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

"Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...701030396/1088


    Pacers' up-tempo intent not realized on court


    By Mark Montieth
    mark.montieth@indystar.com

    This was to be the season the Indiana Pacers shed their shackles and ran -- if not like the wind, at least like a gusting breeze.

    Pacers at Mavericks
    8:30 p.m. Thursday, FSN Indiana

    Two months into it, however, despite offseason personnel changes designed to fit an up-tempo style of play and a preseason full of promises, they look much like the half-court teams of recent seasons. Coach Rick Carlisle is shouting out play calls on most possessions and his players are looking over their collective shoulder for instructions.

    Some of the players are disappointed by the lack of pace, but they're also partly responsible for it.
    Fast breaks usually start with defensive stops and require disciplined shot selection when layups don't materialize.
    The Pacers have been deficient in both areas at times this season. The first curtails their opportunities; the second curtails Carlisle's enthusiasm for letting them run.

    The bottom line is that they're averaging 11.8 fast-break points per game, which ranks 14th in the NBA. Last season they averaged 8.6 fast-break points, third from the bottom.

    They rank 21st in overall scoring with 95 points per game.
    "When you play an aggressive, up-tempo style, one of the challenges is to make the transition from fast break to early offense and into half-court execution," Carlisle said. "Our best games have been when we've scored double-figure fast-break points and kept turnovers down and still executed well. In those games, we're averaging 106 or 108 points."

    How many have there been?

    "Not enough," Carlisle said. "And most of them have been on the road."

    The dilemma for Carlisle is that an up-tempo offense often leaves his most consistent scorer, Jermaine O'Neal, out of the mix. O'Neal leads the team with a 19.3-point scoring average and is its most effective inside threat. Carlisle wants him involved.

    "If we're running for jump shots, and missing, Jermaine O'Neal ain't touching the ball, and that's not good," Carlisle said. "We have to make sure we have a system for playing through our best players. And we do. We're getting better with it."

    The flip side is that a slower pace doesn't suit the skills of Marquis Daniels or Rawle Marshall, both of whom were acquired from Thursday's opponent, Dallas, over the summer.
    Daniels in particular has yet to find a niche in Carlisle's system. He is averaging 5.1 points on .405 field goal shooting, after averaging 10.2 points on .480 shooting last season for the Mavericks.

    The Pacers can always get more fast breaks with more defensive stops, particularly off steals or missed jump shots by the opponent.
    "The game plan is the same, but we're not following the game plan on defense," Stephen Jackson said. "We're blowing coverages, we're not getting stops and we're not able to run."

    Still, there's an underlying feeling that a truly up-tempo style of play goes against Carlisle's coaching tendencies, even his personality. He tends to match up to opponents and look for advantages, which often leads to him pulling out his play card -- yellow this season instead of blue -- and shouting out instructions from the sideline.

    "I think that's just not Rick's style," Al Harrington said. "A coach isn't going to go to something he's not comfortable with, so that's why we scaled it down and that's why he's calling plays every time down."
    Is that a disappointment?
    "A little bit," Harrington said. "We feel like we're all playmakers. We feel if we were looser, it would be a lot more fun and we could win that way."

    Call Star reporter Mark Montieth at (317) 444-6406.

    Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved


    Emphasis (bolded) by me (A)
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

    Two things from this quickly:

    1: Carlisle wants the offense to go through JO and since he's not doing what Larry obviously wants (freeflowing offense) this must come from him not JO because I can not even begin to imagine that the words of JO are weighing in more then the words of LB.

    2: Al (in a slump) is "commenting" on the coaching, no matter how you explain it, there already seems to be (like in previous years) some "unhappiness" with the coaching style, now coming from the pillar of Indy society Al.
    Read that correct, it is not the maligned "wannabe" superstar here, it is not the stripclub roaming gun slinging thug, not the pouting injury prone pg, but "baby/big Al" saying these things.

    Finally this is coming from Montieth, not Wells, and in all honesty had it come from Wells I would have paid far less attention to it, a man that can only write 200 words about a hard fought victory over Detroit but 500 over a loss to Charlotte has a different agenda to me, Mark however .........

    It is the first time this season that I am feeling uncomfortable with the going ons.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

      Originally posted by able View Post
      Two things from this quickly:

      1: Carlisle wants the offense to go through JO and since he's not doing what Larry obviously wants (freeflowing offense) this must come from him not JO because I can not even begin to imagine that the words of JO are weighing in more then the words of LB.

