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

A question for the OB haters

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

  • #91
    Re: A question for the OB haters

    Originally posted by cordobes View Post
    I'm certainly not operating under that general notion.

    To me the Pacers over-performed in every season under O'Brien except in the last one (+ Boston and Philly overperformed in every season with him as coach).
    If O'brien is so good and always overperforming, than why, in 9 seasons of coaching in the NBA does he have a losing record? Why was he fired in Philly for Mo Cheeks? Why was he basically fired in Boston, call it what you want. Him and Ainge never got along and JOB resigned, Ainge probably let him have his pride, halfway through the season? If you say he wasn't fired, than even worse, he quit. Why will he not be coaching again in the NBA ever after this year? Being the son in law of Dr. Jack Ramsey will get you somewhere in life, just ask Jim O'Brien.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: A question for the OB haters

      Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
      Yes. Are you happy we are 7-6? Your happy and content watching this team lose games, give games away that we should of won? Damn, that's what I hate more than anything, giving away a win. Your content watching mediocre basketball when you could be watching something great, 11-2 is great for this team but were just ok at 7-6.
      You gotta crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.
      Nobody goes from crappy to great in 1 season.
      This team was bad because the players we had weren't good enough.
      Not because of the coach.
      We've added players and have now reached the point of being competitive from a talent standpoint.
      We STILL have to learn how to win. HOw to close out games. How to put your foot on the throat of a team when you get them down. Etc etc
      You do that with experience that only comes from being there and doing it.

      That doesn't happen overnight.

      You should learn to ENJOY THE RIDE as this team improves.
      Not expect them to win every game.

      This team, this organization is doing it RIGHT!!
      Building from the ground up with draft picks and savvy trades.
      I LOVE what is happening here and I wouldn't trade watching this group of guys develop and grow together for ANYTHING, including being in the finals THIS YEAR.

      It's the JOURNEY, not the destination that matters.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: A question for the OB haters

        Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
        The losses that most of you pointing out to be "losses that we should've won" are early season losses. The fact that we have new faces on the team (DC, PG, Posey), as well as new roles and implemented plays (more Hibbert inside the post, PnRs, no more Murphy, McBob starting, etc.) contribute to the early instability of the team to win games. On the first few games we see the team scoring so much and then the next game their shooting has gone sour.

        But looking at the last 4 games, we have seen a more consistent defense that we haven't seen in a long time. Those 4 games we have held the opponents to less than 100 points, and the last 3 wins are in a convincing fashion, leading by more than 10 points on each win.

        7-6 is not that bad given that we have won 3 of the last 4 on a strong note, including the back-to-back blowout games in Miami and at home vs the Caves. Plus, the loss that I believe that we should've won is the Philly game. Houston killed us even if there is no Yao with Miller's 3-pt shooting, which is unexpected IMO and have broken the defense inside. The Bucks are one of the formidable defensive teams even without Bogut so not much surprise there. We could've won over the Magic but their defense are one of the best in the league, so we just can't get far ahead of them during that game even after getting the lead. The other losses are from the current superior teams, Atlanta and San Antonio. So for me, the current 7-6 is not bad considering the teams they have played so far.

        And right now, the current Pacers are still "mediocre" because there are still 69 games to prove that they are "great." Lineup wise, only Granger has become an all-star, DC is still a sophomore that are not yet polished, Roy is still embracing the new role as another go-to-guy inside, Rush is still starting to assert himself on offense, Dun is still streaky after recovery, and our PF spot still needs improvement to compete against the elite PFs from the likes of Celtics and LA. We're showing signs of improvement, so we just have to be patient to wait for this team to become great once again.
        If you watched every game this year you would agree in some way that we very well could be 11-2. That has nothing to do with a new group of players. When you stick with the same underperforming group half way through the third all the way til midway through the 4th, bench players, for 3 straight games and get the same results, that is bad coaching. JOB should of known in the Orlando game that after half they were going to adjust to Roy after he'd been killing them and would of had a plan to counter that. He didn't, they forced Roy out of the game and onto the bench and we lost.

        If you have noticed we were down 65-66 at halftime to the Spurs, lost. Up 60-52 at half against the Bucks, lost. Up 50-48 against the Rockets at halftime, lost. Down 49-50 at half against the Hawks, lost. And finally, up 52-50 at half vs. the Magic, lost that one too. All but one loss(Philly) this year we were either leading at half or down by 1 point and either couldnt take control of the game or gave the game away, that to me falls on the head coach.

        Good coaches find a way to win especially in close games like these. I have not agreed with his decision to keep starting Mike over Rush, I thought once those 5 games were up Rush would go straight to starting. This decision alone proves that O'Brien is full of it and always SAYS the right things, but never DOES the right things. Remember when he talked about the importance of a high level defense? He contradicted himself with his recent decision to keep Mike starting over Rush and not a single person on here noticed the hypocrite JOB is for doing so. What he says sounds good but 9 times out 10 its pure bs.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: A question for the OB haters

          Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
          Nobody goes from crappy to great in 1 season.

