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

"Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #61
    Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    There's a reason that Jack, and not those others players, is the one sitting out for "conduct detrimental to the team."

    And for all the crap I hear about Tinsley's attitude, I have yet to see any evidence of it anywhere.
    BTW, since I'm all about fair play and responded to the Tinsley attitude question, I wouldn't be caught dead suggesting that Jack doesn't have a long line of attitude problems.

    I saw him get into it with both AJ and Tinsley at the same time because he put a shot up quick when they were trying to kill the clock and milk a lead to the end.

    Not long after he had his JO confrontation. He's obviously been into it with Rick before. He used to be a nightmare with refs, but I would STRONGLY argue that he cured that issue about JAN-FEB last year and it carried over to this season so far.

    Tinsley's issue has MOSTLY been health, at least that's what I often found myself defending the last 2 seasons - typically when people wrap his stint in the doghouse as another "injury" season when in fact of available games he played most of them after the Anderson injury made room for him again.

    Jack's issue has been entirely his attitude on the court. It's not just as simple as arguing and getting ticked, and in fact Harrison dusts him in that regard. It was more often his frustrated "who cares" moods that would pop up and how he would have big mental lapses at times.

    I defended Jack against the "he ALWAYS sucks" rants, because that's not accurate. The problem specifically with him has always been just like his shot, his whole game comes and goes, often in the same game.


    So bottom line, if you ever see me talking up Jack's positives don't mistake that for me suggesting he has no flaws. He's had some real gems in the meltdown and attitude department. However I do think that overall he's made progress and does want to be a productive teammate rather than just a star.



    Putnam - it's a knee-jerk to go from not being benched to being sent packing for arguing with RC...unless something was already laid out in private regarding this. Plenty of great players have had REPEAT flare-ups during points of high frustration.

    Rick has established the pace of the build-up IMO. Certainly the team could make the case you are making, they could say "it's just been too much" which is basically what they did with Ron. Ron's single moment wasn't trade worthy (once he said "sorry, I didn't mean it"), it was just that by then they were saying "we just don't feel like dealing with this stuff anymore".

    My one argument here would be that while Jack has been frustrated during games, the "trouble" he is more commonly associated with is the off-court stuff and perhaps the techs to start last season (and the year before). In other words I think another off-court incident would have been MUCH worse for his situation with the team than this.

    If you replace Rio with him getting into a bad fight with Rick instead, enough to make the press and so forth, and then you followed something like that with this, then this is a "time to go" situation. As it stands it's 2 different types of things, and the latest one is a lot less conflicting withe being a good teammate.


    You don't put up with this much crap from a Superstar
    Rape accusation is worse than the Rio thing. Getting your coach and teammate sent packing is much worse than getting mad because you are being benched. Where in the world did you come up with "you don't take this much from a superstar" from?

    Vince Carter got to hold his own strike in Toronto just to get traded. AI would still be in Philly if he wasn't asking to be moved, despite skipping fan appreciation night, CONSTANTLY bickering with Brown, and the chasing down his girl with a pistol and no-shirt in the middle of the night.

    Just tracking down all the stories to fill out this list could take hours.

    It's time to stop putting lipstick on a pig
    That's what RC's action and then Bird's (assume) suspension were. All I'm saying is that you go with a process that allows a player to improve and show that his actions didn't match his interest and desire to help the team.

    Right now people just want Jack gone, period, so they are intolerant. It's wasteful to let pride eliminate a productive solution.

    What would be wrong with Jack returning to action, showing better respect for the coach and continuing the play he's been showing all season (with his shot continuing to improve we would hope)? The fact that people don't want that tells me that they are ready to cut their nose off to spite their face.

    I'm not that type of person.

    But you can't reasonably say, "This one-game suspension is going to set Jack straight, and from here on he'll be a model citizen."
    His techs dropped way off last year in the 2nd half, right after his aruging in the LA game for how they were calling Kobe. I've said it several times, his next tech was about a month later and was for catching the ball coming out of the net (honestly I thought it was stupid call by the refs). This was in a game where Foster and Granger started mixing it up with Cavs players.

    This year he has 1 tech so far. Okay, so SOMETHING CHANGED. How and why?

    If you take the time to really watch him you see that he's adopted a much more productive method of TALKING to refs, asking, listening and respecting them. This is a LEARNED behavior and came from someplace or someone.

