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

Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

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

  • Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

    MM's blogs are always really good, and there are a lot of things in here worthy of discussion


    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/

    Time to rethink Tinsley?
    Posted by Mark Montieth


    I can hear the screeching feedback already, but I’ll say it anyway. Just let me take a few steps back first, in case you want to throw something.

    OK, ready.

    Jamaal Tinsley’s career with the Pacers might have been rejuvenated with the hiring of Jim O’Brien, and I wouldn’t assume he’ll be traded this summer.

    Can you handle that truth? Here’s the deal.

    O’Brien looks like a CEO and talks like a sober-minded minister, but he coaches a rather adventurous style of basketball that should be well-suited to Tinsley's game. Don’t be fooled by him. Don’t be fooled by Tinsley, either. They could be made for one another.

    Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker and Allen Iverson all played at peak levels under O’Brien, luxuriating in the freedom he allowed, although it came with the demand of aggressive defense attached. Tinsley is no Pierce or Iverson (although he might be a Walker), but the point is that O’Brien is not afraid to let players utilize their talent. If he coaches Tinsley, he won’t handcuff him with ever-changing play calls and rigid structure, although he won’t give him the keys to the car on every drive downcourt, either.

    Despite public impressions of Tinsley, people around the team on a regular basis will tell you he cares more than he lets on. Why he doesn’t let on more often is a mystery, not to mention a fault. But give him a coach _ O’Brien, for example _ who shoots straight with him and he’ll respond. Like most kids who grew up on the streets, he doesn’t deal well with people of a political nature, and he’s seen plenty of that in his six seasons with the Pacers.

    Make no mistake, Tinsley can be reached. His coach at Mt. San Jacinto, John Chambers, did it. So did his coach at Iowa State, Larry Eustachy. In fact, the story of Tinsley’s decision to go to Iowa State speaks volumes.

    He took his recruiting visit on a night when the Cyclones played a nationally televised game with Missouri. They stunk it up and Eustachy blistered his players at halftime and after the game. Tinsley saw it all firsthand, yet still committed.

    Eustachy drove Tinsley hard in practice, too, wondering all the while if he would transfer before Christmas. Tinsley wound up staying for both of his seasons of eligibility, although he probably would have been a first-round draft pick after his junior season.

    “I just liked how he was demanding,” he recalled once. “You want a coach trying to get the best out of you. That was the greatest thing I ever did, going there.”

    What would Tinsley become with a demanding, straightforward coach in the NBA? Hard to say, but Pacers fans remain tantalized by what they saw when he was in the eager-rookie phase of his career, when he was fresh, healthy, unjaded and allowed freedom by Isiah Thomas.

    Remember the run? He had 12 points, 15 assists, nine turnovers, six steals and five blocked shots in his 11th game. He had 28 points and 13 assists in this 12th game. He had 29 points and 11 assists in his 13th game. He had 19 points, 23 assists and 11 rebounds in his 14th game, a nationally televised Thanksgiving Day victory over Washington.

    He was twice named Rookie of the Month and had two triple-doubles _ still the only two of his career. He wound up having a better rookie season, in fact, than Tony Parker, who was drafted one spot behind him. Since then, however, the comparison has become moot. Parker has started on three championship teams, with a fourth in the offing, while Tinsley has put himself at risk of becoming the NBA’s version of Macaulay Culkin _ an early peaker threatening to disappear from public view.

    Tinsley is coming off a solid season, averaging 12.8 points and 6.9 assists, although he shot less than 40 percent from the field. He also played 72 games after three injury-plagued seasons. His careless demeanor, wayward shot and two nightclub incidents, however, have put him in jeopardy with fans, who have put pressure on the franchise to trade him.

    Now here comes O’Brien, solid in all coaching matters, ready to offer a lifeline. So, perhaps, will Larry Bird, who recently praised Tinsley by saying “if he can stay healthy, he’s what we need.” That remark drew criticism from some corners and the assumption that he was trying to protect Tinsley’s trade value from others, but I believe Bird genuinely respects Tinsley’s game and likes him personally. Most people who are around Tinsley on a regular basis do, although they remain frustrated by him. Sometimes beneath his shield of glacial coolness you can detect a beating heart. Still, it’s not difficult to understand why fans are not impressed.

    As a most unpredictable summer approaches, the Pacers certainly could trade Tinsley. He’s hardly achieved untouchable status. He doesn't show much leadership, he isn't punctual and, regardless of whether he’s found innocent or guilty of the charges stemming from the nightclub incident at 8 Seconds Saloon, the off-court scouting report is that he spends too much time in the clubs.

    Problem is, the Pacers are unlikely to find a better point guard in a trade. They also run the risk of watching him pull a Stephen Jackson and flourish in another team’s environment. I’ll bet they’re curious to see how he responds to a different brand of coaching. I’ll bet Tinsley is, too.