          You should learn to ENJOY THE RIDE as this team improves.
          Not expect them to win every game.
          The 2006-07 Boston Celtics finished 24-58. The very next year the 2007-08 team finished 66-16 and won the NBA Championship. That's worse than the Pacers were last year to being the best and winning the title. Going from worst to first can happen and has happened very recently. Anything can happen.

          I do expect us to win every game, I always have, call it what you will but I feel that way moreso this year than any since Reggie retired. If JOB could adjust at halftime just like the other teams do and keep Roy down low and keep him in the game, we can win any game this year. Good coached have their teams prepared and ready for anything and everything, they make adjustments and counter what the other team is doing, I haven't seen that from JOB at all in his time here.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: A question for the OB haters

            The coach decides who plays and who doesn't, so how can anyone consider what Jim does in the game to be overrated..

            The system, the behind the scenes stuff, the media double talk, all of that has not been as big of an issue as who he plays the majority of the minutes and not seeing the chemistry between certain lineups.

            I'm coming around to Jim, but he has a long way to go. I'm willing to change my mind about him, but it will take a while. There are still a lot of in game decisions that annoy me and that I think are wrong, but I can live with that if we are playing dominant basketball.

            All anyone on Pacer's Digest wants is for us is to win basketball games. And if we are winning then there will be a lot less complaining about Jim... even if we don't agree with what he is doing.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: A question for the OB haters

              Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
              If all the maladies of this team are due to the coach,
              what say you now?

              The question is now, wtf do you say now after another bs loss like this?

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: A question for the OB haters

                Not that you asked me, but I would say the team needs to keep moving the ball better on offense when it gets down to crunch time, and I suspect O'Brien (and the team) will say the same.
                Last edited by kester99; 11-27-2010, 12:57 AM.


                [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: A question for the OB haters

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  I think the team overachieved while underachieving all at the same time.
                  Sometimes when I really get in a hurry I meet myself going the other way.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  There was no reason to be in "win now mode" when they clearly didn't have the roster to do anything with the wins, considering they weren't going to win enough to even make the playoffs.
                  There was a big reason - Larry Bird saying repeatedly that he expects to make the playoffs every year. I agree. Create a winning culture by doing what you need to do to win. Tanking is a fool's errand.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Instead of losing a few more games and letting a player like Josh develop, or even AJ, we are now having to do it this season on the fly. In the long run, it actually hurt the franchise more, than it helped it.
                  I'm not convinced. McRoberts is advancing very nicely, thank you very much, and once they make a roster spot for AJ, it'll be hard to keep him off the floor.

                  Hurt the franchise?! They've got a whole bunch of very promising young players with outstanding work habits, skills, and athleticism. They are clearly a team on the rise that has an attractive combination of expirings and young talent; this was exactly what the goal was all along.

                  A culture of winning is a culture of dedicated work. Why do you think that Bird gives Obie credit for changing the culture? Because they work. Rush and Hibbert transformed their bodies over the summer, and McRoberts is not far behind. If it's okay with you that you don't do your utmost to win, if you tell your young players, "one day some day you'll have to give every ounce of sweat, make me HAVE to put you on the floor, just not now - because I'm giving you minutes you haven't earned" - then you're the Clippers, forever mired in mediocrity, as a parade of top draft picks goes through their revolving door.

                  Indianans should be proud of what the Pacers are building - first, building a defensive identity; and second, sharing and moving the ball on offense. In a small market, you need an edge. Team is the edge for your Indiana Pacers. All the more reason to insist on winning and on players winning their court time.


                  .
                  :

                  "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                  "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                  "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: A question for the OB haters

                    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                    Tanking is a fool's errand.
                    Well I think pretending you're actually competing when you're not is a fools errand.

                    The teams that tank are just making a move to have a better chance to win.

                    The problem is a basketball game only involves a few guys. So each guy makes a bigger difference in the game than most other sports. So when these supreme talents come along, landing one of them really bolsters your franchise. Ticket sales go up, money flows, marketability does as well. And the higher the pick, the higher the odds you can find him. You can try and build a team the other way and that's fine. But odds are it's going to be 10 times harder. Throw in the fact you are a small market and have all kinds of other disadvantages and it becomes even tougher, and not likely.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • Re: A question for the OB haters

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                      Well I think pretending you're actually competing when you're not is a fools errand.

                      The teams that tank are just making a move to have a better chance to win.

