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

Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

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

  • #31
    Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

    Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
    I can clearly see this team is lacking the top level talent and, most importantly, go to guy to win a title. If I heard they were looking for that and I thought they were accumulating pieces to make that happen, I may be excited. But I keep being told they want to upgrade the damn bench. Couple that with the conservative history of the team ( and DW in particular) and I have very little excitement for the upcoming season.
    It's abundantly obvious that we lack "top level" talent. But it's not THAT simple to acquire these types of players. Sure the Pacers could have tried to go after D-Will and Nash, but I think it was a pipe dream that either of those players come here. We had restricted FA's who are garnering interest from other teams. Sure we could have told them to "wait until we get finished trying to court some of these other players" but that doesn't mean that they would wait. Nor should they. Their agents are informing them to sign for as much money and for as long as possible.

    So instead of focusing our entire off season on trying to acquire players that didn't have any interest in joining the team, the Pacers re-signed their own FA's and look to add other pieces to the bench. I understand that people think these moves were "un-aggressive" but I just don't see a realistic option for the team to make an aggressive move without blowing up the most of the core in order to acquire a "top level talent". (this is what happened with NY and Melo...and we see how that worked out. They aren't any closer to a ring than the Pacers)

    Most top level talent are drafted by their respective teams. Whether its directly (Durant, Westbrook, Love, Rose, Pierce, Wade) or indirectly (CP3 was willing to go to LA to play with Kobe, and then eventually Blake...Bron and Bosh were willing to take less money to play with Wade..D12 wanted to play with D-Will in Brooklyn)

    Everyone says we need a go-to scorer. Okay may be true, but WHERE DO YOU GO TO GET ONE?! There is not a single superstar (cept D12) who is on the trading block. Outside of superstars, there are very few go-to scorers in the league.

    Would it be nice to have one of these players come available and the Pacers, of course. But one of these guys have to become available first. Outside of D-Will and MAYBE Gordon there wasn't anyone in FA that would have filled that void.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      NY actually took a big step backwards by losing Lin. Brooklyn may be better than they were last season, but they were horrible last season. Chicago is a borderline playoff team w/o Rose, and Boston lost Ray Allen and is a year older. I don't see any of these teams leap-frogging the Pacers.
      NY didn't take even a small step backward losing Lin. They traded for a better PG in Felton they knew could play. Brooklyn will be top three or four team in the East with the additions and the return of Lopez. Chicago is not a borderline playoff team. They will easily make the playoffs (probably ahead of the Pacers) with or without Rose. Boston got younger and better with the additions of Lee and Terry and the return of two injured players. Did you not read that Walsh said that Boston would be better this year? I can easily see ALL of these team leap-frogging the Pacers but probably not all. I think the Pacers are a solid five or six seed in the East and perhaps higher if some teams have injuries and they do not..... ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

        Originally posted by Donnie Walsh
        "I don't want to get into it because I don't want to point fingers at any one position. I think we may be shy in a couple of areas. As you get closer to training camp, there are going to be players left out that are good. You want to be ready to get one of them."
        Apparently, going from significant cashflow to $2-$3M from the lux tax line buys you this quote.

        I like the players we got (short-term) but multiple teams did a lot more this offseason with a lot less resources. That's where my disappointment lies.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

          I am laughing at the guy who stated that we weren't players in Free Agency. We signed 5 free agents. How many did you want to sign?

          Also, we should have made some trades. All you have to do is trade your players for better players. Duh!! Why doesn't our front office know this.

          The Pacers have chosen the path of building a group of young guys to go on a 5-6 year run, hoping to top out at championship level for a year or two. If you are looking for spectacular moves, start watching the Lakers. This is not the team for you.

          I am not questioning anybodies fanhood, but goodness gracious. That is not the way the Pacers have ever done things. Why you would expect that to change is beyond me.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

            Originally posted by docpaul View Post
            This is not about being a "good" or a "bad" fan, it's just about being grounded in the substrate of a real conversation.
            ... for your point.

            ... for your poetic use of "substrate."

            IMO, it's natural to grouse about "suboptimal" moves (let alone "terrible" ones). We invest ourselves emotionally into the improvement of the team and can't help but feel at least a twinge of disappointment when TPTB deviates from our master plan (or seems to fall short of competitors' efforts, as Imawhat suggests).

