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

Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

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

    Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

    Game Time: Pistons 114, Pacers 110

    If the Pacers are relatively short on sheer talent, they hustle, execute and are extremely well-coached.
    Let's scrutinize Indiana's roster to discover the details.

    Danny Granger: He's strictly a rhythm shooter but, man, can he fill it! Granger can catch-and-shoot; pull-and-shoot left and right; and his pet move is to drive, bump, then step back and let it fly. His passing, however, is somewhat erratic — he can always see (six assists) but can't always deliver (six turnovers). On defense, he's merely adequate — he routinely fails to step out and help on weak-side screens and curls — but he is the Pacers' most effective shot-blocker.



    The verdict: His defense needs improving, but he's certainly a bona fide All-Star.

    T.J. Ford: For most of the game, he could bring the ball into the paint whenever he desired — and his kick-outs were right on the money. But Ford never did anything with his left hand except to set up his right-handed dribble; he forced a pair of shots; and on defense he was confounded just about every time he had to navigate past a screen.

    The verdict: Opponents' defenses would be unable to gang up on Ford as much as they do if Mike Dunleavy was around to provide another hot-shooting target for his drives-and-dishes. Still, Ford doesn't shoot, defend or go left well enough to be the full-time floor leader of a team with championship aspirations.

    Troy Murphy: He isn't much of a presence on defense where he always seems to be a half-step behind the unfolding of every play. On the other end of the court, he sets adequate screens, is an inferior passer and relies on long-range shooting. Except for his rebounding prowess and his lack of athleticism, Murphy plays like a small forward. On the one sequence where he ventured into the pivot — only because Rodney Stuckey was guarding him in a mismatched switch — Murphy ignored his 6-inch height advantage to take (and make) a twisting, off-balance, fade-away jumper.

    The verdict: If he shoots well, he plays well.

    Rasho Nesterovic: This guy is actually the fulcrum of much of Indiana's half-court offense. He receives the ball at the high post, then waits for his teammates to make various combinations of back-door cuts, back screens-and-pops, dive cuts and squeeze cuts before either passing or shooting his fairly accurate midrange jumpers. He also successfully teamed with Ford to score on a couple of nifty screen/rolls. Rasho's slow-motion lateral-movement becomes evident on defense, where he can show but is only occasionally able to recover.

    The verdict: His intelligence and strength serve to maximize his limited skills, but he's best suited to be a backup.

    Marquis Daniels: He's a slasher who makes smart and efficient cuts. Daniels is shaky with the ball in traffic, plays slightly better than average defense in iso situations, but loses his concentration when playing off-the-ball defense.

    The verdict: An energy player who would be better employed on a second unit.

    Jeff Foster: Plays the high post when Nesterovic is on the bench, has great hands and is the most athletic (as well as the best defender) of the Pacers' big men. Shoots 16-foot free throws (2-for-2), and even hit a midrange jumper from the left baseline. But his forte is rebounding.

    The verdict: One of the most underrated backup centers in the league.

    Jarrett Jack: Strong, fearless, smart — but not very smooth with the ball — and has no shooting stroke. Played good defense against Allen Iverson and Rip Hamilton — was hurt most often when he tried to top screens.

    The verdict: An excellent backup point, but one with obvious limitations.

    What's right with this team?

    Most of what Ford does. Foster's defensive rotations and rebounding. Some of what Murphy does. Their up-tempo and early-offense opportunities. Their teamwide unselfishness, discipline and hustle. Coach Jim O'Brien's ability to get his players to overachieve. And just about everything that Granger does.

    What's wrong with this team?

    Some of what Ford does. The lack of a scorer off the bench — which is why Granger plays with the second unit. The continuing absence of Dunleavy. The absence of anybody who's a threat to score in the low post. And the limited skills of all of their bigs.

    Even though the Pacers are 7-15, their winning percentage will improve when/if Dunleavy returns. But no matter what their immediate destiny might be, Indiana is still better off with Murphy and Dunleavy than they were with Jamaal Tinsley, Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson.

    At least, the Pacers currently have the kind of players that devoted Indiana fans can feel good about rooting for.

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8...ut-lack-talent
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

    But no matter what their immediate destiny might be, Indiana is still better off with Murphy and Dunleavy than they were with Jamaal Tinsley, Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson.
    Naptown Seth's head just asploded.

    the Pacers...are extremely well-coached.
    Coach Jim O'Brien's ability to get his players to overachieve.
    And so did mine.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

      Not all of this is accurate, but it's not bad and pretty objective. The title is pretty accurate too.


