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

Short thoughts on the Washington game

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

    Short thoughts on the Washington game

    I have to be brief tonight so this will be fast hitting.

    Look there is no bigger critic/hater of Jermaine O'Neal than myself, however there is no real way to make the coralation that Jermaine's return to extended min. and an increased role in the offense has been the sole reason for the teams collapse.

    It is a contributing factor, IMO, but even I won't say it's the main one.

    Also for the Troy Murphy haters out there you cannot pinpoint his return to our losing ways either.

    There are a lot and I mean a lot of reasons that this team is in totall collapse right now, and make no mistake this team right now is exactly like last season during the 11 game skid. The record isn't there yet, but all you have to do is watch the body language and you will see this team is in trouble.

    Where at the beginning of the season I had no doubt in my mind we were going to play hard and win those games, I have now for the last three games been of the firm belief that we had no hope of winning.

    Read Mike Dunleavy's quote in today's star to show you that there is already some discourse in the troops.

    "Your guess is as good as mine," Dunleavy said when asked what happened to their running game. "I thought we were going to run, too. We ran through training camp; we ran the first few games of the year. I don't know."

    Now this can be read in several ways.

    1. The team is not functioning properly and therefor the running game is not working. (this is possible)
    2. Once again # 7 has inserted his opinion on the offense and even though there was tough talk about running, the truth is they are at least slowing the pace a little to keep him happy.
    3. The coach's want to run, the players want to run, the two left overs have decided not to run and when you are the person who determines where the ball goes you can really influance the plays.
    4. Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, Daniels and others have just stopped running for whatever reason.

    Or there probably are about 10 other ways to read that, but to me it say's something is wrong.

    However let's not go to far overboard on one thing, we are missing Ike Diagu. I may be wrong because I'm not looking up his stats right now but wasn't he avg. almost 14 ppg before the injury?

    That's not chump change.

    I know this is going to be vastly unpopular to say but I will say it anyway. Jeff Foster can not be on the floor at the same time as Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley until they get out of thier scoring slumps.

    I don't like him in there when they are scoring but right now we have to have 5 legitimate offensive options on the floor in that starting lineup.

    Right now we have Granger, who is inconsistant. Dunleavy who has all but vanished and that's it.

    Oh Jermaine & Jamaal are getting thier points but they are taking a large amount of shots to get them and while Jeff has made a nice attempt at that jumper, we desperately need another offensive weapon on the floor.

    Till Murphy comes back I would really have no problem with the Pacers staring either Daniels or Williams and playing Danny at the 4.

    Again in this game Travis Diener has made me believe that we should be scouring the NBDL for a better backup p.g.

    As of yet, there is nothing there. I still don't understand why he is playing ahead of Owens.

    It is obvious that O'Brien has already given up (at least for now anyway) on Harrison, Diener and Owens.

    Each of their min. have gone down dramatically over the past few games and frankly who can blame him.

    It's not time to panic yet, however I will say this, if this team does reach a double digit losing streak (which I believe it will soon) a real shakeup is in order.

    I don't mean a major trade or anything, although that should be looked at as well. But I mean it may be time to shake up the lineup.

    However I don't even know how you go about doing that with the roster we have.

    Ok, this post is to negative.

    Let me address some positives to end with.

    Danny shot poorly but I thought he battled all night long.

    While I hate Foster with O'Neal, I thought Jeff really brought it and truely put it all on the line.

    Travis Diener did actually hit a shot, so I guess there is that.


    Time to regroup and try again, the season can turn around just as fast the other way if the planets align correctly.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

    John Calipari, head coach of the Memphis Tigers, said on PTI regarding the Marbury and Thomas controversy (as he coached Marbury when he was with the Nets) that if a team wants to trade a player that player is given ample playing time and shot attempts to improve his trade value.

    Marbury instead benched himself, putting Thomas on the hot seat. Calipari said his intention was to get Isiah fired. However, it could be true in this case of giving Jermane and Jamal more shots to improve their trade value.

    Jermaine is clearly unhappy, and its affecting his play. Just my thought.
    Last edited by kept; 11-15-2007, 04:43 AM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

      I agree that the body language is reminiscent of last year's glorious "streak". Jamaal Tinsley for some reason enjoys putting up hideous jump shots and extremely contested shots in the lane. Jermaine is obviously bothered by an injury settling for jump shots instead of taking it strong to the hole. Granger seems to be mixing it up by taking shots outside, but also driving through the lane and getting good looks. Those types of shots aren't falling for him consistently but I believe as time goes on he should be able to get a handle on them.

