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

New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

    Question: You mentioned that Rick Carlisle said the Pacers were going to play a different style of offense next year. Do you know what this style is and how it differs from last year? I personally hope it is a little more up-tempo to show off the talents of Jamaal Tinsley, Jonathan Bender and Fred Jones in the full court. (Brian from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

    Answer: I asked Carlisle that question at the time and he didn't give an answer. But I'm guessing the team will play a faster tempo. Carlisle knows Tinsley better now than before last season and no doubt trusts him more. Stephen Jackson, Bender and Jones will have significant roles in the offense and are suited to an up-tempo game. Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal, who were the focal points of last season's halfcourt offense, would prefer a faster pace, too.

    Question: We have heard all of the talk about the summer league and how players are working out all over the country. What has not been addressed is your conditioning in the off-season. You were criticized globally (not meaning Sekou Smith's frame) for your lack of mobility as Shawn Bradley took full advantage of you and your laptop. What has your off-season conditioning program consisted of? (D.C. from Indianapolis)

    Answer: To the contrary, I showed amazing alertness and agility to get out of the way of Bradley's awkward dive into the scorer's table. I was light on my feet, executing a move that put the greatest of bullfighters to shame.

    However, I must admit my off-season training program has been sporadic. I work out a few days a week at the health club and swing a golf club, but haven't done anything to improve my footwork. Therefore, I plan to cover next season's Pacers-Mavericks games from the press room to avoid a reunion with Mr. Bradley.

    Question: What is the status of Antonio Davis? Could he fit into the Pacers' plans? It seems like he's wasting away in Chicago. (Michael from Tipton, Ind.)

    Answer: Davis is Chicago's highest-paid player, due $27 million over the next two seasons. He turns 36 on Oct. 31, and given his injury problems of the past couple of seasons it's unlikely he'll be able to live up to his salary. He's another example of Toronto's dilemma. The Raptors often have to over-pay players to re-sign them. They also made a major offer to Austin Croshere, which the Pacers had to beat to re-sign him in 2000.

    Still, Davis is a mature veteran who would be a welcome addition to any team. He has told people he wishes he had never left the Pacers. He probably would be happy to finish his career here, although his wife's family lives in the Chicago area and they appear to enjoy living there.

    Given his salary, however, it would be difficult for the Pacers to acquire him and fit him into their payroll structure. There's a better chance of them bringing back Dale Davis next summer, when he is a free agent and can be signed for a much lower salary than he's earning now ($10 million). He turns 36 in March. (I think that'd be nice)

    Question: How would a Shawn Bradley-Scot Pollard trade work out? It gives the Pacers a big man who blocks shots and could get some rebounds. (Phill from Brussels, Belgium)

    Answer: The salaries don't match closely enough. Pollard will be paid $5.8 million this season and Bradley will receive $4 million.

    Question: It seemed the Mavericks gave up very little to acquire Erick Dampier. Couldn't the Pacers put together a combination of players and/or picks that would have matched or been better than Dallas' offer? (Tim from Miami, Fla.)

    Answer: The Pacers could have given the Warriors more talent than the Mavericks did, but Chris Mullin did not want long-term contracts. He received first-round draft picks and some cash. He took on Eduardo Najera's contract, which has four years remaining, but was able to unload Evan Eschmeyer's bloated contract in return. That trade was about economics for the Warriors.

    Also, the Pacers were not willing to give Dampier a seven-year contract worth more than $70 million. They would have given him big money for fewer years, however.

    Question: What do you think about the Pacers adding some bulk to their front line by signing Marcus Fizer? He was Jamaal Tinsley's teammate in college. Although he has not had the best career in the NBA thus far, on the right team (Pacers) he could add another big body and some much needed toughness to the frontline to match up with the likes of Detroit. (Patrick from Fishers, Ind.)

    Answer: I regarded Fizer as an underrated player in Chicago. He always seemed to play well against the Pacers, at least. But he's a forward (6-8, 260), so it would be difficult to work him into the lineup. He's got one year left on a contract that will pay him $4.9 million this season, so he's certainly a tradeable player.

