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 looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

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

  • Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

    May 4, 2010
    IndyStar
    Big Roy will put the work in
    Posted by Mike Wells


    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...y_will_pu.html

    THE `BURBS - "What is the most important thing for the different parts of this puzzle to spend their offseason on? Conditioning, or establishing a more aggressive above-the-rim game for Hibbert?"

    Conditioning is always near the top of the list for Hibbert because he acknowledged a couple of times during the season that he got tired playing extending minutes. He'll definitely spend time working on his post game.

    You don't have to worry about Hibbert's work ethic. He enjoys putting in work in the gym.

    Assistant coach Dan Burke deserves a lot of credit for Hibbert's development in the post.

    Hibbert would often be the last player on the court after practice because he was putting in extra time working on his low-post game with Burke.
    The Pacers want to bring in a big man's coach to work with Hibbert during the summer. They're trying to figure out who that person will be. There's a possibility that Hall of Fame big man Kevin McHale could work with Hibbert.

    Can imagine what Hibbert's low-post game will be like next season if McHale works with him?




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

  • #2
    Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

    Finally. McHale would be awesome, perfect, imo.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

      The topic of a "big man coach" always cracks me up. I have no problem with bringing in a big man coach or having one on the staff. My point isn't that they are worthless. However so many of you act like only a former big man can coach a current big man. Many of you have been complaining about the Pacers lack of big man coach for years, and some of you have suggested if only, if only David Harrison had a big man coach.

      So bring in a big man coach, I won't complain, but I would also like to see a small man coach, a point guard coach, a shooting guard coach and wing player coach or a power forward coach - I don't see why having a "big Man coach" is more important than any of the ones I've mentioned.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

        But Kevin McHale only made 41 three pointers in his career. Is that who we really want coaching Roy?

        But in all seriousness, that would be great if they could get McHale. It certainly couldn't hurt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

          Hire Mel Daniels, he would be a great big man's coach!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

            Maybe if Roy improves, JOB will let him play the final 3 minutes of a game in which he has scored a career high, is dominating the paint, and is THE reason the Pacers are ahead.... instead of benching him and GIVING the game to Washington.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

              Originally posted by UncleBuck
              I would also like to see a small man coach, a point guard coach, a shooting guard coach and wing player coach or a power forward coach
              See, Peck? UncleBuck doesn't list a "stretch forward' coach on this list of needs, since the Pacers already have such a good one.



              (I don't know why I do this. I don't like Murphy's game nearly as much as my number of recent posts about him would suggest.)

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

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                The topic of a "big man coach" always cracks me up. I have no problem with bringing in a big man coach or having one on the staff. My point isn't that they are worthless. However so many of you act like only a former big man can coach a current big man. Many of you have been complaining about the Pacers lack of big man coach for years, and some of you have suggested if only, if only David Harrison had a big man coach.

                So bring in a big man coach, I won't complain, but I would also like to see a small man coach, a point guard coach, a shooting guard coach and wing player coach or a power forward coach - I don't see why having a "big Man coach" is more important than any of the ones I've mentioned.
                That would be me It wasn't so necessary when they had the Big man school players could go to (was that in Hawaii? ) but now they don't have that and for the most part they are only spending a year in college. That leaves them no way to learn to play with the bigs except thru league experience and if that can be sped up via one-on-one with the men that have been over the river, so much the better.

                And we have Bill Keller who can teach them a few things about shooting and playing PG to boot.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                  What is Terry Mills doing these days?

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    The topic of a "big man coach" always cracks me up. I have no problem with bringing in a big man coach or having one on the staff. My point isn't that they are worthless. However so many of you act like only a former big man can coach a current big man. Many of you have been complaining about the Pacers lack of big man coach for years, and some of you have suggested if only, if only David Harrison had a big man coach.

                    So bring in a big man coach, I won't complain, but I would also like to see a small man coach, a point guard coach, a shooting guard coach and wing player coach or a power forward coach - I don't see why having a "big Man coach" is more important than any of the ones I've mentioned.
                    Maybe it's better to call it a low post coach.

                    It really is different to me to teach and learn to play down low than what a regular player will encounter.

                    I won't call it a speciality, but it is unique these days.

                    It's the problem I have with many of the current generation of big men, they mostly all want to play on the perimeter and shoot jump shots. I'm not saying you can't have those skills, but many can't post up in any fashion.