    Tinsley called the Pacers’ office on Thursday, making the effort to reach out to his new coach, but O’Brien had already left town. They’ll probably talk next week. Wouldn't you love to listen in on that conversation? You might hear the sound of a career being salvaged.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-02-2007, 08:20 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Problem is, the Pacers are unlikely to find a better point guard in a trade. They also run the risk of watching him pull a Stephen Jackson and flourish in another team’s environment. I’ll bet they’re curious to see how he responds to a different brand of coaching. I’ll bet Tinsley is, too.
    i think that paragraph says it all. he doesn't seem to have the pacers organization by the throat as bad as artest or jackson did, right now. for me it wouldn't take long to forget about the past with a fresh attitude and solid play from tins.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

      Originally posted by Irk Woodsman View Post
      i think that paragraph says it all. he doesn't seem to have the pacers organization by the throat as bad as artest or jackson did, right now. for me it wouldn't take long to forget about the past with a fresh attitude and solid play from tins.
      I'm ready and perfectly willing to give this a shot also.

      The potential is definitely there. I just hope the bridge hasn't been burned in Tinsley's mind and he gives it 100%. If he does, there is nowhere he (and the Pacers) can't go.



      RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Problem is, the Pacers are unlikely to find a better point guard in a trade. They also run the risk of watching him pull a Stephen Jackson and flourish in another team’s environment. I’ll bet they’re curious to see how he responds to a different brand of coaching. I’ll bet Tinsley is, too.
        I think tinsley didn't like RC and doesn't like being in Indy. However they will not get a better point guard in a trade as Montieth suggests but can eventually get a young kid who can be groomed to take over some day. Yes tinsley will have a better attitude with JOB but his limitations will still be there. However he may not be the biggest problem next season. We need guys who are better than Murph, Dun, Quis, and Foster to start.
        The guy who will have trouble with JOB is Murphy whose stat stuffing and playing soft will not be acceptable. That will be very interesting to me because Murph has always gotten away with trying to look good in the box score rather than in the game itself. If JOB lets Murph hang out around the 3 point line I will be very disappointed in him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

          i think its a little overstating stephen jackson going to GSW. yes he played well and helped them get into the playoffs but as the season ended, i remember reading at least one article about the warriors really wanting to move him because they're worried that it is only a matter of time before he totally melts down. his performance in the playoffs wasn't the most compelling evidence that he won't be a problem.

          Chris Mullin has many tough decisions to make this offseason, starting with what to do with his ticking time bomb — Stephen Jackson.

          Having just disembarked from a 24-day, 11-game roller-coaster ride, we've seen the good and the bad of the ex-Pacer. The question is: Have we seen the worst?

          I seriously doubt it. So now's the time to ship him elsewhere and assure his explosion cracks someone else's foundation.

          As great a player as he can be, there's just no way you can win with this guy. He's alienated so many referees, the Warriors find themselves playing 5-on-8 every time Jackson suits up.

          With a generally uninspiring group of free agents about to hit the market, Jackson's three-year, $21.4 million remaining commitment shouldn't be a deal breaker, especially for general managers who watched the Dallas series but then switched over to the Spurs and Suns in Round 2.
          The Warriors flat-out cannot bring him back.

          http://www.insidebayarea.com/turn2/ci_5916577
          so dispite helping the warriors get to the playoffs for the first time in a decade, the honeymoon seems to be over, at least with the media.

          i tend to think tinsley would thrive initially in another environment. but so did artest at first. i also think that there are a couple of PGs out there that would fit into O'Brien's system too (chucky atkins, mo williams as free agents, calderon and probably arroyo as trade prospects). thats not to say i wouldn't give tinsley a chance if he wasn't included in the laker deal.
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

            Tinsley is not a ticking time bomb like Artest, and he's a lot more cool-headed than Stephen Jackson (for better or worse, and despite the frequent "And1 Mother****er!"s), so I don't believe your prediction to be accurate or fair. While comparisons between the players can be drawn - the fans think he is the biggest problem and that all will be fine when he's gone, or at least a little better - it is simply not right to do so in this manner. I'd like to see Tinsley in a Pacers uniform next season. Last shot.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

              Tinsley called the Pacers’ office on Thursday, making the effort to reach out to his new coach, but O’Brien had already left town. They’ll probably talk next week.
              I think that's big. O'Brien's not lying when he talks about liking Tinsley. All the Boston people have been impressed with him, because he's the only Pacer who played consistently well against them in all those playoff series, culminating in his single-handedly beating them during the brawl year (although Obie was long gone by then.)

              I joke about Tinsley going to LA, because him and Phil would just be too funny. But if we don't trade him with JO, I'd just as soon keep him. I don't see us getting a quality backcourt player for him in return, not this summer. For those who fear he'll play well under Obie for a little while, do remember that would help his trade value considerably, and we can still get rid of him before the deadline.

              For the record, I've said for years that I'd like to see what Tinsley can do for another coach, and I've always feared how he'd play if we traded him. However, unless he really plays well, I have no problem with trading him either.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                MAn I wanna see both Tins and JO in a PAcers Uniform next year. But if we let JO go, Tinsley will definately step up hs game
                R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                  Speakout be ready to be disappointed. Troy Murphy if here will hang out around the 3 point line- all you have to do is look back to how he used Raef LaFrenz as a Celtic. Raef would trail on the break and shoot 3's after his defender dropped into the paint.