    I'm guessing he'll get a lot of playing time with the Charlotte Bobcats, however, and they would be reluctant to trade him. He also has legal issues for carrying a handgun.

    http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/025639-4458-116.html
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

    Originally posted by Hicks
    Question: You mentioned that Rick Carlisle said the Pacers were going to play a different style of offense next year. Do you know what this style is and how it differs from last year? I personally hope it is a little more up-tempo to show off the talents of Jamaal Tinsley, Jonathan Bender and Fred Jones in the full court. (Brian from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

    Answer: I asked Carlisle that question at the time and he didn't give an answer. But I'm guessing the team will play a faster tempo. Carlisle knows Tinsley better now than before last season and no doubt trusts him more. Stephen Jackson, Bender and Jones will have significant roles in the offense and are suited to an up-tempo game. Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal, who were the focal points of last season's halfcourt offense, would prefer a faster pace, too.
    I don't know if I would count on that. Rick seems absolutely love calling every play.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

      Originally posted by Hicks
      Question: You mentioned that Rick Carlisle said the Pacers were going to play a different style of offense next year. Do you know what this style is and how it differs from last year? I personally hope it is a little more up-tempo to show off the talents of Jamaal Tinsley, Jonathan Bender and Fred Jones in the full court. (Brian from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

      Answer: I asked Carlisle that question at the time and he didn't give an answer. But I'm guessing the team will play a faster tempo. Carlisle knows Tinsley better now than before last season and no doubt trusts him more. Stephen Jackson, Bender and Jones will have significant roles in the offense and are suited to an up-tempo game. Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal, who were the focal points of last season's halfcourt offense, would prefer a faster pace, too.
      I hope it ain't the "Quick" offense!!! :devillaugh:

      Originally posted by Hicks
      Question: We have heard all of the talk about the summer league and how players are working out all over the country. What has not been addressed is your conditioning in the off-season. You were criticized globally (not meaning Sekou Smith's frame) for your lack of mobility as Shawn Bradley took full advantage of you and your laptop. What has your off-season conditioning program consisted of? (D.C. from Indianapolis)

      Answer: To the contrary, I showed amazing alertness and agility to get out of the way of Bradley's awkward dive into the scorer's table. I was light on my feet, executing a move that put the greatest of bullfighters to shame.



      However, I must admit my off-season training program has been sporadic. I work out a few days a week at the health club and swing a golf club, but haven't done anything to improve my footwork. Therefore, I plan to cover next season's Pacers-Mavericks games from the press room to avoid a reunion with Mr. Bradley.
      The funniest thing about this was durring SportsCenter after the game, they were doing the highlite of Shawn Bradley killing his computer and the SC anchor just said...Dude, your getting a Dell! I think I laughed for about 10 mins.

      Originally posted by Hicks
      Question: What is the status of Antonio Davis? Could he fit into the Pacers' plans? It seems like he's wasting away in Chicago. (Michael from Tipton, Ind.)

      Answer: Davis is Chicago's highest-paid player, due $27 million over the next two seasons. He turns 36 on Oct. 31, and given his injury problems of the past couple of seasons it's unlikely he'll be able to live up to his salary. He's another example of Toronto's dilemma. The Raptors often have to over-pay players to re-sign them. They also made a major offer to Austin Croshere, which the Pacers had to beat to re-sign him in 2000.

      Still, Davis is a mature veteran who would be a welcome addition to any team. He has told people he wishes he had never left the Pacers. He probably would be happy to finish his career here, although his wife's family lives in the Chicago area and they appear to enjoy living there.

