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

Rick Adelman

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

  • #16
    Re: Rick Adelman

    Originally posted by bozzwell
    RA with Pacers next year? With JO, Pedja and PG to be named later? Here's what would happen:

    Pacers would witn 50+ games every year.
    JO would average double-double, but with significant uptick on assists per game.
    Pedja would go back to 20+ PPG with 100+ long streaks of games with double figure scoring (i.e. incredibly consistent) and measly 4.5 rpg's.
    Your rotation would be 7, 8 players deep at the most.
    Pacers would be great to watch.
    Pacers would sweep Atlanta.
    I'd be pissed that RA is not on the Kings anymore.
    Pacers would be top 3 in scoring, assists, FG%.

    I hope he stays with Kngs
    Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Rick Adelman

      This is who I want. In fact if a change has to be made and if I were in charge I wouldn't bother interviewing anyone else. I love his CBA and minor league background. That IMo is an excellent proving ground for NBA coaches. Phil Jackson, Flip Saunders, George Karl.

      I didn't even realize Mus was runner-up to Popovich for coach of the year in 2003


      http://www.nba.com/coachfile/eric_mu....html?nav=page

      Eric Musselman
      College - San Diego

      A young, energetic coach with an extremely successful record in basketball’s “minor leagues”, Eric Musselman was named head coach of the Golden State Warriors on July 26, 2002. Just 37-years-old at the time of his hiring, Musselman becomes the youngest current head coach in the NBA. Prior to joining the Warriors, Musselman worked two seasons as an assistant for the Atlanta Hawks after spending the prior two seasons with the Orlando Magic.


      In 1998-99, Musselman was named an assistant coach for the Orlando Magic by then-head coach Chuck Daly after spending the previous campaign as a scout for the Magic. When Daly retired following the 1998-99 campaign, Musselman was retained on the staff of new head coach Doc Rivers for the 1999-2000 season.

      Musselman joined the Magic after spending the previous seven years as the head coach and the previous eight years as the general manager of the Florida Beach Dogs (formerly the Rapid City Thrillers) of the Continental Basketball Association. In 1996-97, Musselman led the Beach Dogs to a 38-18 record and a trip to the CBA Finals as his squad held CBA opponents to a league-low 90.8 points per game. As the club’s general manager in 1988-89, he hired current Timberwolves head coach Flip Saunders - then a college assistant - to coach the Thrillers.

      As a CBA coach, Musselman posted a 270-122 record (.688), marking the second highest winning percentage in league history behind Milwaukee Bucks head coach George Karl, who coached for five seasons in the CBA.

      From 1990 thru 1997, Musselman had 24 players called-up to the NBA, the highest number in the league during that span. He holds the distinction of being the only person in CBA history to coach in five league All-Star Games (1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997) and was the first coach in professional basketball history to win 100 games by the age of 28. When he was 23, Musselman became the youngest coach in CBA history.

      Musselman also served as head coach of the Florida Sharks of the United States Basketball League. In the summers of 1995 and 1996, he coached the Sharks to a combined 53-3 record (.946, including playoffs) and back-to-back USBL Championships. He holds the highest winning percentage in league history.

      His received his first NBA coaching experience in 1990-91 as an assistant coach for the Minnesota Timberwolves on the staff of his late father, Bill Musselman. The Musselmans are now the first father/son head-coaching duo in NBA history.

      After graduating from the University of San Diego with a bachelor’s degree in political science in 1987, Musselman took a front office job with the Los Angeles Clippers before taking on the role of assistant director of scouting.

      A three-time member West Coast Athletic Conference All-Academic squad, he played in two NCAA tournaments. Following his college career, Musselman was selected by the CBA’s Albany Patroons in the fifth round (58th overall) of the 1987 Draft.

      A graduate of Brecksville (Ohio) High School, Musselman has two sons, Michael and Matthew. He was born November 19, 1964 in Ashland, OH.





      CAREER COACHING
      REGULAR SEASON POST SEASON
      YEAR TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT WINS LOSSES PCT
      2002 Golden State 38 44 .463 0 0 .000
      TOTALS 75 89 .457 0 0 .000

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Rick Adelman

        He reminds me of Scott Skiles


        http://www.hoopshype.com/interviews/...an_gozalbo.htm

        Eric Musselman: "I have no other hobbies aside from basketball"
        by Alex Gozalbo / August 11, 2003


        SOUND BITES

        Coaching an NBA team is not easy. "Most players do things their way and there is a psychological job work to do," Warriors head coach Eric Musselman said during the International Clinic of Badalona. "The president of my club always tells me that I have to talk with them off the court so that they feel comfortable."

        That is a difficult task sometimes. According to Musselman, most European players speak better English than many American players. "And that is not a joke," he added.

        What kind of player you were?

        Eric Musselman: I wasn't very good. I was just smart and I enjoyed working hard.

        Your coaching career started very early. At the age of 27, you were already an assistant coach in Minnesota. To what extent did your father Bill Musselman influence your decision of becoming a coach?

