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

Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

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

  • #61
    Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    If we drafted Turner Rush would make an ideal sixth man who can play the 2 or the 3. I wouldn't trade him at all.
    I'd be very tempted to keep both Rush and Turner. Turner is an atypical perimeter in that he is capable of doing a lot of things that make Brandon Roy so valuable for Portland. The position isn't as important with players like Brandon Roy or Evan Turner because they are so versatile. For example, they could make an impact with their passing and helping facilitate the offense even if they are at 2 or 3. Rush would probably love to play on the floor with somebody like Turner, who would help Rush with his current limitations with ball handling and shot creation (not an attack on Rush; just saying these aren't his strong points). Turner wouldn't have a problem setting up his teammates and making them better, and Rush would be happy to let other players handle the ball. Add a PF to Granger, Hibbert, Turner, Rush, and Price (maybe Tyler as well if he heals up) and you have a great core of players.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

      Is it impossible for people around here to stay on topic and not let every single thread deteriorate into the exact same arguments in every thread?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
        Is it impossible for people around here to stay on topic and not let every single thread deteriorate into the exact same arguments in every thread?
        That's EASY!

        Yes.

        You wouldn't ask this question if Jim O'Brien could coach his way into tanking because Troy Murphy stole rebounds from Tyler Hansbrough's Post-Concussion Syndrome diagnosis that was delivered on the draft selection of DeJuan Blair torn up by Larry Bird.
        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


        • #64
          Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          That's EASY!

          Yes.

          You wouldn't ask this question if Jim O'Brien could coach his way into tanking because Troy Murphy stole rebounds from Tyler Hansbrough's Post-Concussion Syndrome diagnosis that was delivered on the draft selection of DeJuan Blair torn up by Larry Bird causing McRoberts to be irrelevant.
          Fixed.
          Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Tyme, let me just put it this way, and be truthful with your response, give it some honest thought:

            Do you believe this team would have 20-21 wins right now if Rick Carlisle was here instead of JOB?

            I can't. When I think about it, I just can't see that being the case. With Carlisle and this collection of players, we'd be vying for a playoff seed right now. Deep down, you know this. That indicates right there a coaching problem, not a personnel problem. Ya, the personnel could be improved, we are not the most talented team in the league, but a coaches job is to *maximize* the production with the players he has and do you honestly feel that this team currently has maximized production? The talent of this team has not decreased THAT much from last year. You could argue that it hasn't gone down at all. Was Jarrett Jack really worth 10-15 wins all by himself? Really? Maceo Baston and Rasho that much better than the two Jones? I'm not thinking so. There is a *clear*, visible, on-the-court difference in production and effectiveness across the board for this team from last year to this year.

            ----------------
            As for Rush/McKey, they're only under-achievers when over-expectations are applied to them. Both of those guys were key contributors to very strong teams, and that's what you have to realize. Not everyone is built to be showcased --- and that's fine! I completely understand and appreciate their type of play as I've watched more and more basketball over the years, and played basketball myself. Those guys might not fill up the scoreboard, but they do *everything* else that puts your team in position to win, and on occasion they might even light it up. But they're not Danny Granger, and Danny Granger is not Brandon Rush, and trust me, there are things that Rush does a lot better than Granger. You have to realize that not everyone is going to develop into Scottie Pippen or whoever. Every player has their strengths and weaknesses, some more than others.

            Rush is almost on par to Foster in terms of overall defensive contribution and rebounding at their respective positions, and yet I can guarantee you don't hold both guys to the same offensive expectations, and that right there is not reasonable. You expect Rush to be what, a 20ppg scorer for $2mil a year and he hasn't even finished his second season? He's already at 10ppg. This last month, he's at 13ppg and 6rpg, on top of defending the opponent's top offensive wing player. He obviously has things to improve, but.... duh, lol. He's in his 2nd season. He will do that. There's a perspective thing here, hand in hand with expectations. He'll get there eventually, just gotta be realistic and patient.

            In answer to your question, I'm not a RC proponent, I believe the current team would have a better record than current record with RC coaching. How much? Not that much to be in the 7-8 spot of the playoffs. What you apparently have forgotten is Carlisle was like Jimmy in he relied on and played his vets over youth. I'd like to have a dollar for every time a post complaining about that exact samething was posted. I'd have enough $$ to go on a cruise.

            This deal of RC guiding the team after the brawl as if it was his coaching doesn't hold that much water with me. You and others are saying it was Carlisle's coaching that accomplished that. Refresh my memory, how many points, rebs, asts, steals, etc per game did Carlisle average that year? He didn't! It was the players. They were playing with PRIDE and an agenda to win over adversity and Carlisle happen to be the coach that helped guide the team. You need to go back to the archives and revisit how fans viewed Carlisle and his coaching for your memory is waning on what others were posting in regards to Carlisle's coaching. Now, b4 you ask, do I feel RC was a better coach than Jimmy? In some aspects, such as "D", but similiar in others such as relying on playing vets. I'm not sure if Carlisle would have given any of the young'ns the PT they have gotten under Jimmy. ("Yes UB, I said it.") I could say the same about Brown not playing youth that much as well.



