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

Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

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

  • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
    I don't think he acts like a "brat" on the court at all, I think he acts like a basketball player. It's funny that him getting on Hill is him being a brat, but Hill and Butler getting on him is just keeping him in line. It's apart of playing on a basketball team. It happens every game, on every team in the league.
    I really don't ever see Hill "getting on him". Rasual rolling his eyes at his outbursts is not "getting on him" either. He sure gets mad when you don't get him his dimes, though. But that's normal.

    You really think that acting out in frustration because an offensive play ended successfully without your input is "acting like a basketball player"? Yeah, basketball players on 25 win teams. Tony Parker doesn't lose his **** when Kawhi Leonard passes up that contested baseline jumper TP passed him into in order to get Duncan a good look down low. Dwayne Wade isn't getting after Lebron for driving and dishing instead of taking that 30 ft prayer DW passes him into.

    Comment


    • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      I think this is the only time I've ever seen a fan be upset with one of his guys for getting too many boards. Wow.
      Well, no, that leaves out the history of the discussion. The problem is when people complain that Roy doesn't get any rebounds. The reason for that is because Lance grabs a lot of them away from him.

      In and of itself who gets the rebounds probably doesn't matter (though it seemed to be really important when talking about Troy Murphy). It only matters when Roy's rebounds (or lack thereof) are involved.
      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


      • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Yep, it leaves Lance. Which is why I said let's look at what Lance said.

        You think he's (Roy) afraid to call out West and PG, but I don't. West isn't the problem, first off, so there's no reason to call him out. PG is a problem, but at least he has enough sense to say they need to get better than to offer up an excuse I would have expected from a high school player.

        And that's the real issue, IMHO. If Lance is willing to say something like that in public, I can only imagine the excuses he comes up with in private. We've reached the boiling point of this situation, because they've been talking about getting back to team basketball for weeks and there has been no improvement. (I actually thought Lance in the first half was about as bad as it's ever been with him) I took Roy's comments about getting down the floor to mean that he was told to get quick position, and they'd lookfor him more. So he does it, doesn't get the looks and say's "Hey I did what you told me I needed to do in order to fix the problem and the problem still exists." That is fully my 100% opinion based on nothing but reading between the lines, but it's clear that this has been a topic of conversation for a while with very little results.

        And even Larry is fed-up with it, which is why he suggested that Frank should look to start pulling players from the game and sitting them. Again, just my opinion, but I think he was talking about Lance. Between his (Lance's) insistance on pounding nails, and throwing the flashiest passes he can think of. His (Larry) comments were over a week ago now. So clearly there is a rather large elephant sitting in the lockerroom.
        Maybe he was trying to call out Paul George, without actually calling out Paul George by name. You know, get a message across (the perimeter shooting portion), while still letting him know he has confidence in him (the green light portion).

        Basically he's saying "this was in an inside team and now our wings have taken over"......carefully.

        If that is what he's getting at, I agree. But to give PG a pass after the way he's played the last few months and single out Lance, is just absurd.

        If you sit Lance the problem is that you have to bring someone else in and the team flat out suffers. So how can he be the problem? He's the best option we have. Turner plays a similar game but pounds it worse than Lance. Rasual Butler is not gonna improve our play.

        If you think Larry believes that we need to sit Lance, I strongly disagree. That's how you turn this tough stretch into a wrecked season with longer lasting consequences heading into free agency. Lance deserves to play, he hasn't played himself out of the rotation or been outplayed by anyone, and he gives us the best chance to win. We have to continue to develop his talent if not for anything else this year, for the future of this team. The kid is a great young talent and we wouldn't be where we are without him. Finger pointing is the quickest way to eff this whole year up. JMO
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          You've implied it in other threads nuntius.

          It is impossible to steal a rebound man. If you get it, you earned it. Dennis Rodman "stole" thousands. Roy won't elbow Stephenson because he won't elbow anyone else, which is why he doesn't get more. Lance is a great rebounder for his position and why that bothers you, I'll never know.

          The reasoning you use to pit Lance against the rest of the team with this stealing rebounds junk is the exact kind of thing that keeps you from winning championships. John Wooden would be ashamed of that kind of thinking. If Lance stops going after rebounds we become a lesser team for it. And it's one of the things Larry Bird admires most about Lances game. So trust me, Larry ain't gonna buy it either. It's absurd.

          This is basketball and you wanna talk about fair? Is it little league? You have a chance to get the rebound just like everyone else, if you want it, go get it. And don't give me this "he's boxing out so the guards can get it" baloney. Makes you wonder how Kevin Love ever gets a rebound with all the boxing out he has to do. It's ridiculous.

