Tweet
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
So let's hear the list of five coaches who would have coached the Pacers to a better record at this point.
So let's hear the list of five coaches who would have coached the Pacers to a better record at this point.
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.
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
-
The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
RSS Feed
Subscribe via iTunes
-
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
Greene. His offensive ability limits him, but he does play strong defense. I really like him in the 15-20 defensive specialist role.Originally posted by immortality View Post
People got mad at me for talking about Danny's defense. But I will say this, he's really improved over the last few months. He doesn't fall for cheap fakes very often anymore. He's still not a stopper, but if he is making shots at the other end he's good enough on defense to be a solid starter (and still improving of course).
Murph has made Al's defense look good. And I know that I'm one of the few that can see this, but they miss Jack's defense as well.
One of the things I didn't like about the trade was that it wasn't like the team was overflowing with so much defense that it could take a big hit in that dept.
Comment
-
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
Hey, heres an idea that most of you basketball purists on the digest will really like. Lets fire Rick and make Jermaine O'Neal and Jamal Tinsley the co-player coaches. They seem to have all the answers to those burning questions about the teams lackluster play in the last two weeks. Yes, its time to fire someone who hasn't played any defense, hasn't taken a shot, and hasn't grabbed a rebound. Lets give him the old heave-ho and have our franchise player and our steller starting point guard be the coaches becasue they are both fine team leaders.Comment
-
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
Give us the rings now, Stern, it's over!
Comment
-
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
Carlisle is horrible, but I love when I see him have one if his tantrums and cusses the referee out. "That's bull****!!! ******* that!!! (walks toward the tunnel, then walks back to the court) "No, ******* you!!!"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark
Comment
-
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
He wasn't chosen to succeed Bird here even after Larry had been prepping him to take over.Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
Reggie didn't want to play for him.
He was fired in Detroit after two 50+ win seasons because the players didn't like playing for him.
Pretty much every player that has been traded has had something negative to say about Rick's coaching on their way out the door.
But I guess they're all wrong.
Comment
-
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
I've seen several comments about Pacers that supposedly didn't want to play for Carlisle in 2000. It's always a different Pacer in the story but the gist of it is the same. And it's always said as if it is/was common knowledge and absolute fact.Originally posted by Shade View PostHe wasn't chosen to succeed Bird here even after Larry had been prepping him to take over.
Reggie didn't want to play for him.
He was fired in Detroit after two 50+ win seasons because the players didn't like playing for him.
Pretty much every player that has been traded has had something negative to say about Rick's coaching on their way out the door.
But I guess they're all wrong.
I've never seen anything that was said by a player or team official (that I recall), nor any insider gossip, that would lend any credence to the comment.
I'd like to see some links or at least hear an insider because I've not see anything remotely confirming these comments. It seems to me it is people repeating something so much that it's just become accepted as fact. Surely someone on here can lend some substance to it and narrow down which Pacer(s) didn't want to play for Carlisle.
I'm not saying it might not be true. I'm just not sure the facts haven't gotten lost in the rumors and speculation. It's something I've always been curious about... I've always assumed the reason that Carlisle didn't take over as coach had more to do with Walsh wanting another Indiana and NBA legend to follow Bird. And that was Isiah. But that's speculation.
-BballNuntius 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 WoodenComment
-
Re: Time to fire Carlisle
Star Article
It has become a ritual, almost a rite of passage for exiting Indiana Pacers.
They gather their belongings. They say goodbye. They take a shot at coach Rick Carlisle.
Ron Artest called his offense "boring," citing it as a reason he asked to be traded.
Anthony Johnson called for "a culture change" at the end of last season, before becoming a victim of one, and he and Austin Croshere indirectly criticized Carlisle for showing favoritism toward star players by emphasizing how their new coach in Dallas, Avery Johnson, holds everyone equally accountable.
Al Harrington lamented the tempo of his offense.
Stephen Jackson says he "didn't see eye-to-eye" with his controlled approach.
Sarunas Jasikevicius said Carlisle played him out of position.
That accounts for seven of the past eight players traded by the Pacers. The lone exception, Josh Powell, wasn't asked for a critique.
Oh, and don't forget Fred Jones, who expressed joy over going to a team that offered more offensive freedom when he signed with Toronto last summer.
Traded players often complain about their former employer, but the refrain of grumbling directed at Carlisle has put one of the most successful coaches in franchise history in a defensive posture in the minds of many who follow the Pacers.
Not his mind, though. Nor, apparently, the minds of his bosses.
Most NBA franchises take the quickest and easiest option when frustrations mount and fire the coach. Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh and president Larry Bird, however, gave Carlisle an offseason contract extension and began tossing sticks of dynamite at the roster.
Just five players who started the 2005-06 season -- Jeff Foster, Danny Granger, David Harrison, Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley -- remain, and more trades could come before the Feb. 22 deadline. It's been a startling turn of events for a franchise noted for its stability, but Carlisle works in the eye of the storm.
He's midway through his fourth season as coach. If he returns next season he'll have the longest coaching tenure in franchise history since Bob "Slick" Leonard was fired in 1980 after nearly 12 full seasons.