      Edit: No, the Pacers are not extremely well coached...and that's not the only inaccuracy.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

        I don't like how it says Jack has no shooting stroke.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

          I agree, the Pacers are extremely well-coached.

          Coaching is the least of our problems, in fact it isn't a problem at all

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            Naptown Seth's head just asploded.

            And so did mine.
            Well to be fair I was 100% behind booting Al and Tinsley, but not for off-court stuff. Al and Tins were selfish and spoiled, horrible teammates. Jack may be erratic at times but he's a good teammate and gives a crap too. If Celtics fans can put up with KG crawling on all fours at Bayless or putting his finger in Calderon's face then I could put up with Jack getting emotional with refs or the coach.

            Of course the Pacers ARE NOT without Tinsley since his contract is still on the books, and say what you will about Dun vs Jack as SGs (Dun is a better shooter and rebounder, equal on assists - yes, check the numbers, and Jack is the better defender) but I'd take Jack and his contract ON THE COURT vs Dun and his sitting on the bench.

            Tins, JO and Bender were all problems due to lingering injuries. That measuring stick must also be applied to Dunleavy and his on-going mysterious injury situation.


            Also the WINNING PCT calls bulls*** on this one anyway, like it or not.


            As I've ALWAYS said, trade Al, trade Jack, but just don't do it for worse contracts at positions you already have covered. What, GS didn't love the shot at Al? What, Jack couldn't have been traded on his own at the deadline?

            How quickly we forget that most evaluators said the key to the deal was IKE DIOGU, or in other words DOH!

            Not having Al or Jack never had to mean you must take the Dun AND Troy deals, two players GS was ready to be rid of. Tinsley is untradeable, Jackson never was close to that. Heck, Artest is more untradeable than Jack because at least you know you can count on Jack to be his consistant self.

            And as a Walsh defender I'll admit he sucked it up if we truly know he called that GS deal.

            This team IS NOT BETTER BECAUSE OF THE GS TRADE. They are better because of the brilliant JO and Bayless trades. Even with Murph playing how he is, simply because he is not the make or break guy. Who wouldn't love to trade the salaries of Dun/Troy for a single player making something in that range and coming anywhere near earning it - say Boozer or something like that.

            But you can't spend that money on that player because it's locked into Dun and Troy and will be for some time still.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

              As for the article, this is another of those very insightful, accurate evaluations we see done from time to time at a particular game. This, as I read it, is not a scouting over a long term but done in-depth at one game, the Pistons game

              So any skew might come from who is hot or cold right now too. In this case J Jack has been struggling and it's not wrong to scout him this way.

              Ford and Jack have both been having more problems lately than at the start of the season. And all of us agree that this team could use a #1 star option for Danny to play off of.

              With Rasho's deal and some of the good backup bench caliber play on the roster you could see how a team might be interested in trading a piece matching that description.

              Clearly the Pacers don't have to go anywhere near the top of the lottery in order to get unstuck. They did it in the 90's AND did it again early in 2000.

              The team has started placing itself into a situation that will allow it to adjust and improve the talent over a period of a few seasons without having to fail horribly.

              There is no shame in things not being instantly fixed.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Tins, JO and Bender were all problems due to lingering injuries. That measuring stick must also be applied to Dunleavy and his on-going mysterious injury situation.
                let's draw a comparison between the guy that played 82 games each of the last two seasons (including every game since being traded) to three injury plagued pacers. good idea.
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Well to be fair I was 100% behind booting Al and Tinsley, but not for off-court stuff. Al and Tins were selfish and spoiled, horrible teammates. Jack may be erratic at times but he's a good teammate and gives a crap too. If Celtics fans can put up with KG crawling on all fours at Bayless or putting his finger in Calderon's face then I could put up with Jack getting emotional with refs or the coach.
                  And, if Jackson brought us a title, I could live with that, too.

                  Look, I always thought that Jackson got a little more abuse than he deserved here. At the time of the GS trade, I had said that I wished we'd been able to deal Tinsley instead of Jackson.

                  However, that does not mean that I wish that Jackson was still here.

                  There no doubt that Stephen has excelled since going to Golden State. However, that success was never going to be achieved here. Right or wrong, Jackson was reviled by a large and vocal portion of this fan base. They were going to do everything they could to make his life miserable. Jackson, being the the type of personality that he is, would absolutely be adversely affected by that. Whether you believe that criticism or hatred was fair or deserved, it doesn't make it any less real. That's hardly a criticism of Jackson. It would be difficult for anyone to perform at the top of their game under such circumstances.

