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

Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

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

  • Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

    Mike Wells makes some interesting points in this article. If several players thought he was harder on the rookies and Ron Artest than he was on Jax, J.O and Tinsley, and the players didn't think it was fair. My question is why Ron Artest. Does that mean that some players wanted Ron to stay.

    One thing is so so clear, and this proved many theories wrong, wrong, wrong, Ron Artest was not the only source of the problems on this team. If he would have been, the chemistry would have improved at least a little bit when he was traded. Wouldn't it ?


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


    Recipe for success: Which ingredients stay?
    After frustrating season, Pacers expect changes
    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com
    May 6, 2006


    Some players walked out of the locker room Thursday knowing they won't be back next season. Others wondered if they'll be traded this offseason. Almost all just wanted to get away and clear their heads from what was a disappointing and frustrating season.

    The Indiana Pacers concluded their 41-41 season Thursday by losing to New Jersey 4-2 in the first round of the playoffs.

    They know change is coming.

    How much and who goes? Team president Larry Bird and CEO Donnie Walsh have those answers.

    Here's an analysis of the roster:


    Coach Rick Carlisle

    Signed through 2006-07

    Carlisle has won at least 50 games three times. His knowledge of the game has never been questioned, but players don't care for his micromanaging of the offense.

    His ability to relate to the players is a concern. Bird said last month that Carlisle will be back next season, but several players griped about how he showed favoritism toward Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson and Jamaal Tinsley while being harder on players such as David Harrison, Danny Granger and Ron Artest.

    Carlisle rarely disciplined Jackson when he complained to the officials, took bad shots or strolled back on defense, and he allowed his shooting guard to gripe at him, a sign of disrespect, while walking off the court when taken out of games.

    One player said Carlisle took the fun out of the game with the way he ran the team this season.


    Jermaine O'Neal

    Signed through 2009-10

    O'Neal's name will be mentioned in numerous trade scenarios this offseason. The Pacers say they don't intend to deal their All-Star power forward, but O'Neal has shown signs of wearing down mentally from what has happened the past two seasons.

    A fresh start helped Artest and might not be bad for O'Neal, who continues to take most of the criticism for not leading the Pacers to a title.

    Expect O'Neal to return unless the Pacers get a deal they can't refuse.


    Peja Stojakovic

    Unrestricted free agent

    The Pacers want to re-sign Stojakovic to avoid coming away empty handed from the Artest trade in January. Both sides say they want to get a deal done.


    Stephen Jackson

    Signed through 2009-10

    No player irks fans like Jackson. He played the most minutes, but his poor attitude at times grated on team officials and fans. Jackson's attitude likely won't change unless Carlisle demands it.

    Jackson said after Game 6 that he won't be upset if he's not with the Pacers next season. That's certainly a possibility.


    Anthony Johnson

    Signed through 2007-08

    An argument could be made that Johnson was the team's most reliable player. He went from the third point guard to playing the second-most minutes. He made a strong case that he should be the starting point guard next season by averaging 20 points on 52 percent shooting in the playoffs.


    Jamaal Tinsley

    Signed through 2010-11

    Tinsley might have played his last game for the organization in Game 2 against New Jersey. He's talented but could never stay healthy long enough to make a maximum impact. He has played just 134 games in the past three regular seasons.

    The Pacers have to hope a team is willing to take a chance on a talented but injury-prone player who is signed for five more seasons.


    Fred Jones

    Restricted free agent

    Jones averaged 9.6 points and shot 42 percent. There were grumblings within the organization about Jones' laid-back attitude and work ethic, not a good sign for a player working for his next contract.

    Jones' value will be helped by a weak free agent market for shooting guards. The Pacers will bring Jones back if they can get him cheap.


    Sarunas Jasikevicius

    Signed through 2007-08

    Jasikevicius had a solid start to his NBA career, but then struggled and lost confidence. Jasikevicius rubbed some players the wrong way early by criticizing the team's performance.

    Opponents exposed his defensive flaws and he shot just 39.6 percent. Coaches have to find a way to hide his defensive deficiencies to give him playing time.


    Austin Croshere

    Signed through 2006-07

    The never-flashy Croshere was a steady contributor, but his name will be mentioned in trade rumors again this summer. He averaged 8.2 points and 5.3 rebounds while missing significant time after suffering two concussions within a month in January. He'll be a free agent at the end of next season.


    Danny Granger

    Signed through 2006-07 with a team option in 2007-08

    Granger showed why he was projected as a top-10 pick last summer. Granger, the No. 17 pick, averaged 7.5 points and 4.9 rebounds while playing both forward positions.

    He'll play on the team's Summer League squad in July and work on his dribbling throughout the offseason so that he can possibly play some shooting guard.