      2: Al (in a slump) is "commenting" on the coaching, no matter how you explain it, there already seems to be (like in previous years) some "unhappiness" with the coaching style, now coming from the pillar of Indy society Al.
      Read that correct, it is not the maligned "wannabe" superstar here, it is not the stripclub roaming gun slinging thug, not the pouting injury prone pg, but "baby/big Al" saying these things.

      Finally this is coming from Montieth, not Wells, and in all honesty had it come from Wells I would have paid far less attention to it, a man that can only write 200 words about a hard fought victory over Detroit but 500 over a loss to Charlotte has a different agenda to me, Mark however .........

      It is the first time this season that I am feeling uncomfortable with the going ons.

      I'm interested in what more you have to say Able, esp. re: the bolded area. Also, do you lay this at the feet of RC or the players? (I'm after both but would like to see what this group could do with another coaching philosophy)
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

        So am I just taking this whole thing wrong, or is this article basically saying that we will not have an uptempo offense with Carlisle around? Or is it implementing that he would coach an uptempo style if JO wasn't here?

        I really would like to see that uptempo offense with this team and I think JO can play in it.

        Now don't get me wrong...some of the blame does fall on the players of this team. But I don't think we will ever play that way with Carlisle here.
        I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

          personally...as much as I'd like us to be an up tempo team....this team just doesn't have the skills to pull it off. I don't care how many of them say that they're good at playing a free-flowing game. There has been too many occasions this season where they blew so many chances out on the breaks it makes it hard on RC to let the players have the reigns...otherwise we'd just end up getting our backs kicked....

          before people start blaming each other...there is one area that i'd like to highlight which is agreed from the coaches' perspective as well as the players...and that is DEFENSE

          "The game plan is the same, but we're not following the game plan on defense," Stephen Jackson said. "We're blowing coverages, we're not getting stops and we're not able to run."
          Now if the team isn't following the gameplan on defense...one could argue that they're also having a hard time following the gameplan on offense....or could say that they've tuned out the coach altogether....

          I also like to point out this quote:

          "If we're running for jump shots, and missing, Jermaine O'Neal ain't touching the ball, and that's not good," Carlisle said. "We have to make sure we have a system for playing through our best players. And we do. We're getting better with it."
          I think the key point here is the fact that when we are in the fast breaks...the fact that we can't finish 'em is what makes RC worry about having a system that will keep JO in the system. I seriously doubt that RC would not go with a working system just to feed JO the ball down in the post.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

            Well as for sometime now I have been relatively silent, on most topics, but that is because I support the Indiana Pacers under all circumstances, like most of you, however in my opinion that includes every player on the roster, even though I think that maybe some particular players are better suited to play elsewhere for a variety of reasons.

            I can fully understand the perceived lack of moral fibre that make some to say they can not support the team with those players, but by saying that they are supporting the team anyway, so better to let that rest and give them a cheer.

            I can not understand the "anxiety" some feel against a guy like JO, who in my opinion, but I am thousands of miles away, is a real pillar of society in that he gives a lot back to the community, does a lot of good and like Reggie, loves his community (Indy) and shows his leadership qualities this year on the floor and in his actions by playing like a monster on both sides of the court.

            But if i start reading things like this on or about the coach then I get even more perturbed then I already am.

            If a guy like JO (and I am strictly speaking of ability in this moment) is willing to do more then a fair share of work, willing to support he coach, if a guy like Tinsley, who's been treated like dirt from day one by the coach, is willing to support that coach and the system, then why on earth isn't a guy like Al, because he obviously isn't if we see his play.
            If I see Al playing I see little or no hustle, no fight, which becomes abundantly clear on defense and that hurts because that was one of the main reasons we got him, to be a good locker guy, an engine to the team.

            If I then see that the coach abandons the philosophy of TPTB because he wants to win today (I can not find another reason to not "stick to the plan") then I wonder who is more worried about their stats, the players or the coach.

            I wonder why a coach not only in ver short time moves away from what is agreed upon with TPTB and the players in order to do what he knows best instead of learning with all.

            I wonder why a coach slaps his players in the face by saying we might have got you here and told you all we are going to play a different style, but I don't like what I see so you are all wrong and I am right and tank you for being here, but we are gointg to do it my way.