    So you give him a chance to prove that he can alter his interactions with the coach in a similar manner.


    Say what you will about Spree's ego but he didn't keep choking coaches and he happened to make NY and Minny better teams when he joined them. Golden St drew a necessary line due to the type of interaction between player and coach, but overall they lost out on the deal. It's not like losing Spree suddenly made them better. What would have made them better was to get Spree and PJ to see eye to eye and get on the same page before it got to that point.

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

      Jax messes up again and some people act surprized that it happend. The best prediction for future behavior is past behavior. This is who we have with S Jackson, this is who we will always have with him.

      The bad thing is there is nothing that you can really do with him. Were pretty well stuck.
      "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones."

      -Herb Brooks

      Comment

      • #63
        Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

        This all makes a lot of sense, I have to admit.

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
        [Jackson's] techs dropped way off last year in the 2nd half, right after his aruging in the LA game for how they were calling Kobe. I've said it several times, his next tech was about a month later and was for catching the ball coming out of the net (honestly I thought it was stupid call by the refs). This was in a game where Foster and Granger started mixing it up with Cavs players.

        This year he has 1 tech so far. Okay, so SOMETHING CHANGED. How and why?

        If you take the time to really watch him you see that he's adopted a much more productive method of TALKING to refs, asking, listening and respecting them. This is a LEARNED behavior and came from someplace or someone.

        So you give him a chance to prove that he can alter his interactions with the coach in a similar manner.

        Say what you will about Spree's ego but he didn't keep choking coaches and he happened to make NY and Minny better teams when he joined them. Golden St drew a necessary line due to the type of interaction between player and coach, but overall they lost out on the deal. It's not like losing Spree suddenly made them better. What would have made them better was to get Spree and PJ to see eye to eye and get on the same page before it got to that point.

        I'm not optimistic that Jackson can keep to the straight and narrow. But Seth's point about the reduction in technical fouls must be acknowledged. In that respect, at least, Jackson has changed for the better.
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment

        • #64
          Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

          My problem with Jack is NOT his off-court behaviour with the brawl, the pot, the guns, and what-not. It doesnt help, but that's NOT the problem...
          It's NOT that he's a streaky shooter, and that some nights he's on and some nights he's off.
          It's NOT his attitude towards the refs , the technicals, and his "emotions" on the court
          It's NOT his attitude towards Rick and the questioning of decisions
          It's NOT for lack of effort or individual talent, which I think he has both

          The problem is that he plays for himself. He's a selfish player who always looks for HIS shot, and to beat HIS defender 1on1. He has no passing game, no court vision, no understanding of pace or momentum, and generally no concept of TEAM.

          Stephen Jackson has yet to realize that there's no I in TEAM. His perception of his own individual capabilities cloud his effectiveness as a team player. He hasn't realized that if he made an extra pass (just for example) he'd be (a) getting more extra passes from teammates, and (b) confusing defenses and he himself would be more open next time. He doesnt distinguish between a good shot and a bad shot, as long as their HIS shots and have some chance of going in.

          This kind of player is detrimental to a TEAM. That's why I don't like Stephen Jackson, and would love to see him traded.
          Unfortunately for the Pacers there are several other players with the same attributes, who get most of the playing time. Most of them need to go as well, and then... maybe them... a team can be molded. AMEN.

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

            Rape accusation is worse than the Rio thing. Getting your coach and teammate sent packing is much worse than getting mad because you are being benched. Where in the world did you come up with "you don't take this much from a superstar" from?
            Where did i come up with that?.... it's not string theory. Its called hyperbole. In an attempt to accurately quantify my utter frustration with Jack. I guess i should have worded it....IF I were the owner I wouldn't take this much crap from a Superstar.... Jack certainly isn't a superstar....and I'm not an owner. So... Its my opinion.


            Vince Carter got to hold his own strike in Toronto just to get traded. AI would still be in Philly if he wasn't asking to be moved, despite skipping fan appreciation night, CONSTANTLY bickering with Brown, and the chasing down his girl with a pistol and no-shirt in the middle of the night.
            I couldn't give two ****s what how other organizations deal with their players.


            Just tracking down all the stories to fill out this list could take hours.[/b]
            Seems like you got plenty of time on your hands.... track away.


