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

Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

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

  • #16
    Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

    I always thought at the highest level of basketball there needs to be the highest level of committment. If you're not 100% committed to your game or to the job (BIRD) then you need to find something else to do.

    If you're sitting on the fence, ya might as well hang 'em up & let someone with the fire you use to have come in & get it done.

    I would love to have Bird back to reap what he has sown but all the suddle signs are there that this will be his final draft.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      Nice read, but you and I have a major difference of opinion about Bird's ability to evaluate players. You make him out to be a guru of evaluation of players. Oh, I can see Bird saying player X can do these things, but I don't see Bird being able to look at the fabric and pattern his wife bought and envision how it all goes together. Same with putting certain players together to get a certain result he wants as you said. I don't feel Bird has the talent to do it.

      I don't want to beat a dead horse, but how did Bird ever think Stephenson was PG material? He missed on Cabbages being this great PG too. How did he miss Cabbages couldn't even bring the ball up the court while overseas scouting? What did Bird see in Maceo overseas that he thought would translate into the NBA game? KRush and Diener as these great 3 pt shooters that would mesh well with the existing players he had. He brought in numerous players that didn't fit Jimmy's system such as TJ. We'll just have to agree to disagree on Bird's ability to evaluate players thus assemble a team of players who can intergrate their talents with each other to become a real chanpionship contender.

      Everyone's going to miss here and there. Let's not forget that Walsh drafted George McCloud over Tim Hardaway. If you're a GM long enough, you're going to have some bad moments.

      Don't forget that a lot of NBA teams were interested in Cabbage. We certainly weren't the only ones who were trying to get him.

      Shawne Williams was a bust, and it certainly stings to have picked him over Rondo, but everyone else taken after Williams aside from Rajon were crap for the most part: Olesksi Pecherov, Quincy Douby, Renaldo Balkman, Rondo, Marcus Williams, Josh Boone, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Jordan Farmar, Sergio Rodriguez, Maurice Ager, Mardy Collins, Joel Freeland - those were the guys drafted after Williams. You obviously have Rondo and then you have Lowry, Brown, and Farmar who are decent, but most of those guys were complete crap.

      We only got TJ because he was part of the deal to get JO out of here. It's not TJ that matters in that deal, it's Roy. I think everyone here can agree that Bird got about the best deal possible for JO.

      KRush? Diener? Everyone has scrubs like that to balance out their roster. I don't care too much about them. Players like that come and go.

      Overall, Bird has built a pretty solid little basketball team given what he's had to work with. He got a great deal for JO which gave us a center with quite a bit of potential. He turned Troy Murphy into Darren Collison. He's made some decent to really good draft picks in Rush, Hansbrough, and George. He did all of this without not having much at all to work with since taking over in 08. Once we got rid of JO, we virtually had no assets (aside from guys like Granger and Hibbert who we actually wanted to keep) until contracts like Murphy/Dun/Ford expired. He did a helluva good job with what he did with Murphy and I want to see what he can do with the cap space. Since Bird took over in 08, he's played both of his assets (JO and Murph contract) pretty damn well.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-11-2011, 01:16 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        Nice read, but you and I have a major difference of opinion about Bird's ability to evaluate players. You make him out to be a guru of evaluation of players. Oh, I can see Bird saying player X can do these things, but I don't see Bird being able to look at the fabric and pattern his wife bought and envision how it all goes together. Same with putting certain players together to get a certain result he wants as you said. I don't feel Bird has the talent to do it.

        I don't want to beat a dead horse, but how did Bird ever think Stephenson was PG material? He missed on Cabbages being this great PG too. How did he miss Cabbages couldn't even bring the ball up the court while overseas scouting? What did Bird see in Maceo overseas that he thought would translate into the NBA game? KRush and Diener as these great 3 pt shooters that would mesh well with the existing players he had. He brought in numerous players that didn't fit Jimmy's system such as TJ. We'll just have to agree to disagree on Bird's ability to evaluate players thus assemble a team of players who can intergrate their talents with each other to become a real chanpionship contender.

