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

Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

    Kravitz admitted he was wrong. The offers did get better as time passed

    OK, I'll admit it, this was probably the best Pacers cooumn Bob has ever written.

    And it makes me wonder if the Pacers did not pull out of the Maggette trade partially because of his injury and partially because they received word the Kings were willing to trade Peja.

    Peck, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the quote from DW that I highlighted about falling in love with talent. Somehting you have been saying for a couple of years now


    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart

    Bob Kravitz
    Pacers made the best of a wretched situation
    January 26, 2006


    So it's over. The strange and twisted saga of the Indiana Pacers and Ron Artest, a marquee player who made himself into a sideshow, is finished. The trade is finally official, although there's still the possibility Artest will decide this morning he's retiring to pursue his dream of becoming an astronaut.

    Assuming this is done, though, you have to conclude the Pacers did a pretty fine job salvaging a horrible situation.

    This would have been a sweeter deal back when the Pacers first wanted to acquire Peja Stojakovic -- if only the Kings would have cooperated -- but team president Larry Bird and team CEO Donnie Walsh are still getting a former All-Star back for a knucklehead who was never going to play for this franchise again.

    And they are doing something very few sports executives are willing to do: Acknowledge that despite their best intentions, they made serious mistakes in the way they handled Artest.

    "My way has always been to support players,'' Walsh said. "And if anything, I've probably gone too far with Ronnie because I thought he was a young player who was going to learn how to do things. And over the years, when he'd do things, I felt like he'd learn from it and things would get better.

    "But he generated so much attention, and it got so much bigger than it was. At a point, I thought what he told me was true: Anything he did here was going to be blown up and affect his teammates. The more I thought about it (the night after his public trade request), the more I thought that it was absolutely true, that it wasn't going to work here and that no matter how much support we gave him, it was just over and we had to move on.

    "I feel like it was a failure in a sense. And if anything, I felt like we went too long with it.''

    For the most part, the Pacers stayed with Artest for all the best reasons, because they thought they could turn him around. But, Walsh admitted, they were blinded.

    "As somebody who's done it for 40 years, you fall in love with talent,'' Walsh said. "Many times in my career, I've thought maybe you shouldn't fall in love with talent; there are other attributes. Unfortunately, in our business, you fall in love with talent.''

    Bird offered similar sentiments.

    "Over the last four, five years, you've seen some of the things, and maybe we did bend over too much for Ronnie to try to help him,'' Bird said. "But I can sleep good at night, knowing we did the best we could.''

    Their mea culpas were not the only ones Wednesday.

    Here's mine: Upon further review, the front office made the right move by taking its time moving Artest. This wasn't a deal that could have been made a few weeks ago. In fact, once word got out that the Clippers were ready to acquire Artest for Corey Maggette, other suitors ratcheted up their interest.

    Did the Pacers get equal value?

    Well, if you're asking whether Stojakovic rates with Artest as a player, the obvious answer is no. When Artest's head is right, he's a top-15 player. For a Kings franchise that was going nowhere fast this season, obtaining Artest was a risk well worth taking.

    If you're asking whether the Pacers are better off with Stojakovic than Artest, there's an obvious answer there, too: absolutely.

    It's no secret around the NBA that Stojakovic isn't the player he once was. He's had injury problems. His scoring and shooting percentage numbers have dipped dramatically in recent years. He has the reputation as an indifferent defender who disappears in the playoffs.

    Still.

    I still like the trade.

    The Pacers got a former All-Star.

    They got someone who plays the small forward, which allows Stephen Jackson to do what he was supposed to do here: play the two-guard and operate as a third scoring option.

    They got someone who can shoot, open up the floor and make the Pacers more fun to watch.

    They got someone who is highly motivated to produce in what is essentially a contract year.

    And, who knows? Maybe with a change of scenery, and a head coach who demands defensive accountability, and the presence of his idol, Bird, on the premises, he resurrects his game here.

    This may not be the trade that turns around a Pacers season that has begun to circle the drain, but this will, at the very least, reduce the number of excuses currently at the players' disposal. This gives them a much-needed mental kick-start, and a long-awaited sense that the age of anarchy is finally over.

    "In the end,'' Walsh was asked, "why do you think it came to this?''
    He paused.

    "That's a great question,'' he answered. "I think it's a collision of worlds. Maybe this wasn't the right team for a guy like Ronnie. And by us supporting him, it was getting worse and worse, and we didn't see it because we thought we could make it better. I know this: It was all well-intentioned by everybody involved, but after a while, too many things happened . . .''