            The Pacers are in the sports business... the Simons are asking the League for a larger share of TV profits. Conseco has lots of empty seats and $4.00 tickets for sale. The organization must be hurting a little bit,,,, from 2 1/2 seasons of embarassing turmoil and distractions...it has damaged the relationships inside the lockeroom with the fanbase, with coaches, the Front Office and the League.

            What was the poll yesterday?.... win at any cost..... or win with class. Well we tried winning at all costs and it got us 2 1/2 years of Blowback. I'll quote Donnie from yesterday.

            "The Pacers have had a good value system in which respect for fans, referees, coaches, players and front office has always existed," said franchise CEO & President Donnie Walsh. "The last couple of years, there has been a breakdown of that in some instances. We're making it clear we won't tolerate anymore breakdowns in that value system."


            The Pacers are in the business of winning with class... not a rehabilition center for troubled, marginal youth. Especially after they've had 2nd and 3rd chances already.

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

              Okay, how many of you watched the Cavs game? How many of you have watched the sequences in question that led up to this "behavior"?

              I just went through it and honestly I think Jack probably had a point. Here's what happened...

              Jones hits a 3 to make it a 17 point game (started the 2nd as a 15 point game), timeout Pacers, Jack returns.

              - Al puts up an ugly turnaround miss

              - Lebron drives it up on the rebound but is turned away by James, Marshall beats Granger on the boards. In-bounds to Jones, he PICKS UP HIS DRIBBLE and Jack gets caught peeking thinking he's going to pass to James outside, James backdoors him for the dunk. Not a great play by Jack, but not a lack of effort. Jones being stuck with no dribble changes the situation and a lot of times it becomes a double team.

              - Jack's 3 rolls around and back out. Not a bad shot and it almost went.

              - Tins gets switched to Marshall, Jack comes to help but Tins fouls first. In-bounds eventually the ball ends up with James up top, Vare sets the PnR, James goes off it and then shoots a FADE 3pt shot from 1-2 feet behind the arc already and makes it.

              Denari's quote "You can't defend that". It was just stupid and if Jack shot and missed a shot like that people would hate him for it. James didn't make his name taking that on a regular basis.

              - Saras makes a jumper off an in-bounds

              - Pacers go zone, Cavs miss and foul on rebound

              - Saras drives and gets tied up, barely gets it to Al underneath who then has it taken away from him by James.

              - Jack defends James, he dumps to Snow wide left. Snow runs the Give and Go off of Varejao and walks in for the layup. Poor defense by Al. He's supposed to step over and stop that.

              - Harrington is trying to feed Granger. Jack has a better passing lane but Al forces it himself and it is tipped by Hughes and goes right to James who is already on the move. James just goes full speed past Harrington, Jack runs ahead and tries to cut off and defend the play. When that fails he tries to foul James before he can get a good shot up. It's too late and James gets the make and one (he misses it).

              This transition was created by Harrington's bad pass out on top, the worst place you can give up the ball.

              - Tins drives and gets the foul, shoots FTs

              And then comes the big play...

              - The Pacers WERE in zone (so not matched up). Since then there was a timeout where Hughes entered for Varejao. This makes the Cavs SMALL. The Pacers haven't had a regular defensive set since then to match up properly.

              Jones
              Snow
              Hughes
              James
              Marshall

              Pacers have in the game Tinsley, Saras, Jackson, Granger, and Al

              Saras defends Jones bringing it up, Tinsley is on Hughes. Al is clearly on Marshall.

              Then you see Jackson and he's shouting and pointing to James. Is this "I got him" or is this "Danny, you're on James" or was it even supposed to be zone still? I have STRONG doubts that the matchup was supposed to be Danny on Snow so Jack could play James. I think Jack defended James fairly well in this game, but still at this point James is the 2nd biggest guy on the court and is playing PF.

              So the play begins with Jack drifting to the lane as Danny APPEARS to be coming over to get James after Jack called it out. Problem is that Snow comes to the lane and this is why Danny has moved there, he hasn't realized he's supposed to be on James (or he wasn't supposed to be). Either way it looks to Jack like Danny is coming to James, but when Snow breaks off some screens and goes the other way Danny goes with him even as Jack is too.

              JACK realizes this, Danny does not. Jack rushes to close back out on James but the pass is already on its way and James goes in for a layup.

