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

A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

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

  • #31
    Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
    Back to the idea that Larry didn't really want Shawne:

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/willi...te_060629.html





    I wish I could quote the first words out of Donnie's mouth, too, but he wasn't at the PC.

    And here's the first line from Conrad's draft night article.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/draft_060628.html



    The draft that year was during the "long and lean" phase when we didn't consider character in our plans. The result was players like James White, Rawle Marshall and Shawne Williams. There's no question Larry was signed up for that plan IMHO.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

      Oh man, that brings back some bad memories.

      Originally posted by Larry Legend
      "When you get down here and you talk to the press about your players you always say how great they are," Bird said. "But we're really excited about this, we really are. … We just can't believe what we did tonight. We're really proud of it."

      ...

      "I'm really pleased with both our picks," Bird said. "James White, we had him very high on our board. We could've taken him at 17 just as easy. We're very happy we got both of them. I think you can see we're going more athletic now, longer guys. I can envision them guys being out there playing this year. As time goes on you'll see what I see in these players because they're very athletic and have a lot of talent. … To come away with these two guys, we've got to be very happy."

      ...

      To obtain White, the Pacers traded their No. 45 pick, Florida State power forward Alexander Johnson, and two future second-round picks to Portland. The Blazers will receive Indiana's second-round pick in 2007 and the worst of two second-round picks in 2008; the Pacers own Phoenix's second-rounder that year from the James Jones trade.

      "It's a bargain, believe me," Bird said. "You'll see that in the next few weeks."
      Argh.

      Originally posted by Larry Legend
      Bird shrugged off criticism of the Williams selection by ESPN analysts Jay Bilas and Greg Anthony, who both questioned his focus and commitment.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

        So, Tbird, while I respect you tons, I'm thinking retraction here.

        Originally posted by tbird
        1. I no longer believe SHAWNE WILLIAMS was truly Larry Bird's guy in the draft a few years ago.....that move has Donnie Walsh written all over it. Bird seems to value guys who are mature, established in their positions, who can help right away. Williams was the exact opposite of that prototype. However, he fits the Walsh type of player, (especially as Donnie grew older) a player who can play multiple spots with a large amount of "upside". Bird was forced to explain that pick on national TV, and to our fanbase, but my thought is looking back he did as he was told to do and nothing else.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          So, Tbird, while I respect you tons, I'm thinking retraction here.
          No, there will be no retraction.

          There is simply no way to tell what is actually the truth with these public statements, and what was simply positive propoganda Bird was feeding us, perhaps because he really believed it, or perhaps because he was simply told to do so by Donnie Walsh.

          In writing this article, I reviewed some of the comments you guys are quoting too. I understand where you are coming from, and perhaps you are right and I am wrong...we will just never know for sure. One thing I think might be valuable for some of you to do is to actually watch the video of Bird saying all of this, and see if it really looks to you as if he believes what he is saying. I really dont think he did....I think he was just being a company man, trying to make his boss look good by supporting decisions that he himself wouldnt have made.

          The interview on television after Bird selected Williams is one example of what I am talking about, and I watched it again before writing this. While I realize Larry is uncomfortable on television anyway, when watching that tape my conclusion at the time (and many other media people thought so too) was that the Pacers had missed who they truly wanted in that draft and were forced to settle on a player that they had rated lower. Bird's statements may read happy about that draft, but actually watch him delivering those quotes and you'll see where my thinking comes from. It appears as though Bird has just lost his dog in that interview.....he looks sad, and his enthusiasm looks completely false to me.

          Of course, we will never know if I'm right or wrong, it is just interesting speculation at this time. Clearly, the elimination of the two headed monster is the most positive happening in our franchise in quite a while, as now there is no doubt who is in charge. Having one clear leader is always the best way to lead a big organization.....committees don't work.

          It is also possible Larry just made mistakes back then, and has learned from them and adjusted accordingly. That was suggested earlier by a poster in this thread, and if that version is true it certainly wouldnt be the worst thing. That would show a lot about Larry's capacity to successfully do this job.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

            Maybe we should get one of those people from Bill O'Reilly to read Larry's body language and tell us what he's really thinking. Silly me, I thought Larry Bird was above blatantly and repeatedly taking credit for what other's do. Here's a thought, if Donnie was pulling his strings, maybe he would use "we" instead of "I" time after time after time.

            But enough about the past. Tbird, do you really think the two-headed monster is gone? With Simon, Morris, and Morway all with executive level responsibility, one could make the argument a hyrda has come up in it's place.