    In the long run, it could turn out that Sacramento got the best in the deal.

    And yet, this was the only way this mess could have been resolved. The Pacers got more than some of us figured they would. It was all anybody could ask.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

    It certainly wasn't the right team for Ron. It had other humans on it.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

      was just on Kornheiser's radio show, and he said two things worth noting.

      - He said, "I guess I can say this now, but Larry told me personally after the 2004 ECF that he wanted to trade Ron for Peja. He felt that they'd dodged the bullet so far, and his trade value would never be higher." has alluded to this many times, but now he's finally gone on the record. Do we believe him?

      - Second, just to set the tone, Tony loves , he absolutely loves him. Tony thinks he's absolutely wonderful. So, it was surprising when even Tony gave him crap for his "trade JO" article. tried to justify it, but Tony kept hammering, so he backtracked and said that the article was written when he expected we'd get junk for Ron, not someone like Peja.

      Also, I'm sure everyone will be happy to know that went out of his way to bash Jack and Tinsley, especially Tinsley.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

        I've got to be brief.

        I watched the entire news conferance on WTHR websight & all I can tell you is that if anything I felt sorry of Walsh.

        You're right, I've said that for two plus years about Ron & truth be told I was saying that before that about J.O.

        But at the end of the day, & this is why I have not been bashing Walsh as much as some of my old time fellow posters think I should have been doing, he's right. You do fall in love with talent & the old saying is love makes you blind.

        He was/is a talented basketball player. However he is a flawed team mate (I won't say human because off of the court I don't know him).

        Horrid mistakes were made, you can't do away with a mistake but in this case they have at least started to aknowledge that it was a mistake.

        The step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.

        Actually maybe might digest carrol was as much about Donnie as it was about you.

        Now one thing I wanted to make a post on but just didn't have time & I don't have time now to do this justice.

        Is somewhere around the 8-9 min. mark of that press conferance Larry Bird said something very very very interesting.

        I won't use quotes because I don't know the exact words but it was along the lines of this.

        We play to much isolation low post offense. He wants to see ball movement & he wants to see player movements.

        Now you can blame the players to a point for breaking plays & holding the ball, but if I'm not mistaken isn't Carlisle's entire offense based on low post isolation plays that limit turnovers?

        That's the second time I've heard Larry make comment about not liking the way we play offense.

        Add that up with his criticism of Rick for punishing some of the players for not making the plays & I think there is starting to not only be a rift between the players & Rick I think there is now a rift between Larry & Rick.

        At least that is my view of it & I could be wrong.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

          Peck, I saw that quote from Larry in one of the Indystar articles, I know it was in there, and I too saw the clip from the PC of Bird saying that. Should be interesting.


          Back to DW's talent comments, I wonder what that means for two layers in particluar, Tinsley and Jax and maybe even Harrison, i wodner if he'll look at those three talented players a little differently

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

            Originally posted by Peck
            I've got to be brief.

            I watched the entire news conferance on WTHR websight & all I can tell you is that if anything I felt sorry of Walsh.

            You're right, I've said that for two plus years about Ron & truth be told I was saying that before that about J.O.

            But at the end of the day, & this is why I have not been bashing Walsh as much as some of my old time fellow posters think I should have been doing, he's right. You do fall in love with talent & the old saying is love makes you blind.

            He was/is a talented basketball player. However he is a flawed team mate (I won't say human because off of the court I don't know him).

            Horrid mistakes were made, you can't do away with a mistake but in this case they have at least started to aknowledge that it was a mistake.

            The step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.

            Actually maybe might digest carrol was as much about Donnie as it was about you.

            Now one thing I wanted to make a post on but just didn't have time & I don't have time now to do this justice.

            Is somewhere around the 8-9 min. mark of that press conferance Larry Bird said something very very very interesting.

            I won't use quotes because I don't know the exact words but it was along the lines of this.

            We play to much isolation low post offense. He wants to see ball movement & he wants to see player movements.

            Now you can blame the players to a point for breaking plays & holding the ball, but if I'm not mistaken isn't Carlisle's entire offense based on low post isolation plays that limit turnovers?

            That's the second time I've heard Larry make comment about not liking the way we play offense.

            Add that up with his criticism of Rick for punishing some of the players for not making the plays & I think there is starting to not only be a rift between the players & Rick I think there is now a rift between Larry & Rick.

