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

Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

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

  • #31
    Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

    Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
    why would we want frank if he can't seem to achieve a significantly better winning percentage with Kidd, Jefferson and Carter than our team with a one-legged O'Neal and change? right now the nets are 34-39 (.466) and the pacers are 32-41 (.438) and the pacers have been doing it without O'Neal for some games, Quis for weeks, a terrible PG situation and relying on a bunch of role players to lead the team. i think his team is coasting on talent alone, not any type of coaching genius.
    I agree.

    That's the problem with all of this, few of the other coaches are proven at all, most that have been HC are going to be on the market for a reason. Mitchell I'm not sold on, but at least his team is currently winning.


    Think about this, the Pacers brought in Rick because he had just turned around the Pistons IN ONE SEASON, won Coach of the Year, won back to back titles of the Pacers own division, had back to back 50 win seasons and had taken a team that missed the playoffs to the 2nd round and then the conference finals in successive years.

    Now read me the resumes of these great coaches that are going to fix this situation? Cripes BIRD has a better resume than the list of candidates...of course he had someone helping get that, what was his name again?


    RC gets defended not because we are homers (as Jay often suggests) but because he's got scoreboard on all these other coaches.


    When Pop, Phil, Skiles, JVGundy (maybe even Stan), and a few others like that start getting named, then I'll listen. But who in the world would think it was smart for Houston to say "well, we keep finishing behind SA, DAL, PHX, etc and even had a bad year last year when injuries took over, let's fire Jeff so we can get Cooper in here"?

    Maybe Utah should have dumped Sloan when it was "clear" that he couldn't win without Stockon/Malone to carry him.


    I even have interest in what Cooper might do, but he's still a big risk. I think Frank is a decent coach too, but no more than Rick. He's got IDENTICAL problems, more so in fact because he can't really blame it on not having Kidd, Vince and Jefferson as much as the Pacers have been without their top guys.

    The Nets didn't stir up the chemistry with a deal moving Vince, Jefferson and Kristic for Crawford, Curry, and Nate Robinson or something.




    Grass sure looks green from over here. We should get some of that stuff. What is it, bluegrass? Got some kinda turfbuilder working on it or something?



    I only buy the "maybe just freshen it up" view, and that means taking the hard pill of seeing RC do well elsewhere while MAYBE this team does more than they previously have. Remember how well it was working for Detroit till Sheed showed up? The Pacers were no threat to Detroit till they handed us Rick on a platter.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

      mourning...i can't remember where you stand on the "RICK CARLISLE: Good Coach or Burden to Pacer Nation" debate but the exact same can be said about rick except that this year has been hurt by injuries to o'neal and quis as well as a lack of talent. i'd be willing to bet if you gave rick the same nets team, they would be in the playoffs without question. i also think you gave rick a PG like kidd but maintained the rest of the injury problems the pacers have had, i think the pacers would be in the playoffs.
      This is the darkest timeline.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

        BTW, I'm pretty sure Jay (and maybe others) have said that Jeff Van Gundy is a great candidate if only the Pacers could get him.

        His win total last year = 34. Read it again.

        Now this, Rick's LOWEST win total ever = the 32 he has going right now, and seems to be in reach of 34.


        Jeff had TMac for 47 games, Yao for 57. Still only won 34. How many did RC win last year with Tins and JO missing MORE time than that...or the fact that the 2nd best Pacer to list in comparison to TMac being out is Tinsley in the first place?

        Why do all these other coaches get their crap years easily overlooked, but RC's worst year is a true disaster. At least he didn't say that the league is rigged and almost get booted out by Stern for doing so.


        BTW, a note on Frank, he took over and the Nets went on that big winning streak. After it ended they had a losing record the rest of the way with him. The next year he was 42-40. This was a team just slightly removed from back to back FINALS appearances. He had one great year, last year and he was in danger of getting beat by a team led by Anthony Johnson...coached by RC.


        George Karl has AI AND MELO. Currently .500. And how about that "control" he had on his team in NYC? Yep, the Indy issues are all on Rick, but when players for other teams act the fool (and this happens nearly every day in some capacity) it's all about the players themselves.