      Marquis looked like the only one that knew what he was doing against the Wizards last night. JOB should definitely consider replacing Tinsley with Quis in the starting lineup, and letting Tinsley know he's not the only point guard on the team. Except for a couple of instances, Daniels' decision making and playmaking abilities looked ten times better than Tinsley's on any given night.

      Who the hell is David Harrison and why is he sitting on the Pacers bench in a Pacers uniform? Shawne Williams is looking pretty good right now, giving decent production off of the bench in the minutes he is given. I would suggest a trade for a young point guard or shooting guard. Just throwing out ideas.

      In closing Marquis Daniels played 31 minutes while Tinsley played 22 minutes against Washington. More of that please.

      "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

        Jamaal reminded me last night why I hate his so-called "game" so much.

        I cannot think of a worse team to send him to so as I said the other day, I'll go with sending him to a colder place. Minnesota.




        and I don't care what we get back.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

          Minnesota already has Telfair. I don't think they need or want another New York street ball point guard that can't shoot worth a damn.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

            One of the main problem is what we have known, you don't have a go to guy at the end of games or a go to play, like in the days of Reggie.

            I've never seen the team more lost at the end of games than this years, wow.

            You can run in the main part of the game and you can run at the end, but you have to have someone who can use a go to move that the other team has to stop or it will score everytime, usually the other team has to over extend something to stop that go to move or play and a smart team then counters to exploit that.

            As far as I can tell the plan is to

            A.) have Tinsley take a really bad shot.

            B.) Have JO take a really bad shot.

            C.) Have someone throw it out of bounds or to the other team.

            It's early, but I'm starting to vote for C and just get a good draft pick.

            All is not lost, but they are the anti sum is greater than the parts idea that makes a team good.

            If this continues, I'd really be okay with just keeping Danny, Dunleavey, and Foster and just hoping to land a franchise player in the next couple of drafts.

            JO is as good as he'll get, and its conjecture or subjective on how good you think he is or isn't.

            Danny should be kept, he keeps getting better and is honest about it.

            Dunleavy is a guy who understands the game and is a glue guy.

            Foster is never, not trying.

            Otherwise, I suppose you could keep Ike, see where that goes.

            I guess I'm kinda knee jerk reacting, but I was equally as concerned trough 3 games, they just don't seem to be able to understand what it takes.

            Oh and Shawne I think plays with more poise for his age than half the guys on the team and I think he's uber coachable and will continue to get better.

            So thats it honestly.

            Granger
            Shawne
            Ike
            Dunleavy
            Foster

            Then go from there.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

              Peck, your post is very disturbing.

              Not that there's anything wrong with that.

              It's disturbing simply because you are getting at the core of the issue.

              I hadn't seen the Dunleavy quote. That is disturbing. Your four options for how to interpret it are excellent. It's one of those four, and it's got to be either JO complaining or Tins and JO's control of the ball slowing things down.

              But, would either of those things stop the other three from cutting? Didn't they run around and cut and stuff the first few games?

              I don't know. I'm still confused. Maybe they are indeed showcasing JO and Tins for a trade. Heck of a showcase
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TS04/711150489

                If we're pulling quotes from the Star article, how about:

                I'm not really enjoying it right now," Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal said.

                Or

                "I don't know what's going on," Tinsley said. "I don't have an answer. I know I'm running. It's frustrating, but what can I do?"

                Or this from everybody's favorite Tell It Like It Is reporter:

                The days of the Pacers getting the ball up the court quickly have been replaced with the point guard getting out on the break, looking over his shoulder and not seeing players filling the lanes.
                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                  I disagree that Dunleavy's comment has to mean that there are locker room problems over the offense.

                  I think it means that the roster right now just isn't capable of making the offense work. When the running offense gets bogged down, this team just doesn't know how to create something to get past it. Either that or we really have a bunch of nagging little injuries that slow you down if you favor them - and players who aren't willing to push through them.