      Given his salary, however, it would be difficult for the Pacers to acquire him and fit him into their payroll structure. There's a better chance of them bringing back Dale Davis next summer, when he is a free agent and can be signed for a much lower salary than he's earning now ($10 million). He turns 36 in March. (I think that'd be nice)
      Dale Davis...Yes!
      Antonio Davis...No! :boo:

      Originally posted by Hicks
      Question: How would a Shawn Bradley-Scot Pollard trade work out? It gives the Pacers a big man who blocks shots and could get some rebounds. (Phill from Brussels, Belgium)

      Answer: The salaries don't match closely enough. Pollard will be paid $5.8 million this season and Bradley will receive $4 million.
      Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
      Bradley>>>:horsedoo:

      Question: It seemed the Mavericks gave up very little to acquire Erick Dampier. Couldn't the Pacers put together a combination of players and/or picks that would have matched or been better than Dallas' offer? (Tim from Miami, Fla.)

      Originally posted by Hicks
      Answer: The Pacers could have given the Warriors more talent than the Mavericks did, but Chris Mullin did not want long-term contracts. He received first-round draft picks and some cash. He took on Eduardo Najera's contract, which has four years remaining, but was able to unload Evan Eschmeyer's bloated contract in return. That trade was about economics for the Warriors.

      Also, the Pacers were not willing to give Dampier a seven-year contract worth more than $70 million. They would have given him big money for fewer years, however.
      They can have him!!!!
      This :spam: could be worth more then Dampier towards the end of his contract

      Originally posted by Hicks
      Question: What do you think about the Pacers adding some bulk to their front line by signing Marcus Fizer? He was Jamaal Tinsley's teammate in college. Although he has not had the best career in the NBA thus far, on the right team (Pacers) he could add another big body and some much needed toughness to the frontline to match up with the likes of Detroit. (Patrick from Fishers, Ind.)

      Answer: I regarded Fizer as an underrated player in Chicago. He always seemed to play well against the Pacers, at least. But he's a forward (6-8, 260), so it would be difficult to work him into the lineup. He's got one year left on a contract that will pay him $4.9 million this season, so he's certainly a tradeable player.

      I'm guessing he'll get a lot of playing time with the Charlotte Bobcats, however, and they would be reluctant to trade him. He also has legal issues for carrying a handgun.
      Guns don't kill people...People kill people, and possible trades. :devil3:

      Actually, It doesn't sound like a bad idea if we had a place to play him, and he didn't have the excess baggage.


      [edit=29=1094221796][/edit]
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

        Rick didn't call every play when he worked for Bird. But they trusted Mark Jackson's decision-making abilities.

        Rick hasn't had a PG he trusted to call the plays since he's been a HC. But I wouldn't look at his three years of HC history and draw those types of conclusions. He's not Larry Brown, he's much more flexible.
        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

        • #5
          Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

          Where's Peck...he'll wet his pants reading this.










          well maybe not
          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
            Rick didn't call every play when he worked for Bird. But they trusted Mark Jackson's decision-making abilities.
            Did "they" trust Mark Jackson or did Bird trust Mark Jackson. I don't know if its solid support to look to his asistant days on this subject, as an assistant doesn't have the freedom to run a team that a head coach does.

            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
            Rick hasn't had a PG he trusted to call the plays since he's been a HC.
            Are you assuming this? Because I can't imagine you have a quote to back this up. Even if it is true, Carlisle is way too media savy to just come out and say "Yeah none of these point guards are good enough to play point." And if it is true, it seems he was wrong about Billups.

            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
            But I wouldn't look at his three years of HC history and draw those types of conclusions. He's not Larry Brown, he's much more flexible.
            Why shouldn't I look to how he has performed as a head coach to judge how he will perform as a head coach?

            And I don't see how Larry Brown fits this situation. While its true he is very stubborn and makes his point guards play a certain way (which basically amounts to "don't shoot first") he lets the point guard dictate the flow on the floor and call the plays.

            But I'm no prophet. It might be the case that Carlisle changes things and goes more up-tempo and let Tinsley run things. If he does however, it will be (IMO) out of his character and he will have changed as well as the offense.

