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 team needs a new coach

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

  • #31
    Re: This team needs a new coach

    Yes, I know. I'd be angry the team missed on the opportunity, but I remember last year forum was pretty much sceptical about him as a coach. Some even called him unsoutable for today's NBA.
    In a sense, having his current success in mind, it's easier to come to an agreement now. And even if it's too late to get THAT particular coach, now we may think of similar alternatives with less doubt.

    Cheers,
    Mamluk

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: This team needs a new coach

      Saying this team is better-suited to nelson's gimmick-ball isn't really a ringing endorsement of the roster, anyhow.

      Nellie-ball is smoke and mirrors. It's fun to watch but eventually futile.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: This team needs a new coach

        Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
        Was Red Auerbach correct in not elevating Larry Bird through the Celtics organization after his playing days were over?

        Unfortunately I'm getting frustrated with the way he is doing his job, again that is assuming that he's in charge of the roster and not Donnie Walsh.

        I'm not sure this is the work of Donnie Walsh, he's never sprung anything this bad on us in the past 20 years, this really just started since Larry Bird has been here... though I don't think the team was that strong from a chemistry standpoint with Isiah either.
        (Note: I'm using Kaufman's comment as a springboard... Not necessarily directing all this at him).


        Is that really true? Did Bird decide that the Pacers had ran out of gas in '99 and put the wheels into motion of a rebuild... only to find them playing in the finals in 2000 and surprised as Walsh was (Walsh has said this himself)?

        Did Bird hand pick Isiah to follow him? Was the idea of interchangable players (an idea I remember being touted early in the Isiah days with Walsh either (seemingly) happy to lead the charge or a willing follower) a holdover from something Bird desired as coach?

        Was the Bender deal something that Bird wanted to do?

        Who thought Reggie should so completely defer to JO (In retrospect, was that jumping the gun?)? Who signed Croshere and Jalen to extra large contracts?

        When has chemistry on this team been 'good' since Bird left as coach (following the finals)? Think about that one a minute... Think of the end of season tailspins... the feuding players... the 'breakdown' in Isiah's last season at around the midway point... Didn't Best refuse to enter a game for Isiah? How many rumors or tidbits have we heard about JO wanting Jalen gone? What about the souring relationship between Jalen and Isiah?

        And who told Jalen he'd get a shot at PG (if not guaranteed it)? There was a reason we had the blockbuster trade with Chicago in midseason that brought us Mercer, Ollie, Artest and someone else whose name rhymes with Diller, and that reason wasn't good play and chemistry. Bird wasn't around for any of that unless someone knows the Simons/DW had him on the phone as a consultant.

        And how happy was JO ever with Artest even before Bird's arrival? Remember (according to Vecsey) Isiah wanted Artest left off the playoff roster and JO demanded Artest, Tinsley, and Mercer be moved after the season. JO signs his mega max contract under Walsh. Walsh publicly states he's not going to fire Isiah (even after one of the worst flameouts Pacer fans had ever seen).

        THEN Bird comes into the picture. Isiah gets fired much to JO's chagrin. Carlisle gets hired. B Miller doesn't get resigned (altho the wheels were already in motion for this before Bird was announced/signed that summer).

        During Bird... We go to the ECF's in his first season altho stories of Artest meltdowns and JO feuds still exist. Then the flameup of 11/19 happens.

        I think everyone is pretty much 'up' on the timeline and events since then. So suddenly everything is "Bird's fault"? The world of Pacer basketball was wine and roses prior to Bird?

        Since '99, what exactly has Walsh done right? You have the trade of Dale for JO, but after overpaying to keep him and seeing Dale return 5 years later and watching the team perform with Reggie again at the forefront and JO on the bench injured I have to wonder if that trade needs to be looked on so glowingly these days.

        And lastly... Did Walsh really want Bird as his understudy, hier apparent, or whatever you want to call it... or was that forced upon him? Unless it was forced upon him and he's working out his contract under a lame duck status, then even IF Bird is soley to blame for the wheels coming off since his arrival then Walsh still has to take some blame doesn't he?