            For my own part, I'm on record as liking our moves, at least overall, and for the next 2 or 3 years. I think the fit of the pieces will prove a pleasant surprise for many here, and I think Donnie's allusion to a couple missing pieces HAS to be among (i) a reliable scorer at the backup 4 (cringe: a stretch 4?!), (ii) a burly backup 3, and (iii) an elite 3-pt marksman. (As for Donnie's comment, "As you get closer to training camp, there are going to be players left out that are good," I believe he was alluding to Houston, in particular.) Two more supportive, good-fitting pieces and we'll be strong indeed, if not shiny. Maybe we still won't be as good as Miami, but beating out the rest of the competition in the East and meeting the Heat in the conference finals will be improvement. And if the majority of our young core players improve, we'll have reason for optimism indeed.
            Last edited by DrFife; 07-24-2012, 02:27 PM.


            "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

            - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
              I am laughing at the guy who stated that we weren't players in Free Agency. We signed 5 free agents. How many did you want to sign?

              Also, we should have made some trades. All you have to do is trade your players for better players. Duh!! Why doesn't our front office know this.

              The Pacers have chosen the path of building a group of young guys to go on a 5-6 year run, hoping to top out at championship level for a year or two. If you are looking for spectacular moves, start watching the Lakers. This is not the team for you.

              I am not questioning anybodies fanhood, but goodness gracious. That is not the way the Pacers have ever done things. Why you would expect that to change is beyond me.
              And how many championships the Pacers have? exactly....
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                I have the utmost respect for Donnie, I truly do. But you can't play up your title-less multiple decade resume and expect educated fans to just lap it up. I have absolutely no doubt that Donnie Walsh (and Pritchard) are infinitely capable of building a "good team."

                But it's not enough. It's why I get so frustrated when I see people reference the good things Donnie did in his first stint (if you can call it a "stint") here. He's good at his job, I'm grateful he was our GM for so long and took us to the playoffs as a small market in 16 out of 17 years or whatever it was.

                But I want a championship. I want to be the best team in the league, not 5th best, not making the conference finals 3 outta 4 years. I want the Pacers to have an NBA title. And I'd LOVE if Donnie got to hold the O'Brien trophy over his head and look in the camera and tell me to eat a dick. I just don't think it's in him, nor unfortunately Mr. Simon. That's not a blight on Herb, but he's an old man now trying to keep his retail business afloat in an extremely different economy from when he built it. His interests are elsewhere, and you can't blame him for that.

                I just can't shake this feeling of the franchise perpetually being cool with "good enough."
                I thanked you just for the bolded part. Needed that laugh ,and if f Walsh ever said that it would be priceless
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                  Originally posted by docpaul View Post

                  You all are announcing our team's death, when it's just becoming a teenager?
                  Two huge parts of the team are really old(basketball wise) the Pacers are a young team but let's not go crazy in thinking that we have an Oklahoma City 2.0 here.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                    And I'd LOVE if Donnie got to hold the O'Brien trophy over his head and look in the camera and tell me to eat a dick.
                    Oh I can see it now: everybody at the PD party maowing on za, waiting to see if Heisenberg actually eats the dressed-up hot dog (with a pic of DW and a little plastic trophy full o' mustard) placed in front of him.


                    "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                    - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                      9 franchises have won a title in the last 30 years. Not every team has "their turn".

                      Considering the Pacer's market size they have been a very successful franchise. One of the winning-est teams during the whole 90s decade. Complete rebuild in 3 years after the finals appearance in 2000, culminating in a 61-win season. Another complete rebuild in 5 or so years. There are many franchises that are NEVER good. Some big-market teams (NY, Boston) that go for loooooong stretches of futility. Donnie put this franchise in great position to win titles in the past, they just fell short. Are Utah and Phoenix poorly run? Two franchises that have fallen short but have put out some great teams.

                      And don't give me the "well San Antonio are a small market and they've won" argument. They also "won" David Robinson and Tim Duncan. OKC are only good for the same reason - the draft.

                      I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why Donnie Walsh is a poor GM. He's constantly put us in position to win, usually with likeable teams, that play the right way, they've just fallen short. Something that happens to over 2/3 of the entire league.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        I just can't shake this feeling of the franchise perpetually being cool with "good enough."
                        I usually agree with you quite a bit, and in the points you make I understand where you are coming from, but you, Peck and some others drastically undersell the Walsh era Pacers. They weren't just "good enough", they were title contenders. 48 minutes from the Finals 4 out of 7 years is a title contender, period.

