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

Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

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

    Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

    Jay pointed out to me that Charlie Rosen is doing a series of articles on each NBA coach leading up to the season.

    For those who don't know, Charlie Rosen is a former CBA coach and is widely known as Phil Jackson's hatchet man. I thoroughly dislike the man, if for no other reason than he can't open his mouth without taking an unsubstantiated pot-shot at somebody. For instance, he started the Paul Silas article by blaming Paul's long tenure as an assistant on Pat Riley supposedly calling him lazy.

    That said, I couldn't resist posting this. Take from it what you will.

    Are Pacers, Carlisle a good fit?

    Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com
    Posted: 10 days ago

    This guy is a coach, not a schmoozer. It's not that he doesn't cooperate with the media, just that he can be abrupt and close-mouthed when responding to the normal "what-was-your-greatest-thrill" type interviews. Ask him a "real" basketball question, however, and he'll give an honest, intelligent response.

    Sometimes, though, Carlisle can be too honest for his own good — as when he publicly calls his players to task for their shoddy performances. And when his unshakeable honesty oftentimes leads to stubbornness.

    Coaching stubborn defense is the hallmark of Carlisle's game plan. His teams will deny passes, collapse on ball penetration (while still being in position to run down shooters), attack post passes, fight through screen/rolls (or have big men show), and generally harass the ball. Quickness and cohesive rotations are the keys.

    At the downhill end of the court, Carlisle favors lots of early offense, dives, curls, pin-downs, cross-picks, multi-facets of the Hawk series (where the bigs start high and then pick low), isos, and some flex action. Precision and good shooters are the requisites.

    Similar to his relationship with the media, Carlisle is all-business when dealing with his players. He's their coach, not their buddy. Carlisle also exhibits a wonderful game-time demeanor on the bench — involved, but still calm and rational.

    Not that Carlisle's resume is spotless. Interesting enough, he blinked during the playoffs for two seasons running. In Game 2 against the Nets in the 2003 Eastern Conference finals, Carlisle sat Michael Curry and plugged Tayshaun Prince into Detroit's starting lineup, a move designed to boost the Piston's lethargic offense. In truth, Prince was spectacularly unprepared to be a go-to guy in his rookie season. Sure, he'd had his moments against Philadelphia in the previous series, but the Sixers' interior defense was weak whereas the Nets' D was all about quick hands and double-teamings.

    By disregarding the fact that Curry was one of the Pistons' most accomplished defenders and most positive locker room presences, Carlisle undermined the team's primary strength — its overall chemistry. Curry was then double-dissed in that game when he was denied any daylight whatsoever.

    Carlisle repeated the same tactic during last year's conference finals against Detroit when he removed Jeff Foster from the lineup and likewise screwed him into the bench for the duration. The rationale was that while Foster was a dependable defender and an excellent rebounder (particularly in a crowd), he couldn't score with a pencil.

    Did Carlisle panic? Perhaps Detroit general manager Joe Dumars forced Carlisle to force feed Prince? Or was Carlisle merely being flexible?

    Nobody but Carlisle knows for sure.

    The two moves by Carlisle essentially sent the following message to his players: What got them so deep into the playoffs was not good enough to take them to the next level.

    In order to be effective in the modern-day NBA, Carlisle's stick-to-the-business-at-hand game face needs to be presented to a special group of players — guys who want desperately to win, who are willing to sacrifice their own numbers, and who don't need to be nuzzled and spoon-fed by their coach. In other words, players who have attained a certain level of maturity.

    In truth, Carlisle's squad in Detroit fit these requisites much more than his current team does. The likes of Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, and newcomer Stephen Jackson have never been accused of acting like grown-ups.

    What else does the Pacers' roster have to offer? Consistently erratic performances by Austin Croshere and Jamaal Tinsley. The increasing decrepitude of Reggie Miller. The alarming playoff incompetence of Artest. And the still-elusive coming-of-age of Jonathan Bender.

    Add it all up and there'll be plenty of offense, insufficient discipline (especially from the mistake-prone Jackson), and nary enough defense. By season's end, the time may be ripe for the Pacers to either back up the truck and ship out their resident knuckleheads, or for Rick Carlisle to connect with a team of adults that needs a coach.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

    I found that to be an interesting read.