                      The problem is a basketball game only involves a few guys. So each guy makes a bigger difference in the game than most other sports. So when these supreme talents come along, landing one of them really bolsters your franchise. Ticket sales go up, money flows, marketability does as well. And the higher the pick, the higher the odds you can find him. You can try and build a team the other way and that's fine. But odds are it's going to be 10 times harder. Throw in the fact you are a small market and have all kinds of other disadvantages and it becomes even tougher, and not likely.
                      Well take a look at what Bird has done. I would say we are a better team than the clippers or washington and the bulls lucked out it wasn't really a tank. You have to go back to Durant to find a player with the level of talent needed to change a franchise. The odds are not good that tanking will make you relevant, teams suck and continue to suck for years trying to get lucky. Tankers sacrifice years to become average again. We are now seeing the results of management building a team instead of just hoping for luck.

                      Comment


                      • Re: A question for the OB haters

                        Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                        There was a big reason - Larry Bird saying repeatedly that he expects to make the playoffs every year. I agree. Create a winning culture by doing what you need to do to win. Tanking is a fool's errand.
                        Please find where I used the term "tank" or even described it. I'll help you out. I didn't, and I didn't for a reason.

                        I didn't say I wanted them to lose, I said I wanted players who are actually part of the future to play and get experience when it really doesn't matter. Thank God Troy Murphy kept getting 30+ mins last year. That has really helped out the team THIS year. Without that extra time for him, I'm just sure the Pacers wouldn't be as good this season......

                        McRoberts should have been getting more time last season, period. He's now having to learn on the fly, when he could have learned when the games didn't mean crap.

                        It's merely postponing the enevitable.



                        If Josh, and other players, would have gotten more burn last year I would have fully expected them to compete at their highest ability. There's no reason to lose on purpose, which is what tanking is.

                        But you can start by making a valid logical argument on why Troy needed to play so much, if you want to debate it. That would be a great start/ending point.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: A question for the OB haters

                          Well I’m not an O’Brien hater but I still have a few things to say. And brevity is not my forte.
                          Here’s the cliffs note’s version for the anti-JOB crowd…

                          http://espn.go.com/nba/notebook/_/pa...a-awards-watch

                          Just by virtue of having the Pacers at .500, Jim O’Brien is in the conversation for coach of the year. If you don’t like O’Brien, you better hope the Hornets keep up their strong play!

                          Now for more detail…

                          People were complaining not too long ago about our motion offense, about how it’s too difficult for players to grasp. Nevermind that we’ve lacked players who are effective at creating off the dribble… But what about acknowledging the payoff once players get closer to figuring it out? This year we had an opposing coach in Doug Collins calling it the best offense in the NBA. During the most recent Cavs-Pacers game (I get Fox Sports Ohio since I’m from the neighboring state), FS Ohio announcer Austin Carr was noting that the Cavs had no idea how to defend all of the Pacers movement and that they looked lost on the defensive end, despite all of that team’s talk the previous few days to improve defensively. After the Miami win…

                          http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miam...ers-miami-heat

                          Is the talk about how the Pacers have all this great talent? Of course not. “The Pacers aren't the league's most talented roster, but their execution is sublime. They ran the Heat ragged with their clever motion off the ball and smart passes to cutters. Defensively, they challenged every (admittedly predictable) Miami pick-and-roll and controlled the defensive glass.”

                          Let me also offer a sincere suggestion to the anti-JOB crowd… if we continue to do well this year, just ignore the coach. As someone who happens to think he is right for this team and, on balance, has done a fine job the past few years all things considered, I really don’t mind him not receiving credit during the good times. But what really irks me is when people go out of their way to say that good things happen in spite of the coach, or that the losses are because of the coach. Here’s an example…

                          Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                          IMO, he's still making some head scratching decisions this season, we have just played well enough to overcome some of them.
                          So basically what I gather from this is--Credit the players when we win (they had to overcome all of that poor coaching to come out on top!!), blame the coach when we lose. How about in general--Credit the players when we win, and blame the players (including their relative shortcomings compared to other teams, lack of talent, etc.) when we lose? I’m not saying people should completely ignore the coach, but in general I feel as though the pendulum needs to be pushed back in the other direction, away from giving the coach too much credit, and too much blame. Say what you want about JOB, but one positive we can probably agree on is that he shields these players from so much of the heat. I find it laughable how he normally becomes the default scapegoat for losses no matter what.

