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

Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

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

  • #16
    Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    He does seem like a dominant personality, and I think he tries to be a leader. But maybe his teammates don't respect him enough to be a leader. I don't know.

    Who we lose from last season - Rasho, Jack, Daniels, Baston, Graham and they were replaced by D. Jones, S. Jones, Watson, Hansbrough, Head, Price.

    I think the most significant change was D. Jones replacing Jack at least as far as leadership and heart and soul type players.

    Although I think to "blame" Jones seems really unfair to him.
    I was merely making an observation. I am not "blaming" Dahntay. This was my take after the Dallas game, and it remains largely the same:

    Originally posted by Tim Donahue
    Many believe that Dahntay Jones has filled JJ’s shoes admirably, even exceeding him. I am not one of them. I like Dahntay a great deal, and I think he is going to be a valuable player for this team during the transition. I love the attitude he brings to the team, and I think he has some fine leadership qualities. However, he seems to bring a different type of energy than Jarrett. Now, clearly I don’t have first hand access to the locker room, so this is speculation, but Dahntay seems more confrontational than JJ (the row with TJ notwithstanding.) The energy from the team and in the locker room was much more positive last season, and I’m forced to conclude that Jarrett Jack was a big part of that.
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...recap-fragile/

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    D Jones is always a guy standing and cheering good plays, when he is on the bench or at least it looks like this on TV. Can anyone at the game confirm?

    I always think this is a sign of a guy who is not part of the problem. He also seems to freely to talk to guys during dead balls, so it leaves me with the impression that he's actively engaged.

    Other guys, I am starting to see that it looks like they are phoning it in, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between playing bad/being down on themselves/tired of losing and being a problem.
    Being "actively engaged" isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing. It's just a thing. What matters is how he actually interacts with his teammates.

    One of the big things that I find reminiscent of AJ is that his importance/prominence on the team far outweighs his actual value to the team. I guess you could probably throw Croshere (historically) into the mix on that type of conversation, as well.

    Whether he's an active part of the problem or not, I couldn't tell you. I just don't see any evidence that he's really a part of the solution, either.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

      count55, I wasn't suggesting that you were blaming him. I think Jones replacing Jack has probably hurt the chemistry - my point was at least Jones is trying and I might tend to blame his teammates either for not being willing to follow Jones or for not stepping up themselves. Of course this is all conjecture
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-31-2009, 09:25 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

        Also, note what's happening up in Toronto as Jarrett Jack is beginning to take a more dominant role on that team. They've won 7 of their last 11, all of which featured JJ as starter.

        Leadership is such an elusive (and sometimes, illusory) quality. I can't explain why, nor am I saying woulda, shoulda, coulda on JJ's contract, but I have to wonder if he just wasn't one of those guys that is able to earn an innate, almost instinctual respect and (more importantly) trust of others. Hell, I even think Jack had a very positive impact on TJ.

        This is a lot more nebulous than I really like. I don't believe any of these guys are bad guys. I don't think any of them are quitters. However, put yourself in their position and consider how the futility of it all could make you feel defeated. This has nothing to do with weakness of character. It simply has to do with being human.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

          I caught the game from midway in the 2Q forward and thought that the Pacers played hard. They still made plenty of mistakes, but the finer points Peck points out in the OP are spot on at least from the action I saw.

          Murphy, Hansborough, Foster, Granger (and Diener) - all out. The Grizzlies like the Hawks and Raptors are very long, very lean. It's hard for the Pacers to play against teams like that because they really don't have the size to complete. All we have left as far as Big Men to counter that are Hibbert, McRobs and Solo. So, I wasn't surprised when we had difficulty shooting over some the taller Grizzlie players. What did impress me was how unintimidated players like McRobs, Head and Hibbert seemed to be out there. They worked hard to close the gap. It was very nice to see these guys play with heart instead of watching (some of the veteran) players hanging their heads looking dejected out there. The Pacers may have loss, but they continued to fight hard to stay in it, and that's all you can really ask for...hard work and honest effort.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

            I think we need to be careful lumping all chemistry problems together as the same thing.

            We Pacer fans have been burned often enough that any mention of chemistry means smoldering resentment, players who actively dislike each other, near-fistfights, and other very damaging activities.

            The chemistry problems for this team are quite different, I think. I suspect we have a team where no one feels he is good enough to demand a regular role or to demand more of his teammates. There is no clear leader for everyone to rally around so they sort of muddle around. There's no coherence even if there is no conflict. When Dahntay calls for someone to step up and do things, the response is a sort of meek agreement.

            The catch-22 is that winning does a lot to fix this kind of chemistry issue, but you need that chemistry to start winning.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              Also, note what's happening up in Toronto as Jarrett Jack is beginning to take a more dominant role on that team. They've won 7 of their last 11, all of which featured JJ as starter.

              Leadership is such an elusive (and sometimes, illusory) quality. I can't explain why, nor am I saying woulda, shoulda, coulda on JJ's contract, but I have to wonder if he just wasn't one of those guys that is able to earn an innate, almost instinctual respect and (more importantly) trust of others. Hell, I even think Jack had a very positive impact on TJ.

              This is a lot more nebulous than I really like. I don't believe any of these guys are bad guys. I don't think any of them are quitters. However, put yourself in their position and consider how the futility of it all could make you feel defeated. This has nothing to do with weakness of character. It simply has to do with being human.

              Yep, I agree, Count55! Also, my biggest fear in losing Jack this summer wasn't his numbers, but that intangible.

              1.) I think the way players follow a guy is that they understand he has the "whole"'s best interest in mind and therefore their best interest in mind.