            For some reason, you and others feel I only see "O" #'s and am evaluating Rush by this. Please go back to any of my posts and point out I ever said that! READ one more time folks, I have a problem with Rush's inconsistant play. He's not making the best use of his GOD given talent to be the best player he can be. I'll concede he's in his 2nd year, but I don't like seeing the tendancy of waiting until the last 20 games to start playing a TOTAL game. It just plain and simple upsets me.

            AND to whoever said Bayless was a bust your credibility took a big time nose dive, and I'm not even a Bayless supporter. Bayless IS NOT a bust by any stretch of the imagination. He's a 2nd year player just like the anointed Rush. Let's talk about whether he was a bust in his 5th year.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
              I have a response for you (2 words), but it would get me banned.

              So, I'll take the high road, refrain from childish stuff and simply ask you where you feel that JOB was instrumental in Rush going from bad to decent ??
              Doubt that some here can grasp actual coaching tactics, but sitting a player when they don't do the things you want them to is an actual method used by coaches to get the players to come around to the coaches way of thinking.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                In answer to your question, I'm not a RC proponent, I believe the current team would have a better record than current record with RC coaching. How much? Not that much to be in the 7-8 spot of the playoffs. What you apparently have forgotten is Carlisle was like Jimmy in he relied on and played his vets over youth. I'd like to have a dollar for every time a post complaining about that exact samething was posted. I'd have enough $$ to go on a cruise.

                This deal of RC guiding the team after the brawl as if it was his coaching doesn't hold that much water with me. You and others are saying it was Carlisle's coaching that accomplished that. Refresh my memory, how many points, rebs, asts, steals, etc per game did Carlisle average that year? He didn't! It was the players. They were playing with PRIDE and an agenda to win over adversity and Carlisle happen to be the coach that helped guide the team. You need to go back to the archives and revisit how fans viewed Carlisle and his coaching for your memory is waning on what others were posting in regards to Carlisle's coaching. Now, b4 you ask, do I feel RC was a better coach than Jimmy? In some aspects, such as "D", but similiar in others such as relying on playing vets. I'm not sure if Carlisle would have given any of the young'ns the PT they have gotten under Jimmy. ("Yes UB, I said it.") I could say the same about Brown not playing youth that much as well.



                For some reason, you and others feel I only see "O" #'s and am evaluating Rush by this. Please go back to any of my posts and point out I ever said that! READ one more time folks, I have a problem with Rush's inconsistant play. He's not making the best use of his GOD given talent to be the best player he can be. I'll concede he's in his 2nd year, but I don't like seeing the tendancy of waiting until the last 20 games to start playing a TOTAL game. It just plain and simple upsets me.

                AND to whoever said Bayless was a bust your credibility took a big time nose dive, and I'm not even a Bayless supporter. Bayless IS NOT a bust by any stretch of the imagination. He's a 2nd year player just like the anointed Rush. Let's talk about whether he was a bust in his 5th year.
                So, the Pacers get to the playoffs following the worst incident in NBA history with a rag-tag bunch and most of our top players suspended or injured most of the year, and you give no credit to the coach...

                But when we have most of our core players this year and we underperform, you lay no blame on the coach.

                Got it.

                Btw, the mentality around Pacerland when Carlisle directed us to the playoffs that year was pretty damn good in favor of Carlisle... there were some saying he deserved CotY consideration. It was a helluva job.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-12-2010, 03:03 PM.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

                  But when we have most of our core players this year and we underperform, you lay no blame on the coach.

                  Wow, there you go again saying things I supposedly said. I have never not put blame on Jimmy for his coaching. You know the system I constantly refer to as "helter skelter run n gun with little "D". You remind me of kids who only remember what benefits them or what is convenient for them to remember. I refer to that as "selective memory" and some seem to have a bad case of it.


                  PLEASE, don't act like the Pacers only achieved what they did b/c of Carlisle! You act like Carlisle did all by himself. I guess the players contributions and achievements under adverse circumstances didn't count, just Carlisle's coaching.

                  AGAIN, Rush is underachieving being the total player he could be by his own inconsistancy. He needs to bring his total game each and every time not the last 20 games of each season. If he wants to be a starter and play starter minutes, he needs to bring consistancy each game, or he needs to be a rotional bench player getting less PT. Either or! Personally, I hope he gets it together, but if he doesn't/can't I have no problem seeing him traded.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                    All you're stating, Tyme, is your opinion. It's not fact. Rush is only underachieving in your eyes, not necessarily other people's.