                          Originally posted by pacers101 View Post
                          I don't think that JOB is the reason for the defensive imporovements. He was here for 2 years before and we SUCKED. This year his man crush was dealt and he was forced to play a guy at PF who actually plays strong and smart D. The past 2 years we would get killed on D because of Murphy. JOB never figured out that playing Troy close to 40 mins a game was a huge mistake.
                          How has it SUCKED? We’ve had top 15 defensive placements in terms of points allowed per 100 possessions under O’Brien. As I pointed out before in My Case for JOB, John Hollinger (love him or hate him) noted how we stayed “surprisingly respectable” on the defensive end. We most certainly improved defensively in 07-08 compared to the final 44 games of the 06-07 season under Carlisle following the trade for murphleavy. We were by no means a great defensive team the past 3 years, but relatively speaking we weren’t bad. We were in the middle class (and achieved above average defensive outcomes last year), despite an influx of youth, roster turnover, key injuries, Hibbert’s struggles with rebounding and with defending outside-shooting bigs like Spencer Hawes and Mehmet Okur, and poor 1 on 1 defenders like Murphy and Dunleavy. Indeed, if we did not have a defensive-minded, demanding, detail-oriented coach like O’Brien the past few years we could have easily been one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA. But this year with further player development, I think this team is ready to stake out a claim as one of the elite defensive teams in the NBA, despite not really having top notch talent. This is a place to either give the coach credit, or to take my suggestion by saying nothing about the coach. But at the very least, defense is not a topic where O’Brien is deserving of criticism.

                          I have a different take on our improvements on the defensive end. I keep hearing everyone say it’s primarily due to Murphy’s departure. I don’t really buy that. Let’s use some statistics as a guide. Last season we were 26th in opponent Free throw rate (FT/FGA), and this year we are also at 26th. Last season our opponent turnover percentage was .134, this season it is slightly lower at .133 (last year we were 14th, but this season we are 21st). Last season opponents shot .363 from threes against us, this year they are shooting .356 (opponents were .361 going into the Lakers game, which is below average like .363 was). So what has improved significantly then? By far it’s the rebounding rate. Last season we were 22nd in Defensive Rebounding percentage, this year we are 5th. Our committee of power forwards have provided comparable rebounding production to Murphy’s strong rebounding from a year ago. But Roy Hibbert? Last season he averaged an eddy curryish 8.2 rebounds per 36 minutes, but this year he is averaging 11.4 per 36. This. Is. HUGE. And this isn’t just a hypothetical projection since he’s routinely playing more than 30 minutes when he’s not in foul trouble. Hibbert’s much-improved agility and conditioning have clearly helped his rebounding ability and has also enabled him to block a higher percentage of shots. And my hunch… I don’t think Hibbert would have dropped from 14% body fat to 8% without direct prodding from his coach. I’m guessing that behind the scenes O’Brien straight up told Hibbert that he had to improve his agility and conditioning if he wanted to be a full-time starting center in this league. Hibbert definitely deserves the lion’s share of the credit for having the great work ethic to pull this off. But if we had more of a “player coach” in here who wasn’t so direct, I doubt that Hibbert would have gone to such extreme lengths (of course, it’s a completely separate issue if people are not happy with Hibbert’s improved conditioning this year and truly prefer “Big” Roy from years past).

                          Also consider our opponents two point field goal %... As I noted in my Case for JOB, we’ve done a good job at protecting the middle during O’Brien’s time here and this is primarily due to our strategy of team defense and covering for one another. Last season we were in a three way tie for 4th in the NBA in opponents two point field goal % .... This season? We are in first place (at .446, second place is over a full point behind us at .459).

                          http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...-two-point-pct

                          Maybe our jump from 4th to 1st can be slightly attributed to Murphy’s departure, but again, I think it is primarily due to Roy Hibbert’s improved agility and rebounding. This year unlike last, we are giving opponents fewer offensive rebounds and second chance opportunities to improve their percentages. And Roy is also blocking more shots. But back to O’Brien… it’s not like McRoberts/Posey/Hansbrough and Hibbert/Solo is the most intimidating frontcourt in the NBA. Maybe on paper it’s above average… but by virtue of having a coach who employs a strategy of TEAM control of the middle, we are consistently in the position of overachieving defensively with respect to our ability to protect the basket.

                          So primarily due to our improved rebounding (which can mostly be attributed to Hibbert), we have jumped from 14th in the NBA a year ago in opponents points per 100 possessions to 4th best so far this year.

                          This is why I felt like revisiting O’Brien’s tenure with Boston and Philly. I’m sure that others probably remember more about those teams than I do… but if people had any understanding of those teams they would not be questioning whether or not O’Brien is a good defensive coach. Unfortunately instead, what a lot of people do is they look at O’Brien not playing a guy like Dahntay Jones as evidence that he doesn’t value defense. And regardless of a person’s feelings on guys like Murphy and Dunleavy, they were here when O’Brien got here and he was forced to do the best he could with the raw material available.