                        CONTENDER, not winner. Title capable teams lose to other title capable teams every year, and there's more than just 1-2 of them.

                        So Walsh has never shown any satisfaction with just being "good enough". Based on this view the Cavs were just happy being good enough during the Lebron years, and the Lakers were happy just being good enough before Phil Jackson arrived. The Knicks have spent 30+ years being happy just being good enough, look at all the non-title years to prove it.


                        Okay, so "satisfied with just making the playoffs" has 100% got to come off the Walsh/Pacers criticism board, it doesn't have any logical backing when compared to opinions of other teams that came up short but made runs at the title.




                        Having said that, my problem with this go-around is "holding it for Bird for one year" and "I was rushed back" and "letting Pritch do a lot of it". There are tons of indicators that this is a part-time gig from a guy not that involved in it, not as motivated, not as hungry.

                        He has pride in his work, but he's a place holder for Bird and a feel-good token for Herb (vs just letting Pritch run things). This is not a front-office with a clear vision, and yet ironically Donnie says "don't rush to judge" as if he's somehow got his own 5 year plan in place in which he won't even participate for most of it. This is a THREE HEADED monster instead of a 2 headed monster.

                        They are running the risk of floundering around between visions and ideals, just keeping afloat waiting for Larry to return or not return.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                          Originally posted by pacerDU View Post
                          9 franchises have won a title in the last 30 years. Not every team has "their turn".

                          Considering the Pacer's market size they have been a very successful franchise. One of the winning-est teams during the whole 90s decade. Complete rebuild in 3 years after the finals appearance in 2000, culminating in a 61-win season. Another complete rebuild in 5 or so years. There are many franchises that are NEVER good. Some big-market teams (NY, Boston) that go for loooooong stretches of futility. Donnie put this franchise in great position to win titles in the past, they just fell short. Are Utah and Phoenix poorly run? Two franchises that have fallen short but have put out some great teams.

                          And don't give me the "well San Antonio are a small market and they've won" argument. They also "won" David Robinson and Tim Duncan. OKC are only good for the same reason - the draft.

                          I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why Donnie Walsh is a poor GM. He's constantly put us in position to win, usually with likeable teams, that play the right way, they've just fallen short. Something that happens to over 2/3 of the entire league.
                          Great post. Nice to read one based in reality.
                          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Two huge parts of the team are really old(basketball wise) the Pacers are a young team but let's not go crazy in thinking that we have an Oklahoma City 2.0 here.
                            OKC's situation is almost unprecedented. It's not like they signed any of their high level talent. Though they never drafted at number one they were in the lottery 4 straight years and fortunate enough to have 4 very good players fall to them each time-- Jeff Green (later traded for K. Perkins), Durant, Westbrook, and Harden. Then they won 50 games and took the Lakers 6 games. Then 2 years ago they made it to the conference finals. And last yr made it to the finals.

                            No I'm not saying that the Pacers are anything close to OKC. But we're still a young/up-coming team with most of our players having their best years ahead of them.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                              Originally posted by pacerDU View Post
                              9 franchises have won a title in the last 30 years. Not every team has "their turn".

                              Considering the Pacer's market size they have been a very successful franchise. One of the winning-est teams during the whole 90s decade. Complete rebuild in 3 years after the finals appearance in 2000, culminating in a 61-win season. Another complete rebuild in 5 or so years. There are many franchises that are NEVER good. Some big-market teams (NY, Boston) that go for loooooong stretches of futility. Donnie put this franchise in great position to win titles in the past, they just fell short. Are Utah and Phoenix poorly run? Two franchises that have fallen short but have put out some great teams.

                              And don't give me the "well San Antonio are a small market and they've won" argument. They also "won" David Robinson and Tim Duncan. OKC are only good for the same reason - the draft.

                              I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why Donnie Walsh is a poor GM. He's constantly put us in position to win, usually with likeable teams, that play the right way, they've just fallen short. Something that happens to over 2/3 of the entire league.
                              I was JUST about to post this lol. Good point.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                I think he meant "upgrade the team" to win a championship not "upgrade the team" to be a decent playoffs team, and no Bills nobody is asking to spend a 100mil dollars.

                                The part that bothered me was when he used the word "willing"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X