        But I'm not so sure we didn't take the fork in the road that led us to here LONG before Bird was brought back to the team and put in the front office.

        --
        I have no problem with dragging Bird over the coals for his role in this debacle but I don't think he should be alone as the villagers arrive with their pitchforks and torches looking to remove the evil from the tower.


        -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


        • #34
          Re: This team needs a new coach

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Carlisle needs discipline to be effective, and this group has none.
          Quote of the season so far.

          Rick's not getting tossed after that extension. So, the question is how long TPTB wait to make roster moves. My guess is they'll give it another month.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: This team needs a new coach

            I think Rose was tame to what we have now???

            I don't disagree that there were problems prior to Larry Bird coming back, but not this bad!

            I'm not sure I want another coach to lead this team, I want another team to be led by this coach. I can not believe that this team is one that the owners feel comfortable with - I know that winning is what the league is all about but there has to be something to like and I frankly don't see anything that catches my eyes... I don't think I would like this team even if they did win it all.

            So back to Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh - nobody can deny that Walsh has done lots of good for our organization compared to early 1980's... but what about Larry - what does he have to show for? I'm not saying that Donnie hasn't made mistakes, I think in the profession there are always mistakes to be made, but we need some accountability from Bird here and I'm not sure I am seeing any. Do you see anything BBall?

            What is there to get excited about?

            Why did we trade AJ? Croshere?

            Who's running the asylum?

            I don't really blame Carlisle, he's doing the best he knows given what he's got. I don't want Don Nelson or anything like Don Nelson coaching this team... now or ever.
            "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: This team needs a new coach

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Saying this team is better-suited to nelson's gimmick-ball isn't really a ringing endorsement of the roster, anyhow.

              Nellie-ball is smoke and mirrors. It's fun to watch but eventually futile.
              Saying RC isn't suitable for a rooster is not an endorsement in the first place.
              The question seems to be in choosing between one more complete remake of a rooster or change of a coach. It's a risk anyway.
              As I see it, Pacers have more chances to get better through development of Granger and small changes in the rooster than through complete remake. Which means they'll probably stay futile for some time anyway. Nelson-bball would be (a) a good management decision as it would attract fans, (b) it should rather than not bring some improvement in the wins column, which in turn helps to develope young players, attracts free agents and increases value of current assets.

              Cheers,
              Mamluk

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: This team needs a new coach

                Isn't it eye-gougingly obvious that the starting lineup needs to change considering our consistent sucking to begin games?
                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: This team needs a new coach

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Much as I've always said Carlisle can wear out his welcome rather fast....

                  The problem here isn't the coach. It's the players.

                  This is not a rick carlisle type team. Rick coaches patient position defense and spot-shooting. gimmick-ball and small-ball are not his specialty. He's not Don Nelson.

                  The GM gave him completely different players to work with than what he's used to, and now it's a big surprise that he's struggling to coach them?

                  Carlisle needs discipline to be effective, and this group has none.
                  I agree with you Kstat.

                  TPTB made Rick get rid of Kevin O'Neill and I believe forced Rick to play a faster tempo. They are forcing Rick to play Tinsley (they did that when they traded AJ) so I doubt this is the team Rick wants to coach.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: This team needs a new coach

                    Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                    I think Rose was tame to what we have now???

                    I don't disagree that there were problems prior to Larry Bird coming back, but not this bad!
                    I think it was pretty bad in parts of 01-02, and 02-03. Isiah's first year might've had some warning signs but after a few bandwagoners fell off most (fans and media) had realistic expectations once they saw what we actually had and lacked. Plus people were giving everyone the benefit of the doubt considering the run we'd just been on and the hype about how much better we'd be with the 'rebuilding on the fly'. And maybe the players might've been buying that as well.

                    But that started to sour quickly. We don't make a midseason trade of that size if things aren't going bad. We don't typically make midseason trade... period.

                    Also, during those early years of the 21st century we still had Pravda style Pacer reporting. So the media might not have been as negative or enlightening (pick your poison).