            I can see it now, the next time Larry screws up:

            - If it's misjudging talent, that's Morways fault, Larry should have gone with his gut, instead of listening to him and the scouts (even though Larry restaffed the scouting department long ago.)
            - If we spend too much or too little, it's Simon's fault, because he's micro-managing the finances and won't let Larry do the right thing.
            - If we reach on a milk drinker and get burned, it's Morris. PR shouldn't get in the way of constructing a basketball team.
            - Almost forgot. If a player gets in trouble, that's Sam Perkins' fault. His only job is to keep these guys' noses clean, and he can't even do that.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

              I completely understand Hibbert ... but how does Rush not fit what O'Brien does? He shoots the 3 well, and plays defense .... that's one hell of a start compared to the players we have had here.

              -- Steve --

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                to echo what some others have said...

                SHAWNE WILLIAMS

                if larry hasn't been working on the draft and just let donnie make that type of decision, what the hell has larry been doing (seeing as his main responsibility was the draft)?

                i think more than body language, more than playing a good soldier -- the drafting of shawne williams has more to do with "different time, different state" for the pacers. yes the brawl had occured and artest had been shipped out. but
                • the sjax shooting
                • the quis/tinsley bar fight
                • the shawne traffic stop
                • tinsley being shot at
                • the sexual assault at quis' home
                • the murderer at shawne's house
                none of that had happened yet and the seats weren't nearly as empty. when we drafted shawne we weren't making character the priority it is today. on top of that, at the time shawne was drafted we still had a fairly veteran team, we could take a chance on a guy that would take a few years to develop. i believe the same guy can draft different ways two years apart - i don't feel it is remotely obvious that donnie was responsible.

                JIM O'BRIEN

                i'm of the opinion that o'brien was a bird hire.

                i also believe that he was the choice more for financial reasons than the ability to lead the pacers to a championship.

                larry has never wanted to bottom-out, he wanted a culture change after carlisle -- stan van gundy fit that bill but clearly the money the pacers wanted to pay wasn't enough for him. jim o'brien fits that bill too at a much cheaper cost (which was important as the pacers were paying carlisle to be an analyst for ESPN.) bird wanted to get back into the playoffs and you don't do that by gambling on an unknown (like jim boylan or chuck person) you do that by going with a guy that has been to the playoffs (and in this case the ECF.)

                i look at o'brien as a transition guy: someone that changes the culture of the team, before we bring a 'closer' coach in.

                THE DRAFT / TRADES

                you also make mention of o'brien wanting a legitimate post scorer and i think that is silly. when has he ever had or used a legitimate post offensive option? tony battie? mark blount? JO was the closest thing to a low-post option and he hasn't spent any significant time there for years. i think roy, while not as agile, is at least as competent a post-scorer as battie.

                i also think that (while true bayless could have fit the o'brien offense better given his one-on-one skills) the fact that we didn't have a problem scoring as much as we had a problem not stopping the other team from scoring played more into the bayless/rush,jack trade. they're not ideal fits for o'brien's offense but they fit enough. jack and rush clearly improve our perimeter defense and rush is able to knock down a three pointer (obviously something valued by o'brien), jack can occasionally do the same. but i think the key was getting players that can fit into o'brien's defensive system.




                as always, just my opinions about your opinions
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                  Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                  These posts are far too long tbird. I appreciate the fact that most folks enjoy your posts but at the same time, you seemingly cannot make a post that is not 15+ paragraphs. There is something to be said for the ability to summarize and post your thoughts in a succinct manner.
                  I really, really, really, disagree with you!!!!

                  The more a good poster like T-Bird writes the more I like it!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    I really, really, really, disagree with you!!!!

                    The more a good poster like T-Bird writes the more I like it!
                    As do I.
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                      I'm too lazy to go back and re-read T-Bird's original post so he
                      may have already mentioned this. But with respect to Rush and
                      Jack, one way they'll presumably 'fit' what O'B wants to do is
                      be helping generate some offense via their perimeter defense.
                      Between those two and Ford out front, we should see more
                      (any might be more !) deflections and steals leading directly
                      to transition offense than we saw last year.

                      As for Hibbert, who knows. If nothing else, we can run a high
                      pick and pop with him and actually have a big capable of both
                      setting the pick and then hitting the shot. I've seen more than
                      enough of Foster out there setting that screen and then his
                      defender simply ignoring the shot option.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                        Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                        There is something to be said for the ability to summarize and post your thoughts in a succinct manner.
                        Big Smooth is right. Let's not ridicule him for saying this. But it's no knock on Thunderbird, either. Not everybody on this forum is a professional writer, and posts that are a little too long or even incoherent are part of the fun.

