review Jay's grading scale:
        Winning a championship = A
        Losing in game seven of The Finals = A-
        Losing in game six of The Finals = B+
        Losing in game five of The Finals = B
        Losing in game four of The Finals = B-
        Losing in game seven of the ECF = C+
        Losing in games four, five or six of the ECF = C
        Losing in East semis = C-
        Losing in first round = D
        Not making playoffs = F

        But hey, I just had to fire a very, very smart University of Michigan business school grad because he had sloppy work habits resulting from a simlilar definition of "good". Among other problems, he was proud of himself that his work was 90% right and only 10% needed re-work. But everyone else around here strives for and achieves > 99.0% accuracy.

        You, on the other hand, will annoint a barely-over-0.500 coach as "good."

        The difference is clearly in the definition of "good." That's fine, but I'm sticking with the higher grading scale.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Though it won't happen...

          I've been cordial, honest, and accomidating throughout this entire thread.
          Oh.

          OK.

          ed:

          We won't talk about 3 straight 1st round exits. The most recent being the worst.

          We won't talk about the collapse last year - which led to our worst playoff performance.

          We won't talk about the rotations or lack of a late game plan.

          We'll just talk about how nice you are.

          Isiah did enough to earn his dismissal. More than enough. It's done, it's over and we're better off because of it. The team moves forward while others stay behind. Catch up, there's some good basketball being played by Carlisle's team.

          ------------------------------------------------

          My apologies are probably due. I'm sure this whole scenario has been debated here before at least once or thrice and I really don't want to get everyone going agin. It's just that there's a definite love for Isiah from NY here and I just don't get it. IT served a purpose - still unsure what that was. Now - Carlisle is in charge, doing better than IT and the team is performing well better than last year. I don't get why NY keeps hyping IT and defending him.

          Anyway.


          I'm not "hyping" Thomas. Merely giving him his due, something you seem unwilling and incapable of doing for whatever reason. I know one thing for certain, your reasons for hating Thomas have nothing to do with basketball. His coaching resume is good. Not great. Not medicore. Not bad. Good. You ignore all the positives he gave this franchise and focus SOLELY on the negatives. Mind you, I was not opposed to Thomas getting fired. Anybody can get fired for ANYTHING. Larry Brown (considered by many to be one of the best caoches on the planet) was fired by the Pacers. However, I was upset with HOW Thomas was let go.

          What I don't get is the complete blind hatred you and tom seem to have for Thomas. What did this guy do to you? Does he have pictures of you in a dress in bed with a circus miget? I mean, come on guy! Thomas was a good coach. Carlisle is better, no question, but give Thomas his due. We would not have the record we have now, and the quality players on our rsoter, without Thomas's teaching. That is just a plain, simple fact. Your failure to see or even ACKNOWLEDGE that is baffling.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Though it won't happen...

            However, it is just as delusional to dismiss Thomas's accomplishments as it is to say we'd win 70 games with him still as coach.

            -snip-

            131-115 record in three years as Pacers coach.

            3 straight years of playoff appearances. 5-10 in the playoffs.

            Took a dismantled Finals roster with an average age of 24 (the youngest team 3 years running) to the playoffs, and was competitive in each series. For some perspective, Paul Silas coaches (I believe) the youngest team in basketball right now. They will make the playoffs with a losing record in one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent memory. Thomas never lost more than 40 games, always maintained a winning record, and improved the team each year he was coach.

            -snip-

            He was good. The facts say he was. You can have your personal opinion about him, his methods, etc. He should have done this, benched this guy, played that guy, called a timeout, whatever. However, the facts say he was good. What degree of good is debatable, but to call Thomas "bad" or "medicore" screams ignorance and/or blind hatred.

            That's your definition of good?

            In my world, that qualifies as "barely passing."