          I think this is the only time I've ever seen a fan be upset with one of his guys for getting too many boards. Wow.
          "Lance steals them all from Roy anyway," Vogel said. "Roy is ready to get them and Lance comes in from the 3-point line off two feet. We all compete for the glass. We have all five guys on the defensive glass."

          "This is indicative of the sacrifice of this team," Vogel said. "A lot of times, (the bigs), they're sacrificing themselves to wipe out the best rebounders on the other team while the guards come back and get the numbers.

          "It's a sacrifice," Vogel continued, "more than anything."

          http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/4988905/
          uno, due, trezegol!

          Comment


          • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

            I think what everone is saying here, should be being said in a locker room at BLF. One would think that it would have already been done, but since nothing is changing and folks are chirping after the game, maybe not.

            Man up, look a guy in the eye tell him what you think. But be ready to hear about yourself.

            And Frank needs to stay out of the way until it starts looking like it will come to blows. And even then, he should let Dwest handle it.

            Screw the positive, self esteem building BS, its time for the playoffs.

            Comment


            • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
              I really don't ever see Hill "getting on him". Rasual rolling his eyes at his outbursts is not "getting on him" either. He sure gets mad when you don't get him his dimes, though. But that's normal.

              You really think that acting out in frustration because an offensive play ended successfully without your input is "acting like a basketball player"? Yeah, basketball players on 25 win teams. Tony Parker doesn't lose his **** when Kawhi Leonard passes up that contested baseline jumper TP passed him into in order to get Duncan a good look down low. Dwayne Wade isn't getting after Lebron for driving and dishing instead of taking that 30 ft prayer DW passes him into.
              No I don't pretend to know exactly what happened because I saw a conversation between two teammates, that's all.

              Plus, I have played on many teams and there were always guys getting on each other, every game. I didn't play for one team, or coach a team, that had everybody get along, ever. Most teams had guys that flat out didn't like each other and it didn't seem to have any correlation with how good we were. In fact the better the team I was on, the more competitive the guys on our roster usually were WITH EACH OTHER. I'm not sure where this "everybody must be best buddies all the time" line of thinking comes from, but it doesn't equate with my experience in basketball, though I never played in the NBA of course. And as a coach, I don't want guys that get along too well necessarily. But I doubt it's much different in that regard in the NBA. The best team I was ever on had 2 guys that I hated with a passion, ON THE COURT. They acted like ******** most of the time and knew it all. But if they were open, I got them the ball because they could play. And we hung out after the game because they were completely different off the hardwood. Competitiveness can make someone act like a jerk. It doesn't mean it's an issue.

              What happens off the court when nobody is watching is way more important. And from everything I've seen, Lance is like the teams "class clown" and probably benefits the team more than you know, personality wise. I've yet to see an interview where anyone directly said Lance is a problem in any way. All I've seen is people speak on his first two years and how far he has come.

              I think the fans who are the most bothered by Lances previous issues over analyze every little thing they see. Anytime him and a teammate have a disagreement it becomes " getting on Lance" or "causing trouble". I don't think that is what it is. The team is losing and trust me, nobody is more frustrated by that than Lance. The dudes a competitor.

              But then again I don't see just Lance pounding the ball too much, I see our entire offense not moving, guys standing around, and our perimeter players pounding it too much. There isn't one of them playing well. I see our best player shooting a horrible percentage over a 30 game stretch and just settling for the first jumper he gets, I see Roy Hibbert struggling to get position time after time. It's much more than one guy screwing everything up.
              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

              Comment


              • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                Originally posted by faank View Post
                "Lance steals them all from Roy anyway," Vogel said. "Roy is ready to get them and Lance comes in from the 3-point line off two feet. We all compete for the glass. We have all five guys on the defensive glass."

                "This is indicative of the sacrifice of this team," Vogel said. "A lot of times, (the bigs), they're sacrificing themselves to wipe out the best rebounders on the other team while the guards come back and get the numbers.

                "It's a sacrifice," Vogel continued, "more than anything."

                http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/4988905/
                Idc what Vogel says, he ain't "stealing them" anymore than Jeff Foster stole them, or Dennis Rodman stole them. He is beating 9 other guys to the ball, not just Roy or West.

                Every team tries to box out the other teams best rebounders. But not every team has 5 guys who crash the boards. We do, and it's complained about. I don't get it.
                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                Comment


                • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                  Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                  I don't think he acts like a "brat" on the court at all, I think he acts like a basketball player. It's funny that him getting on Hill is him being a brat, but Hill and Butler getting on him is just keeping him in line. It's apart of playing on a basketball team. It happens every game, on every team in the league.
                  That's about all there is to it. This board is so quick to assign reputation and many posters will never let it go, no matter what.

