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

Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

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

  • Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

    At some point in time we are going to have to determine, in all honesty, how good are we? Was this a case of a declining Boston Celtic team just being too old and out of shape to play on the back end of a back to back game? Or was this a dominate team on the rise just taking care of business no matter who the opponent was? Or was it maybe both?

    Boston had everything to play for here. They had revenge on their minds, they are on a losing streak that they would want to come to an end and at the end of the day they are playing for pride if nothing else.

    None of that mattered. The Indiana Pacers imposed their will on this game and no matter what Boston tried at the end of the day there was just nothing they could do, this was pretty much over by the half and was definitely put to bed in the 3rd.

    At some point in time we are going to have to stop doubting, stop questioning and start believing. I’m not sure we are there yet, but certainly we are getting very very close.

    There are things to probably complain about, or to say needs improvement if you will. But in all honesty that would be knit picking at this point in time.

    One of the things that kind of struck me tonight was that early in the season the majority of our offense seemed to be being generated in the front court between West, Hansbrough & Hibbert. Lately however you see the offense coming from Hill, Collison, George & Granger. What I take away from that is that we have several offensive weapons to choose from and that we can go either way.

    When you have an overall system that works like that I think it’s safe to say that you need to look at the Coach and his staff. I want to point out one small thing that happened tonight by Vogel. It wasn’t a big deal but to me it just went to show that Vogel saw the potential for a problem, adjusted his lineup and insured that the outcome was what he wanted. In the first half George Hill picked up two quick fouls so he had to go with Lance. Instead of having poor Lance attempt to run through a million screens and picks chasing Ray Allen all over the place Frank brought Paul back in before it was his normal time. This worked perfectly as Ray did nothing and Lance did not get into any kind of foul trouble and Paul basically ran Ray into the ground with his athleticism. Just basic stuff of making adjustments and understanding player’s strengths and weaknesses.

    Let’s do tonight’s version of Odd Thoughts with the good the bad and the ugly.

    The Good:

    Danny Granger, after last night’s debacle he came out tonight hit some tough shots, played stellar defense and just never quit attacking. I think he and Paul George must have spent the summer working on odd falling twisting flip scoop shots because each of them have one or two a game and they both hit one apiece tonight. Danny was only credited with 3 steals but he was far more involved in knocking the ball free from the Celtics than that. Still shot more three’s than I would prefer but overall I think he was a great player out there.

    Paul George, for all of the games where he seems to just kind of be satisfied floating around and not being aggressive he made up for it tonight. He constantly attacked Ray Allen and pretty much just ran him out of the game. He’s to long, to athletic and to fast for Ray Allen to keep up with when he plays aggressive and attacks on the offensive end of the floor.

    Darren Collison, he made Rondo look like a member of the big 4. By that I mean he made him look old and irrelevant like the other three. Season high for Darren and every time he had the ball and Rondo was on him he viewed the situation like Boris Diaw views a ham. In other words he devoured him.

    David West dunk, where in the name of God did that come from?

    George Hill’s defense was outstanding.

    Our bench in general was great and once again we just overwhelmed the opposition with pure numbers and a deep bench. Their starters held their own to begin the game but it didn’t last once each team went to the bench.

    Big Roy had another good but not spectacular game. Just goes to show how deep of a team we are when he can just have a good game and we still kill the competition.

    The Bad:

    Rajon Rondo, wow talk about irrelevant. I could not tell if he was tired or just not interested. Obviously it doesn’t help when the rest of your club isn’t helping much but both Pierce & Garnett were trying and actually producing so why he couldn’t provide more I don’t know.

    Lou Amundson shot selection when he gets put in for garbage time is just that, garbage. Wait, never mind that is just his general shot selection. I love Lou’s game but since he has come to Indiana he seems convinced that he has to be an offensive threat. Take our word for it Lou, we need your defense, rebounding & hustle and if you can get a put back feel free. But leave the post up plays to Roy.

    The Ugly:

    Jermaine O’Neal’s face after Lance Stephenson trash talked both he and Kevin Garnett. It was actually priceless really. If you didn’t see it Jeff Foster went up for a shot hit it and got fouled by Jermaine. It was really a pretty good shot that Jermaine tried his best to block but didn’t get. To which Lance proceeds to tell Jermaine all about it. Oh that face was a thing of beauty and a joy forever for me. When they came out of the time out Jermaine was trying to say something to Lance but obviously Lance was having none of it and this irritated Jermaine even more, at this point in time Kevin Garnett stepped in and took Jermaine away. I don’t know what Lance said but I would pay money to have it on tape.