            Let's review Jay's grading scale:
            Winning a championship = A
            Losing in game seven of The Finals = A-
            Losing in game six of The Finals = B+
            Losing in game five of The Finals = B
            Losing in game four of The Finals = B-
            Losing in game seven of the ECF = C+
            Losing in games four, five or six of the ECF = C
            Losing in East semis = C-
            Losing in first round = D
            Not making playoffs = F

            But hey, I just had to fire a very, very smart University of Michigan business school grad because he had sloppy work habits resulting from a simlilar definition of "good". Among other problems, he was proud of himself that his work was 90% right and only 10% needed re-work. But everyone else around here strives for and achieves > 99.0% accuracy.

            You, on the other hand, will annoint a barely-over-0.500 coach as "good."

            The difference is clearly in the definition of "good." That's fine, but I'm sticking with the higher grading scale.
            Your are certainly entitled to your standards Jay. However, by your own standards, more than half of the NBA coaches this year flat out stink (only 16 teams make the playoffs, with 8 of those 16 losing in the first round). Another 4 will lose in the semis. I mean, the best team in the east (in order to get a friggin B) needs to go to game 5. So, to use your own standard, if Larry Brown loses in the east semis to Indy, he stinks. He gets a C-, and last I checked that isn't too good (especially considering Detroit fired our current coach to get Larry).

            Your standards are your own, but the sound a bit harsh to me. And holding soemone like Isiah Thomas (who, for much of his coaching career, did not have the mature talent Carlsile now has, not did he coach in an Eastern Conference as weak as this one) to these standards is also a bit much.

            My opinion.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Though it won't happen...


              What I don't get is the complete blind hatred you and tom seem to have for Thomas.
              Why do you keep saying this rubbish?

              I admire Isiah Thomas. He was one of my favorite players, and his life story (escaping his crappy neighborhood) is inspirational.

              I simply have, like Jay, a different definition of the word "good".

              He was not a good coach. Despite all of the coaching turmoil early in this season, his name never came up for a coaching job.

              He has a good gig right now. I've never questioned his player evaluation skills.

              You seem to have a lot of hatred for my opinion on this, which seems to be 75% the same opinion as yours.

              on these points we agree:

              1. Replacing Isiah Thomas with Rick Carlisle was a good move.
              2. The timing of the firing was poor-- it should have been done earlier.
              3. Isiah Thomas was well-liked and a good mentor and role model to at least a few key players
              4. IT had some obvious shortcomings in handling player rotations and getting consistent effort and production
              5. Insinuations that IT didn't work hard or was uncommunicative are unfair. We don't know what went on in the minds (and offices) of Bird, Thomas, and Walsh

              on this we disagree:

              1. You say IT deserved to be fired, though he was "good" whereas I say he was not "good"
              2. You say (I think) that since the timing of the firing was not right it would have been better not to fire him at all, or at least to give him another year. I say that not firing him after the Boston series was a mistake, and if they chose once again to not fire him after Bird came on board, it would have been compounding the mistake.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Though it won't happen...

                However, it is just as delusional to dismiss Thomas's accomplishments as it is to say we'd win 70 games with him still as coach.

                -snip-

                131-115 record in three years as Pacers coach.

                3 straight years of playoff appearances. 5-10 in the playoffs.

                Took a dismantled Finals roster with an average age of 24 (the youngest team 3 years running) to the playoffs, and was competitive in each series. For some perspective, Paul Silas coaches (I believe) the youngest team in basketball right now. They will make the playoffs with a losing record in one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent memory. Thomas never lost more than 40 games, always maintained a winning record, and improved the team each year he was coach.

                -snip-

                He was good. The facts say he was. You can have your personal opinion about him, his methods, etc. He should have done this, benched this guy, played that guy, called a timeout, whatever. However, the facts say he was good. What degree of good is debatable, but to call Thomas "bad" or "medicore" screams ignorance and/or blind hatred.

                That's your definition of good?

                In my world, that qualifies as "barely passing."