              Let me stress this again. Both players are defending Snow. Jack is in good position for it and it does look like Granger might be going to James. Jack REALIZES BEFORE THE BALL IS PASSED TO JAMES. He figures out the problem but it's just too late with the floor spread like the Cavs have it.

              After the make Jack is still clearly confused and talks (TALKS) to Granger. He is pointing and stuff in a way that says "I thought" and "Don't you have" and so on. Granger is just going back up court oblivious to the play.

              Tins posts and is fouled. Jack and Granger then both talk at the FT line. Jack puts his palm out in the "what's going on" gesture, still clearly confused about the situation. He obviously thought that Danny was on James based on how he pointed at James and then followed Snow.

              Jack puts his hands on his hips as they talk (they look casual, this is in NO WAY heated). They both look toward the sideline before the camera cuts away. My guess is this is DA being subbed for Jackson.

              Keep in mind that unless Danny really was supposed to be defending Snow while Jack was on James that Jackson hasn't really done anything wrong. The previous dunk was off a bad pass by Harrington and this play was due to Granger defending the wrong guy.


              DA comes in, gives Jack a slap as he goes out, and in the background you can see Jack's feet at the bench. He is talking to someone. A long shot of the FT seems to show that it is RC (too far to be sure who is talking to who, could be Chuck talking instead).

              Jack again has palms out in the "pleading my case" gesture. He still believes he wasn't wrong on the play. It doesn't look heated but it's hard to tell from this shot.

              Jack finally heads to the end of the bench. This is where he must mutter something because as he sits RC stands up and literally points to the locker room. At this point Buckner insightfully notes "they're sending Jack in (to the game)"...whoops, not quite.


              Okay, so I'm not saying a player should have a free pass to speak to his coach however he wants too, but I am saying that I'm pretty curious about the exchange and if RC was blaming Jack. If that was the case then I certainly understand why Jackson would be upset.

              If Granger truly was matched up with Snow by Rick and Jackson missed it then it was a pretty poor screwup on his part. Maybe that's what happened but honestly I doubt it. On offense Granger was the PF, just as he was at PF much of last year.


              Summary - Jack was probably right about the play on court, took exception when he felt like he was being blamed, made an obviously lightening rod remark (F you or perhaps worse) and got sent packing. He was wrong even in that situation to take it so personal.

              I'm a RC fan but I'm a little suspicious of this sequence. Someone was really wrong on that play and if it wasn't Jack and RC pulled him for it anyway...doesn't seem productive to me.

              I know one thing for sure, DA wasn't coming in to defend James which suggests to me that Jack was defending Snow (otherwise you go with Daniels). Maybe RC just wanted to small down even more I suppose.


              Now the suspension a day later, that's intriguing. Does that mean that the argument carried on? Does that mean that his comment was truly that offensive? I mean he goes from sitting down to kicked out in seconds, so there wasn't time to say too much. How nasty could the comment have been?

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Okay, how many of you watched the Cavs game? How many of you have watched the sequences in question that led up to this "behavior"?

                I just went through it and honestly I think Jack probably had a point. Here's what happened...

                Jones hits a 3 to make it a 17 point game (started the 2nd as a 15 point game), timeout Pacers, Jack returns.

                - Al puts up an ugly turnaround miss

                - Lebron drives it up on the rebound but is turned away by James, Marshall beats Granger on the boards. In-bounds to Jones, he PICKS UP HIS DRIBBLE and Jack gets caught peeking thinking he's going to pass to James outside, James backdoors him for the dunk. Not a great play by Jack, but not a lack of effort. Jones being stuck with no dribble changes the situation and a lot of times it becomes a double team.

                - Jack's 3 rolls around and back out. Not a bad shot and it almost went.

                - Tins gets switched to Marshall, Jack comes to help but Tins fouls first. In-bounds eventually the ball ends up with James up top, Vare sets the PnR, James goes off it and then shoots a FADE 3pt shot from 1-2 feet behind the arc already and makes it.

                Denari's quote "You can't defend that". It was just stupid and if Jack shot and missed a shot like that people would hate him for it. James didn't make his name taking that on a regular basis.

                - Saras makes a jumper off an in-bounds

                - Pacers go zone, Cavs miss and foul on rebound

                - Saras drives and gets tied up, barely gets it to Al underneath who then has it taken away from him by James.