            If I see Jay's thread about effort and I read something like this then I get a feeling that we might not know it all, but that it becomes hard to ignore the effort part IF this is all true, because let's face it, if you are any one of our players and are "sold" to the ideas that were presented to you, it might become harder to "raise" your level if it goes a different way.

            I wonder if Al is not sick to his stomach feeling that it might go back to what it shouldn't be and not what was sold to him when he signed.

            I wonder if that "fall back" to the "old system" is not a reason that Al is in a slump and if that is not a reason that Tins is not performing to talent, though I am sure he gives 110% every night he plays, maybe the coach does not quite use him to the best of his ability by making him do things he prefers not to do and is perhaps not at his best at.

            I wonder if not more problems are stemming from this idea and if we can not expect even more problems then we already had in the past years coming form this.

            in short: this DOES make me nervous.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

              I am entirely sick of hearing Al question/criticize RC.

              I am entirely sick of this debate/tension over play calling vs. up-tempo more player-directed style.

              What they should be frustrated about if anything is not having a better record and tanking winable 2nd games of back to backs at home.

              I am not that far from being entirely sick of our entire team, coaching staff, and situation. The only thing this group should be concerned about is winning games as a team.

              Al should be wise enough to not answer these types of questions or at least find a more diplomatic way to do so.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                Originally posted by able View Post
                Well as for sometime now I have been relatively silent, on most topics, but that is because I support the Indiana Pacers under all circumstances, like most of you, however in my opinion that includes every player on the roster, even though I think that maybe some particular players are better suited to play elsewhere for a variety of reasons.

                I can fully understand the perceived lack of moral fibre that make some to say they can not support the team with those players, but by saying that they are supporting the team anyway, so better to let that rest and give them a cheer.

                I can not understand the "anxiety" some feel against a guy like JO, who in my opinion, but I am thousands of miles away, is a real pillar of society in that he gives a lot back to the community, does a lot of good and like Reggie, loves his community (Indy) and shows his leadership qualities this year on the floor and in his actions by playing like a monster on both sides of the court.

                But if i start reading things like this on or about the coach then I get even more perturbed then I already am.

                If a guy like JO (and I am strictly speaking of ability in this moment) is willing to do more then a fair share of work, willing to support he coach, if a guy like Tinsley, who's been treated like dirt from day one by the coach, is willing to support that coach and the system, then why on earth isn't a guy like Al, because he obviously isn't if we see his play.
                If I see Al playing I see little or no hustle, no fight, which becomes abundantly clear on defense and that hurts because that was one of the main reasons we got him, to be a good locker guy, an engine to the team.

                If I then see that the coach abandons the philosophy of TPTB because he wants to win today (I can not find another reason to not "stick to the plan") then I wonder who is more worried about their stats, the players or the coach.

                I wonder why a coach not only in ver short time moves away from what is agreed upon with TPTB and the players in order to do what he knows best instead of learning with all.

                I wonder why a coach slaps his players in the face by saying we might have got you here and told you all we are going to play a different style, but I don't like what I see so you are all wrong and I am right and tank you for being here, but we are gointg to do it my way.

                If I see Jay's thread about effort and I read something like this then I get a feeling that we might not know it all, but that it becomes hard to ignore the effort part IF this is all true, because let's face it, if you are any one of our players and are "sold" to the ideas that were presented to you, it might become harder to "raise" your level if it goes a different way.

                I wonder if Al is not sick to his stomach feeling that it might go back to what it shouldn't be and not what was sold to him when he signed.

                I wonder if that "fall back" to the "old system" is not a reason that Al is in a slump and if that is not a reason that Tins is not performing to talent, though I am sure he gives 110% every night he plays, maybe the coach does not quite use him to the best of his ability by making him do things he prefers not to do and is perhaps not at his best at.

                I wonder if not more problems are stemming from this idea and if we can not expect even more problems then we already had in the past years coming form this.

                in short: this DOES make me nervous.
                so basically you're wondering if RC is the root of all our problems?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                  Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                  I am entirely sick of hearing Al question/criticize RC.

                  Al should be wise enough to not answer these types of questions or at least find a more diplomatic way to do so.
                  I thought the main reason Al was brought in here was to be a pacifier...but lately he's been the one thats been doing all the talking....

