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

In Jermaine's shoes...

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

  • In Jermaine's shoes...

    I just thought I'd put myself in Jermaine O'Neal's shoes for a minute. His team has done pretty well without him, not so well with him. He's got to be wondering at this point if he's going to help or hurt this team when he comes back. If he comes back, and we start skidding again, then what? What I mean by that is where does his mind go?

    This isn't like Reggie Miller. When it was time for Reggie to take a lesser role in the offense he was still able to play his same game, just in a lesser role. With Jermaine it's different. At 29 (an old 29), we're asking him to go away from 20-10 All-Star #1 option, and become Vlade Divac on offense and maintain his same defensive presence. That's what we're asking, but that's not what he believes we're asking. He still wants to be 20-10 Jermaine, and it's going to take him to tell himself, or someone else to tell him that he's no longer that player for him to be the most effective player he can be.

    How tough is all this on Jermaine mentally though? He wants to be out there helping his team, but there's something he's doing or not doing when he's on the court that actually hurts the team. How does that wear on him? At this stage of his career he's under pressure to get to 100%. Then when he gets to 100% he has to get out there and change his style of play within a new system and try not to slow the system down.

    Much easier for someone in the early part of their career or even at the midpoint. But for someone starting their decline, is this really fair? I think it would be easier to adjust to a new style of play for a player his age in a new system. When players spend so long in one city, they develop a routine. That's why sometimes a change of scenery is best for a player to resurrect their career. Would it be best for O'Neal to start new in a new city and try to get the most out of what's left of his career? Or can he do it here? If you were in his shoes what would you be thinking right now?

  • #2
    Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

    If/when Jermaine returns, he must adapt his style of play to the team rather than selfishly expecting the team to adapt to his plodding stagnant style. If he can't fit in to the style that is proving to be successful, then the coach should either sit him, or they should trade him.

    It is now indisputable that the Pacers are a better team WITHOUT him. He needs to either fit in and help the team, or get out.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

      Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post

      It is now indisputable that the Pacers are a better team WITHOUT him. He needs to either fit in and help the team, or get out.
      Better without an unfit JO for sure.

      I'd like to give him a chance with the new coach, but I'd make damn sure he is 100% fit before he plays again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

        Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post

        It is now indisputable that the Pacers are a better team WITHOUT him. He needs to either fit in and help the team, or get out.
        Slowly but surely I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the same ol same ol crap.

        How "indisputable" is it? Because you say so?
        Or is it because you are the only one who has seen JO healthy on the court and the offense went completely stagnant?
        He wasn't in a number of games this season, dissing 7 Ast ( 2 or 3 times already this short season) ?
        He hasn't said he doesn't really care for his scoring numbers?
        He doesn't take the charges, play defense, go for the boards?
        He doesn't pass the ball well ?

        What has the man done, besides giving his all for this ballclub, being a gentleman on and off the court, representing Indiana to the best of his ability (which is a whole lot) being the best interview, well dressed, well mannered, not gun-toting, dope carrying, traffic-violations-creating?

        Has he taken to few charges? Do you all hold it against him that he is a 6 time All Star, whilst with the Pacers? (more then any other Pacer in history)

        Or do you hold it against him that one of his team-mates rams his knee in practise? Or perhaps it is his fault that he tries to play whilst injured to give the team that lift it may need?

        Of course it is his fault by not being a leader that most other players are looking up at him, that David Harrison learns his moves and controls his anger because he and JT are continuously talking to him? (watch the bench when DH comes off and see who's talking to him)

        Yeah he's definitely the bad guy, we need to dump him as soon as possible, so we can have another guy to talk out of town.
        Easy to predict at this moment who that's gonna be, welcome to Indy Troy Murphy.
        My guess is Dunleavy will be shortly after that, Granger in the meanwhile is losing some support due to Shawn playing great, so by the time the season ends and he didn't live up to the hype, he may well be in line also.

        In my opinion, this team is better with JO then without, the inside presence/threat makes the outside shots more open then they are now, because outside of JO we have little threat inside, or it must be DH growing into it, for short stints.

        JO has proven this season he has no problem with passing and letting others make the shots, a W is a W to him, and he wants as many as possible for this team, whatever way it takes him to play.

        The monster type of D he plays is sorely missed, otherwise no one would notice the enormous let down when he is not there, see the comments on Murphy.

        But I forget, Ike is gonna be the new JO.

        Ok he may be a tad short, not able to pass out of a double team to save his own life, let alone the team, but yeah, he's gonna be the next perennial All Star we have.

        You know what, I just sad to read all that crap, not even upset, just sad, that a player who has broken so many records, been an All Star, MVP candidate and can still perform at that level is discarded so easy by whimpy opinions.
        Yes whimpy, wait till he plays 5 or 6 games at the same level he started last year with, a lot of people will change their mind faster then light.