                Let's review Jay's grading scale:
                Winning a championship = A
                Losing in game seven of The Finals = A-
                Losing in game six of The Finals = B+
                Losing in game five of The Finals = B
                Losing in game four of The Finals = B-
                Losing in game seven of the ECF = C+
                Losing in games four, five or six of the ECF = C
                Losing in East semis = C-
                Losing in first round = D
                Not making playoffs = F

                But hey, I just had to fire a very, very smart University of Michigan business school grad because he had sloppy work habits resulting from a simlilar definition of "good". Among other problems, he was proud of himself that his work was 90% right and only 10% needed re-work. But everyone else around here strives for and achieves > 99.0% accuracy.

                You, on the other hand, will annoint a barely-over-0.500 coach as "good."

                The difference is clearly in the definition of "good." That's fine, but I'm sticking with the higher grading scale.
                Your are certainly entitled to your standards Jay. However, by your own standards, more than half of the NBA coaches this year flat out stink (only 16 teams make the playoffs, with 8 of those 16 losing in the first round). Another 4 will lose in the semis. I mean, the best team in the east (in order to get a friggin B) needs to go to game 5. So, to use your own standard, if Larry Brown loses in the east semis to Indy, he stinks. He gets a C-, and last I checked that isn't too good (especially considering Detroit fired our current coach to get Larry).

                Your standards are your own, but the sound a bit harsh to me. And holding soemone like Isiah Thomas (who, for much of his coaching career, did not have the mature talent Carlsile now has, not did he coach in an Eastern Conference as weak as this one) to these standards is also a bit much.

                My opinion.
                A fair point - those are "organization" grades, not necessarily coaching grades. It becomes very subjective to split the responsibility for these grades between coaches, players and management. After all, its a players' game.

                But guess what, you're right in that there are probably only four-to-five "difference making" coaches in the league - that Phil Jackson punk, JVG, Carlisle, Brownie and probably Riley (if he just allows himself to coach and not play GM in his next job.) Nellie, Pops and Adelman deserve some consideration at the next level.

                I'm sure if you graph the ratings of NBA coaches that they'll fall under a "normal" bell curve. So half (15) of them are average, which is a "C", one quarter of them (7 to 8) are above average, one quarter of them are below average.


                Hey, somebody has to hold these guys to a standard of greatness, or else they're open to accepting mediocrity. Three straight years of first-round exits with a team that - at least for the last two seasons - had more talent on paper than our current team - is mediocre at best.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Though it won't happen...

                  What I don't get is the complete blind hatred you and tom seem to have for Thomas. What did this guy do to you? Does he have pictures of you in a dress in bed with a circus miget? I mean, come on guy! Thomas was a good coach. Carlisle is better, no question, but give Thomas his due. We would not have the record we have now, and the quality players on our rsoter, without Thomas's teaching. That is just a plain, simple fact. Your failure to see or even ACKNOWLEDGE that is baffling.
                  This is where each is entitled to their own opinion - which you simply don't allow others to have. I do not think IT was a good coach at all. His 'quick' offense ? Please. His 'each player plays all positions' ?? His rotation patterns - if you can call them a pattern at all. His decision making late in games ? His use (and lack of) timeouts ? I could go on, but those are my reasons for not liking him as a coach.

                  I never said anything else against him, so your fabricated thought of my hatred for him is way off base. You seem to think that everyone that doesn't like him as a coach just hates the guy. That's your problem.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Though it won't happen...

                    It has been pointed out that east is weak. Yes it is but it is stronger than it has been the last three years.

                    The Sixers made the finals in 01 because there was no one else to go.

                    The Nets barely made the finals in 02 because they actually had a team.

                    The Nets made the finals in 03 because we fell on our @ss.

                    The Pistons, Pacers, Hornets, Knicks, Nets, and Bucks are all better than the Sixers were in 01.

                    Had we kept our team together we would have been to the finals for the last four years. Now that team would not make it this year but our current team has a shot at it. Isiah failed because he went nowhere with more talent and less competition than Rick is.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Though it won't happen...