            At least that is my view of it & I could be wrong.
            I don't get this. Didn't our two biggest win streaks last year result from Carlisle switching to a motion offense? I'm thinking of right after the brawl and late in the season when we reverted to the 97-99 offense. Why are we assuming that Carlisle is incapable of playing a motion offense. Facts are facts: Rick's offenseive schemes are all about Jermaine. Jermaine is a one-dimensional, predictable post player. He's like a refrigerator. The light goes on, the light goes off and it won't do anything that's not built into it already. He's a great post player, but he's a post player none the less. Rick is right to play to JO's strengths.

            When Jermaine goes out, Carlisle's history shows that he is more than willing to change the offensive schemes.

            Until this year.

            Look out, now we have Harrison mimicking Jermaine's post play. So when JO misses a game, we're dumping it into Harrison. That's a disaster because Harrison is not good enough at this time to get it done the way JO does. And now lately I've even seen Tinsley isolated. TINSLEY FFS!

            I want a ball movement/player movement offense as much as the next guy, the main question is cna Jermaine play that way?
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

              Originally posted by San Jose is cooler
              I want a ball movement/player movement offense as much as the next guy, the main question is cna Jermaine play that way?
              There are (now) three players on the roster who would be capable of playing impactively (thanks Jay) in that kind of offense. Sarunas Yesitsacatfish, Fred Jones, and Peja (though I haven't seen enough of Granger at this point to know which side he would fit in on, but I'd lean towards his being able to do so). That's it.

              So Rick can't be blamed for the scheme we're running now. There's a hell of a lot more to an "up tempo offense" than running really fast and jumping really high. And we simply don't have any of the things required. Like chemistry. And shooting. And a reasonable basketball IQ. And chemistry. We also lack chemistry.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                Well, I jsut got through writing that and looked at the main page to see that JO is out 8 weeks.

                Add Peja with Croshere starting and the motion offense is on the way.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                  Originally posted by Obviously Never Actually Been to San Jose
                  There are (now) three players on the roster who would be capable of playing impactively (thanks Jay) in that kind of offense. Sarunas Yesitsacatfish, Fred Jones, and Peja. That's it.

                  So Rick can't be blamed the scheme we're running now. There's a hell of a lot more to an "up tempo offense" than running really fast and jumping really high. And we simply don't have any of the things required. Like chemistry. And shooting. And a reasonable basketball IQ. And chemisty. We also lack chemistry.
                  What about chemistry?

                  It's not about tempo with your feet. It's about tempo of the mind. You should know where you are going to send the ball even before you get the pass. Anyone who catches and THEN looks around should do pushups in practice until the mind-set is changed.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                    Originally posted by Smog sucks
                    What about chemistry?

                    It's not about tempo with your feet. It's about tempo of the mind. You should know where you are going to send the ball even before you get the pass. Anyone who catches and THEN looks around should do pushups in practice until the mind-set is changed.
                    Exactly. I almost have a coronary when we catch the ball, let alone have anyone who either knows where it's going or has a teamate that cares enough to be in the right place. AND THIS IS IN THE MOST BASIC OFFENSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY RUN.




                    Blow it up.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                      Well, we have no choice but to run a motion with JO out. We'll never run-and-gun, but it will be noticably different. Rick experimented with some Princeton sets in December, I wouldn't be surprised if we see some more of that, considering Peja's background.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                        Originally posted by btowncolt
                        And chemistry. We also lack chemistry.
                        And physics too!



                        Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                        Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                          Originally posted by Just bitter about living in DC
                          Exactly. I almost have a coronary when we catch the ball, let alone have anyone who either knows where it's going or has a teamate that cares enough to be in the right place. AND THIS IS IN THE MOST BASIC OFFENSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY RUN.




                          Blow it up.
                          I think the team was built to win games defensively. The offense Rick put in was a low risk one so we wouldn't lose games with bad shot selection and turnovers. With Ron gone I'm not sure we can continue to win that way.

                          I mean would you trust you job to our player's decision making ablities?
                          "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

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                            Question for everyone... why do yall hate Kravitz so much?

                            Of course he was biased about the entire Artest situation... but that's his opinion.

                            I read these boards, and the Indy Star boards.. and all I see is people trashing him. He's actually a good writer to be honest.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz admits he was wrong, and Peck did you read these comments from DW

                              Originally posted by NaptownBound
                              Question for everyone... why do yall hate Kravitz so much?

                              Of course he was biased about the entire Artest situation... but that's his opinion.

                              I read these boards, and the Indy Star boards.. and all I see is people trashing him. He's actually a good writer to be honest.
                              You really think so?

                              I seriously don't think there is any sport he could have an intelligent conversation about, past throwing out platitudes he parrots from others. Maybe he knows hockey, but I wouldn't know, because I certainly don't know jack about that.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X