    Jeff Foster

    Signed through 2008-09
    Foster played in just 63 games because of an assortment of injuries and missed the final two playoff games with a back injury. Foster, the team's best post defender and rebounder, is one of the few players on the roster whose effort you don't have to question. He averaged 9.1 rebounds.


    David Harrison

    Signed through 2006-07 with a team option in 2007-08

    Constant foul trouble hampered his performance. His emotions often caused Carlisle to pull him. Harrison averaged nearly three fouls in 15 minutes a game.


    Scot Pollard

    Unrestricted free agent
    Pollard was a situational starter, which frustrated him. He is a solid backup who does the little things that don't show up in the box score. Wants to return under the right circumstances.


    Eddie Gill

    Unrestricted free agent

    The team's fourth point guard played 122 minutes this season. He is not expected back.

  • #2
    Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

    Gill not expected to return?

    I think Carlisle hindered David's progress and development even more than the foul trouble did.

    Let's get a coaching staff that will help our young players realize their potential.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

      [QUOTE=Unclebuck] My question is why Ron Artest. Does that mean that some players wanted Ron to stay.

      One thing is so so clear, and this proved many theories wrong, wrong, wrong, Ron Artest was not the source of the problems on this team. If he would have been then the chemistry would have improved at least a little bit when he was traded. Wouldn't it ?
      QUOTE]


      UB, this is something that confused me in the May 4 Kravitz article, given the general assumption (or at least mine) that Jax was Ronnie's biggest supporter on the team:

      >>"Ron Artest came out of it as a flawed hero, a cult figure who was generally beloved by Indiana fans. But Jackson, who was the first into the stands to defend Artest? He came out of it viewed as a bad guy with a vicious streak whose emotions were beyond control.
      "Still, to this day, I'm seen that way," Jackson said. "I guess Ron's a superstar, one of the best players in the league, and they're not going to promote me like that. So I've got to take the fall for a lot of the stuff he created.
      "People around me know I was just trying to be a good teammate. Before that night, I'd never been suspended for an incident, never been suspended for a fight, nothing. But they wanted to protect Ron's image so he could be used in commercials and (promoted) as one of the game's best players."
      Jackson bent over at the waist and stared at the floor.
      "I don't want to be in commercials, anyway,'' he said.<<

      Sounds like some bitterness towards Ron and thinking to his comments early in the season about being option #2, one wonders what was going on with him & Ron, particularly if Jax is one of Coach's percieved soft spots. That kind of stuff could linger post-trade.
      "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

      Bob Netolicky

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

        I'm telling you no one on this team wants to play for Rick, well AJ does but thats it. He is afraid of Jermaine and Stephen thats why he shows favoritism. I dont see how he shows favoritism at Jamaal Tinsley at all.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

          Originally posted by Jermaniac
          I dont see how he shows favoritism at Jamaal Tinsley at all.


          He threw Jamaal back as starter way too fast after coming back from major down time.

          AJ should be our starter unless Jamaal can beat him out of it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Danny Granger
            .............

            He'll play on the team's Summer League squad in July and work on his dribbling throughout the offseason so that he can possibly play some shooting guard.
            I'm not trying to hijack this thread and turn it into something else, but did anyone else notice this? Are the Pacers thinking of starting both Peja and Granger?

            To keep this on topic, I'm ready for Carlisle to be gone. He's a great coach and one of the best in the league, but he is not right for this team. His inability to get along with players irks me the most. And this favoritism thing definitely bothers me. I think it's time to say goodbye to Carlisle and his prevent offense. Get a coach in here that will develop the young guys and bring fun back to Indiana basketball.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

              Originally posted by Unclebuck
              One thing is so so clear, and this proved many theories wrong, wrong, wrong, Ron Artest was not the only source of the problems on this team. If he would have been, the chemistry would have improved at least a little bit when he was traded. Wouldn't it?
              No. Because the damage was already done. You have to remember, UB, the (already existing and well-documented) problems with Ron reached their apogee during the ECFs when he missed practices and traveled separate from the team. But despite that, the same players came back the next season and came out storming, playing with a sense of purpose and cohesiveness, like a team on a mission. Of course we all know what happened next. Just like that, it was gone. Poof. And the suspensions, the injuries, the high expectations never met, etc. ultimately took their toll. On the players, coaches, management and fans. All the king's horses and all the king's men... Make no mistake, Ron left quite a mark on this franchise.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                Originally posted by Tim
                He threw Jamaal back as starter way too fast after coming back from major down time.

                AJ should be our starter unless Jamaal can beat him out of it.
                He also benched him and didnt play him for no reason at all during the 61 win season.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                  Originally posted by bulletproof
                  No. Because the damage was already done. You have to remember, UB, the (already existing and well-documented) problems with Ron reached their apogee during the ECFs when he missed practices and traveled separate from the team. But despite that, the same players came back the next season and came out storming, playing with a sense of purpose and cohesiveness, like a team on a mission. Of course we all know what happened next. Just like that, it was gone. Poof. And the suspensions, the injuries, the high expectations never met, etc. ultimately took their toll. On the players, coaches, management and fans. All the king's horses and all the king's men... Make no mistake, Ron left quite a mark on this franchise.
                  I was so facinated by the word apogee, I looked it up.

