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

I was wrong about Rick

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

  • I was wrong about Rick

    I have thought for a long time that Rick was like Doc Rivers in that he would do great with a not very talented team but was clearly not doing well with an incredibly talented team.

    I was wrong apparently Rick can make an incredibly talented team make the ECF but if he has very little talent to work with (you know take away talented players like Al and Jack and give him not so good players like Dun and Murph) he is absolutely horrible. His system will ONLY work if the players are so good that they can make something of his bad plays.

    Look at the first season his system was working because Ron, Jermaine and Reggie made things happen. Then the league figured us out and we became a .500 team. Once he is forced to start Jamaal we go back to wining because Jamaal did not always follow the instructions. We still lost some games when Rick would put AJ back in to "secure defeat" but once the owners told him to stop doing that we got better.

    Now we all know Rick was the real coach durring the Larry Legend years so how come it worked then?

    Two things:
    1.Talented players who could break his plays
    2. Larry made him simplify his offense.

    Remember Larry in an interview recently talked about how when Rick was his "assistant" that he made Rick throw out a lot of his plays because there were just too many.

    My point is that Rick would make a GREAT lead assistant to a players coach but as a head coach he is not working.

    So I was wrong dont let him coach a team like Charlotte he needs to coach the Suns and maybe they could make the playoffs.

  • #2
    Re: I was wrong about Rick

    I think the problem is he needs people who like him or love him and do exactly what he asked, otherwise it doesn't work. If what is said about his condescending attitude with the players is true, then I believe that is a huge reason it isn't working here. I think JO's mostly fine with his coaching because he gets treated like the golden boy. I know Mike loves it and I think Troy's fine with it too. Jeff fits with it just fine. But I think Rick rubs the others wrong. Of course, I think Tinsley brings a lot of his own **** to the table so I feel very little sympathy towards him in this regard.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I was wrong about Rick

      I think judging Rick on this season is a little like judging Larry Brown on his last season here or his one season in NY. You really don't learn how good of a coach he is.

      I think management in many ways neutered Rick this season. They traded away AJ so Rick was forced to play JT and Saras. They forced him to fire Kevin O'Neill, and they criticized him in the media. I think Rick knows he's on the way out, the players know he's on the way out, and that is a big part of the 2-17 record.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I was wrong about Rick

        Originally posted by Ragnar View Post

        Look at the first season his system was working because Ron, Jermaine and Reggie made things happen. Then the league figured us out and we became a .500 team.

        I'm very confused - what you mean "figured us out". I thought the brawl was the reason for the swoon - the Artest stuff, the injuries, and all the turnoil. I don't see how "the league figuring us out" plays into any of this. In fact how could they figure us out - look at how many different players have started for us the past 3 seasons. I don't think anyone has the pacers figured out

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I was wrong about Rick

          Look at the first season his system was working because Ron, Jermaine and Reggie made things happen. Then the league figured us out and we became a .500 team.
          What part of Ron played on that .500 team?

          What part of Reggie played on the 2nd .500 team (and frankly if you call shooting 32% from 3 "making something" then I don't know what to tell you, that was Reggie on the first .500 team)?

          How many games did JO "make something from bad plays" the last 2 seasons? Or Tins?


          Now give me the list of low talent teams going to the conference finals, let's list the coaches taking teams all the way. Cripes, what is Phil Jackson doing and he has "one of the greatest players of all time" on his team.


          Honestly, calling Ron a guy who on OFFENSE makes something out of bad plays is ridiculous. The notebook on Artest around the league does not include the words "serious offensive threat". They might include "tends to take over and force bad shots, will often disrupt his own team's offense rather than work the system" though.

          Tinsley has NEVER BEEN a great shooter. NEVER. Go over to Pacers.com and read the Final Four memories. Here's what Tinsley had to say about missing the game winning layup in his final NCAA game...
          For a split-second, Jamaal Tinsley appeared to be Iowa State's savior in the 2001 NCAA Tournament. After the second-seeded Cyclones fell behind 15th-seeded Hampton 58-57 with 6.8 seconds left, Tinsley traversed the court with relative ease on his way to a potential game-winning layup.

          'I had a clean look, 'Tinsley said. 'But it was like a toilet bowl. It went in and came out.'

          As Tinsley's last-second shot went, so did his Cyclones. Only a year after reaching the Elite Eight, Iowa State became only the fourth No. 2 seed to be flushed out of the first round since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

          Obviously, an upset of such magnitude is extremely rare. But, as Tinsley points out, a missed layup isn't all that uncommon.
          Wow, does that sound familiar or what. Missing layups and shots at the rim has been a theme his entire career.