                - Jack defends James, he dumps to Snow wide left. Snow runs the Give and Go off of Varejao and walks in for the layup. Poor defense by Al. He's supposed to step over and stop that.

                - Harrington is trying to feed Granger. Jack has a better passing lane but Al forces it himself and it is tipped by Hughes and goes right to James who is already on the move. James just goes full speed past Harrington, Jack runs ahead and tries to cut off and defend the play. When that fails he tries to foul James before he can get a good shot up. It's too late and James gets the make and one (he misses it).

                This transition was created by Harrington's bad pass out on top, the worst place you can give up the ball.

                - Tins drives and gets the foul, shoots FTs

                And then comes the big play...

                - The Pacers WERE in zone (so not matched up). Since then there was a timeout where Hughes entered for Varejao. This makes the Cavs SMALL. The Pacers haven't had a regular defensive set since then to match up properly.

                Jones
                Snow
                Hughes
                James
                Marshall

                Pacers have in the game Tinsley, Saras, Jackson, Granger, and Al

                Saras defends Jones bringing it up, Tinsley is on Hughes. Al is clearly on Marshall.

                Then you see Jackson and he's shouting and pointing to James. Is this "I got him" or is this "Danny, you're on James" or was it even supposed to be zone still? I have STRONG doubts that the matchup was supposed to be Danny on Snow so Jack could play James. I think Jack defended James fairly well in this game, but still at this point James is the 2nd biggest guy on the court and is playing PF.

                So the play begins with Jack drifting to the lane as Danny APPEARS to be coming over to get James after Jack called it out. Problem is that Snow comes to the lane and this is why Danny has moved there, he hasn't realized he's supposed to be on James (or he wasn't supposed to be). Either way it looks to Jack like Danny is coming to James, but when Snow breaks off some screens and goes the other way Danny goes with him even as Jack is too.

                JACK realizes this, Danny does not. Jack rushes to close back out on James but the pass is already on its way and James goes in for a layup.

                Let me stress this again. Both players are defending Snow. Jack is in good position for it and it does look like Granger might be going to James. Jack REALIZES BEFORE THE BALL IS PASSED TO JAMES. He figures out the problem but it's just too late with the floor spread like the Cavs have it.

                After the make Jack is still clearly confused and talks (TALKS) to Granger. He is pointing and stuff in a way that says "I thought" and "Don't you have" and so on. Granger is just going back up court oblivious to the play.

                Tins posts and is fouled. Jack and Granger then both talk at the FT line. Jack puts his palm out in the "what's going on" gesture, still clearly confused about the situation. He obviously thought that Danny was on James based on how he pointed at James and then followed Snow.

                Jack puts his hands on his hips as they talk (they look casual, this is in NO WAY heated). They both look toward the sideline before the camera cuts away. My guess is this is DA being subbed for Jackson.

                Keep in mind that unless Danny really was supposed to be defending Snow while Jack was on James that Jackson hasn't really done anything wrong. The previous dunk was off a bad pass by Harrington and this play was due to Granger defending the wrong guy.


                DA comes in, gives Jack a slap as he goes out, and in the background you can see Jack's feet at the bench. He is talking to someone. A long shot of the FT seems to show that it is RC (too far to be sure who is talking to who, could be Chuck talking instead).

                Jack again has palms out in the "pleading my case" gesture. He still believes he wasn't wrong on the play. It doesn't look heated but it's hard to tell from this shot.

                Jack finally heads to the end of the bench. This is where he must mutter something because as he sits RC stands up and literally points to the locker room. At this point Buckner insightfully notes "they're sending Jack in (to the game)"...whoops, not quite.


                Okay, so I'm not saying a player should have a free pass to speak to his coach however he wants too, but I am saying that I'm pretty curious about the exchange and if RC was blaming Jack. If that was the case then I certainly understand why Jackson would be upset.

                If Granger truly was matched up with Snow by Rick and Jackson missed it then it was a pretty poor screwup on his part. Maybe that's what happened but honestly I doubt it. On offense Granger was the PF, just as he was at PF much of last year.


                Summary - Jack was probably right about the play on court, took exception when he felt like he was being blamed, made an obviously lightening rod remark (F you or perhaps worse) and got sent packing. He was wrong even in that situation to take it so personal.