                    So back to Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh - nobody can deny that Walsh has done lots of good for our organization compared to early 1980's... but what about Larry - what does he have to show for? I'm not saying that Donnie hasn't made mistakes, I think in the profession there are always mistakes to be made, but we need some accountability from Bird here and I'm not sure I am seeing any. Do you see anything BBall?

                    I'm about to watch a certain team play football so I'll answer quickly right now...

                    First, I think we need accountability- Period. Bird, Walsh, owners, players, coach... it doesn't matter to me where it comes from.

                    Secondly, how long can Walsh live off the 90's and not begin to have a bigger spotlight shined on his role in all of this in the here and now?

                    Doesn't he have any responsibility now? Is Walsh just a figurehead now? Did he have no role in any of this? Is he just a lame duck waiting on his contract to end?

                    -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


                    • #40
                      Re: This team needs a new coach

                      Is it time to bump the old "Throw Rick under the Bus!" bandwagon thread? Because I'd be all for it.

                      I think Bird should just come down and coach this team until we find a good coach. It's clear Carlisle isn't the right fit for this group of guys. I'm not sure what coach would work for our players..but it's managements job to either change the players to work with the coach..or change the coach to work with the players.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: This team needs a new coach

                        Let me also say this thread is painting a picture that is way too negative. The pacers are currently a .500 team, isn't that what we expected for this season ok if not for the whole season, then we certainly expected it for the first 3rd of the season or so.

                        For the record: no, I don't want Bird to coach the team, I don't want Nelson and I certainly don't want Johnny Davis.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: This team needs a new coach

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          (Note: I'm using Kaufman's comment as a springboard... Not necessarily directing all this at him).


                          Is that really true? Did Bird decide that the Pacers had ran out of gas in '99 and put the wheels into motion of a rebuild... only to find them playing in the finals in 2000 and surprised as Walsh was (Walsh has said this himself)?

                          Did Bird hand pick Isiah to follow him? Was the idea of interchangable players (an idea I remember being touted early in the Isiah days with Walsh either (seemingly) happy to lead the charge or a willing follower) a holdover from something Bird desired as coach?

                          Was the Bender deal something that Bird wanted to do?

                          Who thought Reggie should so completely defer to JO (In retrospect, was that jumping the gun?)? Who signed Croshere and Jalen to extra large contracts?

                          When has chemistry on this team been 'good' since Bird left as coach (following the finals)? Think about that one a minute... Think of the end of season tailspins... the feuding players... the 'breakdown' in Isiah's last season at around the midway point... Didn't Best refuse to enter a game for Isiah? How many rumors or tidbits have we heard about JO wanting Jalen gone? What about the souring relationship between Jalen and Isiah?

                          And who told Jalen he'd get a shot at PG (if not guaranteed it)? There was a reason we had the blockbuster trade with Chicago in midseason that brought us Mercer, Ollie, Artest and someone else whose name rhymes with Diller, and that reason wasn't good play and chemistry. Bird wasn't around for any of that unless someone knows the Simons/DW had him on the phone as a consultant.

                          And how happy was JO ever with Artest even before Bird's arrival? Remember (according to Vecsey) Isiah wanted Artest left off the playoff roster and JO demanded Artest, Tinsley, and Mercer be moved after the season. JO signs his mega max contract under Walsh. Walsh publicly states he's not going to fire Isiah (even after one of the worst flameouts Pacer fans had ever seen).

                          THEN Bird comes into the picture. Isiah gets fired much to JO's chagrin. Carlisle gets hired. B Miller doesn't get resigned (altho the wheels were already in motion for this before Bird was announced/signed that summer).

                          During Bird... We go to the ECF's in his first season altho stories of Artest meltdowns and JO feuds still exist. Then the flameup of 11/19 happens.

                          I think everyone is pretty much 'up' on the timeline and events since then. So suddenly everything is "Bird's fault"? The world of Pacer basketball was wine and roses prior to Bird?

                          Since '99, what exactly has Walsh done right? You have the trade of Dale for JO, but after overpaying to keep him and seeing Dale return 5 years later and watching the team perform with Reggie again at the forefront and JO on the bench injured I have to wonder if that trade needs to be looked on so glowingly these days.

