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

This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

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

  • This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

    Left the game early which is something I rarely do. Not trying to make a statement, I just got bored.


    The Pacers did nothing to address what they needed in the off-season. Actually, they may have made themselves worse without trying to do so.

    1) Al Harrington was just a bad move. It doesn't even matter how well he plays. He's redundant, especially considering Danny Granger. He could stunt the growth of Granger, as they will be successful in similar situations. Granger is actually a better shooter.

    Harrington brings nothing to the table defense wise, and he's not a good FT shooter. As a PF, he's a **** poor rebounder, and BOY did that show tonight.

    2) Not addressing the desperate need for outside shooting. I don't get what Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh were thinking about in the off-season. It's tough for them as Tinsley and Jackson all but impossible to move, but as much as I like his potential, getting Marquis Daniels did not help the Pacers. He is too similar to Jackson.

    Don't get me wrong. I like the Daniels for Croshere trade on the surface. It's a talent upgrade. I just hope it's part of something more.

    3) Tinsley is pathetic. He's lethargic. He doesn't play with any sense of urgency. He just looks like he doesn't care. This franchise has publicly stated many times they will be as good as Tinsley is, and that is definitely the case. What does that say for Indiana's chances?

    It's better to have players on the court who can't do something but bust their *** trying. I'd rather Jasikevicius on the court working to guard someone and not quite get it done, then to watch Tinsley run to the top of the key and STILL get beat to the lane.

    Jasikevicius brings energy to the floor, and he's the best outside shooter the Pacers have. He's also a good passer. Tinsley is a good passer too, but since he never plays hard he doens't create shots for others. He can't shoot either so there is no need to close out tight on him.

    The problem with sticking with Tinsley is he isn't made to earn anything. It's not about health. He was like this in his second season. This is about his terrible lack of heart.

    4) Sure the pieces fit, but not well enough. A great deal of lip service has been made about how interchangeable the Pacers are. Toward what end? They've moved JO up the lane, emptying out the baseline for scoring drives, but none of the other starters shoot well enough to stretch the defense.

    Luckily JO seems have to developed a more consistent shot from 15'.

    Being interchangeable is nice, but part of that includes being able to change how one attacks. They have no one who comes off screens who can hit shots. Jackson does a nice job on the early down screen in their Flex, which they run on just about every secondary transition opportunity, but that's a 15' shot. Anything deeper and it's one set shot after another.

    What they lost offensively when they Reggie Miller retired was a shooter coming off screens. You need a guy like that. Peja was one too.


    I'd start:
    Granger
    O'Neal
    Foster
    Jackson
    Jasikevicius

    Tinsley would never get off the bench unless he proved he could bring energy.

    Harrington is perfect off the bench because he can score in the low post vs. a second strong PF. He in that scenario he could play alongside O'Neal or Foster. But when they have Granger, Harrington and Jackson vs. someone else's first string, their overall lack of shooting kills the Pacers, especially with a PG who doesn't create shots for teammates and is a worse shooter to boot.

    With all those athletic players, you'd HOPE the Pacers would be extending pickup points and using the alleged versatility they have on defense, utilizing switches, lengthening passing lanes, and forcing quick and contested shots. That's not happening either.
    Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

  • #2
    Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

    good analysis...

    Hey coach, post more often!
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

      Have to agree on the outside shooting. We needed it and didn't get it. I like Harrington's locker room attitude, but not his game. He is a step below Granger in my opinion. In game 1 he didn't even go after rebounds...just compare how aggressive Granger is for rebounds vs. Harrington. NO COMPARISON....Granger has him beat bad.

      Tinsley, loved him in year 1 and part of year 2...now he's just annoying. Doesn't even make the great passes anymore.

      Saras, like his energy, but he has to hit the WIDE OPEN shot for crying out loud. But, frankly, he's a play maker more than a shooter so stop putting in a spot he doesn't excel at COACH!

      Our starting 5 is boring and a bad combination. Daniels is better than I thought. Jackson could never play again and we wouldn't miss ANYTHING!