                  LaFrenz was never inside -look at the similarities in their games both 6'11 lefties , who like to float away from the hoop and hit 3's. I see Troy being told shoot the open 3 when you have it, O'Brien already said his offense has a lot of opportunities for "good 3 point shooting" Murphy shot over 40% from 3's thats good 3 point shooting.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                    Originally posted by heywoode View Post
                    I'm ready and perfectly willing to give this a shot also.

                    The potential is definitely there. I just hope the bridge hasn't been burned in Tinsley's mind and he gives it 100%. If he does, there is nowhere he (and the Pacers) can't go.
                    Actually, I feel the same way. This could be his last opportunity to really make something of his career (assuming for the moment he cares beyond the money he's already been guaranteed), and given how O'Brien coaches, I think it's possible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                      Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                      Tinsley is not a ticking time bomb like Artest, and he's a lot more cool-headed than Stephen Jackson (for better or worse, and despite the frequent "And1 Mother****er!"s), so I don't believe your prediction to be accurate or fair. While comparisons between the players can be drawn - the fans think he is the biggest problem and that all will be fine when he's gone, or at least a little better - it is simply not right to do so in this manner. I'd like to see Tinsley in a Pacers uniform next season. Last shot.
                      i'm not saying tinsley is a timebomb like artest or jackson. not at all. monteith was just saying that jackson was flourishing in another environment, and i was just qualifying that by saying jackson had also warn out his welcome after only half a season. same thing happened with artest. so to say that the pacers are truly afraid of their history of players flourishing elsewhere isn't accurate because while artest and jackson helped get their teams into the playoffs, artest is on the block (was by midseason) and jackson after his playoff performance is too.

                      so to say that these players have truly flourished away from the pacers is very misleading. i wasn't saying tinsley was going to go nuts on another team. but tinsley has his own set of issues that will probably show up on his next team too (the way that sjax and artests issues eventually surfaced elsewhere).

                      as i've said, i wouldn't ignore trade offers for tinsley but i wouldn't actively seek them out with a new coach
                      Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 06-02-2007, 10:42 AM.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                        I think that's big. O'Brien's not lying when he talks about liking Tinsley. All the Boston people have been impressed with him, because he's the only Pacer who played consistently well against them in all those playoff series, culminating in his single-handedly beating them during the brawl year (although Obie was long gone by then.)
                        Have we discussed this before, I can't rememeber if I discussed this with you or someone else.

                        My plan was to stay out of this thread completely - I mean I have nothing new to say on Tinsley. However, Kegboy when I read your comments that I put in bold, I feel I need to comment, mainly because I strongly disagee with you.

                        let me first say, that yes Tinsley coming back in the 2004 series did help the Pacers win. But for you to suggest that he single-handly beat the Celts - that is just absurd, and simply not true. He helped, yes, but nothing more than that.

                        However, the other part of your statement is what I have even problem with. Go back and look at the 2003 series - JO and Artest both played extremely well. Tinsley started out OK in that series, but played worse and worse as the series went along. In fact he was benched because he couldn't guard Tony Delk - I've said for several years now that the best point guard play the pacers got in that series was in game 5 when Hardaway played the entire 4th quarter and OT. I will grant you that Tinsley shot the ball well - other than that he was IMO terrible in that series. His defense was at its all time bad and I thought one of the biggest problems in that series is that Tinsley did not play well against the Celts very weak point guards. - Tinsley should have dominated them and he didn't.

                        Edit: I guess for the record, I should state that I want Tinsley gone and I don't care who the coach is. OK, I hope I don't make anymore comments about him - that is and was my goal - so don't blame me, blame Kegboy for getting me riled up.
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-02-2007, 10:50 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                          Yes Buck, we've had this argument before, and we remember events very differently. I'll just leave it at that.

                          No, I can't, Pierce owned Ron in '03, owned his ***. We ended up switching Al onto him because Ron was Paul's *****. In reality JO was the only player who truly showed up in that series, but Jamaal played much better in that series than he had all year, especially post-Collapse.

                          As for '05, Doc Rivers himself has said emphatically more than once Tinsley beat them.
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                            Yes Buck, we've had this argument before, and we remember events very differently. I'll just leave it at that.

                            No, I can't, Pierce owned Ron in '03, owned his ***. We ended up switching Al onto him because Ron was Paul's *****. In reality JO was the only player who truly showed up in that series, but Jamaal played much better in that series than he had all year, especially post-Collapse.

                            As for '05, Doc Rivers himself has said emphatically more than once Tinsley beat them.
                            It wasn't Ron's fault the Pacers help defense was horrible in 2003. In 2004 under Mike Brown's defense Ron owned Pierce

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Time to rethink Tinsley. Montieth blog - some interesting stuff

                              Tinsley epitomizes to me a guy "playing out the string". Someone who got his money and doesn't care to change or improve. This may be the best chance we have to get rid of him and I, personally, don't want to even chance the POTENTIAL (big Pacers word) of him being a different player under O'Brien.

                              Just Go!
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X