                I'm a RC fan but I'm a little suspicious of this sequence. Someone was really wrong on that play and if it wasn't Jack and RC pulled him for it anyway...doesn't seem productive to me.

                I know one thing for sure, DA wasn't coming in to defend James which suggests to me that Jack was defending Snow (otherwise you go with Daniels). Maybe RC just wanted to small down even more I suppose.


                Now the suspension a day later, that's intriguing. Does that mean that the argument carried on? Does that mean that his comment was truly that offensive? I mean he goes from sitting down to kicked out in seconds, so there wasn't time to say too much. How nasty could the comment have been?

                It may be neither.

                Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

                Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

                This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.


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

                Comment

                • #68
                  Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  It may be neither.

                  Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

                  Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

                  This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.
                  I wonder if Jackson had just waited until after the game and then ripped into Carlisle, Walsh, Bird et al in the coach's office if that would've been OK and if Carlisle would've revamped his rotation to get Sjax more minutes following that?

                  -Bball
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    It may be neither.

                    Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

                    Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

                    This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.
                    I know one thing for sure, if I ever do need an attorney I'm calling Seth.

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      I wonder if Jackson had just waited until after the game and then ripped into Carlisle, Walsh, Bird et al in the coach's office if that would've been OK and if Carlisle would've revamped his rotation to get Sjax more minutes following that?

                      -Bball
                      Oh sweet irony.


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

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Now, can management find some way to rid us of this cancer. It's "up to them". I would think they could at least trade him for some garbage that has a shorter contract.
                        I'm not opposed to garbage with a longer contract.

                        This isn't going to be a "playoff" season anyway. Bite the bullet and experiment with some of the young players the Mavericks tossed our way.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          It may be neither.

                          Jackson could be under a zero tolerance policy in regards to saying anything about being taken out of a game or anything regarding play on the court.

                          Everything you stated may be acurate but unfortuneatly for Jackson he is fighting his own reputation.

                          This is not his first time complaining about coming out of a game & although I haven't seen it yet, I bet it's not even the first time this season.
                          Yeah, that's true. That's typically the hard core debates I'm having, stuff where it's clearly image/rep tainting the view of 2 similar plays...ie, Danny forces a quick 3 it's okay, Jack does it and it's "there he goes again" even if DG ends up taking more 3s on the night and shoots it poorly.

                          My thing is about accurate evaluation of the actual play because I want to know what is or isn't working, how things broke down or went well. But I'll concede without question that Jack has put himself in a tough spot. Honestly I had no problem with RC sending him to the locker room. I just wondered what the initial reason for yanking him was.


                          Hey, I'm just happy someone got to read all that, it took a good chunk of time to review and write up.

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Yeah, that's true. That's typically the hard core debates I'm having, stuff where it's clearly image/rep tainting the view of 2 similar plays...ie, Danny forces a quick 3 it's okay, Jack does it and it's "there he goes again" even if DG ends up taking more 3s on the night and shoots it poorly.

                            My thing is about accurate evaluation of the actual play because I want to know what is or isn't working, how things broke down or went well. But I'll concede without question that Jack has put himself in a tough spot. Honestly I had no problem with RC sending him to the locker room. I just wondered what the initial reason for yanking him was.


                            Hey, I'm just happy someone got to read all that, it took a good chunk of time to review and write up.

                            I always read everything you write. Hey, it's not often I find someone who out does me in pure word usage on these boards so I have to read what your saying.

                            I'll say what I said early in the season. I wish to God Jax hadn't had that stupid fight at the nightclub. I honestly think the fans could have moved on past what they thought of him. However unfortuneatly every thing he does is magnified because of past behavior.

                            What is that old saying "past performance is the best indicator of future performance" or something like that.

                            I think the fans right now are using that with Jax. Hey I even said last season he was getting an unfair shake with the fans. I've never seen the fans talk about or feel about one of our own players the way many/most did last season. Hell it was so bad up in my section that I couldn't salute America because of the boo's distracting me & that was just from one guy.

                            For his sake he MUST stop doing anything that will appear to be negative towards the team.

                            Missing some shots will get him some boo's but then again it will get Tinsley or Harrington some as well.

                            But the fans will not tolerate his berateing the coaching staff.

                            He keeps his nose clean in regards to that from here on in & he'll be fine, for the most part.


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

                            Comment

                            Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                            Working...
                            X