    Although if you just read that article and did not know that the Pacers won 61 games season, you might gues they had won maybe 35. Sounds like some of the discussions we have had in this forum this summer

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

      I usually never read Charlie Rosen articles, and wish I hadn't of read this.

      How he can say we don't have enough defense after us being a top 3 team (imo) defensivly and that Detroit series confuses me.

      On an off note check this out - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1892311

      Anyone notice anything fishy about that page? Someone at ESPN is confusing NBA with NFL.
      [edit=424=1096580704][/edit]
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

        Rosen is obviously living with a big bug up his @$$.

        However, I agreed with his points about Stephen "Turnover" Jackson. If he plays as badly as he's capable of, I won't have time to complain about Ron's brain.

        Because Rick approaches every game as if it were the playoffs, I'm not surprised that he'd have to send the message that "what got us this far may not be good enough to get us all the way." That, by its very definition, is an adjustment. Rosen seems to be arguing that Rick is too flexible. Not sure I've *ever* heard that one before.

        However, I remain unconvinced that our team's chemistry is very good - every time last season we had a stretch of 0.500 play (December, Miami + ECFs), it seemed that poor chemistry was one of the contributors. Winning can mask that, temporarily.
        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: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

          This guy is an idiot. "Plenty of offense but not enough defense"? Does he WATCH the Pacers? Ever?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

            Though some of his criticism may seem harsh at first read, I think Rosen's view shold be acknowledged.

            He may well be full of ****, and I don't like the way that he presents his point, but his central thesis is solid (I'll disagree with it after presenting it).

            He thinks that Carlisle is a great coach and his style breeds success, though to win at a higher level, Carlisle needs a different sort of player on his team... (none of us can really say that Artest, O'Neal, or Jackson acts mature on a regular basis). Carlisle needs players like Bird in order to succeed.... Talent is not really an issue. He thinks that if the Pacers fail to at least compete in the finals this year, they will have demonstrated that changes need to be made.

            To some extent I agree with Rosen, but being an optomistic Pacer fan, I think that Carlisle's professional attitude has rubbed off on many of the Pacers. From what I gather, we avoided much of the bickering that was present when Thomas was coach. Artest didn't break down until the playoffs (perhaps it could be attributed to the change in attitude of the entire team/coach), Tinsley's level of play and overall discipline increased signficantl and O'Neal seemed much more content to play the Duncanesque role of the silent star. From what I've heard of Jackson, I don't see him being a problem... he'll certainly continue to make mistakes, but Carlisle will help him refine his play even further. What I do agree with is that this season will be telling... if we don't surpass the play of last year (maybe not total wins, but quality wins and playoff wins), then I think the Pacers must seriously consider getting rid of the "knuckleheads" (if they even exist).
            Here, everyone have a : on me

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

              Originally posted by ILovethePacers
              From what I've heard of Jackson, I don't see him being a problem... he'll certainly continue to make mistakes, but Carlisle will help him refine his play even further.
              Don't forget about Mike Brown.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                Paging Kstat... Paging Kstat...

                If only Carlisle had left Prince on the bench, Detroit would have done better. It killed chemistry and got them out of the playoffs because Carlisle dissed Curry by starting a rookie ahead of him.

                Yeah, I stopped taking this article seriously right there.
                This space for rent.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                  Originally posted by PacerMan
                  Originally posted by ILovethePacers
                  (none of us can really say that O'Neal acts mature on a regular basis). .
                  BS - Don't know what team you've been watching, but it obviously wasn't the Pacers.
                  gimme a break, JO acts just as much like a kid as the rest of them...

                  Maybe you missed all of the times that O'Neal flexed for the camera after dunks instead of running back to get on defense...

                  Or threatening to not sign with the Pacers if they didn't keep IT...

                  Or whining that the Pacers should get a center that is an offensive threat just to help out his game...

                  Or the 16 techical fouls called on O'Neal (more than 3 times that of anyone else on the team, Harrington had 6, but he's gone now), also tied for 3rd most in the league last year...

                  The media is too focused on the usual suspects; Artest, etc. JO's game is good, and that helps, but he also is quite generous with the press, and hence they usually lay off of him.


