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

Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

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

  • #91
    Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

    Bill - it's not a defensive thing so much because as you say Bynum gave Roy problems too. But Roy gave the Lakers problems inside right back. Who else does that?

    And once you are getting rolled in the 3rd you bring in McBob and Solo so you can keep playing a physical game and perhaps wear them down a bit. It's not rocket science, it's standard strategy and it works.


    I hate dismissing a massive wreck because we weren't going to win the race anyway. Let's find the limits on Josh and let's get he and Solo some work in against real challenges in the hopes that we can develop them.

    Right now they are on the same development plan I am - we all sit and watch the game.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Buck, I want this direct answer - how would it have been worse to let Josh go out and get beat by Bynum?
      When are you talking about? When we are down by 3 and what we are doing seems to be having a chance at working? When we are down by 10 and need someone to try to spur a comeback? Or when we are down by 15 or 20?

      At what point is going deep into the bench "trying something different that just might work" and at what point is it "give up and start garbage time"?

      I understand that every time Josh isn't used it's an opportunity to claim we could have still lost with him on the floor, but some people actually don't count the game as lost until it gets to those last few minutes.

      I think you have to get Josh into the rotation somehow before you just toss him in. I don't know how you do that without convincing O'Brien he's worth playing. If you haven't convinced JOB of that, then he isn't just going to throw Josh into the game when we might still have the gas to keep it close and win. One follows the other, no matter what fans think.
      BillS

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

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Either you give the coach some credit for the wins and losses or you don't give him credit for either. You can't say mix and match. Blame him for everything this season and give him almost no credit for last season. If you want to say he didn't get us the 36 wins last season then you can't being fair give him all the blame for only 25 wins this season.
        I'm not sure how excited I should be over 36 wins last season.... or in any season. O'Brien's flaws were clearly evident last season. Last year several times it seemed he was about to lose the team and yet somehow they came back around. That may have had more to do with Jarret Jack than it did O'Brien though... at least looking back in retrospect.

        But the hope was there was a method to the madness and getting a few defenders in here he'd put some discipline in his system and bring things around. Instead, as far as I am concerned, he proved what people like Since 86 have been saying all along.

        The first year I thought he was allowing the players to get some confidence in themselves again. I probably deluded myself into that line of thinking. Last season I started to become skeptical because he wasn't fixing 'problems'.... he was continuing down the same stubborn path.

        Bad basketball is bad basketball and Jim O'Brien preaches bad basketball. I don't care what he says , I can see how he coaches the team on the floor.

        He's a horrible, horrible coach and the quicker he's gone the better for myself... and the franchise.

        No, he's not 'bad' in the same way Isiah Thomas was bad. I think O'Brien could scrap his experiment in a system that tries to turn basketball fundamentals on their azz and he actually has the knowledge to do things right and maximize the players and team he does have. But he doesn't have the desire to do that and completely refuses to do that. I don't think Isiah could be anything but a bad coach. But really, that makes him and Isiah both mad scientists in the final analysis and it means both were bad basketball coaches with this franchise. Sorry... I got ahead of myself there... O'Brien is STILL a bad basketball coach for this franchise. A horrible, horrible coach...
        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


        • #94
          Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

          Originally posted by BillS View Post

          At what point is going deep into the bench "trying something different that just might work" and at what point is it "give up and start garbage time"?

          I understand that every time Josh isn't used it's an opportunity to claim we could have still lost with him on the floor, but some people actually don't count the game as lost until it gets to those last few minutes.
          The difference is easy. When you take out ALL of the rotation players, and put all of the guys that play the least back on the court..then it's garbage time.

          I would have thought playing Josh might have been a good idea when we were down ten, and CLEARLY getting beat on the inside.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

            Note to Jim: When everyone keeps telling you that you have a tail, maybe you should turn around and take a look.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Buck, I want this direct answer - how would it have been worse to let Josh go out and get beat by Bynum?

              You are already losing, there are only 2 outcomes here - Josh also gets killed or Josh does better to some degree. IMO it's almost like both you and JOB are scared to find out that McBob is capable of getting it done because it would force people to face up to it.
              Maybe O'Brien is trying to avoid the dreaded QB controversy... He doesn't want to be asked to change his philosophy if a bench guy would show fans (or owners or management) a better look or better basketball with the team than what he (O'Brien) is presenting using his method.
              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


              • #97
                Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                See, its stuff like this that makes me think you just like to play devils advocate.