                          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                          "Pax O'Briena - Detente" continues to hold for the second game in my sector.
                          I still believe that the Orlando loss was on O'Brien. Anything good that he did during that game was irrelevant because it did not come in a winning effort, and his lack of seeing that the guys didn't have the legs to both shoot 3's and play with the defensive intensity that they had to that game to be competitive was pretty much a failure to adjust, which cost them the game. That was the third game to the minus side for O'Brien so far this season in my view.
                          Winning the second of the back to back in convincing fashion is indicative of a maturation of the team in its effort to continue implementing the changes that have been made by O'Brien, to his credit, this season.
                          The defense is far better than any previously played under O'Brien during his time here, and of all things I think Danny being dissed by Team USA due to lack of defensive effort has a lot to do with his current much improved defensive play, coupled with a much more agressive Rush being better on both ends of the floor.
                          The offense is also improved, due to TJ Ford and Rush playing better, Granger being healthy, and doses of Hibbert being thrown in for good measure against teams who choose to let him score instead of Granger. Also, there have been periods where there has been good ball and player movement, which is probably due to a focus change in an effort to get Roy the ball more than he has had it in the past.
                          Stay tuned for further updates to the evolving story..."Pax O'Briena - Detente".
                          Well in the Orlando game, Hibbert was triple teamed when he got the ball inside of a minute (this was the play out of the timeout that O’Brien called for him), so he made the correct decision to pass it back out to Posey who drained the three. On the next play, Granger had Hibbert open on the same play but decided to reverse it back to Posey. It’s not like we weren’t looking for Hibbert but Orlando is the best defensive team in the NBA. I don’t know how one blames that loss on the coach, agree to disagree I guess. And maybe the Orlando game isn’t the best one to lament so many 3 pointers, since Orlando attempted more than 300 3 pointers than we did a year ago .

                          As for the Granger USA snub… it’s funny how everyone is running with this now as the primary catalyst… but what about how he was in excruciating pain last year with a debilitating injury with the plantar fascia? This clearly affected his offensive efficiencies and his play on defense. Or as I noted in my Case for JOB, when Granger came into the league he was a role player. Then under O’Brien he was expected to become the alpha dog on offense since we didn’t have any other options. Now that he’s got the scoring thing down pat, I think this is just a natural part of his development as he strives to consistently be a well-rounded player, and his coach has continually prodded him in that direction. I’m not saying the Team USA Experience played no role here, but implicit in statements like these I feel there is a strong hint of “it’s not the coach, it’s the players.” But then when we lose, it’s time to blame the coach once again.

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Danny has always been able to play defense, the fact he decided to play defense the past 4 games I think shows more about his experience on Team USA than JOB.
                          Rush's play has little to do with JOB and more about him waking up which I accredit to Granger.
                          I honestly don't see how our PG play has improved that much, it may be better, but it isn't difference maker better.
                          I think you are underestimating the affect Murphy had on this team. He was that big of a detriment to this team. He was a bad example to everyone. Him playing showed to everyone that defense doesn't matter.
                          This team played a lot like they are right now last year when Murphy wasn't playing.
                          Also keep in mind last year at this point this team had a 6-7 record. Also we only beat Miami, it isn't like we blew out Boston, LA, or Orlando. It was Miami. They may have 2 of the top 5 individual players on their team, but they are not a complete team. If you can shut down either Wade or Lebron you are going to win 9 times out of 10. Once you get past those two players they have no one worth mentioning.
                          If you don’t want to give the coach credit that’s fine, but sometimes I feel there is a double standard (not saying from you necessarily, eleazar, but in general)--people run with the same tired talking points about how “JOB is poor at developing players.” Then, as players improve, not only will people give the coach zero credit, but they’ll STILL say that JOB is poor at developing players. As if it’s a fluke that the 2nd Pacer in 3 years could win Most Improved Player award this year (really should be 3 out of last 4 but Dunleavy was robbed in 07-08).
                          And as for Miami… Heh, you make it sound so easy to shut down 2 of the top 5 players in basketball! As for their supporting cast, funny how Big Z had Big Roy’s number in that first quarter. He looked like the better player during that stretch.

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Even the losses have been competitive compared to last year. You are seeing good teams struggle to beat us. That was not the case last year...or the previous year. It was an easy victory for both good and average teams. That is no longer the case.
                          Do you forget that we were the team a couple of years ago to defeat both Boston and the Lakers? Last season without Granger, we go into San Antonio and lose by a point, without Granger we go into Boston and hold them to 38% shooting and have the game even through 3 quarters before we lose at the end. Then by early March when it looked like all of the adversity would get the best of us, O’Brien sent the message loud and clear that there are no moral victories, it’s “irrelevant” when not in a winning effort. And we went 12-10 after that and built something positive heading into this season. Now you hear it from the players, they have heeded the messages. Fight like wolves, there are no moral victories. So what if we lose to a good team in a close game, we still lost. THAT attitude primarily stems from the coach imho. He’s been installing this mindset from day one.
                          It’s been posted on here before but I’ll post it again. Si.com’s Pacers preview from a month ago which featured an opposing scout’s take on the Pacers. This scout sums it up perfectly:
                          “Other teams have more talent, but the Pacers will have a better record than they should because of Jim O'Brien, depending on how long he stays with them. I don't know how anybody can say he's not a good a coach. Maybe he doesn't have the best relationships with his players, but he gets players to play hard. They've won games they had no business winning over the last two years.”