        Of course in the middle of all this we now have also concluded that the people on this board know more about the team and basketball then coach O'Brien, after all he is crazy saying that nothing changes when JO is playing or not, except for missing an All Star, the man is derailed obviously, we all know better, when JO comes in the movement stops, just like in the games he played this season.......

        For those of you who wonder why I never post anymore (and are happy for it) read what is currently written about Tinsley, who league wide is seen as a very good PG, and those that wanted him out of town for a bag of chips and preferably tarred, feathered and on a rail, are now all of a sudden willing to keep him, after how many games exactly ?

        Those that said he could and would do this of course are the "fanboys".

        Are we ?
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

          Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
          It is now indisputable that the Pacers are a better team WITHOUT him.
          I dispute your use of the word "indisputable".

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

            In my opinion the problem that happens is the age old " when star player comes back team starts to defer to him and stop being agressive on offense and defense, star player is then forced to put up bad shots. Think Chris Webber in Sacramento. Everyone wanted Chris gone because it was indisputable that they played better without him, and then when they moved him they fell apart, and became soft.
            Protect the Promise!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

              If JO can get healthy and show his can contribute within the direction the style of play is heading, then it's fine.

              Otherwise, he's gotta go. My observation is that we look better when he's not playing. The injury thing could be valid, but how many seasons will it continue rear its ugly head before it's recognized as equally as debilitating to the team overall?

              I'm not trashing JO as a player or a person. I'm just saying I don't know if this is really in his or the team's best interest anymore.

              If we dealt him tomrrow, I can't say I'd be that broken up.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                Originally posted by able View Post
                Slowly but surely I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the same ol same ol crap.
                Great post mate

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                  Originally posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
                  In my opinion the problem that happens is the age old " when star player comes back team starts to defer to him and stop being agressive on offense and defense, star player is then forced to put up bad shots. Think Chris Webber in Sacramento. Everyone wanted Chris gone because it was indisputable that they played better without him, and then when they moved him they fell apart, and became soft.

                  Sacramento has been on the decline and lacking a good low post presence ever since.

                  That's the danger of knee-jerk reactions. The Pacers aren't going to move JO while he is still hurt - what would they get for him anyway? His trade value is lower than his value to this team. They'll wait until JO is 100% healthy and then make a decision based on that.

                  I think I'll wait and do the same because believe it or not, the Pacers really miss JO's defensive presence.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                    Most importantly he needs to get healthy. He's clearly not been himself. And in that light I will reserve judgement. However, you have to be careful blaming the "stagnant offense" on one player. When he's been in the game and we have gotten stagnant, the permiter guys have stopped moving and just watched him in the post a la the days of old. Motion is the key in this type of offense. The last few games the guys have shown improvement in this area. I think we would have seen improvement regardless of his presence. It's clearly been a focus of discussion and practice. I think that's why JOB can say nothing will change when JO returns. The guys have to keep moving. JO's assist numbers have shown that he can find guys if they are making themselves available. And a healthy JO that can elevate and get his shots will only help the inside/outside game. It's way too early to send him on down the river.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                      The ldea of JO ever getting completely healthy and staying that way for a significant amount of time (a whole season, perhaps?) seems less and less likely every year.

                      Given that, I wonder if people put too much stock in how wonderful it would be to have a 100% healthy JO for an extended amount of time. It's a nice thing to hope for, but I think realistically at some point we have to expect that it isn't going to happen.

                      He has little value hurt, though, so I guess those of you convinced that we are better without him must hope that he is healthy long enough (weeks? months?) to attract a decent offer.

                      I'm kind of on the fence. His salary is crazy for his contributions to team success, playing at his average level of health. But the rest of the league realizes that also, so trading him would merely be a salary dump.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                        If JO can return to last season's form prior to the injuries......We won't slip but gel better. We need his interior defense if nothing else. Harrison is good and getting better, but he is no where the influence that JO is in the paint.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                          Those using the Chris Webber in Sacramento example, there was more to in than that. Vlade Divac who was a major contributor to their team, retired. Peja couldn't stay healthy and wouldn't show up during playoff time. Chris Webber himself couldn't stay healthy and turned into strictly a jump shooter that couldn't defend very well. They did the right thing when they moved Chris because his best days were definitely behind him. They had some very successful years with him, but they had to do what they had to do. I think the real mistake their front office made was with their coaching choices.

                          I didn't mean for this to come across as a Jermaine bashing thread. My question was, if you were in Jermaine's shoes right now and you're watching your teams success without you, what would you be thinking? Remember, this is the same thing Ron Artest went through a few seasons ago before he asked to be traded. We were playing well without him, and he saw that, probably thought he might hold us back, and asked for the trade [of course we're talking about Artest here].