                  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apogee

                  1) a.The point in the orbit of the moon or of an artificial satellite most distant from the center of the earth.
                  b. The point in an orbit most distant from the body being orbited.
                  2) The farthest or highest point; the apex: “The golden age of American sail, which began with the fast clipper ships in 1848, reached its apogee in the Gold Rush years” (Los Angeles Times).






                  I understand and agree with your point, although your use of that word I'm not too sure about, but my question always comes back to, why couldn't this team pull themselves back up after Ron left then. I will never understand that, and the fact they didn't, couldn't or refused to, makes me wonder

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    I understand and agree with your point, although your use of that word I'm not too sure about, but my question always comes back to, why couldn't this team pull themselves back up after Ron left then.
                    They did. Briefly. And then Jermaine came back and Carlisle went back to slowball and smallball.

                    The underlying problems were always there, and they weren't about Ron. This team just wasn't assembled well.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck
                      I understand and agree with your point, although your use of that word I'm not too sure about, but my question always comes back to, why couldn't this team pull themselves back up after Ron left then. I will never understand that, and the fact they didn't, couldn't or refused to, makes me wonder
                      Reached its height, highest point, its apex.

                      You mean after he was traded? Like I said, by then the damage was done. I never thought simply getting rid of Ron was going to undo everything he had done. The emotional toll from the brawl, the suspensions, the injuries, Reggie's departure, Ron's trade demand and departure was simply too much. As Pollard said, "If they were by themselves it wouldn't be a problem, but when they all hit there's nothing you can do about it."

                      Honestly, that's why the criticisms directed at Rick and certain players on the team baffle me. It seems as if everyone has forgotten what happened on 11/19 and have swept its effects on this franchise under the rug. Trust me, the wounds run deep.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck
                        I understand and agree with your point, although your use of that word I'm not too sure about, but my question always comes back to, why couldn't this team pull themselves back up after Ron left then. I will never understand that, and the fact they didn't, couldn't or refused to, makes me wonder
                        Because Ron Artest was the engine of the team. He was the driving force. As Artest went, so went the Pacers. He was the closest thing to an on court leader that we had.... warts and all...

                        JO is not a difference maker regardless of salary. Artest was a difference maker, regardless of his eccentricities.

                        The reality is, making JO the focal point of the team likely did hold Artest back even. OTOH, the fact the Pacers never felt they could trust Artest and yet had tied 120,000,000.00 into JO made for an awkward situation. I'm sure TPTB wanted JO to be 'the man'.

                        When we lost Artest we lost out best player. I don't think it was even close. He was a difference maker.

                        [ducking for cover]
                        None of this means that Artest wouldn't have done something to blow the team up even if he was handed the reins. But considering where we are now, I'm not sure the gamble would've been all that bad of a gamble to take in hindsight. Maybe we could've traded JO for something last offseason so that we didn't have such a void once/if Artest was gone.

                        We had a golden opportunity to see what this team was like with and without JO in 04-05 (as the focal point and without Artest). It pretty much confirms what Sagarin's computer had told us a few years earlier (see my sig). [/ducking for cover]

                        I'm starting to believe as long as JO is here we're going to have that void and it's going to create one awkward situation after the next as other players are sucked into trying to fill it. But JO will always be an impediment in the way of someone truly reaching their potential in that regard. Or maybe it's the coach constantly putting JO into that position and maybe under a different regime he'd finally have the 'light bulb game' that we've all been waiting for and JO would fill the void, or step aside willingly so someone else can.

                        We probably don't need to read any more articles in the Star where JO proclaims himself the leader. Until I start seeing other players talking about JO being the leader I will consider the position "not filled".




                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                          Originally posted by Bball
                          [ducking for cover]
                          None of this means that Artest wouldn't have done something to blow the team up even if he was handed the reins. But considering where we are now, I'm not sure the gamble would've been all that bad of a gamble to take in hindsight. Maybe we could've traded JO for something last offseason so that we didn't have such a void once/if Artest was gone.[/ducking for cover]
                          This has to be the first case of 400/400 hindsight I've ever seen.


                          Here, try these on:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                            Originally posted by bulletproof
                            This has to be the first case of 400/400 hindsight I've ever seen.


                            Here, try these on:
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mike Wells: Carlisle showed favoritism

                              Originally posted by bulletproof
                              This has to be the first case of 400/400 hindsight I've ever seen.
                              First off, 400/400 vision is pretty good. It's identical to 20/20.

                              But it's not hiindsight. Bball's been saying that for a long time.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X