                Jeff Foster in his prime, I would agree, but he has not been a very good player for two years now. Now, Foster is slow on defense and still a black hole on offense. In fact, he averages 8.5 fouls per 48 to Hibbert's 7.1. Foster has taken many steps back over the last two seasons. If Foster was still a good defender, he would be more effective, but he really isn't even that anymore.
                I did say a healthy Jeff Foster

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  .

                  Buck, I want this direct answer - how would it have been worse to let Josh go out and get beat by Bynum?

                  You are already losing, there are only 2 outcomes here - Josh also gets killed or Josh does better to some degree. IMO it's almost like both you and JOB are scared to find out that McBob is capable of getting it done because it would force people to face up to it.
                  I believe Josh doesn't have NBA talent or skill. He won't be in the NBA in a year or two - he'll join Eddie Gill and John Anderson. I know you disagree with me, but I firmly believe what I believe so yes he'd do horribly against Bynum and he'll give us nothing at the offensive end. Murphy is a threat offensively, he did and does draw Bynum way from the basket - Josh would not do that. So why waste your time giving Josh any minutes.

                  I'm not scared of what Josh is capable of doing, I just don't see an NBA player when I see him play real minutes - garbage time I don't consider.

                  Your approach of it can't get any worse is something I don't ever want the pacers to take approach.

                  Seth you asked an earlier question about what coach would with this record last (you said -
                  Forget JOB, let's call this Coach X of NotThePacers. Look at the 3 years. Find me a coach with those 3 straight win totals that kept his job even without taking any of the current/ongoing criticism into the equation.What kind of coach survives this for a 4th year?
                  First we are a year and a half away from Jim surviving his 4th year. He hasn't survived his 3rd year yet. But a lot of coaches have survuved 2.5 years and have had a worse record than Jim - it is going to take me a little time to research this, but I'm not sure it is worth my time. Before I take the time please let me know this is worth my time, otherwise I'll just leave it at that..

                  Seth do you completely discount what the coaches see from Josh in practice - does that have zero value. The pacers right now have the worst bigs in the NBA as a group and you seem to think that Josh is some diamond in the rough - all he needs is time and he'll blosson into a decent rotation player - wel, we need all the help we can possibly get at the big position, I am 100% convinced that if the coaches saw something in Josh during practice that he would be getting some regular minutes. (Obviously most of the people in this forum believe that JOB is just a terrible coach, so they don't trust him to see a player play in practice. Interesting when you consider that is exactly how Price started getting time)
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-29-2010, 09:03 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    I'm not sure how excited I should be over 36 wins last season.... or in any season. O'Brien's flaws were clearly evident last season. Last year several times it seemed he was about to lose the team and yet somehow they came back around. That may have had more to do with Jarret Jack than it did O'Brien though... at least looking back in retrospect.
                    So how many wins should the Pacers have won last season? Bball no I am never excited about 36 wins - but looking at the talent last season and the overall play of the team, I thought and still think that the Pacers were well coached. I'm repeating myself now. Sorry

                    Comment


                    • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      So how many wins should the Pacers have won last season? Bball no I am never excited about 36 wins - but looking at the talent last season and the overall play of the team, I thought and still think that the Pacers were well coached. I'm repeating myself now. Sorry
                      Just think of how many games they could've won with a healthy Jeff Foster playing alongside Hibbert or even Granger at the 4 instead of Murph with JJack leading the team... Alas, we will never know because our coach would never try that lineup. We need to stretch the defense, and Hibbert or your boy, Jeff doesn't do that.

                      I will say it, they would've made the playoffs with Rick coaching that team. Hell, they might've made it to the 2nd round.

                      A defense first attitude wins games. I know you dig that philosophy, you were one of the last Artest supporters along with me and I know you loved that 03-04 team as much as I did.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        So how many wins should the Pacers have won last season? Bball no I am never excited about 36 wins - but looking at the talent last season and the overall play of the team, I thought and still think that the Pacers were well coached. I'm repeating myself now. Sorry
                        You will likely dismiss this as nutty, which is OK and understandable at this point, but I really felt, as I watched the games last year, that O'B caused us to lose about 10 more games than we should have with all things being equal due to his reliance on TJ down the stretch, or his insistence on continuing to shoot threes in games where we had leads early in the 4th when the guys plainly had lost their legs and their shots were coming up short, or taking healthy players who were playing well and actually improving team play on the floor out of games at whatever his prescribed interval was during his pregame plan without regard to what was going on in front of his eyes on the floor, as well as his maddening tendency to not call timeouts to stop either our poor play or to disrupt the rhythm of opposing teams who got hot against us offensively.