                  Passing lanes get shut down and everyone is waiting for someone else to move first. No one - and I mean NO ONE - wants to go near the post, so the only movement options are across the perimeter - the hesitation on doing so leads to sloppy passes and turnovers.

                  If JO is asking for the ball more in the post, why is he staying away from it? One would think he'd be putting himself in there and unable to get to the ball (as happened last year), rather than getting the ball but hanging around the top of the key miles away from the lane. This tells me he is trying to move out of his comfort zone to get to the ball instead of demanding it get fed to him his way only.

                  It doesn't help that we're once again becoming the kind of team that lets opposing shooters get into the zone such that every heave toward the basket goes in, no matter how well the defenders might start doing later in the game.

                  It seems obvious to me that this is an execution issue rather than a buy-in issue.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                    Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TS04/711150489

                    If we're pulling quotes from the Star article, how about:

                    I'm not really enjoying it right now," Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal said.

                    Or

                    "I don't know what's going on," Tinsley said. "I don't have an answer. I know I'm running. It's frustrating, but what can I do?"

                    Or this from everybody's favorite Tell It Like It Is reporter:

                    The days of the Pacers getting the ball up the court quickly have been replaced with the point guard getting out on the break, looking over his shoulder and not seeing players filling the lanes.
                    I totally noticed that in last nights game.
                    In transition JT was the fastest player to go down the court which meant that all the players were trailing and coming back just in time for the defense to settle down and all I could say was WTF?!?!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                      on another note - lately I've seen JT pull a Mark Jackson move by posting up the guards a bit more frequently - unfortunately the only person who he can pass it to is a JO who is out of his range. If they were to run that play with either DG or even DunDun in that mid-range shot I think we could see a lot more success

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                        I'm happy with the # of shots J.O. is taking. If we're going to keep J.O. he needs to be happy and in spite of the fact that he says he's not happy because we're losing, I know he needs to be the focal point of the offense to be happy. I want to see J.O. be the 20/10 player he was last season and to do that he needs to be the focal point. However, if we want to trade J.O. the exact same philosophy applies just like Calipari suggest. We would need J.O. to get his #'s back to all star form if we hope to get fair value out him in a trade and I think that's where this is going.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                          As much as some of you like to dislike Tins trading him right now for next to nothing is the worst idea ever.

                          Yes, I'm not the biggest fan of Tinsley. He makes some stupid passes and takes a lot of stupid shots.

                          But I'd still rather have him starting than Deiner or Owens. And don't play the Marquis card, because it's pretty obvious he'll never play more than 50 games in a season.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I disagree that Dunleavy's comment has to mean that there are locker room problems over the offense.

                            I think it means that the roster right now just isn't capable of making the offense work. When the running offense gets bogged down, this team just doesn't know how to create something to get past it. Either that or we really have a bunch of nagging little injuries that slow you down if you favor them - and players who aren't willing to push through them.
                            There's quite a few of us who have been saying this for quite some time, and was the base root of the reason why trades should have happened this summer and not letting go of RC.

                            RC played the style of basketball that they were able to play. Before someone jumps in and says all he knew was slow ball, this is the same man who was responsible for the offense under Bird and they were anything but a dump it in offense.

                            So lets see what we're stuck with. A team that couldn't handle a structured offense, so you fire your coach and bring in a "run" but definately gun coach. Well they aren't running and they look like their shooting with a mussle loader from the Revolutionary War. You either replaced the supporting cast, or drafted new ones, and changed coaches. What else is there left to do?

                            All avenues except one have been tried. Make the turn and get a deal(s) done.
                            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Short thoughts on the Washington game

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              RC played the style of basketball that they were able to play. Before someone jumps in and says all he knew was slow ball, this is the same man who was responsible for the offense under Bird and they were anything but a dump it in offense.
                              I said this a couple of times myself, that RC's play calling was because the run style didn't work. Since the perception was that RC "always" called the shots, players could get away with fooling themselves that their run failures were still due to too much control by the coach.

                              I think that sometimes you have to prove it to both players and fans before making the changes - otherwise you go nowhere due to second-guessing. Since we all figured this was a "learning curve" year anyway, it doesn't hurt having these players run smack into a coach who basically lets them do what they've wanted and therefore lets them fail at it. Whatever the result (trades or a return to more half-court focus), the players and the fans are more likely to accept it. Given the past few years, acceptance is important.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X