      Granger, O'Neal, Saras, Daniels and Maybe Harrington since we have him should start. NO WAY on Jackson....just doesn't offer enough. He was a great bench player for San Antonio and that is about what he could give us.

      Sad to say, but Armstrong is our best point guard.

      Water


      Originally posted by Jim R View Post
      Left the game early which is something I rarely do. Not trying to make a statement, I just got bored.


      The Pacers did nothing to address what they needed in the off-season. Actually, they may have made themselves worse without trying to do so.

      1) Al Harrington was just a bad move. It doesn't even matter how well he plays. He's redundant, especially considering Danny Granger. He could stunt the growth of Granger, as they will be successful in similar situations. Granger is actually a better shooter.

      Harrington brings nothing to the table defense wise, and he's not a good FT shooter. As a PF, he's a **** poor rebounder, and BOY did that show tonight.

      2) Not addressing the desperate need for outside shooting. I don't get what Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh were thinking about in the off-season. It's tough for them as Tinsley and Jackson all but impossible to move, but as much as I like his potential, getting Marquis Daniels did not help the Pacers. He is too similar to Jackson.

      Don't get me wrong. I like the Daniels for Croshere trade on the surface. It's a talent upgrade. I just hope it's part of something more.

      3) Tinsley is pathetic. He's lethargic. He doesn't play with any sense of urgency. He just looks like he doesn't care. This franchise has publicly stated many times they will be as good as Tinsley is, and that is definitely the case. What does that say for Indiana's chances?

      It's better to have players on the court who can't do something but bust their *** trying. I'd rather Jasikevicius on the court working to guard someone and not quite get it done, then to watch Tinsley run to the top of the key and STILL get beat to the lane.

      Jasikevicius brings energy to the floor, and he's the best outside shooter the Pacers have. He's also a good passer. Tinsley is a good passer too, but since he never plays hard he doens't create shots for others. He can't shoot either so there is no need to close out tight on him.

      The problem with sticking with Tinsley is he isn't made to earn anything. It's not about health. He was like this in his second season. This is about his terrible lack of heart.

      4) Sure the pieces fit, but not well enough. A great deal of lip service has been made about how interchangeable the Pacers are. Toward what end? They've moved JO up the lane, emptying out the baseline for scoring drives, but none of the other starters shoot well enough to stretch the defense.

      Luckily JO seems have to developed a more consistent shot from 15'.

      Being interchangeable is nice, but part of that includes being able to change how one attacks. They have no one who comes off screens who can hit shots. Jackson does a nice job on the early down screen in their Flex, which they run on just about every secondary transition opportunity, but that's a 15' shot. Anything deeper and it's one set shot after another.

      What they lost offensively when they Reggie Miller retired was a shooter coming off screens. You need a guy like that. Peja was one too.


      I'd start:
      Granger
      O'Neal
      Foster
      Jackson
      Jasikevicius

      Tinsley would never get off the bench unless he proved he could bring energy.

      Harrington is perfect off the bench because he can score in the low post vs. a second strong PF. He in that scenario he could play alongside O'Neal or Foster. But when they have Granger, Harrington and Jackson vs. someone else's first string, their overall lack of shooting kills the Pacers, especially with a PG who doesn't create shots for teammates and is a worse shooter to boot.

      With all those athletic players, you'd HOPE the Pacers would be extending pickup points and using the alleged versatility they have on defense, utilizing switches, lengthening passing lanes, and forcing quick and contested shots. That's not happening either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

        did u even watch sarunas play tonight? haven't checked the box score out yet but i'd guess he was something like 2-9 from the floor. and the shots he took were rarely in the flow of the offense.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

          well, looks like he was 1-8 and 1-6 from 3. tinsley? 5-11.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

            Yea, Saras and AI were two worst shooters tonight. 2 from 17.
            "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

            - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

              They cut turnovers down to 12. Did this happen because of better ball control, or just by slowing the pace?