        Karl has only had one 50 (52) win season since back in Seattle when he had a prime Gary Payton on his team and a decent Kemp, and his 52 win team had RayRay, 22 ppg Big Dog and Cassell on it. His only other great year was when he took over mid-year in Denver, an incredible 32-8, but the following year was down to 44 wins and then this year he's down to .500.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns
          mourning...i can't remember where you stand on the "RICK CARLISLE: Good Coach or Burden to Pacer Nation" debate but the exact same can be said about rick except that this year has been hurt by injuries to o'neal and quis as well as a lack of talent. i'd be willing to bet if you gave rick the same nets team, they would be in the playoffs without question. i also think you gave rick a PG like kidd but maintained the rest of the injury problems the pacers have had, i think the pacers would be in the playoffs.
          I have backed Rick ever since he has been here. I have only once made it clear that he probably should be gone at season's end. Not because he's a bad coach, but because the team just doesn't seem to be responding to him and I AM doubting his people skills. And even after that post I have since been doubting what we should do...

          I am not a part of the "kick Rick to the curve"-crowd.

          I am part of the "kick Jamaal to the curve"-crowd though. Strange as he was my favorite player just two seasons ago.


          PS: forgot to mention the Nets also lost Krstic early in the season for the whole season.

          Regards,

          Mourning
          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


          • #35
            Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

            Originally posted by Mourning View Post
            I have backed Rick ever since he has been here. I have only once made it clear that he probably should be gone at season's end. Not because he's a bad coach, but because the team just doesn't seem to be responding to him and I AM doubting his people skills. And even after that post I have since been doubting what we should do...

            I am not a part of the "kick Rick to the curve"-crowd.

            I am part of the "kick Jamaal to the curve"-crowd though. Strange as he was my favorite player just two seasons ago.


            PS: forgot to mention the Nets also lost Krstic early in the season for the whole season.

            Regards,

            Mourning
            true about krstic but they also had mikki moore emerge so in my mind i sorta cancelled the two out.

            thats the thing about jamaal, as he showed against the spurs and a few other times this year, he is tremendously talented. which makes it all the more frustrating when he spends the other 83.5% of the games he is available for (just conjecture, not a real stat) playing horrific. i just hope he has a little bit of trade value left so we don't have to take scraps for him.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Grass sure looks green from over here. We should get some of that stuff. What is it, bluegrass? Got some kinda turfbuilder working on it or something?
              Not only does the grass look better in other yards, I can remember when ours was one of the best on the block. Now it's real brown in a lot of places, and there's a bunch of crabgrass over there.

              Damned thing is that the guy who could be making it look better does the same thing to it over and over. Can't he treat it with something else for a change? I mean, even if it means it looks crappy this year, couldn't he plant something new to look forward to next season, I mean, year?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                BTW, I'm pretty sure Jay (and maybe others) have said that Jeff Van Gundy is a great candidate if only the Pacers could get him.

                His win total last year = 34. Read it again.

                Now this, Rick's LOWEST win total ever = the 32 he has going right now, and seems to be in reach of 34.
                So last year makes him an average coach?

                The JVG I watched all the time in New York is the guy I WANT coaching the Pacers.

                Its true with nearly every NBA coach - give them good players and they look like geniouses. Give them average players, they don't look like geniouses.
                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


                • #38
                  Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

                  Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
                  Not only does the grass look better in other yards, I can remember when ours was one of the best on the block. Now it's real brown in a lot of places, and there's a bunch of crabgrass over there.

                  Damned thing is that the guy who could be making it look better does the same thing to it over and over. Can't he treat it with something else for a change? I mean, even if it means it looks crappy this year, couldn't he plant something new to look forward to next season, I mean, year?
                  Because TPTB turned off the freaking water. Now RC has to go out and do a rain dance every day just to keep it this alive. BTW, that noisy lawnmower? We traded it for hand clippers, too many people were complaining.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

                    Originally posted by Jay View Post
                    So last year makes him an average coach?

                    The JVG I watched all the time in New York is the guy I WANT coaching the Pacers.

                    Its true with nearly every NBA coach - give them good players and they look like geniouses. Give them average players, they don't look like geniouses.
                    So this year makes Rick an average coach?

                    The Rick Carlise I saw placing top 5 in Coach of the Year voting his first 4 seasons (ahead of Larry Brown every single one of them), winning 50+ games and divsion titles his first 3 seasons, winning more regular season games than any Pacers coach ever, and a guy that made the SECOND round of the playoffs his first 4 years, even the year when his #2 player was suspended for 70 games plus the playoffs, that's the guy I want coaching them.