                          Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz16hUBEMa8

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          lets not forget he cost us the Bucks game. His end of game plans and plays sucks. and how does tyler not play the 1st half then start the 2nd. His rotations are wack
                          He cost us the Bucks game? LOL. What about the players? Rotations are wack? Funny how Doc Rivers received the same criticism of his rotations with the Celtics in 06-07, yet a year later when he’s got great talent this was no longer an issue. But when you don’t have first rate talent, things are always going to be in flux (and you factor in significant injuries), then OF COURSE the rotations will seem inconsistent or erratic from an outside perspective. As an example, Look at Paul Westphal with the Kings about 10 days ago…

                          http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/19/319...-starting.html

                          “What a week it's been for Donté Greene.
                          As recently as Tuesday, it appeared there wouldn't be much playing available for the third-year forward.
                          Tonight, Greene is back in the starting lineup and will be for the "foreseeable future," said Kings coach Paul Westphal.
                          It's been a tough start to the season for Greene. After being chided for showing up to training camp out of shape, Greene managed to earn the starting job at small forward for the Oct. 27 season opener in Minnesota.
                          He was benched for the next game in New Jersey in favor of Omri Casspi and didn't play in five of the next eight games.
                          "A whole lot of frustration," is how Greene described that span. "I felt like my rookie year was coming back, and I wasn't happy for a while."
                          Greene got his chance Wednesday against New York. In 20 minutes, he scored eight points and provided much-needed energy on defense. Greene blames himself for being out of the rotation and says he's worked to fix that.”

                          Wow! Westphal’s rotations are wack! Hey, things change. Coaches change their minds. I bet if Westphal were our coach (or really, no matter who our coach was), we’d be hearing the same criticisms.
                          As for Tyler starting the second half, O’Brien probably decided to give him playing time since we were up by 25. If it were a close game I’m guessing he would have stuck with McRoberts. This is another example… O’Brien made the decision to give Hansbrough some PT for developmental sake, and you’re making an issue of it? With some people, O’Brien can never win.


                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          JOB playing Murphy at center lost some games too.
                          We were 3-4 in games last year where Murphy started at center. I went through every one of them in my Case for JOB. As for other games where he didn’t start at center but played center in short spurts, remember that Jeff Foster was hurt and Solo isn’t exactly an appealing option. Mike Wells even admitted in a blog that the “small ball” lineups were effective at times at helping us get back into games. For example, there was the come from behind victory vs Toronto in January where Murphy at center in the second half got us back in the game and we went on to win it. I’ve always found this Murphy at center critique to be more about symbolism rather than substance—and more of a commentary on our lack of talent that O’Brien had to deal with things like this.

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Um...the team was 5-0 without Murphy and 1-7 with him at that stage.
                          I think that is extremely misleading with all due respect. I went through this entire period in great detail in my Case for JOB… During that 5-0 stretch we beat the Knicks and Nets, and they were the 2 worst teams in the NBA out of the gate. We did beat the Celtics, but we also beat the Celtics and Lakers in 08-09 with Murphy as our starting PF. Boston still shot a good percentage against us, but Granger was on fire that game and we were even better. Also in game 9, before Murphy even came back we lost to the Knicks at home, which was a good indication that ANY lineup would have likely struggled to find season-long consistency. In the first 3 games of the season Hibbert was smoked by Horford, J O’Neal and Nene. Then when Murphy returned the schedule got much tougher as we played at Cleveland and headed out West, where Hibbert struggled against perimeter-oriented centers. Then Granger went from hurt to injured and missed about 20 games, further compounding our struggles. The whole blame Troy Murphy thing has always been overstated imo.

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I think the team overachieved while underachieving all at the same time.
                          There was no reason to be in "win now mode" when they clearly didn't have the roster to do anything with the wins, considering they weren't going to win enough to even make the playoffs. Sure they won a few more games than what the roster should have won. Congrats.
                          Instead of losing a few more games and letting a player like Josh develop, or even AJ, we are now having to do it this season on the fly. In the long run, it actually hurt the franchise more, than it helped it.
                          I’ve never understood this one… So sometimes the O’Brien bashers will point to our 104-142 record during his 3 year tenure as coach, and say he didn’t win enough, didn’t make the playoffs, etc. so he needs to go. But then when it gets pointed out that we could have easily been 70-176 given our lack of talent and injuries to key players, then the rationale for wanting him gone… is not that he won too few, but too many games!!
                          I’ve always disagreed with this mantra about how “developing” players is about entitling them to guaranteed playing time just because they are under 25. I think it comes back to a team’s culture, of being in the habit and the EXPECTATION of winning NOW. Take the example of how Indiana and Minnesota finished off last season. Give me the choice between Indiana’s 12-10 finish which led to 10th pick Paul George, and Minnesota’s 1-23 finish which led to 4th pick Wesley Johnson… I’m taking Indiana’s 12-10 finish every time. Do you know what Minnesota developed from that 1-23 finish? Do you know what they learned? They learned that they are losers, and they are going to remain losers. That’s all that was reinforced for them. Once a franchise falls into that trap of no longer caring who wins the next game, and only concerns itself with the “future”, they are only dooming themselves to further fail.