              Hey, the North Putnam Cougars beat Cascade tonight in the AA football sectional in a dramatic 4th quarter drive.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                Yeah Runi didn't shoot well at all tonight! He started off well with a quick five pts., then he missed one off the back of the rim, and another rattled out.. and he kinda started forcing it. I do like the idea of starting him over Tinsley though, not that's he better, but he brings more fire to start the game, and I prefer redbull to come off the bench with his endless energy!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                  Well, I didn't think Tinsley played all that bad tonight, and I'm pretty much a Tinsley basher.

                  He didn't play great either.

                  Jamaal just is not an outside threat, so they lay off of him. He also has few outside threats to pass it to.

                  He also doesn't bring the intangibles of heart like Runi and Armstrong nor the leader/captain type role you'd like from a point guard.

                  He can be darn good as an offensive driver/scorer but that doesn't help our offense get going. And when he's only mediocre at it, like tonight, he just doens't bring a lot to the table.

                  I am of the mindset that we live or die with Runi. That's probably a call for getting blazed from the board, but we need a player who can shoot as well as create. Quis hasn't taken an outside shot yet. Jax is mediocre at both. Tinsley can't shoot, and Armstrong is not as good of a playmaker but can shoot pretty well (but isn't an option for a lot of minutes anyway.)

                  I can see why Rick resorted to AJ last year: he can shoot, he's a B- playmaker/creator. It drove us all crazy but it's all we had.

                  Wish we could trade for someone.

                  But, back to my point, Runi is the only guy who can POTENTIALLY make the shot AND create for the rest of the offense. He did this in the first game and we won. He kinda sucked tonight.

                  Can he put it all together on a consistent basis? Hard to say, but I would sure like to give it the full college try. I think it's all we've got at the moment (and I think this whole issue is why there are so many folks rooting for Runi despite his issues: they sense the crying need the Pacers have for a shooter/playmaker.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                    Originally posted by waterjater View Post
                    Have to agree on the outside shooting. We needed it and didn't get it. I like Harrington's locker room attitude, but not his game. He is a step below Granger in my opinion. In game 1 he didn't even go after rebounds...just compare how aggressive Granger is for rebounds vs. Harrington. NO COMPARISON....Granger has him beat bad.

                    Tinsley, loved him in year 1 and part of year 2...now he's just annoying. Doesn't even make the great passes anymore.

                    Saras, like his energy, but he has to hit the WIDE OPEN shot for crying out loud. But, frankly, he's a play maker more than a shooter so stop putting in a spot he doesn't excel at COACH!

                    Our starting 5 is boring and a bad combination. Daniels is better than I thought. Jackson could never play again and we wouldn't miss ANYTHING!

                    Granger, O'Neal, Saras, Daniels and Maybe Harrington since we have him should start. NO WAY on Jackson....just doesn't offer enough. He was a great bench player for San Antonio and that is about what he could give us.

                    Sad to say, but Armstrong is our best point guard.

                    Water
                    See people like this are great, they have hate in their heart. He doesnt want to start Stephen Jackson because he JUST doesnt offer enough, fine. But then he wants to start Sarunas Jasikavicus. Ohh you guys are great. Everytime I feel down I come on PD and laugh at how funny your posts are.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                      Did anyone else hear Kevin Lee say that a few players did not want Saras to do well last season, he mentioned AJ and Fred Jones as those players. Kevin usually doesn't say too much, but on occasion usually a few months after the fact, he divulges some inside info

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                        well, looks like he was 1-8 and 1-6 from 3. tinsley? 5-11.
                        Put him at the point and let him come off ball screens. Figure out ways for him to get to the FT line off the dribble and see what he is able to create.

                        Were you paying attention to who was in there during the stretches when the Pacers were playing well vs. poorly? Notice a trend?

                        Sometimes shooters don't just produce opportunities when they're hitting shots. Their ability to hit shots stretches out the defense.

                        Keep defending Tinsley. The Pacers will keep underachieving while he plays.
                        Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Did anyone else hear Kevin Lee say that a few players did not want Saras to do well last season, he mention AJ and Fred Jones as those players. Kevin usually doesn't say too much, but on occasion usually a few months after the fact, he divulges some inside info
                          Not surprised about AJ. More surprised regarding Fred.

