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

SportsGuy eviscerates USA Basketball

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

  • SportsGuy eviscerates USA Basketball

    Much love included for Boilermakers, Doug and KStat. And I wouldn't bother listening to the George Karl clip, it's just pretty much him saying, "See, it wasn't my fault." :shakehead:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/040804

    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2

    Last Saturday was just another gorgeous day in Southern California, one of those afternoons when you feel guilty if you aren't doing something -- heading to the beach, taking a hike, playing some hoops, lounging by the pool, whatever. Of course, I stayed indoors for my first glimpse of our Olympic hoops team. I needed to know: Is there any reason to be excited about this team? Would LeBron thrive with quality teammates? Would Duncan try to sneak out like DC Dacey in "Fast Break" when he realized that Kidd, KG and T-Mac weren't playing? Would these guys provide my much-needed basketball fix over the summer, or would I have to rely on re-runs of 20-year-old games on ESPN Classic again?



    It will be interesting to see how LeBron James handles the Olympic experience.

    Well, they won by 25. Crushed Puerto Rico. Dismantled them. A few hours after the game, my buddy House called for a scouting report. Again, we won by 25. The outcome was never in doubt, especially once you saw Jose Ortiz's slicked-back 'do, which made him look like he should be singing at 3 a.m. in a Univision telethon.


    "So what happened?" House asked.


    "We can't win," I told him. I felt like I was standing atop a stairwell screaming at Rocky Balboa.


    "Wait, I thought we killed 'em?"


    "We did. We can't win. We're not going to medal."


    And so I told him what I watched. How we didn't learn the lessons from the World Championship Debacle two years ago. How we basically threw together another All-Star Team. How we ignored the three essentials for any successful international team ...


    1. A pure point guard who can penetrate, create shots for teammates, make open threes and make good decisions in the open floor.

    2. At least two pure shooters, ideally three.

    3. Big guys who can bang down low, set picks, shoot threes and run the floor.... and trotted out 12 recognizable names, just so we could sell some jerseys and T-shirts.


    "Jesus," House said. "How come we know these things and the guys who run USA Basketball have no idea?"


    "I don't know."


    "This isn't the Dream Team, it's the Nightmare Team."


    Believe me, I'm not jumping on the Blame Bandwagon because we lost by 20 to a bunch of Italians. That game was somewhat of a fluke -- between the seven travelling calls, all the moving picks by Italy and their unconscious three-point shooting (including one that actually BANKED IN from the top of the key), it was one of those freak games. It happens. Still, on Saturday at 1:15 p.m. Pacific Coast Time, I knew this column was coming. Hell, I wrote it two years ago. Read the one from back then. You can even chuckle at my shameless pimping for two Celtics in the starting five.


    Maybe you don't care. And I don't really blame you. I can only explain why this matters to me so much. I love basketball. It's my favorite sport, one of the few things in life that completely makes sense to me. In basketball, a team of not-so-talented guys can beat a team of talented guys just by playing well together. Doesn't matter whether you're playing in the Olympics, the NBA, college, high school or some court in a park. Just watch a game from the '77 Finals some time -- Portland beating Philly with half the talent. That's the essence of the game, how a collection of diverse talents mesh into a cohesive unit. Why were the '86 Celtics my favorite team of all-time? They didn't just have five future Hall of Famers ... they played well together. And you can't ask for anything more than that.


    * * * * *


    So this isn't even about the Olympics, or the fact that we're about to get our asses kicked again. This is about a fundamental difference of opinion between two sides:


    Side A: Me, House and every other true basketball fan.


    Side B: David Stern, Russ Granik, Stu Jackson and every other person who picked the roster for our sixth-place Olympic team this summer.