                      What I don't get is the complete blind hatred you and tom seem to have for Thomas.
                      Why do you keep saying this rubbish?

                      I admire Isiah Thomas. He was one of my favorite players, and his life story (escaping his crappy neighborhood) is inspirational.

                      I simply have, like Jay, a different definition of the word "good".

                      He was not a good coach. Despite all of the coaching turmoil early in this season, his name never came up for a coaching job.

                      He has a good gig right now. I've never questioned his player evaluation skills.

                      You seem to have a lot of hatred for my opinion on this, which seems to be 75% the same opinion as yours.

                      on these points we agree:

                      1. Replacing Isiah Thomas with Rick Carlisle was a good move.
                      2. The timing of the firing was poor-- it should have been done earlier.
                      3. Isiah Thomas was well-liked and a good mentor and role model to at least a few key players
                      4. IT had some obvious shortcomings in handling player rotations and getting consistent effort and production
                      5. Insinuations that IT didn't work hard or was uncommunicative are unfair. We don't know what went on in the minds (and offices) of Bird, Thomas, and Walsh

                      on this we disagree:

                      1. You say IT deserved to be fired, though he was "good" whereas I say he was not "good"
                      2. You say (I think) that since the timing of the firing was not right it would have been better not to fire him at all, or at least to give him another year. I say that not firing him after the Boston series was a mistake, and if they chose once again to not fire him after Bird came on board, it would have been compounding the mistake.
                      On our agreements, that sounds correct. On our disagreements, I have these slight changes:

                      1. I don't think he "deserved" to be fired. I merely feel that if he was going to be fired, it should have happened in May. Not August. This factored in greatly with his not getting another HC job. Had he been fired in May, he'd be coaching Philly into the playoffs right now. I have no doubt of that. It is my personal opinion that Walsh was not upset with Thomas. Bird wanted to work with Rick, not Zeke, and that is why Thomas was fired. Not because of any coaching failures. It was a personal preference with Bird, and not a performance problem with the previous coach. It's the same reasoning that cost Carlisle his job in Detroit. It had nothing to do with his job performance. The owner just didn't "like" Rick. He perferred (and "liked") Brown.

                      2. No, I don't think that he should NOT have been fired after a certain point. I take issue to them saying to JO that Thomas would stay, then do a complete 180 right after they sign JO. That's slimey business, and unbecoming a classy org like Indy. I would have had no problem with Isiah as coach this year. At present, I also have no problem with Carlisle being coach. Isiah himself said it best: If Donnie wanted Rick as coach, why not promote Isiah to GM (a position he would have taken), and have Isiah bring in Rick? That would have been the ideal situation. My opinion.

                      Side note: The one person I'm not thrilled about is Bird. He has yet to show me he can run an org effectively.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Though it won't happen...

                        If Donnie wanted Rick as coach, why not promote Isiah to GM (a position he would have taken), and have Isiah bring in Rick? That would have been the ideal situation. My opinion.
                        I actually agree with this. I think Isiah has GM skills where I am not yet sure that Bird does. We would have saved several million dollars possibly allowing us to keep Brad. (thats for you guys who think it was a money thing)

                        The only question is how would IT and Rick work together? I am not sure it would work out. IT likes to stick his finger in the player pot a little too much. He would probably be undermining Ricks authority on a regular basis and that would be bad for the team.

                        Of course if he did that Donnie would have the perfect reason to fire him as G.M. and no one could complain.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Though it won't happen...

                          Let's review Jay's grading scale:
                          Winning a championship = A
                          Losing in game seven of The Finals = A-
                          Losing in game six of The Finals = B+
                          Losing in game five of The Finals = B
                          Losing in game four of The Finals = B-
                          Losing in game seven of the ECF = C+
                          Losing in games four, five or six of the ECF = C
                          Losing in East semis = C-
                          Losing in first round = D
                          Not making playoffs = F


                          But guess what, you're right in that there are probably only four-to-five "difference making" coaches in the league - that Phil Jackson punk, JVG, Carlisle, Brownie and probably Riley (if he just allows himself to coach and not play GM in his next job.) Nellie, Pops and Adelman deserve some consideration at the next level.