            [edit=390=1094225540][/edit]
            [edit=390=1094225630][/edit]

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

              Question: What do you think about the Pacers adding some bulk to their front line by signing Marcus Fizer? He was Jamaal Tinsley's teammate in college. Although he has not had the best career in the NBA thus far, on the right team (Pacers) he could add another big body and some much needed toughness to the frontline to match up with the likes of Detroit. (Patrick from Fishers, Ind.)

              Answer: I regarded Fizer as an underrated player in Chicago. He always seemed to play well against the Pacers, at least. But he's a forward (6-8, 260), so it would be difficult to work him into the lineup. He's got one year left on a contract that will pay him $4.9 million this season, so he's certainly a tradeable player.

              I'm guessing he'll get a lot of playing time with the Charlotte Bobcats, however, and they would be reluctant to trade him. He also has legal issues for carrying a handgun.
              Mark is wrong here. Fizer was made an unrestricted free agent when we was drafted by the Bobcats. He is not guaranteed any amount of $ this season. I'd be all for adding him to our lineup for some extra muscle in the post. A combination of Bender, Fizer and Croshere as forwards off the bench would help negate the loss of Harrington.
              "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
              -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                Originally posted by Fool
                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                Rick didn't call every play when he worked for Bird. But they trusted Mark Jackson's decision-making abilities.
                Did "they" trust Mark Jackson or did Bird trust Mark Jackson. I don't know if its solid support to look to his asistant days on this subject, as an assistant doesn't have the freedom to run a team that a head coach does.
                It was widely regarded that Rick ran the offense, Harter ran the defense, and Bird dealt with managing the personalities. Bird was very hands-off. I think this subject is very relevant to the discussion.

                Originally posted by Fool
                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                Rick hasn't had a PG he trusted to call the plays since he's been a HC.
                Are you assuming this? Because I can't imagine you have a quote to back this up. Even if it is true, Carlisle is way too media savy to just come out and say "Yeah none of these point guards are good enough to play point." And if it is true, it seems he was wrong about Billups.
                Yeah, its an assumption I've made from watching Rick for several years and observing the types of PGs he's had to coach.

                Chauncey, for example, is fine for a shoot-first PG, I really like him, actually. But that doesn't mean he's the type of quarterback-style PG that would be good at calling the plays. Tinsley has flaws, no doubt, but his style of PG play is much closer to "quarterback."

                Originally posted by Fool
                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                But I wouldn't only look at his three years of HC history and draw those types of conclusions. He's not Larry Brown, he's much more flexible.
                Why shouldn't I look to how he has performed as a head coach to judge how he will perform as a head coach?

                And I don't see how Larry Brown fits this situation. While its true he is very stubborn and makes his point guards play a certain way (which basically amounts to "don't shoot first") he lets the point guard dictate the flow on the floor and call the plays.

                But I'm no prophet. It might be the case that Carlisle changes things and goes more up-tempo and let Tinsley run things. If he does however, it will be (IMO) out of his character and he will have changed as well as the offense.
                Sorry, I left out the word "only" (now bolded) above.

                You should look at what he's done at every level of coaching. What I meant, with the Brownie comment, is something we discussed ad nauseum last fall. Brownie has coached the same system for at least twenty years. Sure, he makes little tweaks here and there, but he's not doing much different today than he did with the Pacers a decade ago. All the long-time Pacers fans know where Rip is going to get the ball because we've seen Reggie run through those screens thousands of times.

                Last year, there was an assumption that Rick could only coach the way he coached the Pistons, and he clearly proved to have more depth and flexibility last season. I'm just saying its wrong to paint a young coach, like Rick, into a corner because he's only shown a couple of dimensions thus far.

                Rick's very good at understanding the strenghts and weaknesses of his team, and its individual players, and designing an effective gameplan. He's still not great at in-game tweaks, mind you. But if he believes he can trust Tinsley to assume more control of the offense this season, then I believe he's going to do just that.

                (Excellent points, by the way).
                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

                • #9
                  Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                  Yeah, I was aware that Bird delegated the actual game management to his assistants but I would still say (and its not the strongest support for my side, I will admit) that its not necessarily the case that it was Carlisle's decision to let Jackson call the plays. And the more I see Carlisle as a head coach the less weak that claim becomes.