          Finally go look at the Detroit and Indy rosters and what they did the year before Rick showed up. He isn't Larry Brown, he didn't get an influx of players.

          Rick never had Brad Miller. He had Ron Artest 1 season. He's had JO 2 mostly full seasons and 2 half seasons.

          He never had Sheed, he didn't have Rip or Billups or Prince his first year in Detroit.


          Come on man. Maybe he's lost this team, but isn't it really odd that none of his players do anything more than they did with him in Indy? Even Jack and Al are putting up the SAME NUMBERS, not better.

          How come Croshere and AJ were Indy starters and zero minutes guys in Dallas if Rick was being carried by their "talent"? How come Fred Jones was a starter for Rick and has become an also-ran elsewhere, like AJ moved within a half season (and TOR SIGNED HIM, they went out of their way to get him)? How come James Jones remains the same 3pt shooter he was in Indy, despite being put into the most open and flowing offense in the NBA? Weren't JJ's numbers supposed to take off when he hit PHX?


          Maybe Rick needs to move, but if you think that it was just mirrors that made the team win THIRTEEN more games with Rick than with Isiah despite losing an ALL-STAR Center (Brad was an AS for Isiah, team still took a nose dive) then I have to question your judgement.

          Rick not working here now has nothing to do with his bad plays. Dunleavy, Murph and Ike were a big part of what Golden St did the last 2 years. Remind me what that was again?

          So what did you expect to happen when they came here?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I was wrong about Rick

            Rick is the most overrated coach in the NBA. Every national announcer or analyst (like Hubie Brown last night) says something like, "Rick Carlisle has done an amazing job considering all the turmoil that the Pacers have gone through these past few years." I'm sick of hearing how he's somehow a victim of circumstances, so he's played no part in this mess of a season.

            Currently we're on a 2-17 run to the Playoffs. He has run the same offense, with the same rotation, and said the same things after each loss this entire time.

            Sure, he's added Williams into the rotation over the past few, but that doesn't mean a 70% JO isn't going to get the ball every time down the court, or possibly Tinsley will be forced to create something late in the clock because nobody else wants to shoot it. Or maybe Tinsley will just throw up an ugly 3 pt shot with about 20 seconds left on the shot clock.

            He tends to cover his own *** (he recently said he gets on his players when they need it-RIIIIGHT....). He gives no eye contact to his players when they enter or exit the game. He coaches like a robot. When he gets a technical it looks incredibly forced.

            He's an above-average coach who's lost this team beyond repair, like a lot of decent coaches have in the past. It's time for a fresh start for the team and for him, in Seattle or wherever.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I was wrong about Rick

              Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
              Rick is the most overrated coach in the NBA. Every national announcer or analyst (like Hubie Brown last night) says something like, "Rick Carlisle has done an amazing job considering all the turmoil that the Pacers have gone through these past few years." I'm sick of hearing how he's somehow a victim of circumstances, so he's played no part in this mess of a season.

              Currently we're on a 2-17 run to the Playoffs. He has run the same offense, with the same rotation, and said the same things after each loss this entire time.

              Sure, he's added Williams into the rotation over the past few, but that doesn't mean a 70% JO isn't going to get the ball every time down the court, or possibly Tinsley will be forced to create something late in the clock because nobody else wants to shoot it. Or maybe Tinsley will just throw up an ugly 3 pt shot with about 20 seconds left on the shot clock.

              He tends to cover his own *** (he recently said he gets on his players when they need it-RIIIIGHT....). He gives no eye contact to his players when they enter or exit the game. He coaches like a robot. When he gets a technical it looks incredibly forced.

              He's an above-average coach who's lost this team beyond repair, like a lot of decent coaches have in the past. It's time for a fresh start for the team and for him, in Seattle or wherever.

              Yep, it is always easier to replace the coach, no matter if he is the problem or not. I think that your evaluation of Rick is 100% wrong and bogus. You state that he is overated and in the next breath you say he is an above average coach. Which is it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I was wrong about Rick

                Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                Yep, it is always easier to replace the coach, no matter if he is the problem or not. I think that your evaluation of Rick is 100% wrong and bogus. You state that he is overated and in the next breath you say he is an above average coach. Which is it?
                Aggreed. Very wishy-washy.
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I was wrong about Rick

                  The premise of this thread could be applied to any coach, anwhere in any sport.
                  The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I was wrong about Rick

                    Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                    Aggreed. Very wishy-washy.
                    I'll third that. People who don't like Rick just don't like him. Those who look at it objectively usually end up with the same opinions as the announcers. There's a REASON they always talk about how good a coach he is. It isn't because he slips them a $100 bill before the game every night.