                    The uniqueness of a low post game and therefore Roy has become very valuable, imo.

                    So, to have a guy who was great at it, maybe one of the best, in McHale come in (or like him) is a great idea, I think. Really only Hakeem is the only other guy I'd prefer over him.

                    I hope it happens, you have a willing student in Roy, why not give him every possible opportunity.

                    I wouldn't limit it to Roy, I mean D Jones has the makings of being very good down low in the post. Others could learn too. We've discussed how Murphy and Dunleavy's inability to post up basically nullifies their potential advantages. I'd love to see those two not being able to be guarded by smaller players because they have a low post game of SOME kind.

                    For D. Jones, if you could use him down there, it maximizes his strengths (strength, quickness, atleticism) while minimizing his weaknesses (perimeter shooting).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                      Here's a serious question.

                      Roy spent four years at Georgetown, a school with a good tradition and a good coach. What does he particularly need to learn to make a bigger splash in the NBA?

                      The question probably has two answers: a facetious one for as long as O'Brien is the coach, and a more serious one for the future.

                      I would have through the answer was conditioning and speed. What else does he need to develop, that a tutor can help with? Or is it really a matter of doing enough repetitions to develop instinctive movement?





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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        Maybe it's better to call it a low post coach.

                        It really is different to me to teach and learn to play down low than what a regular player will encounter.

                        I won't call it a speciality, but it is unique these days.

                        It's the problem I have with many of the current generation of big men, they mostly all want to play on the perimeter and shoot jump shots. I'm not saying you can't have those skills, but many can't post up in any fashion.

                        The uniqueness of a low post game and therefore Roy has become very valuable, imo.

                        So, to have a guy who was great at it, maybe one of the best, in McHale come in (or like him) is a great idea, I think. Really only Hakeem is the only other guy I'd prefer over him.

                        I hope it happens, you have a willing student in Roy, why not give him every possible opportunity.

                        I wouldn't limit it to Roy, I mean D Jones has the makings of being very good down low in the post. Others could learn too. We've discussed how Murphy and Dunleavy's inability to post up basically nullifies their potential advantages. I'd love to see those two not being able to be guarded by smaller players because they have a low post game of SOME kind.

                        For D. Jones, if you could use him down there, it maximizes his strengths (strength, quickness, atleticism) while minimizing his weaknesses (perimeter shooting).
                        I think Buck's basic issue was with this idea that so-and-so was a good big man when he played, so let's get him to teach Roy a few things.

                        Problem is, a lot of the names that get bandied about around here - Dale, Mel, Rik, have shown no real aptitude for coaching. That is more important than the "been there, done that" aspect. The best "Big Man" coach ever was Pete Newell, who grew the "Pete Newell Big Man Camp" that geezer alluded to earlier out of individual workouts with Kermit Washington. Newell was a not a big man, he was just a damn good coach.

                        If you can't effectively communicate and teach the position, then you're down to just giving pointers. Why hire a full time guy for that? Just bring 'em in for weekend, and be done with it.

                        That being said, I like the idea of Kevin McHale, because I think he's shown some aptitude for coaching. He was 19-12 in his first stint with Minny, and he had last year's Wolves headed in a good direction before Jefferson went down for the year.

                        I think he's got the ability to help Roy with moves, both from an experiential and (more importantly) teaching aspect.

                        Also, if they do hire him as a full-time assistant, I would think that they're essentially hiring O'Brien's successor.
                        Last edited by count55; 05-05-2010, 03:59 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                          It wasn't so necessary when they had the Big man school players could go to (was that in Hawaii? )
                          Yep, here is some stuff from back in the day, '99 I think it was. Bender, Foster, Al Harrington, and Austin were all there.


                          Story from there.

                          http://jonathanbender.8m.com/bigmen.html


                          Images (at the bottom)

                          http://jonathanbender.8m.com/picturegalleryii.html

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Many of you have been complaining about the Pacers lack of big man coach for years, and some of you have suggested if only, if only David Harrison had a big man coach.
                            Guilty as charged! Though I wsa on record as thinking "if only Harrison had a big man coach AND a lobotomy."
                            "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

                            Bob Netolicky

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                              I love the idea and believe it will make a difference. If I remember correctly Tree Rollins was a good teacher while here and really focused on defending the post. So there is more to it than just the offensive side of the ball.
                              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X