        EM: When kids my age were having fun watching cartoons, I was watching basketball games. Basketball is the only thing I know and I don't think I would be able to do any other thing. I have no other hobbies aside from basketball. The most important thing for me is basketball and that's what I do all day.

        Is it harder to be listened when you are younger that some of the players?

        EM: Not at all. It's all about earning respect. When I began my journey in the CBA, most of the players where older than me.

        What are the main differences between the CBA and the NBA?

        EM: Well, the superstars, the best players, are in the NBA. Besides, now defenses are tougher. In the CBA, meanwhile, you just run up and down the court all the time.

        The Warriors' offense was good last year. You were the second-highest scoring team in the league. But your defense was not something about which you can take pride of...

        EM: Our defense is the worst in the NBA. We have a lot of players with good offensive talent, but they don't like running downcourt. Besides, we are one of the youngest teams in the league and we lack experience.

        Do you think you can win anything without a good defense?

        EM: No. And playing good defense is our main goal for this season. We'll spend a lot of hours working on our defense this summer.

        Which NBA teams do you like the most?

        EM: Dallas and Sacramento. They have a beautiful playing style and it's a pleasure to watch one of their games.

        But they don't win titles. Who do you think will be the main favorite this season?

        EM: San Antonio. They have the best player in the NBA -- Tim Duncan. And they are the current champions. In my opinion, they are the team to beat. I also like the point guard Tony Parker. He is fabulous. He moves real quick and has really improved his outside shot. He looked comfortable in the championship series.

        Golden State selected another French player -- Mickael Pietrus -- in the draft. What will be his role in the team?

        EM: I've seen some tapes and it appears to be a very athletic player -- just like Derrick Zimmerman, our second-round pick. But Pietrus does need to improve his jump shot. That's why I don't expect him to contribute this season. Maybe he can be useful in the future. Meanwhile, he is not going to play much.

        This year's draft was LeBron's draft. What's your opinion about Lebron skipping college for the NBA?

        EM: (Laughs) LeBron doesn't need to go to college because he can buy one. His contract is spectacular. I think it's a problem because there are players that are not ready for the NBA. They need at least two years to make the adjustment.




        Here is a thread about EM.

        http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?topic=494371


        I won't post anymore, but I googled Eric Musselman and found a number of interesting articles. The word I keep coming back to is Innovative


        here is one worth reading. Seriously if you are interested in why I think he's going to be one of the great NBA coaches, in fact the next great coach, it is based upon some of what I read in an article like this

        http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030226.html


        Here's a Thread from realGM.com

        http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?topic=496859


        Here is a little about why he was fired

        http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=1508

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Rick Adelman

          I think UB and I have agreed 110% with eachother on Musselman. The one thing I have to point out is that he took virtually the same Warriors team that got nowhere with Adelman, and nearly got them into the playoffs. Now, I think I'm going to read that last part about why he was fired, because I think that was the dumbest thing the Warriors could have done. Montgomery can't hold Musselmans jock.

          EDIT: I have to add, I had never ever been to a game in person and taken my attention off the actual game in order to watch the coach direct the team. Until I saw Eric Musselman that is. I actually enjoyed his coaching style so much that I would be more entertained watching him than actually watching the team play. I swear to you the guy never sat down, and you could hear him yelling even from the nose bleed seats I was sitting in.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Rick Adelman

            Originally posted by Shade
            It's the "three-year rule," I think. This team has blocked him out. We either need a new coach or new players...or possibly even both.

            I think some of us are scared that this roster could still do some serious damage with a new coach at the helm, and are reluctant to give up on some of those players because of it (Ragnar made a good point that Tins and JO were almost never "injured" before Rick came on board...just sayin').

            There is no three year rule, and even if there was, this current team hasn't been coached by Rick three total years.

            Half the roster has either missed enough time during that tenure to compel it as year number two, rookies, or sophomores.

            They've tuned Rick out for reasons other than he's been here too long.

            Larry's three year rule, IMHO, was a cop out he could use to only be a coach for three years. He really had no desire to be a coach.

            There has been/there is plently of teams that have had the same coach for 3+ years that keep ticking along quite nicely. I mean, Popovich has been in SA for how long?
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Rick Adelman

              Wow, I never knew there was actually a quote like this, but I agree 100000000%

              "The most important part of any season in any sport is the first five minutes of the first practice session."
              --Paul Brown, coach of the Cleveland Browns

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Rick Adelman

                Originally posted by Since86
                There is no three year rule, and even if there was, this current team hasn't been coached by Rick three total years.

                Half the roster has either missed enough time during that tenure to compel it as year number two, rookies, or sophomores.
                Tinsley - three years
                AJ - three years
                Fred - three years
                Croshere - three years
                Foster - three years
                JO - three years
                Pollard - three years

                1/2 the roster, including six of the nine guys in the regular rotation.

                They've tuned Rick out for reasons other than he's been here too long.
                Yeah, because he's an overbearing control freak with no patience for developing young players.