                    He doesn't have good players on this team. Period.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I was wrong about Rick

                      I think we need a change of coach justfor the watcing sake of the pacers
                      R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I was wrong about Rick

                        Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                        Yep, it is always easier to replace the coach, no matter if he is the problem or not. I think that your evaluation of Rick is 100% wrong and bogus. You state that he is overated and in the next breath you say he is an above average coach. Which is it?
                        He's both at the same time. You're not able to see good and bad in the same person? It only makes sense if it's black and white?

                        But no, he can't be held responsible, because he won 61 games 3 seasons ago. He helped to make us respectable after the brawl? Great. That was 2 seasons ago. .500 last year? Not his fault, right? That was all on Ron Artest. What could Rick possibly have done? He's just the coach with all the bad things happening to his team.

                        This season (aka, the one we are currently in), he has taken a 29-24 team and coached them to a 31-41 record. 2-17. Nah, we can't criticize him. It was the trade/injuries/lack of talent/coaching staff/his bosses/Jamaal Tinsley/the weather/something he ate.

                        He's a good coach. And, as I said above, he's lost this team, like a lot of good coaches have lost their teams. Doesn't mean he's awful, but doesn't make him great. All this crap about how wonderful he is is ridiculous. He's coached us to the brink of missing the play-offs. In the Eastern Conference.

                        But it's not his fault ...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I was wrong about Rick

                          Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
                          He's both at the same time. You're not able to see good and bad in the same person? It only makes sense if it's black and white?

                          But no, he can't be held responsible, because he won 61 games 3 seasons ago. He helped to make us respectable after the brawl? Great. That was 2 seasons ago. .500 last year? Not his fault, right? That was all on Ron Artest. What could Rick possibly have done? He's just the coach with all the bad things happening to his team.

                          This season (aka, the one we are currently in), he has taken a 29-24 team and coached them to a 31-41 record. 2-17. Nah, we can't criticize him. It was the trade/injuries/lack of talent/coaching staff/his bosses/Jamaal Tinsley/the weather/something he ate.

                          He's a good coach. And, as I said above, he's lost this team, like a lot of good coaches have lost their teams. Doesn't mean he's awful, but doesn't make him great. All this crap about how wonderful he is is ridiculous. He's coached us to the brink of missing the play-offs. In the Eastern Conference.

                          But it's not his fault ...
                          It's less RC's fault than the players the idiotic management have put together. ...and I'm saying this without being much of a RC fan.

                          He is an above average coach in this league notwithstanding poor people skills. If he had any charisma and would drop half his playbook, he would be Pat Riley. As it stands, he is not as good as Larry Brown IMO...but is better than at least half the league.

                          He was fortunate to have a highly talented team for a couple years only to see management destroy it by bringing in numbskull after numbskull...then dumping talented numbskulls for backups.

                          ...but RC will take the hit before anyone above him.

                          But that's the way it goes. Those in power - regardless of how stupid they might be - always get the last word.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I was wrong about Rick

                            Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                            I'll third that. People who don't like Rick just don't like him. Those who look at it objectively usually end up with the same opinions as the announcers. There's a REASON they always talk about how good a coach he is. It isn't because he slips them a $100 bill before the game every night.

                            He doesn't have good players on this team. Period.
                            What would I have against him personally? I've never met him; I'm just a fan of the team he coaches. I want him to succeed-I want to root for a team that wins. Ours doesn't, though. And he's the head coach.

                            Looking at it objectively? You mean, like 2-17 objectively? You mean us getting blown out by 20 every other game objectively?

                            The announcers aren't going to say he sucks, are they? They've got to work with the guy. He's been an announcer too and it's pretty likely he's a friend of many of them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I was wrong about Rick

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              It's less RC's fault than the players the idiotic management have put together. ...and I'm saying this without being much of a RC fan.

                              He is an above average coach in this league notwithstanding poor people skills. If he had any charisma and would drop half his playbook, he would be Pat Riley. As it stands, he is not as good as Larry Brown IMO...but is better than at least half the league.

                              He was fortunate to have a highly talented team for a couple years only to see management destroy it by bringing in numbskull after numbskull...then dumping talented numbskulls for backups.

                              ...but RC will take the hit before anyone above him.

                              But that's the way it goes. Those in power - regardless of how stupid they might be - always get the last word.
                              Good points. But he really doesn't have that charisma, and it ain't like you're gonna learn it if you don't have it to begin with. It's a personality trait. He may be a hell of a nice guy once you get to know him. But he's not a leader of men (i.e., Riley, Jackson, Brown, Johnson, etc.).

                              And he hasn't changed anything significant about his game management-playbook or otherwise for the past 19 games. Same old, same old.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X