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                    Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                    I thought the main reason Al was brought in here was to be a pacifier...but lately he's been the one thats been doing all the talking....
                    True. The irony is not lost on many of us who have been pointing this out of late. Al needs to take a lesson from, of all people, Jack. He's been giving the right answers in the press this year. Although that' certainly not always been the case.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                      I understand the argument that it's Rick's problem/doing for not being up-tempo, but let's face it, most of our roster is HORRIBLE on the fast break, and unfortunately that includes our core players. Jackson? No. Tinsley likes to shoot it from 10 feet (or has to because he and the other guy don't play a two-man game), JO isn't part of them, Al usually takes a layup from a tough angle or with a defender on him, etc. It's just been a mess 9 out of 10 fast-break opportunities.

                      Combine that with what I feel is a general mediocrity in terms of basketball IQ and execution, and you have a team that does not deserve to be up-tempo. They will become a turnover machine (again). I can't really blame Carlisle for this.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                        Wasn't there an article 10 games in that said Carlisle was pulling the plug on up-tempo and would be calling plays everytime down again?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I understand the argument that it's Rick's problem/doing for not being up-tempo, but let's face it, most of our roster is HORRIBLE on the fast break, and unfortunately that includes our core players. Jackson? No. Tinsley likes to shoot it from 10 feet (or has to because he and the other guy don't play a two-man game), JO isn't part of them, Al usually takes a layup from a tough angle or with a defender on him, etc. It's just been a mess 9 out of 10 fast-break opportunities.

                          Combine that with what I feel is a general mediocrity in terms of basketball IQ and execution, and you have a team that does not deserve to be up-tempo. They will become a turnover machine (again). I can't really blame Carlisle for this.
                          Being bad on a fast break is something that can be coached and practised, it is not something that takes a lot of brain, passing and the moment of the pass is important, we can assume that all those players can make a lay-up or dunk the ball.

                          JO usually is hte originator of the break by pass or rebound or block, so the fact he aint running it is "normal" in that situation, though I can remember certain plays where he blocked the shot on one end and as a trailer scored the dunk on the other end, that however is a rarity.

                          Practise and coaching is even in those situations important.

                          Same as it is in game situations as against Minnesota when they prevented JO from getting the ball, that situation clearly called for "coaching" and it gave plenty of opportunities, you have to "punish" a team that takes 2 - 3 players to prevent 1 of yours to get the ball by sticking it to them from all ends, that was one of the reasons we got Al, but he prefers the 3pt shot nowadays.

                          I see weaknesses in Rick's coaching this year, stronger then before and the fact that Al of all people is complaining about this, the fact that we are not utilizing our bench or players' talent to the max makes it no better.

                          There was a reason behind getting MD, there was a reason behind getting Al, there was a reason to make JO pass a lot more and let him spend a lot of energy on being the best defender on the team, there is a reason why Tins is asked to shoot (oh you didn't realize that if it is Rick calling the plays, he clearly wants him to play that way) instead of "playing the game" at which he is so good.

                          And in the end, when all is said and done, if it was the plan to do it and now makes the players less then happy, then we have another problem on our hands, one that does not go away.
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                            Because Jay's_Dad@Section19 seems to dislike Tinsley more than even bball (must be something in the limestone), I spent all weekend with my TiVo clicker pointing out the number of fast breaks where Tinsley just didn't get any help from his teammates.

                            I'm not going to call it a lack of effort ( ), but we watched time after time where Tinsley would be leading a 2-1, 3-1, or 3-2 fast break and Al and/or Stephen would run to the three-point line and stop/ spot up. Time after time.

                            And Tinsley would do what any PG is taught to do... penetrate as far as he can. And the defense would let him get to the rim then surround him, or the defense would make him stop at the dotted line and he'd put up the knuckleball floater.

                            And where were his teammates? Al and Stephen were standing at the three point line, and JO was just getting into the picture.

                            Its amazing to me how bad our fast-break fundamentals are. Don't these guys know how to fill a lane and when to come down the court as the "trailer".

                            I don't know if its poor coaching, dumb players, or what.

                            If you're just going to run to the threepoint line during a fast break and then spot up and wait for the ball, your last name needs to be one of the following: Bird, Person, Miller, Majerle, Allen, Curry (Dell), Rice, Newman, or Jackson (aka, Abdul-Rauf).
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                              WARNING: SMALL RANT

                              I just want to go a week without any of the Pacers players b****ing about something.

                              This is one of the reasons my interest is at a fairly low level right now.

                              Nobody likes whiners.

                              Shut up and play.
                              You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                              All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                              - Jimmy Buffett

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X