        I agree with Solozzo....ALL great GM's strike out occasionally, but ALL great ones at least swing for the fences. Even the great Bill Polian, widely regarded as one of the best of his generation, drafts a Tony Ugoh on occasion. There are no sure things in sports. That is the beauty of it. The great GM's are excellent talent evaluators... the problem they run into is good players aren't made of talent alone. There are so many varibles....work ethic, maturity, injuries, toughness, desire, etc etc.... Most of those are outed with due diligence but then all of a sudden a kid with nothing, who's driven to be the best out of necessity, is flush with cash and the desire wanes, the toughness wanes, the party begins and never ends, the posse grows, and on and on. All that being said, I believe Larry has done a fine job assembling a "team" and hitting more than he misses (which is really how all GM's are truly judged when it's all said and done) and demonstrating an enviable amount of patience in the face of a frustrated fan base in a win now league. A patience which has this franchise on the brink of truly being "back" for the first time in many years. The only true "miss" that Larry is at fault for is not moving O'brien much sooner. In that instance, Larry's patience was detrimental to the team. As far as players go, though, it's nothing but an educated crap-shoot, and I say Larry is up on the house.
        http://twitter.com/#!/makaveli1376

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

          With a few minor roster tweaks, I think that Pacers can be alot better under vogel. IMO, the only way Vogel doesn't return is if:

          1) a better, more experienced coach comes in; or,

          2) the players don't want him back.

          Still, I think even if management does find a better, more experienced coach the players will insist that Vogel stay on. Hell, if Mike Brown wanted to get back to coaching I'd take him as an assistant and retain Vogel as head coach since both clearly are or have been well respected by the players in the past.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

            I want a Coach that emphasizes defense....if Mike Brown is a Coach that emphasizes defense.......then I'm okay with picking him over Vogel.

            I have no idea about how Mike Brown would run a Lebron-less offense.....but when Vogel came in...we had no clue how he'd run his offense and it seems to have worked out well.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

              Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
              I bet there are a lot of coaches who just tell their team to go out and play basketball, Erik Spoelstra comes to mind.
              I suppose I should ask what you mean by a coach just telling his team, "to go out a play basketball" But if you mean what I think you mean, No coach does that, and Spoelstra who is very similar to Pat Riley is on the other far end of the spectrum. I think it is obvious when you watch the heat play defense. Defense doesn't happen by accident, it takes great and consistant coaching
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-11-2011, 03:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                Semi-bump. We now know how Roy feels. Although I think we knew how he felt already.


                http://twitter.com/#!/Hoya2aPacer/st...09650616696832

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                  Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                  Semi-bump. We now know how Roy feels. Although I think we knew how he felt already.


                  http://twitter.com/#!/Hoya2aPacer/st...09650616696832
                  Outside of Vogel, Roy has only had one coach during his short career so far. I hope he doesn't get all JO and ask to be traded if they don't retain Frank.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                    Outside of Vogel, Roy has only had one coach during his short career so far. I hope he doesn't get all JO and ask to be traded if they don't retain Frank.
                    I just hope they retain Frank.
                    Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                      Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
                      I just hope they retain Frank.
                      Same.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                        I think Vogel's earned at least a one-year extension.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          Nice read, but you and I have a major difference of opinion about Bird's ability to evaluate players. You make him out to be a guru of evaluation of players. Oh, I can see Bird saying player X can do these things, but I don't see Bird being able to look at the fabric and pattern his wife bought and envision how it all goes together. Same with putting certain players together to get a certain result he wants as you said. I don't feel Bird has the talent to do it.

                          I don't want to beat a dead horse, but how did Bird ever think Stephenson was PG material? He missed on Cabbages being this great PG too. How did he miss Cabbages couldn't even bring the ball up the court while overseas scouting? What did Bird see in Maceo overseas that he thought would translate into the NBA game? KRush and Diener as these great 3 pt shooters that would mesh well with the existing players he had. He brought in numerous players that didn't fit Jimmy's system such as TJ. We'll just have to agree to disagree on Bird's ability to evaluate players thus assemble a team of players who can intergrate their talents with each other to become a real chanpionship contender.
                          Exactly. And Bird also signed JOB's extension, which ironically led to this article discussing whether Bird will stay and if he'll keep Vogel.

                          Um, shouldn't we be asking if Bird will keep JOB? That was the plan all this time. It took ticket sales, losing and probably Herb Simon to get JOB moved out of here.


                          Bird has made good calls and terrible calls and this means he is adequate but also potentially replaceable.