                    And I'm a JVG fan and would have loved to have him here, I just think RC is as strong and catches crap from posters like you even as you give Jeff a free pass.

                    Why? Why is this year a sign of how bad Rick is but last year wasn't an identical sign for Jeff? Don't say injuries or roster changes or any of that because that's the only thing Rick has seen in the last 3 seasons and he only went sub-500 once along the way.

                    Sloan even had a season well below 500. And what's his claim to fame, winning 60, losing in the Finals with "only" 2 of the 50 greatest players ever on his roster. Man, that musta been tough finding a way to overcome the restrictions of Stockton and Malone, they sucked. [/sarcasm]

                    2002 Utah Jazz 82 44 38 .537 1 3
                    2003 Utah Jazz 82 47 35 .573 1 4
                    2004 Utah Jazz 82 42 40 .512 -- --
                    2005 Utah Jazz 82 26 56 .317 -- --

                    Is it just me or does that trend look familiar? What in the world was Utah thinking by not pulling the trigger on Sloan after 2005? He clearly had lost the team.


                    What's wrong with me asking you to use the SAME standard when judging RC as a coach as JVG? Do you think it was a mistake to keep Jeff in Houston? Was it smart for NY to get rid of him?

                    Yet you want the Pacers to make that exact choice, fire a guy with just as much success as JVG.

                    BTW, what was that NBA incident that was so famous for players being out of control before the brawl happened? Man bites dog rings a bell. But in no way did that reflect on his ability to coach players and instill good behavior in them. They's just whack, nothing Jeff could do there.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Vescey on Rick and other possible coaches being fired

                      Wait... NY didn't get rid of Jeff. He quit.

                      If I were in Houston, I might be frustrated that he hasn't delivered better. There have been reasons for it - injuries, a roster that hasn't been as good as advertised, whatever, but he hasn't lost the team.

                      One thing is true about both Jeff and Rick - they've always had good players and usually good teams to work with. So everyone just assumes they are better than some of the guys around the league with lesser reputations. I'm not talking about Terry Stots, Lon Kruger, and Mike Montgomery. I'm talking about the young generation of NBA coaches that have paid their dues as NBA assistants. Wittman, Woodson, Mitchell (although I'm not convinced yet), Ivaroni, etc. Just because Avery Johnson was handed a ready-made contender does not mean he's better than any of those four.

                      One think I learned about Jeff in NYC: Patrick, Spree, Houston, etc. would all run through a brick wall if Jeff asked them to.

                      That isn't true for Rick.

                      End of story for comparing JVG to Rick. I want him fired because I *know* he's going to lose next year's team, too. Even if the roster gets a so-called makover like this season. (Ha!)

                      You seem to be in one of those bizarre places where you have forgotten - just for this arguement - that the NBA is a players' league. You remember it elsewhere, but not here. Utah had a lottery-bound roster in 2005 - did Sloan lose the team? No. Could anybody have done better? Maybe. Maybe not. That team sucked, but it played hard and tough, even without talent.

                      Rick + NBA players is a bad combination. Its bound to fail. If this team was just playing hard and tough, would they be on a 3-18 streak? Hell no. There's too much talent on this roster. JO has been tremendous this year. Tinsley is putting up great stats. I'll admit that nobody likes the shoot-first Tinsley, but the stats themselves look good. Murphy and Dunleavy are adjusting (slowly, yes) to their #3 and #4 option roles. Granger still has talent. The team - when Marquis Daniels was still healthy, looked pretty good. Now they don't have a single SG on the roster, and too many SFs. That's not Rick's fault - I'm not about to argue that he's been given a winning hand to work with. But he's not been given a 3-18 hand, or the free-fall we were enduring before last season's playoffs.

                      And its not because Rick is old-school, like Sloan. He's not. Sloan demands a lot from his players but they still respect him. (Same for Riley).

                      With Rick, you get the opposite - he's not demanding and he even seems to cave in to his difficult-to-lead yet talented players while still losing the respect of the team.

                      I have no idea why that's the case. But Rick should just stick with the x's and o's - he's brilliant at those - without needing to deal with human beings. Its too bad he's not coaching a computer-generated team. But even the computer would probably tune him out after a while.

                      BTW, I want to puke every time I hear Mark Jackson's name as a coaching candidate. Chuck Person is far more prepared to take over an NBA team than Jackson. I'd rather he goes back to the front office to take over that role when Donnie retires, but I digress...
                      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

                      Working...
                      X