                  The only problem I ever had with Stephen was that he, on occasion, went screaming past the line of being a passionate player and good teammate, and danced in the realm of just being a dick. While everybody does that from time-to-time, Stephen did it just a little too often for my tastes. That being said, I wasn't ready to run him out of town.

                  Right now, this team's problem is talent and execution. I would prefer Stephen and his skill set starting at the wing opposite Danny, certainly to Quis and probably to Dunleavy. However, I think that the franchise would still be facing a lot of those old problems.

                  Also, if you undo the Murphleavy contract impact, then does the JO for Ford trade happen? Do we just replace the dollars consumed by those two with the dollars consumed by JO?

                  You've said you'd undo the GS trade. You just said that we were not better because of the GS trade. I think you're wrong on both counts. The Pacers and Stephen were both better off for the parting of the ways. If the GS deal doesn't happen, then you're basically just kicking the can down the road a bit. We have no idea what the chain of events would be if you alter that basic equation.

                  Today, we have Rush, Hibbert, Ford, and Jack as young players to go along with Danny as a young core. It's possible that we could be sitting on Jackson, Tinsley, and Harrington in those positions right now, perhaps Saras floating around the edge. If you want to undo the parts of the past that you don't like, then you have to understand that you are also undoing the parts of the present and the future that you do like.

                  Originally posted by seth
                  As I've ALWAYS said, trade Al, trade Jack, but just don't do it for worse contracts at positions you already have covered. What, GS didn't love the shot at Al? What, Jack couldn't have been traded on his own at the deadline?

                  How quickly we forget that most evaluators said the key to the deal was IKE DIOGU, or in other words DOH!

                  Not having Al or Jack never had to mean you must take the Dun AND Troy deals, two players GS was ready to be rid of. Tinsley is untradeable, Jackson never was close to that. Heck, Artest is more untradeable than Jack because at least you know you can count on Jack to be his consistant self.
                  This is both right and wrong.

                  Yes, a lot of prognosticators at the time were banking on Diogu. I hoped for much more from him, but I always stopped short of seeing him as the "key" to the trade. If you consider the analysis done by me, and others, on draft picks, Ike was the rough equivalent of getting a pick in the deal. That being said, Ike's failure does not mean that the trade was a failure. Just as Al's failure in GS doesn't mean that GS views their side as a failure.

                  However, you're not at all accurate about Jackson not being untradeable. Stephen had become an absolute pariah. Tinsley did not reach Stephen's level of toxicity until this summer. Now, the reason we can't deal Tinsley is because we won't take a GS-like deal. Artest was never more untradeable than Jackson, because many people looked at Jackson and saw similar head problems with far less talent. (Again, right or wrong, the perception was real.) You always knew you could move Artest if you discounted him enough, that was not necessarily the case with Stephen.

                  To say otherwise is revisionist history.

                  I wish Dunleavy were healthy. However, equating the current situation to JO, Tins, & Bender is a stretch. Dunleavy had missed 11 of 492 games in his first six years. Yes, this injury is unsettling, but until it's proven to be a chronic injury, there's hardly reason to lump him in with players who took years earning their injury-prone reputations at this time.

                  I'm fine with both Dunleavy and Murphy as players. I hate their contracts. Well, I don't like Junior's, and I have strong distaste for Murphy's. However, that was the price we paid to move Jackson. I thought it was too much at the time, and, while I still might, I'm a lot more comfortable with it today.

                  I can understand how you could covet Jackson's durability and defense. I could understand how you could covet Stephen's ability to get shots at the end of the game. However, I don't understand how you could forget the problems swirling around the franchise during Stephen's tenure, and how large portions of the disenchanted fanbase viewed Stephen as the poster child for all of the things that were "wrong with the Pacers".

                  That black cloud was going to hang over Stephen and the franchise for as long as he was here. Whether you agreed with it or not.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers play hard, but lack talent(SI.com)

                    "Extremely" is a pretty strong word.

                    There's a handful of extremely good NBA coaches when compared in relative terms. JOb is a nice guy and a pretty decent coach. However, I doubt that an "extremely" good coach would have this record with this team. More precisely, I don't think an "extremely" good coach would have lost the Philly game.

                    I'm not that down on JOb. I do see flaws and I don't agree with him planting McRoberts and Baston on the bench never to see the light of day. I also don't agree with this stats-based decision to bench Brandon Rush.

                    With that said, JOb is a good NBA coach, but the term extreme should be reserved for very few coaches in this league.

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X