    Tim Duncan and his teammates weren't too pleased with their performance against Italy.
    Side A sees the Summer Olympics as a blank canvas. We see a chance to build a superior basketball team from scratch -- not an All-Star team, a basketball team. Choosing from 300 of the greatest players in the world, we would want one dominant big man; one quality point guard; one great scorer immediately designated for Alpha Dog Status, two other good shooters, two other rebounders, one athletic swingman who can defend the other player's best shooter, a backup point guard, two energy guys, and a 12th man who will hustle in practice and just be happy to be on the team. If we pick the right guys, we know we're winning the tournament and possibly ending up on ESPN Classic. It's just a fact.


    Side B sees the Summer Olympics as a vehicle to market the players. They want to sell jerseys and T-shirts. They want to promote current superstars (like Duncan and Iverson) and introduce the world to the next generation of younger studs. They don't care if the team is fun to watch, or if they play well together. Deep down, they're praying that the BMW ('Bron, 'Melo and Wade) makes a big splash. And if things go wrong, Side B has a built-in excuse -- they can just blame all the stars who refused to play (KG, Kidd, T-Mac, K-Mart, the O'Neals, Allen, even Bibby).


    And that raises the question: Who would you rather have picking this team? Side A or Side B? Yeah, I thought so. You went with Side A. Of course you did. Because if House and I were in charge ...


    1. We would play Michael Redd more.


    Best dead-eye shooter in the league. Can't miss from 22 feet. Needs about 0.00004 seconds to square up. If he was playing for any other country -- Argentina, Italy, Croatia, you name it -- they would revolve their offenses around him. And yet Team USA isn't using Redd at all.


    You know why?


    BECAUSE HE'S NOT ON THE EFFING TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!


    For months and months, I assumed he was one of the guys who rejected Team USA because of the whole "I'm afraid of spending two weeks in Athens for security reasons, yet I'm perfectly fine going to clubs frequented by gangbangers and drug dealers" logic that makes the NBA so oddly enjoyable. Nope. They never asked him. Instead, they doubled up at the "3" with Richard Jefferson and Shawn Marion, two guys who give you similar things. They're both great athletes, good open-court players, solid defenders and above-average outside shooters. I like both of them. You only need one. If anything, you're putting them in a situation where they're competing against one another, almost like hiring Keanu Reeves and Paul Walker for the same movie. And if that's not bad enough, 'Melo and 'Bron can both play the "3."


    To recap: With the shorter three-point line and the collapsing zone, international rules are specifically designed to benefit small forwards who can reliably drain 20-footers. Other than maybe Carmelo -- and that's a huge "maybe" -- none of our four guys qualifies. And we had over 300 players to pick from. Perfectly logical.


    2. You would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER see someone like Stephon Marbury on our team.


    Lemme see ...


    With international rules, I need a point guard who can create shots for his teammates ... someone who always makes the right decision in the open floor ... someone who consistently makes 20-footers ... someone who doesn't suck defensively ... someone who isn't careless with the ball ... someone who's a proven leader ... someone with a history of raising his game when it matters.


    For God's sake, how does Marbury even enter the discussion here? Didn't anyone on the selection committee watch him play for the past eight years? Didn't they learn their lesson from the Baron Davis Disaster two years ago? You need a certain type of point guard for international basketball -- he's the exact opposite in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY!!!!!! Could someone send a memo to Stephon and tell him that the pilot turned off the "Please entertain the fans" sign? We don't need to see alley-oops and pseudo no-looks when you're actually looking. Just lead the team and help us win. Somebody should force him to watch 500 hours of game tapes from the '80's (Stockton, Price, Cheeks, Tiny and everyone else) before the tournament starts. Maybe he'd learn something.