    Ok the guys now get a very well deserved break and then it’s off to the west coast to continue our world domination tour. Sorry that this isn’t any more analytical than what it was but as I said early on, complaining about anything tonight would just be knit picking.

    Now here is the question I want to leave everyone with. Is this five man starting unit for the Pacers right now as good as the starting five for the 1994 Pacers? The 2000 Pacers? Or the 2004 Pacers?




    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

    That was a dominate post, Peck.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

      Remember all those posts saying how we could never really rebuild the way Bird was doing it? That we needed to blow things up? That we werent talented?

      Well guess what, this team is talented. It has a great mix of youth and vets that allow us to close out games we should (toronto and cleveland) and the ability to win on a back to back like tonight.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

        Dominant*

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

          I didn't catch Stephenson's comment to Jermaine lol. I could see Lance being really irritating in an immature kinda way
          Lifelong pacers fan

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            There are things to probably complain about, or to say needs improvement if you will. But in all honesty that would be knit picking at this point in time.
            I want to disagree with this slightly. Either as a team we simply are not made up of good shooters (i.e. the 37%) or something is still not right with the offense. DC, Hill and Lance, the latter two especially, have recently been more aggressive and comfortable trying to create, both on their own and in the pick and roll. Today, Danny made a strong effort to get some points in the paint, while missing all but one/two of his jumpshots. I don't know if he'll start getting the lift he needs to hit the shots. There was in general more movement, better pick setting (probably just Jeff's presence), and better communication. But no team shoots as badly as we have to start the season without major talent or strategic issues.

            There is still a lot to work on for the offense. Vogel admitted as much in his post-game talk. However, I think that actually does give us a reason to continue believing. (I think most of us started believing in the playoffs last year if not during the beginning of Vogel.) Unless we are dramatically overachieving on the defensive end, we can only get better by tightening up the offense.

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Danny was only credited with 3 steals but he was far more involved in knocking the ball free from the Celtics than that. Still shot more three’s than I would prefer but overall I think he was a great player out there.
            Part of this can be attributed to Boston's sloppiness. I haven't seen Rondo be that careless (Like you said, he looked disinterested at times.) with the ball in years and Pierce was even worse. Having players like Danny and George who are long and can poke at balls (West even did one of these, I think.) and get in the passing lanes, while also having a guy like Hill with such a high defensive IQ is invaluable. The only place I'm concerned about for defense is the PF spot.

            One of the best Odd Thoughts threads tonight, Peck.
            Last edited by AesopRockOn; 01-15-2012, 03:32 AM.
            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

              I would say that this starting 5 could potentially be as good as the 03-04 team. I was young for the other two, so I couldn't tell you. We never got to see just how good that 04 team could have been so it is kind of hard to say. I do know that this team is going to be really good and fun to watch throughout the season and playoffs. We are no longer a team that others look at and say "Oh the Pacers? That's an easy W."

              As far as Amundson goes I hope he works with the shooting coach and develops a consistent mid-range jumper if he is going to keep shooting them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                If Lance grew up watching those JO lead Pacer teams in the playoffs with Foster next to him, I'm sure he could have said something really good to get under JO's skin.


                We're going to be really scary if we ever start hitting our shots because holy **** do we go out looking to create contact this season. I'd be interested to know where we rank in FTA's per game, even if it is top 10 that is a great place to be.

                Roy Hibbert's block on KG...oh...my...God.

                Darren Collison eviscerating Rondo on both ends? Also, an oh my God moment.

                Yes, the Celtics are slow and they aren't very good but at the very least we made them look just as bad as the Bulls made them look last night, so you have to take a big positive from that.

                Also, Granger is a great leader on the bench, when Foster got the And 1 mother ****a on JO, Granger leapt onto the court a solid three feet and just let out a huge scream (he had been sitting on the bench.) Everyone on this team is pulling for each other.

                Also, I love watching the DC/Hill or the Hill/Stephenson backcourts, it's like having two missiles that just go shooting up the sidelines as soon as we get a rebound with their heads turned back looking for the outlet pass. It's pretty cool to watch up close especially with DC and Hill as they have an uncanny ability to always get themselves on opposite sidelines and just take off as if they were sprinting against each other.

                We are a crazy athletic team, and personally I think David West's dunk was a bit of a go **** yourselves moment towards Boston. As soon as he got JO on his hip, he just made an extremely quick, powerful, and instinctive move to the hoop.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  If Lance grew up watching those JO lead Pacer teams in the playoffs with Foster next to him, I'm sure he could have said something really good to get under JO's skin.


                  We're going to be really scary if we ever start hitting our shots because holy **** do we go out looking to create contact this season. I'd be interested to know where we rank in FTA's per game, even if it is top 10 that is a great place to be.