                  As for Billups (I'm trying not to be a homer but thats who Carlisle coached last year) I think its unfair to say that Billups (who Rick coached) can't run a game when he did all last year and won a championship doing it. Now it might be the case that he couldn't have done so last year under Rick (in other words, that Brown coached him into a player capable of doing so) but if so, what does that say for Carlisle?

                  "Rick's very good at understanding the strenghts and weaknesses of his team, and its individual players, and designing an effective gameplan."

                  In fact, he might be the best coach in the league at doing so. But I don't see the change in style from how he coached the Pistons. I have actually brought this up before and someone here said "WELL YOU CLEARLY DIDN'T WATCH ENOUGH PACER GAMES!! The offense was much freer during the season." And while this might be true, it definately wasn't true in the playoffs, its not true whenever anybody defends Tinsley saying "Ricks offense takes away from his stats", and its not true to the extent that the players all want a faster and freer offense. What was so different between the Pacer game plan last year and his Piston plan the year before that wasn't caused be the differences in the abilities on the rosters.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                    Originally posted by Fool
                    What was so different between the Pacer game plan last year and his Piston plan the year before that wasn't caused be the differences in the abilities on the rosters.
                    If I'm reading your question correctly, the answer is nothing. Rick designed a gameplan in Detroit based on the players he had. He's always going to emphasize defense first, of course. But he's going to play a defensive system based on the skills of his players. Your defense, under Rick, emphasized Ben's ability to, as I call it, play goalie. Rick used JO, who's a decent shot blocker, as the primary post defender.

                    Rick's offense for the Pacers was never a thing of free-flowing beauty, but during the second half of the regular season, it was very efficient. I've got to believe that if Rick, as a head coach, had the offensive personnel of the late-1990's era Pacers, then he would coach them the same offensively as he did then.

                    As for Chauncey - I think he's an example of a player that has really improved his game every single season. I'm not sure he was ready, two seasons ago, for the offense to be turned over to him. He was just coming into his own as a starter/ clutch performer. Its probably a combination of Brownie, an excellent PG coach, and Chauncey's continuted maturity as a PG.
                    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

                    • #11
                      Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                      Ok but then what does this statement reference

                      "Last year, there was an assumption that Rick could only coach the way he coached the Pistons, and he clearly proved to have more depth and flexibility last season. I'm just saying its wrong to paint a young coach, like Rick, into a corner because he's only shown a couple of dimensions thus far."

                      What are you counting as depth and flexibility then as from what I saw, the Pacers played the same defense (tweeked a bit to fit Artest and JO) and the same type of offense (tweaked a bit to fit JO and Artest)

                      And just to head-off anything, I like Carlisle and I liked him in Detroit. I would have liked to see a less (walk-it-up) offense but the only thing I questioned was why the team struggled against so many opponents in the playoffs that they were clearly more talented then (something that one might want to keep an eye out for with the Pacers in the next few years). In general I think he is one of the top coaches out there today.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                        Originally posted by Fool
                        I don't know if I would count on that. Rick seems absolutely love calling every play.
                        Depends on his personelle. He ran our offense from 98-2000, and that team was not a walk it up team that had every play called from the bench. Far from it. He can go either way, and if he says he's changing it, and what we already had was walk it up, call most plays....

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                          I would be slow to let Tinsley run things anyway he pleased. Mel Mel's got great vision, but I don't get the vibe he has a complete understanding of the game or of Rick's vision for the offense.

                          I can't say I know how Rick thinks about it one way or the other, but I would want to call the plays were I in his shoes.
                          "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                            I see Jay's gone into it way better than I have/can, but I agree 100% with him.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: New Montieth Q&A - 9/3

                              Also, the Dale Davis idea sounds great to me. I know its been said before, but Dale wouldn't have to contribute all that much on the floor if he could rub some "warrior mentality" onto JO and Foster. He is one of the true badasses in the league.
                              "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X