    (NOTE: I KEEP USING CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS BECAUSE WE'RE ON OUR SECOND STRAIGHT WEEK OF STEPHEN A. SMITH HOSTING "PARDON THE INTERRUPTION." I'M JUST TRYING TO GET MY POINT ACROSS HERE! THE ONLY REASON STEPHON MARBURY IS ON THIS TEAM IS BECAUSE HE'S THE BEST PLAYER ON THE KNICKS, THE MARQUEE FRANCHISE OF THE NBA!!! THAT'S IT!!! THERE IS NO OTHER REASON!!!!! MAYBE HE'S AN ALL-STAR IN THE NBA, BUT FOR INTERNATIONAL PURPOSES, HE'S A BORDERLINE TRAIN WRECK!!!!!)



    Larry Brown has his hands full with this All-Star squad.
    What point guards would work in his place? Kidd would have been the best; and honestly, Congress should have passed legislation and forced Kidd to play for his country, just because. But he's injured, so it's a moot point. Steve Nash would have been perfect, but he's Canadian. Mike Bibby would have been fine, but he turned us down either because he was afraid of the security in Athens, or because the Maloof Brothers asked him to judge a Wet T-shirt contest at the Palms on Aug. 22. Steve Francis would have been a bigger train wreck than Marbury. As much as I like Chauncey Billups, I'm not sure he's the right fit with the international rules.


    So you need to get creative. Screw it. Dwyane Wade should be playing point, anyway -- he's one of the best three players on the team. Iverson could back him up. And as my third guy, I'm going with Kirk Hinrich -- superb defensive player, deadly shooter, probably the most underrated rookie in the league last year, and he wouldn't care if he played five-to-10 minutes a game.


    3. We would play Brad Miller more.


    Certified banger. Comfortable playing at the top of the key. Nice range from 15 feet. Genuinely underrated passer. Sets the best moving picks in the league. Not afraid to whistle an elbow against someone's temple. Every European and South American team has someone like him, and Miller has more talent than any of those guys. He's also played on consecutive 50-win teams, which should count for something.


    Oh, wait a second ... we didn't ask him, either.


    (I mean, you see why I'm going crazy, right? Just tell me you understand. Please. I'm begging you. Just nod. Nod at the computer screen right now. Give me a sign. Anything.)


    4. We would play Rip Hamilton more.


    He's only the best scorer on a team that just won the NBA championship. You can run him off picks, he's tireless, never takes bad shots, never goes beyond his means. He gets better when it matters. He's been a winner at every level. And he's a good guy.


    By the way? He's not on the team. He turned down an invitation.


    (I will now peel the skin off my body.)


    5. We would look for underrated players who contributed to winning teams.


    In other words, Tayshaun Prince would be on my team. He's the best defensive swingman in the league. So he's in.


    Now here's where it gets really interesting ...


    I'm the President of the Carmelo Fan Club. The Pistons should have taken him over Darko. I will always believe that. With that said, for this particular team, you can't have Carmelo and LeBron. You just can't. I want to win. I want guys who have proven themselves in big spots. You can't ask kids to adjust to international rules and 11 new teammates in the matter of three weeks; the fact that someone as good as LeBron looked so lost in the Italy game should tell you something. I also think it's dangerous to have two natural rivals competing for minutes on the same team -- I want my guys pulling for one another, not angling to be better than one another.


    Anyway, I'm bumping Carmelo and keeping LeBron, for two reasons: A.) LeBron plays more positions; and B.) Even though Carmelo looked much better in the first two games, LeBron is too gifted a passer to be left out. We need him. Assuming his head is screwed on right. And I'm beginning to wonder after last Saturday.



    Dwyane Wade's play will be critical to the USA team's success.
    (By the way, I just cut Carmelo from my team to keep Tayshaun Prince. You read that correctly. In the history of flip-flops by a sports columnist, this might be the greatest one yet. Remember, I'm a complete idiot. Don't forget this. Not for a second.)


    6. We would have two energy guys. Possibly three.


    There's an inherent flaw in the "Let's just pick an All-Star Team" logic. In '92, it worked because Larry was crippled; Laettner was happy to be there; Magic was happy to be alive; Pippen, Mullin and Stockton didn't care about points; and everyone else rightfully deferred to MJ and Chuck. Now that's a team. (You also had a number of guys who thrived on playing team basketball, but that's a whole other story.) The '96 and '00 teams seemed chronically unhappy to me, like everyone was trying to be a good soldier, but deep down, everyone wanted to play more.