                    You're arguing half a dozen to my 6. Lol, not gonna keep going around and around with you. I'm a fellow Pacer fan, you don't need to get crappy and condescending.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                      Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                      Doubt that some here can grasp actual coaching tactics, but sitting a player when they don't do the things you want them to is an actual method used by coaches to get the players to come around to the coaches way of thinking.
                      And there's the concept of giving a player an opportunity to do what you want him to do.

                      We can (but won't) argue this forever and I still won't give JOB any credit for the way Rush has changed his game in the 2nd half of the season.

                      It's all irrelevant.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                        "Brandon's a great person, first and foremost, and he works extremely hard," Jones said. "He's a great teammate and guys root for him and genuinely care about the guy and want him to be successful.

                        "We all know his potential. He's a work in progress. He understands that. He doesn't really get frustrated much, he just stays working at his craft, trying to get better."
                        Now which language is it that this means "wanders through life, we never know what will get out of him and he has no confidence either"?

                        By "his craft" does Dahntay mean "professional wanderer or flake, possible Lebowski impersonator"?

                        I'm just trying to reconcile with the informed opinion JOB gave of Brandon just about 5 weeks ago.



                        I'm really getting sick of the puff piece cover stories that act surprised every time Rush has a high scoring game. The angle is tired, and kinda stupid when you see 15 articles or post-game comments like it in one season. How can a guy always be breaking out, showing up, finally playing well?

                        Does the 20 point game this week make the 20 point game 2 weeks ago disappear or something?



                        I'm not trying to be Rush-defensive as much as to me this angle has just become silly. There's almost no actual data to back it, the guy has been having a very solid, steady progress the entire time he's been here, and the ONLY reason he has "lapses" is because the coach benches him and then tells everyone that Rush is struggling.

                        I could pull a game from DEC and FEB and you couldn't tell the difference in Brandon's game, just some slight improvements perhaps but hardly something remarkable or noteworthy.

                        What this article is to me is "JOB made a jacka** out of himself when he trashed out Brandon (again), and now we have to PR spin all the great numbers Brandon just put up (again)."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                          TWENTY GAMES AGO, Rush went on a streak of 8 straight double figure games, and 10 of 12 games total. There were games of 17, 19, 16 and 16 points.

                          He's been over 40% from 3 for 3 straight months, 38% or better for 4 straight months. He had a 21 point game 3 weeks ago.

                          He went 5-8 from 3 back on Jan 22nd. Heck, he went 16/4/3 vs CLE back in mid-November.

                          Pre-AS he was 8.7 and 4.1 reb with about .8 blks and steals per game
                          Post-AS he's at 10.6 and 5.2 reb, roughly similar stl and blk numbers
                          1.3 apg pre and post
                          But his MPG in the post-AS are up from 28.9 to 31.5 as well.

                          Not really some major shocking change. The team's main FGA guy was out and they were playing a team that is 23-40 themselves. Wow, just how did the coach "flip his switch" that night?

                          Epic non-story, as always.

                          6.3, 3.7, 1.5, 1.0 stl, 0.5 blk in 23 mpg
                          That's DERRICK MCKEY'S 1998 stat line

                          McKey's BEST year with the Pacers, 94-95
                          13.3 in 34 mpg
                          4.9 reb, 3.5 ast, 1.5 stl, 0.6 blk, 36% from the shorter 3pt line
                          7th pick in his draft class. 2.1 stl+blk from the team's defensive ace, number Rush is close to matching. More rebounds from the shorter SG Rush, clearly an advantage as a 3pt threat.

                          If only Brandon Rush would "live up to his potential" and stop underachieving.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-13-2010, 06:25 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                            If only Brandon Rush would "live up to his potential" and stop underachieving.
                            Well done as usual when it comes to being a voice of balance and sanity re: Brandon Rush.

                            Although in fairness the board in general is a lot less hostile toward him than it was in the first two months of the season. There were at least half a dozen folks running around screaming "Bust!" and "Garbage!" and "Trade for a bag of chips!" then. Strangely silent now, for the most part.
                            "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                            "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                            "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              What this article is to me is "JOB made a jacka** out of himself when he trashed out Brandon (again), and now we have to PR spin all the great numbers Brandon just put up (again)."
                              Good call Seth.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Teammates revel in Rush's improvement

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                So, the Pacers get to the playoffs following the worst incident in NBA history with a rag-tag bunch and most of our top players suspended or injured most of the year, and you give no credit to the coach...

                                But when we have most of our core players this year and we underperform, you lay no blame on the coach.

                                Got it.

                                Btw, the mentality around Pacerland when Carlisle directed us to the playoffs that year was pretty damn good in favor of Carlisle... there were some saying he deserved CotY consideration. It was a helluva job.
                                Carlisle, plus adding the toughness of Dale Davis inside helped Reggie reach the second round that year with a team that had more issues than this one with respect to player availability. Carlisle's impact was very evident to all who watched because of how he changed the rotations to match his own available players' strengths instead of changing lineups due to the strengths of the opposition. That instilled confidence in the players, especially with the added boost of Dale Davis.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X