                  Also, no thanks for editing what I typed...
                  [edit=392=1096591118][/edit]
                  Here, everyone have a : on me

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                    Charlie Rosen = idiot. No defense? Yea Rick screwed the fiesty one when he didn't start him in the ECF agianst DET. Actually he was trying to make adjustments and for the 1st game it worked.Or did I just see another game? ed:
                    Super Bowl XLI Champions
                    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                      Originally posted by PacerMan
                      Give yourself a break. If you haven't seen the IMMENSE improvement in JO then you AREN"T watching the Pacers. To lump him with RA is sheer lunacy.
                      I'm not sure how to answer this statement... Ron Artest improved more last year than JO did.

                      Lumping JO's improvement with Ron is a compliment, not an insult.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                        Anthem, I know you believe that.

                        JO hasn't done/said anything immature or detrimental to the team's performance in a couple of years.

                        Fine, he gets too many T's. He also gets hacked a lot and doesn't take anywhere near as many FTs as the other MVP candidates. I know this is a chicken-and-egg thing, and I wish JO would just shut up and play.

                        JO at his worst/ most immature behavior is much, much, much better for the Pacers than Ron's best, most mature day. Period.
                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                          I hadn't read any of Rosen's stuff before this, and if I had, I didn't read it very long. This is a horrible article, period. Carlisle coming out in the media pointing out who had an awful game (Artest) was a wonderful thing. Artest had his problems, and RC showed him who was boss and RA responded well, playing much better after that.

                          JO is a little immature, with the technicals one must think that. He his however a wonderful player, and his outbursts didn't really hurt the team. JO is now the leader of the team (unless Reggie feels like taking over), and some times a tech is necessary, RC did it a few times.

                          Some of them need to grow up yes, but then, if we won 61 last year and we're still growing........

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                            Originally posted by PacerMan
                            Originally posted by ILovethePacers
                            Originally posted by PacerMan
                            Originally posted by ILovethePacers
                            (none of us can really say that O'Neal acts mature on a regular basis). .
                            BS - Don't know what team you've been watching, but it obviously wasn't the Pacers.

                            gimme a break, JO acts just as much like a kid as the rest of them...

                            Maybe you missed all of the times that O'Neal flexed for the camera after dunks instead of running back to get on defense...

                            Or threatening to not sign with the Pacers if they didn't keep IT...

                            Or whining that the Pacers should get a center that is an offensive threat just to help out his game...

                            Or the 16 techical fouls called on O'Neal (more than 3 times that of anyone else on the team, Harrington had 6, but he's gone now), also tied for 3rd most in the league last year...

                            The media is too focused on the usual suspects; Artest, etc. JO's game is good, and that helps, but he also is quite generous with the press, and hence they usually lay off of him.


                            Also, no thanks for editing what I typed...


                            Give yourself a break. If you haven't seen the IMMENSE improvement in JO then you AREN"T watching the Pacers. To lump him with RA is sheer lunacy.

                            Gee, what are you, a professional writer?
                            I took out the other names and that left EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE.
                            The whole point of what I first wrote was to give examples of how Carlisle's professionalism positively impacting the team. I'm not sure what type of improvement you're talking about, but if its improvement to JO's game, we're way off topic.

                            Leaving out words in a quote without noting it can be quite deceiving.. in this case, I never meant to single out JO, but only talk about the younger members of the team in general...


                            [edit=392=1096604062][/edit]
                            Here, everyone have a : on me

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                              Anthem, I know you believe that.

                              JO hasn't done/said anything immature or detrimental to the team's performance in a couple of years.

                              Fine, he gets too many T's. He also gets hacked a lot and doesn't take anywhere near as many FTs as the other MVP candidates. I know this is a chicken-and-egg thing, and I wish JO would just shut up and play.

                              JO at his worst/ most immature behavior is much, much, much better for the Pacers than Ron's best, most mature day. Period.
                              Maybe I wasn't clear; I thought my underlying point was self-evident.

                              Jermaine improved less last year than Artest did. A big reason, though, is that he's a lot closer to where he needs to be than Artest is. I could care less about the technicals; Reggie got his share and turned out all right. Jermaine's still a work in progress, but he's closer to the finished product than Artest is. I don't think we're in disagreement on that.

                              The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether or not Artest is continuing to improve. And frankly, we're at a point where there's not much left to be said. We just have to wait and see.

                              When I turn out to be right, though, I hope you'll be gracious.

                              EDIT: And your last statement is flat out wrong, and we both know it. I'm taking it as hyperbole, which is how I think you meant it, but if you honestly believe it then I'd be glad to debate that point.
                              [edit=39=1096608711][/edit]
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X