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                            For someone I like as much as able - we sure disagree a lot

                            For just about all the reasons mentioned, I like JO. He's been pretty much a model citizen and I think has represented the team well.

                            However, I put no stock in him being a 6-time all star in the East. Put in the same time frame Reggie would have been an all-star lock EVERY year.

                            Do I think we are better without JO? Well, probably. Do I think his heart is in playing with the Pacers? No. For those who were so critical of the Croshere contributions/pay - how can anyone even begin to rationalize JO's contribution/pay? The sad thing is he can't be moved now and get anything that will help this team. That contract will really come into focus next year.
                            The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: In Jermaine's shoes...

                              The next time you reply with an opinion riddled piece in rebuttal of someone else's opinion you could try doing it without calling it crap and bringing such negative attitude to your reply.

                              It just happens that some of us don't see it as crap at all. ...And others can glean some truth from it even it they don't fully see eye to eye.

                              Your opinion is not the only opinion that matters nor is it anymore valid than anyone else's. Nobody cares how 'sick' or 'sad' you are of hearing dissenting voices... especially when you directly jump on another poster to tell us how 'sick' or 'sad' you are to hear their 'crap' (and other like-minded posters).

                              There's a way to say what you said without being offensive... I wish you would use it.

                              And I have to be honest, I'm happy you don't post much anymore because it seems when you do, it's to tell those of a different opinion not only how wrong they are, but just how right you are. That's a high horse I could do without.

                              -Bball


                              Originally posted by able View Post
                              Slowly but surely I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the same ol same ol crap.

                              How "indisputable" is it? Because you say so?
                              Or is it because you are the only one who has seen JO healthy on the court and the offense went completely stagnant?
                              He wasn't in a number of games this season, dissing 7 Ast ( 2 or 3 times already this short season) ?
                              He hasn't said he doesn't really care for his scoring numbers?
                              He doesn't take the charges, play defense, go for the boards?
                              He doesn't pass the ball well ?

                              What has the man done, besides giving his all for this ballclub, being a gentleman on and off the court, representing Indiana to the best of his ability (which is a whole lot) being the best interview, well dressed, well mannered, not gun-toting, dope carrying, traffic-violations-creating?

                              Has he taken to few charges? Do you all hold it against him that he is a 6 time All Star, whilst with the Pacers? (more then any other Pacer in history)

                              Or do you hold it against him that one of his team-mates rams his knee in practise? Or perhaps it is his fault that he tries to play whilst injured to give the team that lift it may need?

                              Of course it is his fault by not being a leader that most other players are looking up at him, that David Harrison learns his moves and controls his anger because he and JT are continuously talking to him? (watch the bench when DH comes off and see who's talking to him)

                              Yeah he's definitely the bad guy, we need to dump him as soon as possible, so we can have another guy to talk out of town.
                              Easy to predict at this moment who that's gonna be, welcome to Indy Troy Murphy.
                              My guess is Dunleavy will be shortly after that, Granger in the meanwhile is losing some support due to Shawn playing great, so by the time the season ends and he didn't live up to the hype, he may well be in line also.

                              In my opinion, this team is better with JO then without, the inside presence/threat makes the outside shots more open then they are now, because outside of JO we have little threat inside, or it must be DH growing into it, for short stints.

                              JO has proven this season he has no problem with passing and letting others make the shots, a W is a W to him, and he wants as many as possible for this team, whatever way it takes him to play.

                              The monster type of D he plays is sorely missed, otherwise no one would notice the enormous let down when he is not there, see the comments on Murphy.

                              But I forget, Ike is gonna be the new JO.

                              Ok he may be a tad short, not able to pass out of a double team to save his own life, let alone the team, but yeah, he's gonna be the next perennial All Star we have.

                              You know what, I just sad to read all that crap, not even upset, just sad, that a player who has broken so many records, been an All Star, MVP candidate and can still perform at that level is discarded so easy by whimpy opinions.
                              Yes whimpy, wait till he plays 5 or 6 games at the same level he started last year with, a lot of people will change their mind faster then light.

                              Of course in the middle of all this we now have also concluded that the people on this board know more about the team and basketball then coach O'Brien, after all he is crazy saying that nothing changes when JO is playing or not, except for missing an All Star, the man is derailed obviously, we all know better, when JO comes in the movement stops, just like in the games he played this season.......

                              For those of you who wonder why I never post anymore (and are happy for it) read what is currently written about Tinsley, who league wide is seen as a very good PG, and those that wanted him out of town for a bag of chips and preferably tarred, feathered and on a rail, are now all of a sudden willing to keep him, after how many games exactly ?

                              Those that said he could and would do this of course are the "fanboys".

                              Are we ?
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X