                          And it’s not like O’Brien is opposed to playing young players… last season (as sad as it is), Brandon Rush led our team in minutes played. A.J. Price got a legit opportunity to play many more minutes than his draft order would normally have merited, and O’Brien even benched Ford at one point in favor of Price even though Ford makes 16 times his salary. McRoberts was given the opportunity to start games as early as December. This guy reportedly fell out of favor almost immediately with Portland because of his attitude, but O’Brien has given him the chance to work his way up and now he’s starting. Hibbert is much further along by year 3 than most people expected.

                          This whole idea of playing for the “future”… sounds good on paper, in theory. But is it realistic? So should Houston just not play Yao Ming since he is likely not a part of their future? Should Detroit not play Tayshaun Prince and just give 40 minutes to Austin Daye? Is Mike D’Antoni in the wrong for benching Anthony Randolph? Hey, Randolph is supposed to be about the future, so play him 35 mpg regardless of his level of focus and attention to detail? You could play this game with any head coach of the league and use it as criticism. Avery Johnson now… Terrence Williams is getting much less playing time compared to a year ago, and now is even being demoted to the D-League! And as for the criticism of playing a guy like Dunleavy right now… much to the chagrin of a lot of folks, it’s not set in stone that Dunleavy will not be back. He may find that he’s most comfortable here and sign for maybe $3 or $4 million a year for 2 or 3 years.

                          I’ll also add… when people make a big fuss about A.J. Price not playing right now, they should realize they are paying Jim O’Brien a compliment. It’s probably the biggest compliment you could pay the guy and I love it when people harp on this. It’s not even a criticism; my hunch--most coaches would also be playing Collison and Ford at this stage with Price as the odd man out. Price’s time will come… if not this year then next year.

                          No one will admit this but I think the entire perception of O’Brien would be much improved if we had made the playoffs in year 1. That’s how arbitrary so much of the O’Brien criticism is. We had Jermaine O’Neal and Jamaal Tinsley for 60 combined fewer games in 07-08 compared to the season prior, yet we still only finished one game back of the Hawks for the 8 spot despite having Travis Diener down the stretch at point guard instead of a Mike Bibby or Andre Miller (7th seed Philly). This could have easily been a 20 win team, but we nearly made the playoffs in year 1.

                          Comment


                          • Re: A question for the OB haters

                            Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                            The 2006-07 Boston Celtics finished 24-58. The very next year the 2007-08 team finished 66-16 and won the NBA Championship. That's worse than the Pacers were last year to being the best and winning the title. Going from worst to first can happen and has happened very recently. Anything can happen.

                            I do expect us to win every game, I always have, call it what you will but I feel that way moreso this year than any since Reggie retired. If JOB could adjust at halftime just like the other teams do and keep Roy down low and keep him in the game, we can win any game this year. Good coached have their teams prepared and ready for anything and everything, they make adjustments and counter what the other team is doing, I haven't seen that from JOB at all in his time here.
                            Sorry, but you are completely unrealistic.

                            Comment


                            • Re: A question for the OB haters

                              Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
                              I’ve never understood this one… So sometimes the O’Brien bashers will point to our 104-142 record during his 3 year tenure as coach, and say he didn’t win enough, didn’t make the playoffs, etc. so he needs to go. But then when it gets pointed out that we could have easily been 70-176 given our lack of talent and injuries to key players, then the rationale for wanting him gone… is not that he won too few, but too many games!!
                              First off, you're combining arguments/ideas from different posters and trying to fit everyone in a nice little square box. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

                              You can't take my comments and attribute them to, say, Sookie. Just because we agree that Jim isn't the right coach, doesn't mean that I agree with everything she thinks/says nor does she agree with everything I think/say.

                              Very few posters actually think Jim should have won more games with this roster. Talent is/was lacking. There's no denying it.

                              But just like there are extremes on every side of the argument. And just because there is an extreme doesn't discredit the entire argument.




                              Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
                              I’ve always disagreed with this mantra about how “developing” players is about entitling them to guaranteed playing time just because they are under 25. I think it comes back to a team’s culture, of being in the habit and the EXPECTATION of winning NOW.
                              Entitling them??? Oh my, where to begin......

                              We can talk about entitlements, but we have to go back before Jim ever coached his first game with the Pacers. How many times in that preseason did we hear him say things like "If you can't practice you won't be playing in games. Blah blah blah blah?"