    So let's turn a negative into a positive. I don't want guys sitting on my bench wondering why they're not playing, ticked off because they can't get in a rhythm. I want guys who know what it's like to come off the bench, who know how to affect a game by diving for loose balls, tipping offensive rebounds and banging home momentum-turning threes. Those are the players that get everyone else going. That's why I need Brian Cardinal and Shane Battier on my team. And if you don't understand why ... I don't know what to tell you.


    * * * * *


    Without further ado, here's how my 2004 team would look. Obviously KG, K-Mart and Kidd would be involved if they were available. But they're not. Anyway ...


    STARTING FIVE
    Duncan: Not only the best player on the team, he also unveiled a phenomenal "Shaved head, extended fu manchu" this summer for some extra ooomph. Gives him that little extra edge. It's like he bought a Dennis Haysbert starter kit on eBay. Sadly, international rules (those collapsing zones) neutralize him a little bit -- he's reduced to rebounding, blocking shots and getting garbage points. And just for the record, he mailed in that Italy game so egregiously, Michael Olowokandi sent him a congratulatory telegram after the game. If you're afraid to get hurt, stay home.


    Odom: Perfect game for this format. Not happy with the fact that he's starting, though -- ideally, he'd be coming off the bench. And if you were wondering if I'm terrified that he's playing in Germany right now, just a stone's throw away from Amsterdam ... I mean, you know me too well.


    Redd: (Shaking my head right now.)


    Hamilton: Here's why it's short-sighted to name your entire Olympic Team months before the actual Olympics: If somebody breaks out in the playoffs, you can't add him to the team. That's like if US Weekly decided their next 25 covers ahead of time last March, then couldn't adjust when Lindsay Lohan and her breasts had their breakout spring.


    He turned down a spot? I'm betting he'd play if he knew he was starting.

    Wade: With Kidd possibly on the other side of the mountain and no quality American point guards under the age of 25, you're looking at the key guard for any USA Hoops team for the rest of the decade. There. I said it.


    BENCH
    Brad Miller: For the reasons mentioned above.


    Prince: Put it this way: You wouldn't see Italian guys getting wide-open looks for 40 straight minutes with Tayshaun around.


    (Which reminds me: If we really wanted to win the gold, why wouldn't we just send our defending NBA champions? Imagine the 2004 Pistons headed to Athens in 10 days, completely intact with their coach, only with Duncan sliding into Mehmet Okur's spot and Corey Haim filling the role of Darko? Would anyone be against this? Seriously, anyone?)



    The USA squad could use a hustle player like Brian Cardinal.
    Iverson: I can't believe I'm saying this about someone who once averaged 30 points a game, but we need his defense.


    LeBron: Plays four positions, fits in anywhere ... and, man, did he look dreadful in the Italy game. He even legitimately dogged it on one play (casually jogging back on D while the entire Italian team beat him down the floor for a layup). You could make the argument that nobody has more at stake this month than LeBron, since he's supposed to be the Evolutionary Magic and all. Don't be surprised if you're down on him four weeks from now. And by the way, if you don't think a 19-year-old Magic Johnson would have started for the 1980 Olympic Team, you're insane.


    (Just for the hell of it: Kareem at center; Doc and Bird at forwards; Magic and Gervin at guards; Moses, Gus Williams, Bobby Jones, Jamaal Wilkes as the bench guys; ML Carr and Mo Cheeks as my energy guys; and Dave Cowens as the retiring veteran. That's my "Double What-If Team" -- what if we hadn't boycotted the '80 Olympics, and what if pros were allowed to play. By the way, I spent about 45 minutes looking this up. Just humor me.)