                  Roy Hibbert requires a psychologist. With every ounce of due respect, he is not the guy I would consider the voice of the team or of reason (necessarily). Vogel said he talked to him after the tirade. He (Vogel) felt Hibbert had to recognize that Lance and PG are earning the right to call their own number more, but that doesn't mean Hibbert shouldn't aggressively look to score.

                  So the whole "Hibbert is right, Lance is a problem child" garbage should be put to bed. The issue is as obvious as it's ever been: Hibbert is not aggressive enough on offense or on the glass. He just lashed out instead of looking at himself.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    Well, no, that leaves out the history of the discussion. The problem is when people complain that Roy doesn't get any rebounds. The reason for that is because Lance grabs a lot of them away from him.

                    In and of itself who gets the rebounds probably doesn't matter (though it seemed to be really important when talking about Troy Murphy). It only matters when Roy's rebounds (or lack thereof) are involved.
                    The only time I personally complain is when Roy gets 2 rebounds like against the Knicks. That's just pathetic, and it isn't because of Lance Stephenson.

                    I don't expect him to grab 12 every night. Personally I would like to see him just get 3 offensive rebounds and 7-8 total, consistently. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a center.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                      Originally posted by seeker80 View Post
                      I think what everone is saying here, should be being said in a locker room at BLF. One would think that it would have already been done, but since nothing is changing and folks are chirping after the game, maybe not.

                      Man up, look a guy in the eye tell him what you think. But be ready to hear about yourself.

                      And Frank needs to stay out of the way until it starts looking like it will come to blows. And even then, he should let Dwest handle it.

                      Screw the positive, self esteem building BS, its time for the playoffs.
                      I bet way more than this stuff has been said behind close doors.

                      Besides, are we really entertaining the idea that speaking publically isn't "maning up" (Or is it manning up?) Calling people out pubically, takes a lot of manhood, if you get my drift. No one would ever say something like that about Kobe or MJ. I understand it's because they have people's respect to say whatever they want, but going public like that takes some stones.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        The only time I personally complain is when Roy gets 2 rebounds like against the Knicks. That's just pathetic, and it isn't because of Lance Stephenson.

                        I don't expect him to grab 12 every night. Personally I would like to see him just get 3 offensive rebounds and 7-8 total, consistently. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a center.
                        So if he has 5 but clearly left 3 for Lance, would you look at the numbers or the game?

                        I would agree that he should get offensive rebounds, but no one is getting ORebs and I have talked about this in other places - it's the herky-jerky form of our offense that keeps guys from being able to anticipate position on a missed shot.
                        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


                        • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                          Just to sum up this conversation

                          Bird: We need to get back to playing like a team.
                          Frank: We need to play more like a team.
                          West: We need to play more like a team.
                          Hibbert: We need to play more like a team.
                          Paul: We need to be smarter.
                          Lance: The defense forces us to play one-on-one
                          Some PD Posters: Lance doesn't play one-on-one.
                          Last edited by Since86; 03-21-2014, 03:47 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Besides, are we really entertaining the idea that speaking publically isn't "maning up" (Or is it manning up?)
                            I think "maning up" is when you hang out in the barbershop the next day to talk about the game. Very possibly the only basketball tradition shared between New York and Indiana.
                            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


                            • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Just to sum up this conversation

                              Bird: We need to get back to playing like a team. Translation: We've been playing 1 on 1.
                              Frank: We need to play more like a team. Translation: We've been playing 1 on 1.
                              West: We need to play more like a team. Translation: We've been playing 1 on 1.
                              Hibbert: We need to play more like a team. Translation: We've been playing 1 on 1, which is fine if it's anybody except Lance.
                              Paul: We need to be smarter. Translation: We've been playing 1 on 1 and our center is moping instead of working through it.
                              Lance: The defense forceD us (in the Knicks game) to play one-on-one. Translation: I acknowledge that we were playing 1 on 1, which is entirely obvious to anyone with functioning eyesight.
                              PD: Lance doesn't play one-on-one.
                              Since86: Blame Lance

                              Fixed that for you.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I bet way more than this stuff has been said behind close doors.

                                Besides, are we really entertaining the idea that speaking publically isn't "maning up" (Or is it manning up?) Calling people out pubically, takes a lot of manhood, if you get my drift. No one would ever say something like that about Kobe or MJ. I understand it's because they have people's respect to say whatever they want, but going public like that takes some stones.
                                Did I miss something? The quote which solved the mystery of this thread?

                                Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                                Speak plain. Why the ambiguity?

                                And make sure you take the easy shot in public and give complete pass to the other looming issue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X