                              And then come to find out that JO not only was playing, but starting, all while he WASN'T PRACTICING.

                              Or we can dive back into the discussion on how he treated AJ last year, giving him DNP-CDs, then getting some minutes due to injuries/sickness/personal time only to play well, and then go straight back to the bench with the quote "Now we know what he has blah blah blah?"

                              How many times did we ***** and moan about how Roy would routinely foul out with 4 freaking fouls so we could watch Rasho lug his slow *** up and down the court?

                              You want to talk about entitlement? How about how TJ didn't even play 7minutes of preseason, due to a hamstring injury, ut yet was magically the back-up PG with AJ not even dressing. Or how about how when DC came back from his ankle injury, only to reinjure in the that game, but AJ was still sitting on the sideline in street clothes?

                              The smart man realizes that you have a player just coming off injury, and players often reinjure themselves right after they come back so you might need more than one backup available?

                              I don't give a **** about entitling anyone. I think you make decisions based on need, or based on ability. I don't care if AJ was picked in the 2nd round, or the 10th round. If he deserves to play, he should play. If a player is injured, he should play.

                              The whole idea that just because he shouldn't play, because he was a 2nd round pick is as stupid as saying PG should play, because he was the 10th pick. You don't earn your spot by where you were drafted. You also don't get demoted because of where you were drafted.

                              Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
                              Take the example of how Indiana and Minnesota finished off last season. Give me the choice between Indiana’s 12-10 finish which led to 10th pick Paul George, and Minnesota’s 1-23 finish which led to 4th pick Wesley Johnson… I’m taking Indiana’s 12-10 finish every time. Do you know what Minnesota developed from that 1-23 finish? Do you know what they learned? They learned that they are losers, and they are going to remain losers. That’s all that was reinforced for them. Once a franchise falls into that trap of no longer caring who wins the next game, and only concerns itself with the “future”, they are only dooming themselves to further fail.
                              Yeah, you're right. I'm sure those last 22 games completely changed their self-identity that was established from the prior 60 games.

                              Please tell me how playing Troy Murphy 30+mins last year benefited THIS team, THIS year. It's impossible to do. Troy Murphy can't even get off the freaking bench in NJ but when he's here, he's dubbed the 2nd most valuable player on the squad.

                              If your entire teams identity is shaped, because of 22 games, then there are a lot bigger problems going on.

                              And if you actually take a look at some of the box scores from those 22 games, I think you'd be interested to see who was actually playing.

                              Here is just some random sampling.

                              3/30 vs. Kings
                              Josh McRoberts - 14:17
                              AJ Price - 12:58 - 3

                              3/12 vs Celtics
                              Josh McRoberts 22:12
                              AJ Price 16:16

                              4/9 vs Cavs
                              Josh McRoberts 19:35
                              AJ Price 14:41


                              I can continue, but I think my point is clear. YOUNGER PLAYERS!!! Younger players that are actually on the team this year getting minutes!!!!

                              No, I'm not saying AJ Price and/or McRoberts makes or breaks the team. I'm saying this season is just a continuation of what started last season.

                              The 12-10 finish is closer to the infamous 5 game winning streak, and what is happening this year. You know, the EXACT things we *****ed and moaned about, saying Jim should be doing when Josh/AJ was planted on the bench.

                              That 12-10 record proves MY point. Not yours.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: A question for the OB haters

                                Are you kidding me? If we had Josh or Price in that play last night we probably would not have made that Hibbert dunk.


                                As with Troy Murphy- you realize you want him to start coming back from two injuries in a row? And that's somehow his fault that he can't start after being injured? And that now he's seeing the floor again?

                                Are you joking?

                                Younger players getting minutes SMH. You think Paul George getting burn is worth noting having a potential franchise changing team stretch in which we play 3-2 and feel great about the team?

                                Since when has there been a concrete link that minutes = good development for players? Look at Collison and Thornton- tons of minutes, tons of playing time last season- bad seasons this year. What about Mario Chalmers? All that uproar over him starting for a bad Miami team and now he's seeing less play than Eddie House and Arroyo.

                                Come on- there is no reason to be upset at not playing the youth. Game experience is not the same as winning experience.


                                Or did you think that Granger would have improved more if he saw playing time in TEAM USA over the summer?

                                Sometimes sitting in the bench can be very good. Even though Granger is better than Iggy- look at how much Granger improved from just sitting on the TEAM USA bench this year.


                                This whole "OMG HE IS TERRIBLE AND STUPID FOR NOT PLAYING THE YOUTH AND INSTEAD PLAYING TO WIN GAMES TO TRY TO CREATE A WINNING CULTURE" needs to stop. Look- what was most important to the development of Roy and Granger this year- more minutes last year or a taste of winning culture and hard work this year?


                                I think the case is pretty clear right now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X