                Larry's three year rule, IMHO, was a cop out he could use to only be a coach for three years.
                Maybe true. But since he's said it, I expect him to stick with it as GM. He's made his bed, now he's got to sleep in it.

                He really had no desire to be a coach.
                He's also a f'ing Celtic, and he's only here because Bob what's-his-face got the Charlotte franchise. Don't get me started...

                There has been/there is plently of teams that have had the same coach for 3+ years that keep ticking along quite nicely. I mean, Popovich has been in SA for how long?
                But with the exception of Duncan, and perhaps Parker and Manu, Pop turns over the roster much quicker than DW/ the Pacers do.

                I think that's also going to be true for any other example you cite.
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Rick Adelman

                  http://www1.realgm.com/boards/viewto...r=asc&start=48

                  For you guys that want him as a coach here is some stuff on him from the Warrior fans, Hopper15 is a mod over there and a very good poster the stuff he said about him made it sound just like Musselman was Rick Carlisle Jr. If he is anything like that then we should look elsewhere.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Rick Adelman

                    Originally posted by Jermaniac
                    http://www1.realgm.com/boards/viewto...r=asc&start=48

                    For you guys that want him as a coach here is some stuff on him from the Warrior fans, Hopper15 is a mod over there and a very good poster the stuff he said about him made it sound just like Musselman was Rick Carlisle Jr. If he is anything like that then we should look elsewhere.


                    I hope our next coach is as good as Rick. EM is different from Rick though

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Rick Adelman

                      Some of the comments in here have me warming up to the idea of trying to get Adelman. Obviously the offense would look twice as good or better, but the defense is a concern.

                      However, looking at the Kings' 01-02 and 02-03 stats:

                      In 2001-2002, they scored 104.6ppg while allowing 97.0 and a defensive FG% of 44%. Nothing to write home about, but not abyssmal, and certainly not bad when you're winning every game by an average of 7.6 points.

                      In 2002-2003, they scored 101.7ppg while allowing 95.2 and a defensive FG% of 42%. That's getting into "decent" territory, while still scoring plenty and looking good while doing it. Average winning margin of 6.5 points.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Rick Adelman

                        Point differential is much more important than just looking at defense in isolation.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: Rick Adelman

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                          Point differential is much more important than just looking at defense in isolation.
                          Agreed. I'd much rather win by an average of 120 to 110 than 95 to 90.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Rick Adelman

                            Originally posted by Ev_eezy
                            I think UB and I have agreed 110% with eachother on Musselman. The one thing I have to point out is that he took virtually the same Warriors team that got nowhere with Adelman, and nearly got them into the playoffs. Now, I think I'm going to read that last part about why he was fired, because I think that was the dumbest thing the Warriors could have done. Montgomery can't hold Musselmans jock.
                            Mussleman's first year was 03, this was his roster:

                            Antawn Jamison
                            Gilbert Arenas
                            Jason Richardson
                            Troy Murphy
                            Erick Dampier
                            Earl Boykins
                            Mike Dunleavy
                            Adonal Foyle
                            Bob Sura
                            Chris Mills
                            Jiri Welsch
                            Danny Fortson
                            Oscar Torres
                            Dean Oliver
                            A.J. Guyton
                            Guy Rucker

                            Adelman's last year with the Warriors was 97, this was his roster:

                            Latrell Sprewell
                            Joe Smith
                            Chris Mullin
                            Mark Price
                            Donyell Marshall
                            B.J. Armstrong
                            Andrew DeClercq
                            Felton Spencer
                            Bimbo Coles
                            Todd Fuller
                            Ray Owes
                            Scott Burrell
                            Donald Royal
                            Melvin Booker
                            Lou Roe
                            Clifford Rozier

                            There is no one on Adleman's roster that is also on Mussleman's roster (after all, they are seperated by 6 years and 3 other head coaches).

                            The one thing I have to point out, is Montgomery lost 3 more games in 05 than Mussleman did in 04 and that with a team who traded for Baron Davis then watched him sit out 54 games that season. The Warriors are currently 30-44.

                            I don't get this Mussleman love. Is he from Indiana or something? And I really don't get how Mussleman is comparable to Phil Jackson and Scott Skiles but Adleman (a guy who's actually gotten places with his teams) is just "a professional coach" who does "a good job but is nothing special".

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Rick Adelman

                              Originally posted by Fool

                              I don't get this Mussleman love. Is he from Indiana or something? And I really don't get how Mussleman is comparable to Phil Jackson and Scott Skiles but Adleman (a guy who's actually gotten places with his teams) is just "a professional coach" who does "a good job but is nothing special".
                              This is how I was thinking.


                              Muss doesn't excite me. If we really do have to can Rick, which I don't really want to, I want someone who will bring something new to this team. Also, I'm tired of looking like crap on offense every year. Maybe Adelman could do something there.

                              Adelman is also pretty good dealing with odd personalities, as someone else said... and lord knows we got a lot of those.
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Rick Adelman

                                Also, if DW/LB truly do operate on something as silly and arbitrary as a three year rule, I'm switching franchises.
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X