                        Thunderbird is not as succinct as he could be, but that's because he's a coach rather than a writer. He's got a lot to say. A few lengthy paragraphs is not too high a price to pay for his insights.


                        -----

                        Nevertheless, I think he's over-analyzed this issue.


                        .
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                          While I might be willing to give Larry a cleaner slate, I can't say he had nothing to do with the decisions made. I'm waiting to hear that Donnie was wearing a Bird mask when he posed with Ron on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
                          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                            Generally I don't like a guy who talks all the time.

                            Unless he's very entertaining.

                            TBird's pretty darn interesting. We'll give him a pass.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                              Originally posted by Ramitt View Post
                              Oh really? who told you that Donnie or Larry?
                              Donnie said it back then and meant it.

                              Put it this way -- there have been two main decisions made that were Larry's when DW was still around: (1) Trade with GSW and (2) the hiring of JOB.

                              When Larry makes a move, he makes it quietly. Only he and Mullin knew about the GSW/IND trade until the last possible moment (aka approvals). It was the same with the JOB hiring.

                              Go back to both of these moments -- no one heard rumblings about the GSW trade until it went to the league for approval. No one heard rumblings about JOB until it was officially announced. In regards to JOB, everyone but JOB was rumored to be the next guy.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                                JOB had stop-gap written all over him from day one. I'm certain he will get his chance, but there are those coaches who ride out the rough years just in time to be dumped as the team comes together and the star coach is brought in. No doubt JOB came cheaper than Stan Van Gundy and would be less painful to dump after 2-3 years of rough rebuilding.

                                1. I no longer believe SHAWNE WILLIAMS was truly Larry Bird's guy in the draft a few years ago.....that move has Donnie Walsh written all over it. Bird seems to value guys who are mature, established in their positions, who can help right away. Williams was the exact opposite of that prototype. However, he fits the Walsh type of player, (especially as Donnie grew older) a player who can play multiple spots with a large amount of "upside". Bird was forced to explain that pick on national TV, and to our fanbase, but my thought is looking back he did as he was told to do and nothing else.
                                I don't agree with this. It was apparently Bird who traveled to Memphis and saw them play early in the season, hooking into him right from the start. Shawne happened to have a hotter first half than second half that year anyway, which helps fuel this view as possible.

                                Bird as coach was when DW made moves for both Harrington and Bender. JO was not a multiple position kid, Tinsley wasn't either. I don't think Donnie was showing some signs of chasing young kids, that's happened mostly when both Bird and DW were together.

                                I think that NOW Bird has a new outlook on age. I think Shawne burned Larry with his immaturity and paired with Al/Bender and the overall team situation that Larry decided that he had to take a NEW approach and focus on mature players of high personal character.

                                Plus Larry had a team with 3 major flaws. No quality size with JO moved and David not signed (and even prior to this it's questionable), no true SG and no quality SG defense, horrible PG defense and no PG of quality starting ability on offense either.

                                Those were complaints during the season, and from JOB. I think Ford/Jack/Rush help deny those drive and kicks to the corner that punish the system he and Harter are trying to run, and then I think Hibbert is meant to keep the team from getting destroyed by inside size as well.


                                I think your fault here Tbird is seeing JOB as an offensive coach and considering his offensive system. He doesn't have one, so I don't think he has a problem with a team running sets and screens as long as they get up court to start them quickly.

                                JOB is NOT a "fastbreak" coach, he's a "get it into the front court and start something before the defense can setup" coach. That doesn't mean you don't run plays, it just means you don't p*** around getting to the starting point for them.

                                Certainly Roy can trail that and work the high post early in the play. And then they'll post him up from time to time. All this "JO gave in to JOB's system" was total bunk. When JO returned he got low posted 5 of 8 or 9 plays by my estimate. In other words more than half of the offense was still going through JO and the low block. Starting that sooner doesn't make it fastbreaking, but it does make it uptempo.


                                OTOH I think JOB is extremely concerned with the defense and in that way all the moves are 100% geared toward his coaching. Bayless is NOT a defender. Rush is, big time. Rush is a tip-your-man's-dribble guy, he's a back door rebound guy, block your man out guy and gets out on the break.

                                If starting the offense with the defense is your goal then Ford/Jack and Rush as the backcourt is a major improvement. If Hibbert can clear the ball fairly well then he fits that mold well too.



                                In the end I don't think it's 100% about JOB anyway. I think Bird is looking for true balance as well as restructured finances. The moves this year are step 1 and I'm expecting more to come next summer (Dun or Troy).
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-05-2008, 03:15 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X