                          Actually, I would have put Tins ahead of both of them. I'd be glad to learn he wasn't part of that cabal crap.

                          I know Jax was part of it. All you had to do was watch him refuse to pass the ball to Runi.

                          You wonder if Bird made moves in the offseason to specifically remedy the problem.

                          I don't know if Runi has what it takes or not. I think it's possible. I like to see him get a full opportunity so we can find out for sure. I think Larry feels the same way, thus his comment at the end of last season: "Rick and I disagree about Sarunas."
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Did anyone else hear Kevin Lee say that a few players did not want Saras to do well last season, he mention AJ and Fred Jones as those players. Kevin usually doesn't say too much, but on occasion usually a few months after the fact, he divulges some inside info

                            I didn't hear that, but one thing I did hear in the off-season was when Bird said they made moves which addressed some of the Pacers' problems. That surprised me, and I wouldn't doubt it one bit. But it only goes to show how dysfunctional the Pacers have been lately.

                            I"m just a big believer that your PG has to be a leader. I know I coach my teams to be that way. He may not be your best player, but he has to be a leader.

                            Tinsley was pulled tonight in the 4th quarter, and they showed a quick take to the bench. He was complaining, as was the assistant he was talking to. It turned into a one way conversation just in the time the camera was on them. It had to be defensive in nature, as the assistant just kept pointing on the floor.

                            They flash back to the game and Darrell Armstrong forced Paul to enter the ball in the offense earlier than he wanted. It created a turnover, as Jackson did a great job pushing Peja farther out than he wanted to catch the ball.


                            That same assistant was on the post game show, and he and Carlisle both mentioned the possibility of lineup changes. At some point, I'd like to see Tinsley EARN something. He's been given way too much, and too many times he's excused for his apathetic play.

                            He has talent. Lord knows when he is on, he can create a lot. It's just not enough. It has to be consistent.
                            Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: This is what is frustrating about the Pacers...

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              I am of the mindset that we live or die with Runi. That's probably a call for getting blazed from the board


                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Did anyone else hear Kevin Lee say that a few players did not want Saras to do well last season, he mention AJ and Fred Jones as those players. Kevin usually doesn't say too much, but on occasion usually a few months after the fact, he divulges some inside info
                              They just had my back:

                              [red-eye to left coast, late November, 2005]

                              Freddie: Hey AJ, you up?

                              AJ: Yeah man, wassup?

                              Freddie: Dude, we gotta do something about Cabbage man. He's making Keg look bad. You hear what Hicks said at the forum party?

                              AJ: Oh god, I don't want to know, do I?

                              Freddie: **** man, he was comparing him to Reggie. Uncle Reg, man! I mean, what the ****?!

                              AJ: That's ****ed up. Okay, listen up [checks to make sure no one's listening], we're putting an end to this right now. Can't let my girl's little bro get shown up like that. Here's what we're gonna do. Know how Rick won't let Cabbage play without one of us watching his *** on D?

                              Freddie: No doubt. It's the only play I'm getting.

                              AJ: Well here's the thing. That man-and-one zone we're running, where only Cabbage doesn't have a man to defend, it don't make no sense to all those Indiana fans. They've never heard of such a thing. So, from now on, whenever Cabbage's man loses him, we won't switch. ****, I bet even on video it'll look like Cabbage's fault. Only his Euro fans will know better.

                              Freddie: But Rick'll know. ****, I can't get in his doghouse, I'm contract this year, man.

                              AJ: Don't worry about Rick. I got some pictures from Michael Curry that'll keep him in line. With those puppies, I'll be starting in no time. And Cabbage will be playing the 2, right where he belongs.

                              Freddie:

                              Scot Pollard: **** guys, I'm trying to sleep.

                              AJ: (whisper) Don't worry about Scot. Even when he's healthy, I'll make sure Rick doesn't play him worth a ****.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X