                        Yes, that would have been 46 wins (no green required on this number), and 6th seed in the East, which seems ludicrous at this point since we supposedly have such an "improved" roster . At times it almost appeared to be blatant sandbagging in my opinion, but if so even that was mismanaged. Who would want to end up where we did in the standings? 36 W's is no man's land.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I believe Josh doesn't have NBA talent or skill. He won't be in the NBA in a year or two - he'll join Eddie Gill and John Anderson. I know you disagree with me, but I firmly believe what I believe so yes he'd do horribly against Bynum and he'll give us nothing at the offensive end. Murphy is a threat offensively, he did and does draw Bynum way from the basket - Josh would not do that. So why waste your time giving Josh any minutes.

                          I'm not scared of what Josh is capable of doing, I just don't see an NBA player when I see him play real minutes - garbage time I don't consider.

                          Your approach of it can't get any worse is something I don't ever want the pacers to take approach.

                          Seth you asked an earlier question about what coach would with this record last (you said -

                          First we are a year and a half away from Jim surviving his 4th year. He hasn't survived his 3rd year yet. But a lot of coaches have survuved 2.5 years and have had a worse record than Jim - it is going to take me a little time to research this, but I'm not sure it is worth my time. Before I take the time please let me know this is worth my time, otherwise I'll just leave it at that..

                          Seth do you completely discount what the coaches see from Josh in practice - does that have zero value. The pacers right now have the worst bigs in the NBA as a group and you seem to think that Josh is some diamond in the rough - all he needs is time and he'll blosson into a decent rotation player - wel, we need all the help we can possibly get at the big position, I am 100% convinced that if the coaches saw something in Josh during practice that he would be getting some regular minutes. (Obviously most of the people in this forum believe that JOB is just a terrible coach, so they don't trust him to see a player play in practice. Interesting when you consider that is exactly how Price started getting time)
                          UB, great points.

                          Of course message board coaches know more about the players because they actually see them in practice.

                          The Pacers are doing Josh a huge favor by having him on the team as no other NBA seemed to want him.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                            Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                            UB, great points.

                            Of course message board coaches know more about the players because they actually see them in practice.

                            The Pacers are doing Josh a huge favor by having him on the team as no other NBA seemed to want him.
                            Your analysis could be thrown right back at you.

                            What have we seen of Josh? Everytime he is on the floor he contributes. He plays well enough to be in the NBA.

                            Are you one of the coaching staff? Do you get to see these practices where Josh stinks it up so bad on a regular basis that you conclude he does not belong in the NBA?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                              Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                              Your analysis could be thrown right back at you.

                              What have we seen of Josh? Everytime he is on the floor he contributes. He plays well enough to be in the NBA.

                              Are you one of the coaching staff? Do you get to see these practices where Josh stinks it up so bad on a regular basis that you conclude he does not belong in the NBA?
                              So, as has been said, it all comes down to opinion. Does the coaching staff suck so bad that they have The Answer on the bench and can't see it? Or is the spot performance in games a short-term thing that can't be considered sustainable due to performance in practice? Or, is AI right and practice doesn't matter?

                              The thing is I think we have no one who has observed both practice and games. You do have the conspiracy theories about Bird forcing JOB to play people the fordits (forum pundits) think he wouldn't play otherwise, so you have to include Bird in the list of people who are blind to Josh's superior abilities.

                              And yes, Seth, I know you can give stat after stat of how Josh affects games and how good he is on the floor. But until we understand why he isn't playing those stats aren't going to change anything, so they aren't the point here.
                              BillS

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

                              Comment


                              • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                So, as has been said, it all comes down to opinion. Does the coaching staff suck so bad that they have The Answer on the bench and can't see it? Or is the spot performance in games a short-term thing that can't be considered sustainable due to performance in practice? Or, is AI right and practice doesn't matter?

                                The thing is I think we have no one who has observed both practice and games. You do have the conspiracy theories about Bird forcing JOB to play people the fordits (forum pundits) think he wouldn't play otherwise, so you have to include Bird in the list of people who are blind to Josh's superior abilities.

                                And yes, Seth, I know you can give stat after stat of how Josh affects games and how good he is on the floor. But until we understand why he isn't playing those stats aren't going to change anything, so they aren't the point here.
                                Add to this the fact that Bird had come out several times during the offseason, if I recall correctly, saying what a big part of the future that Josh McRoberts was going to be, and I believe he actually mentioned him more than most of our young players. Why would Bird have done that unless he actually thought it to be true? He DOES see him practice, and he does see him outside of games.

                                In my opinion, Josh doesn't play because he cannot be like Troy Murphy and hit 40%+ from the arc, whether it be during games or practices.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X