                  Roy Hibbert's block on KG...oh...my...God.

                  Darren Collison eviscerating Rondo on both ends? Also, an oh my God moment.

                  Yes, the Celtics are slow and they aren't very good but at the very least we made them look just as bad as the Bulls made them look last night, so you have to take a big positive from that.

                  Also, Granger is a great leader on the bench, when Foster got the And 1 mother ****a on JO, Granger leapt onto the court a solid three feet and just let out a huge scream (he had been sitting on the bench.) Everyone on this team is pulling for each other.

                  Also, I love watching the DC/Hill or the Hill/Stephenson backcourts, it's like having two missiles that just go shooting up the sidelines as soon as we get a rebound with their heads turned back looking for the outlet pass. It's pretty cool to watch up close especially with DC and Hill as they have an uncanny ability to always get themselves on opposite sidelines and just take off as if they were sprinting against each other.

                  We are a crazy athletic team, and personally I think David West's dunk was a bit of a go **** yourselves moment towards Boston. As soon as he got JO on his hip, he just made an extremely quick, powerful, and instinctive move to the hoop.
                  Actually Boston made Chicago work to get their win as they actually came from 20 down to tie the game up in the third. The MVP did his thing or Boston might have pulled out the win.

                  That wasn't the case here at all. That game was over mid way through the first quarter.

                  BTW, agree 100% on the West dunk. I think there was absolutely a little extra mustard put on that hot dog for the Celtics benefit.


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                    Also, I'd like to think that when Tyler relieved Kevin Garnett of possession of the basketball in the paint, somewhere tonight, wherever he was, it brought a tear to Dale Davis's eye.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                      The defense was so good tonight, I also started thinking about how this team compares to the 03-04 team.

                      The biggest difference is the 03-04 team had better big man Defense, Ron Artest, JO, Al Harrington were flat out defensive beasts. Tyler, Foster, Roy and DWest are pretty good, but they aren't as good as that 03-04 front court.

                      This current team seems to have much better defense with our wings. DC, Paul, GHill, DJones and Granger are looking like one of the best defensive back courts in the league right now. The 03-04 team was relying on Reggie and Tinsley with Ron playing an extra large SF.

                      You would think that 03-04 team had better offense than this team with Reggie Miller on there, but they really didn't. We had a pretty unimaginative coach in Carlisle who stuck to his guns (JO), we had Ron who was never reliable to play a team game on offense, and Reggie, who was never really that great at creating his own shot. He always relied on others finding him. Tinsley could dish it with the best of them, but I think they were pretty dysfunctional on offense. If anyone recalls the ECF series with Detroit, you know what I mean.

                      This team is much more fun to watch as the players all seem to really like each other and there isn't some Alpha dog struggle going on or questions about our players sanity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                        BTW, I checked for myself, right now we rank SEVENTH in FTA/game, but we rank THIRD in FTM/game. That is ridiculous and when you combine that with our rebounding and our defense, it makes for a formula that allows us to not only survive the droughts we have on offense from the field, but thrive off of them. Only OKC and Miami are making more free throws a game right now, and both of them are doing it on more attempts per game.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                          Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                          The defense was so good tonight, I also started thinking about how this team compares to the 03-04 team.

                          The biggest difference is the 03-04 team had better big man Defense, Ron Artest, JO, Al Harrington were flat out defensive beasts. Tyler, Foster, Roy and DWest are pretty good, but they aren't as good as that 03-04 front court.

                          This current team seems to have much better defense with our wings. DC, Paul, GHill, DJones and Granger are looking like one of the best defensive back courts in the league right now. The 03-04 team was relying on Reggie and Tinsley with Ron playing an extra large SF.

                          You would think that 03-04 team had better offense than this team with Reggie Miller on there, but they really didn't. We had a pretty unimaginative coach in Carlisle who stuck to his guns (JO), we had Ron who was never reliable to play a team game on offense, and Reggie, who was never really that great at creating his own shot. He always relied on others finding him. Tinsley could dish it with the best of them, but I think they were pretty dysfunctional on offense. If anyone recalls the ECF series with Detroit, you know what I mean.

                          This team is much more fun to watch as the players all seem to really like each other and there isn't some Alpha dog struggle going on or questions about our players sanity.
                          Al Harrington? Defensive beast?


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Al Harrington? Defensive beast?
                            Yeah, he really was back then

                            Mind you that's eight year old memories and about 3000 beers ago.
                            Last edited by PaceBalls; 01-15-2012, 04:12 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Putting the Celtics out to pasture

                              Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                              Yeah, he really was back then
                              Al Harrington was a different player back in the day, I don't think he could even hit a three back then. That's all he does now.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X