                          And lastly... Did Walsh really want Bird as his understudy, hier apparent, or whatever you want to call it... or was that forced upon him? Unless it was forced upon him and he's working out his contract under a lame duck status, then even IF Bird is soley to blame for the wheels coming off since his arrival then Walsh still has to take some blame doesn't he?

                          But I'm not so sure we didn't take the fork in the road that led us to here LONG before Bird was brought back to the team and put in the front office.

                          --
                          I have no problem with dragging Bird over the coals for his role in this debacle but I don't think he should be alone as the villagers arrive with their pitchforks and torches looking to remove the evil from the tower.


                          -Bball
                          Good post, BBall.

                          IIRC, Bird did not want to draft Bender, but did want Harrington.

                          Bird did not trade for Artest, but was part of the crowd "infatuated with talent."

                          Trading for Dale can be discussed, but trading Antonio Davis for Bender really, really hurt this team. He was an important chemistry guy, a bruiser (not like Dale, but still tough), a mentor, and had a nice outside touch, something that would have complimented JO nicely.

                          Bird, IIRC, did not like the entire decision to trade the present (AD) for the "future" (Bender).

                          My guess is Bird played a role in trading for Jax, and certainly was the leader in getting Saras. Although I still have hope for Saras, both of those trades don't look so hot right now.

                          I guess the two-headed monster syndrome applies to most of this: hard to place the blame and accountability until one is clearly in charge.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: This team needs a new coach

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            Point 1: We don't have any quality 3-points shooters

                            Point 2: We need a new coach. Carlisle can not coach these guys.
                            WORD!!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: This team needs a new coach

                              To everyone who feels "this team needs a new coach", may I ask who? What available coach could do a better job than Carlisle.
                              Sidenote: I think that R.C. is an upper echelon coach, and that this team would be lottery bound with most other coaches.
                              "Ever wonder what it's like to wonder what it's like to wonder, they get up out of bed but can't awaken from their slumber, they know what they've been told by those who know what they've been told, you see this hand me down knowledge generated ages ago, and I know what they've been told because I've been told the same thing, I had to broaden my horizons to expand on greater things..." Many Styles

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: This team needs a new coach

                                Originally posted by PostArtestEra View Post
                                may I ask who?

                                Paul Westphal link

                                As their head coach, he led the Suns to three of their most successful seasons in franchise history. In his first season in 1992-93, the Suns captured the Pacific Division title, won a club-record 62 games and made just the second appearance in the NBA Finals in team history. The 62 victories broke the NBA record for most victories by a rookie coach set by Bill Russell in 1966-67. During the 1994-95 campaign, Westphal became the second-fastest NBA head coach to win 150 games, accomplishing the feat in 208 games, just five games shy of the all-time mark held by Phil Jackson. In his three full seasons in Phoenix, the Suns surpassed the 55-victory mark each year, winning two Pacific Division titles (1993 and 1995) and one Western Conference championship (1993). Phoenix advanced to the second round of the NBA Playoffs in 1994 and 1995, but the Suns were eliminated in seven games both seasons by the Houston Rockets, who went on to claim the NBA Championship each of those years. He coached the Western Conference All-Stars to victory in both 1993 and 1995.
                                Following his three-plus season stint in Phoenix, Westphal remained in town to assist Head Coach Terry Kearney of Chaparral High School. He stayed the duration of two years until his son, Michael, graduated. Westphal next returned to the NBA as the head coach at Seattle for the lockout-shortened 1998-99 campaign, directing the SuperSonics to a 25-25 record. Seattle posted a 45-37 mark during the 1999-2000 campaign and advanced to the playoffs, losing a five-game first round series to the Utah Jazz. His overall NBA head coaching record, including the playoffs, is 294-181 and his .619 winning percentage ranks among the best on the league's all-time chart.




                                Rick Carlisle needs to quit tinkering with the lineup. The projected starters are healthy, start them. There is no prize for "Most lineups used", he should know that by now.
                                I'm in these bands
                                The Humans
                                Dr. Goldfoot
                                The Bar Brawlers
                                ME

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X