                          Vogel's #1 asset was getting the F out of the way with the rotation and development and going to a style that matched the team's talent much better.

                          Vogel hasn't had the time to improve the team via coaching strategy. He improved the team by not being a total d-bag to his kids and by playing people that were more talented anyway.

                          Like Bird this means SO FAR he's adequate but potentially replaceable.


                          How anyone sees Sloan or Jackson out of half a season from Vogel with his team getting blown out in MANY games is beyond me. Even if he is at that level, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE?

                          I have evidence he might stink as a coach - see OKC, Dallas, Houston, see Lance issue, see slow starts, see inability to find scoring plays late in games.

                          I'm not saying he does stink, just that there are potential signs.

                          But I read on here and apparently if you step outside into drops of rain it's a sure sign it's going to be a sunny day. Yeesh. It might not rain, but I know which way my bet is hedging till I see something change.



                          BOB HILL once improved the team when he came in mid-season, and he had a WINNING RECORD once he took over. And now I've got to read guys saying essentially "Why get Larry Brown when you can have Bob Hill already." There is plenty of history on this kind of thing.

                          You can replace Vogel for the same reason you swapped Hill for Brown or Isiah for Rick.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-13-2011, 01:52 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Exactly. And Bird also signed JOB's extension, which ironically led to this article discussing whether Bird will stay and if he'll keep Vogel.

                            Um, shouldn't we be asking if Bird will keep JOB? That was the plan all this time.


                            Bird has made good calls and terrible calls and this means he is adequate but also potentially replaceable.

                            Vogel's #1 asset was getting the F out of the way with the rotation and development and going to a style that matched the team's talent much better.

                            Vogel hasn't had the time to improve the team via coaching strategy. He improved the team by not being a total d-bag to his kids and by playing people that were more talented anyway.

                            Like Bird this means SO FAR he's adequate but potentially replaceable.


                            How anyone sees Sloan or Jackson out of half a season from Vogel with his team getting blown out in MANY games is beyond me. Even if he is at that level, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE?

                            I have evidence he might stink as a coach - see OKC, Dallas, Houston, see Lance issue, see slow starts, see inability to find scoring plays late in games.

                            I'm not saying he does stink, just that there are potential signs.

                            But I read on here and apparently if you step outside into drops of rain it's a sure sign it's going to be a sunny day. Yeesh. It might not rain, but I know which way my bet is hedging till I see something change.
                            I understand why people wouldn't want Vogel to be retained, but my personal opinion is that I want him back. I'm SURE you can write paragraphs and paragraphs about how replaceable he is, but from my personal experience with him and from how the players have reacted to him, I want him back. It doesn't make either one of us right, just different opinions. Only time will tell.
                            Last edited by BPump33; 04-13-2011, 01:59 PM.
                            Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Um, shouldn't we be asking if Bird will keep JOB? That was the plan all this time. It took ticket sales, losing and probably Herb Simon to get JOB moved out of here.
                              OK, this is pure speculation yet you say it like it was a definite. Where did Bird or anyone credible ever say Bird was going to re-sign JOB to a new contract at the end of this year if he had no pressure?

                              Yes, I know that's what people were afraid of, and that means (around here) that ol' Stupid Head Bird would definitely do it, yup yup yup yup yup, but all the evidence was pointing to JOB being gone at the end of the season unless some miracle had happened in the post-season.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Kravitz article from star about Vogel/Bird

                                Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
                                I understand why people wouldn't want Vogel to be retained, but my personal opinion is that I want him back. I'm SURE you can write paragraphs and paragraphs about how replaceable he is, but from my personal experience with him and from how the players have reacted to him, I want him back. It doesn't make either one of us right, just different opinions. Only time will tell.
                                I honestly dont see anyone out there who is attractive to replace Vogel. If JVG was so good why has he been in the booth for the past few years (and what did he do in Houston with all that talent?). Mike Brown is dull and has not proven anything either. He had Lebron and abunch of guys who played defense and gave Lebron the ball - real intelligent there! Sloan, what has he ever won? Looks like the game as well as the modern NBA athlete has passed him by.
                                I like Vogel and have felt for years that teams should give co-ordinators chances rather than hiring a retread who got fired for not producing at his last place.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X