Although his style has annoyed some players, Carlisle has accumulated an envious resume as coach in Detroit and Indiana. He hasn't had a losing record, and likely won't this season, either. He led the Pacers to a franchise-record 61 victories in 2003-04 and coached in the All-Star Game.
He was named Coach of the Year with the Pistons in 2002 (though starters there griped about his offense, too, and he was fired a year later after being swept in the conference finals). He is the only coach in league history to finish among the top five vote-getters for the award in each of his first four seasons.
"It's been pretty clear to me that Donnie, Larry, (owners Mel and Herb Simon) and I have a similar vision in how we see this franchise and the kind of basketball we want to play," Carlisle said. "That's one of the reasons this is a great job. You're with people who work toward finding a way to make it work rather than looking for reasons to make negative changes."
Negative changes are in the eye of the beholder, of course, but the eight-player trade with Golden State on Jan. 17 gave the Pacers a refreshed outlook, a calmer personality and renewed hope.
It also took pressure off Carlisle, ridding him of four frustrated players and bringing in four -- Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Ike Diogu and Keith McLeod -- who were equally eager for a fresh start and claim to prefer a system such as his.
Questions related to offensive tempo, play-calling and team discipline rub a raw nerve for Carlisle, who has grown tired of defending himself every time a departed player speaks out.
He chooses his words carefully, however, offering responses that won't insult anyone.
"Trades are difficult," he said. "They can be emotional, especially for players. Things are said and I think it's important as a coach not to overreact."
Carlisle is cerebral and soft-spoken by nature; discipline doesn't come naturally to him.
But he believes the convoluted job title he was given over the summer (executive vice president of basketball operations) has enabled him to be more strict. He made that point by kicking Jackson off the bench in a game at Cleveland in December and suspending him for the next game.
Some players regard Carlisle's offense as complicated, requiring thought processes that impede their instinct and momentum.
O'Neal recently called it "complicated" and said he still fails to execute it properly on occasion, but said it makes the Pacers difficult to prepare for and caters to their individual strengths. Carlisle considers his system fairly typical. He said he simplified it before the season, and simplified it again after the trade.
As for his tendency to call plays on most possessions, he believes that to be a necessary evil for his particular team. He points out he has turned his team loose when appropriate, an example being Game 4 of the 2004 playoff series against Detroit, when he inserted Croshere into the starting lineup, and got a road victory.
"My thing is putting players in position to succeed," he said. "Of course you want the game to be fun. I don't enjoy making a lot of play calls. I don't like it, despite what people think. Every coach would love to have a situation where players could read and react and make the right plays, but as a coach you need to provide direction when it's needed."
Carlisle finds the complaints about tempo particularly annoying. They date to his tenure in Detroit, where players described his half-court sets as too predictable.
After Walsh and Bird made offseason moves to build a more athletic team, Carlisle attempted to install a faster pace of play. In his mind, however, it wasn't working.
His initial frontline of Harrington, O'Neal and Danny Granger wasn't rebounding or defending well. He addressed that by starting Jeff Foster in place of Granger and moving Harrington to small forward. The Pacers were more physical, but according to his calculations, their fastbreak points dropped 25 percent.
Carlisle still wants his players to run off opponents' missed shots, and he still devotes time to it in practice. But players must get defensive stops, rebound and sprint downcourt if they want easy points.
Walsh said that wasn't happening. "I went to practices," Walsh said. "I thought we wanted to run, but I didn't see our players running. It wasn't like I didn't see Rick trying to push it forward. I know there's some idea we should blame it on the coach, but I watched it. I didn't see the players getting out and running."
The Pacers' most energetic player, veteran guard Darrell Armstrong, has played on up-tempo teams and knows the sacrifices that have to be made. He wasn't seeing them, either. Running isn't easy," he said. "Running is a lot of discipline. You have to be willing to hit that sideline (and rest) sometimes. It's one thing to do it in practice, but can you do it when the lights come on?"
The other half of the offensive equation is Carlisle's desire to run the offense through his leading scorer and only All-Star, O'Neal. When the Pacers run, O'Neal tends to get left behind, something he and Carlisle object to strenuously.
"We have a responsibility to play through our franchise player," Carlisle said. "If we're running up and down the court shooting jump shots, Jermaine O'Neal doesn't touch the ball as much."
That's why O'Neal is on board with Carlisle's system, and with the trade. Harrington and Jackson were close friends, but O'Neal is happier with the revised roster.
"The trade is going to benefit me a lot," O'Neal said. "I guess sometimes you have to sacrifice friendships to gain in other areas. (The new players) do a lot of different things we didn't have before."
The Pacers are 6-2 since the trade and appear to be headed for another playoff appearance.
If their traded imports adapt well, they have legitimate hopes for a high seed in the wide-open East. Should that happen, and should they have some success in the playoffs, Carlisle won't have to defend himself any longer.
The record will speak for him.
Call Star reporter Mark Montieth at (317) 444-6406.Comment
Comment