    Amare Stoudemire: Insurance. Best athlete available at the "4."


    (By the way, as soon as this column is over, I'm spending the next two hours figuring out which Dream Team would have been the best one -- '84, '88 or '92. That has all the makings of a future column. I can't be the only one who cares about this stuff, right? Um ... right?)


    Cardinal: You bring him in when you need an energy boost -- namely, when you're flat, when you're getting out-hustled and you need someone to make a three and run back up the court screaming and pumping his arms.


    Battier: Same with this guy. Although you could easily slide Hinrich or Fred Hoiberg into this spot as the "Steve Kerr Memorial 12th Man." In fact ... screw it. We don't need another swingman. Battier out ... Hoiberg in.


    To recap: Duncan, Odom, Redd, Hamilton, Wade (starters); Iverson, Prince, Miller, LeBron, Stoudemire (bench guys); Cardinal, Hoiberg (energy guys).


    Now that's a team. Repeat: Team. There's a difference. Some day, we might even figure this out.


    Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine. His Sports Guy's World site is updated every day Monday through Friday.
    Okay, Bill gets alot right here. My two major beefs are

    a)'Melo should be on this team instead of 'Bron. If you haven't seen the games, Anthony's brung it, while LBJ, well, hasn't. At all. First time he's looked like an 18-year old who doesn't know what he's doing. I do like the BMW moniker. I'll have to remember that.

    b)Him saying that Rip would have come if they'd treated him better. Hell, his freakin' coach moved heaven and earth to get him an invite, and still no go. As easy as it is to bad mouth players for being scaredy-cats over "security concerns", they've got families too, and if a guy doesn't want to be there, I don't want them. But it does give me another excuse not to like Rip and Ben.

    One minor beef, I still don't know about AI, but the point guard pool is mighty shallow. You definitely need a pure one on that team, and I don't know if Wade cuts it, either.

    That said, huge props for the Brad love. People forget that Brad went from an undrafted alchoholic to the hottest thing because of his play for USA Basketball during the lockout. Ten teams were after him after his performance. I still don't get why they've never had him back. Yeah for Cardinal and the Mayor, too. Amare is someone I'm not a huge fan of, but his block yesterday proved he should be on the team, too. Wish Peck was around to defend his man Boozer.

    I'm not as doom and gloom as SG is. I think we can still come together and win this. But it's gonna be a lot harder than just thinking yesterday was about us not playing hard. We're totally unprepared for the international style of play, and LB better have them living in the gym. They better be scrimmaging on the plane trips around Europe, too.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  • #2
    Re: SportsGuy eviscerates USA Basketball

    I think Bill would be hard-pressed to put together a team of pros in 1984 that would be a better *team* than Bob Knight's amateurs.

    Although... if Arvyddas had been allowed to play in 1984 that changes everything.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: SportsGuy eviscerates USA Basketball

      Ben and Rip dont want to be there....and guess what? I dont want them to be there either. They've played a longer and more grueuling season than anyone else, they need time to refuel.

      Look around the US roster. Its no coincidence that 9 of the 12 players came from teams that stopped playing back in the middle of april.

      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


      • #4
        Re: SportsGuy eviscerates USA Basketball

        Originally posted by Jay@Section222
        I think Bill would be hard-pressed to put together a team of pros in 1984 that would be a better *team* than Bob Knight's amateurs.

        Although... if Arvyddas had been allowed to play in 1984 that changes everything.
        Oh, I don't know about that...

        Kareem abdul-jabbar
        Magic Johnson
        Moses Malone
        Bernard King
        Julius Erving
        Larry Bird
        Isiah Thomas
        Maurice Cheeks
        Buck Williams
        Bobby Jones
        Kevin McHale

        I think that might have been pretty good "team". That group would not have disintegrated into a selfish one-on-one mess. They would have been dominating.

        Comment

        Working...
        X