                          So then by your own grading scale, Jay, Rick is a C+ coach at best. That certainly wouldn't qualify as a difference maker in my book. But then, I don't agree with your grade scale. I wouldn't call someone who's made it to the ECFs two out of his three seasons as a head coach a C-level coach. By your standards, Larry Bird would have been a B-level coach. But I would contend they are both difference makers and if you're going to attach a alphabetical grade to either, I'd have to say they are both without a doubt A-level coaches. Isiah? C-level at best. At best. I never liked the guy as a coach so it would be easy for me to give him an F, but I'm trying to remain at least partially objective.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Though it won't happen...

                            If Donnie wanted Rick as coach, why not promote Isiah to GM (a position he would have taken), and have Isiah bring in Rick? That would have been the ideal situation. My opinion.
                            I actually agree with this. I think Isiah has GM skills where I am not yet sure that Bird does. We would have saved several million dollars possibly allowing us to keep Brad. (thats for you guys who think it was a money thing)
                            I don't know that Donnie ever saw IT as his replacement the same way as he did Bird. Wasn't Bird offered ownership in his first contract(1 or 2%)? That's something IT never was offered. So I think the simple answer is Donnie or the Simons didn't see IT in that role.

                            I think IT has a good eye for a certian kind of talent. I am not convienced he knows how to put a team together.
                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Though it won't happen...

                              No, I don't think that he should NOT have been fired after a certain point. I take issue to them saying to JO that Thomas would stay, then do a complete 180 right after they sign JO. That's slimey business, and unbecoming a classy org like Indy. I would have had no problem with Isiah as coach this year. At present, I also have no problem with Carlisle being coach. Isiah himself said it best: If Donnie wanted Rick as coach, why not promote Isiah to GM (a position he would have taken), and have Isiah bring in Rick? That would have been the ideal situation. My opinion.

                              Side note: The one person I'm not thrilled about is Bird. He has yet to show me he can run an org effectively.

                              I completely disagree with this.

                              1.) When is a good time to fire a person? When is a good time to be fired? Ask Chaney? Bet he'd say the same thing most people would. Never. New GM in, existing coach out. Happened in Indy. Happened in New York. Isiah had it done to him, he turns around and does it someone else. You'd think he'd have more compassion, but hey, even Isiah understands, it's business.

                              2.) Bird has yet to show you he can run an organization effectively? I didn't know he was answering to you. And I would say that firing Isiah and hiring Rick trumps anything Isiah has done in New York to date. Bird has been on the job for 8 months. And he's still answering to Walsh. I bet Donnie has an entirely different opinion on this than you do, and seeing as he's the one Bird answers to, it's the only opinion that matters. Not yours.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Though it won't happen...

                                Bulletproff: You are entitled to think what you want. Bird firing Isiah the way he did was sleazy, IMO. They'd re-signed JO and told him to his face that Thomas would be retained. Then, they broke their word. Sleazy business practice. Unbecoming the Pacers.

                                And to address this statement:"I didn't know [Bird] was answering to you?"



                                What's THAT about? Yes, he does answer to me. I'm a paying fan. He also answeres to you too. And while were on the subject of Donnie, I will remind you that Walsh had ZERO problems with Thomas, nor did he say Thomas was responsible for the playoff meltdown. Bird said he wanted to work with Rick. Donnie, having recently hired Bird, gave in and allowed Bird to fire Thomas.

                                Look, we can debate this back and forth all day. For myself, Bird did not show to me that he was a good GM by firing Thomas the way he did. I would prefer thomas as my team's GM and Carlisle as my team's coach, in a perfect world. I'll leave it at that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X