              2.) I also, think you have to have defined roles for guys so they feel part of the "whole". EX I always think of Jalen Rose as a role player, it just so happened his role was to score. Not the typical way you define role player, though. It made Jalen feel good and it helped the team.

              3.) I think the way a guy gets to lead is to willing to sacrifice for the team. First and foremost. Jordan didn't get his championships until he started trusting John Paxson to take shots at the end of games.

              4.) To be a vocal leader I think it's a combination of being willing to sacrifice and have the innate personality to say things, but not offend guys or kiss their arse. Usually guys like this can be pretty good coaches from a personell management standpoint, imo.

              I think Jack will be a really good coach someday.

              Maybe D Jones problem is he came from an environment that allowed you to abruptly and distinctly say what needed to be said and guys that are arrogant could take it.

              Here, he didn't get the chance to establish himself as a personality on the team, yet. Also, he is working with guys who maybe don't like to be talked to so directly.

              So what's missing?

              1. & 3. Guys who put the whole ahead of the parts? I think there are some guys who don't naturally... get this. For example, TJ, I think he's a nice guy, but I don't think he sees that whole is greater than the sum of it's part thing, at all. I think he sees the game in a vaccuum or microcosm, play by play. No big picture acknowledgement. I think this was the very root of the problem that Jack had with him last year. It's misplaced to really blame him, I think, it's just how he's put together right now.

              2. )Defined roles for guys? Nope, this is maybe Obie's biggest fail to me. It hurts chemistry, it hurts young guys understanding/development. Not all Obie's fault, he's dealing with injuries, losing, and a unmatched group by design. Part of this falls on Morway/Bird, but even then that's not true because the current year's incarnation isn't designed to be a completed product. Part of the team is here via inequitable trade out of need. Part is young and relatively clueless. Part is patchwork. I mean it's flawed, but it's kind of supposed to be in year 2 of the process. But I think this is where a bunch of the frustration lies and the disconnect. I think Detroit is kind of going through the same thing.

              4.) Vocal leaders. I think D Jones is this innately, I'm just not sure he's being accepted by the whole. I think they completely miss Jack, cuz he was maybe more subtle or had more finesse in doing it. I don't mean in a cheesy salesman sort of way, but just in a better way for this group. Jack was always smiling, loves the game, I believe he worked as hard as anyone in practice. I guess I think Jack had the cred to back it up, is what i'm saying, I guess. Other vocal leaders? I thought Dunleavy, but the wheels have fallen off for him in the last two weeks both play and really he looks a little apathetic to me. I'm completely just throwing this out there, but I wonder if there was something big that either happened or is going on with him either with the team or personally. Like I wonder if he got into it big time with someone or if like maybe his agent asked for a trade. He just seems like a completely different player in production by even moreso in body language.

              I'm obviously guessing, but those are my thoughts.

              Side note: Bill Simmons book talks about this kind of thing in the Bill Russel vs. Wilt Chamberlain section and in referencing "the secret" of basketball. Basically sacrificing personal stats and individual accomplishments for the betterment of the team.

              Edit:written in the spirit of Peck's intended "quick" and "brief" post idea.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                This is a lot more nebulous than I really like. I don't believe any of these guys are bad guys. I don't think any of them are quitters. However, put yourself in their position and consider how the futility of it all could make you feel defeated. This has nothing to do with weakness of character. It simply has to do with being human.
                Let's add something else to that. What effect has hearing Bird make it very clear that some of these guys are not considered part of the team's future had on them?

                It is one thing if the player(s) in question know they are at the end of their career, and ready to retire. It is quite another thing if the player(s) are at, what should be, the midway point of their career.

                Yes, they are all supposed to be pro's, and they are supposed to understand that this is a business. But you also have to remember they are human, and like to feel that they belong. I have to think Bird's words could be having an effect on some of them.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I think we need to be careful lumping all chemistry problems together as the same thing.

                  We Pacer fans have been burned often enough that any mention of chemistry means smoldering resentment, players who actively dislike each other, near-fistfights, and other very damaging activities.

                  The chemistry problems for this team are quite different, I think. I suspect we have a team where no one feels he is good enough to demand a regular role or to demand more of his teammates. There is no clear leader for everyone to rally around so they sort of muddle around. There's no coherence even if there is no conflict. When Dahntay calls for someone to step up and do things, the response is a sort of meek agreement.

                  The catch-22 is that winning does a lot to fix this kind of chemistry issue, but you need that chemistry to start winning.
                  Very good post.

                  A couple of years ago, we had too many Chiefs, and not enough indians. Now, I don't see any Chiefs. Danny being out has something to do with it, but even then, I don't think he has the personality to lay down the law on some of the guys.

                  I don't think they've quit on the team, I just just think their morale is so damn low.

                  They desperately need back to back wins.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                    Don't discount the wind getting taken from the players' sails when lame duck O'Brien was given an early extension.

                    Having a coach the team isn't confident in and can't rally behind is BOUND to create bad chemistry...
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      Don't discount the wind getting taken from the players' sails when lame duck O'Brien was given an early extension.

                      Having a coach the team isn't confident in and can't rally behind is BOUND to create bad chemistry...
                      Do you really think anyone has discounted the Jim O'Brien effect. That is pretty much all that we have discussed for 2 and a half months is Jim O'Brien.

                      I think it is refreshing to take a look at this team from a different angle for a change

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                        Leadership in a vaccum is always a difficult situation, especially when you are dealing with professional athletes and their personalities. Therein lies the problem, I think. There has been discussion of willingness to put aside personal feelings, goals, stats, etc. for the betterment of the team.

                        Sometimes I question whether or not I'm seeing that. Not that I mean I'm seeing a "screw it. I'm going to get mine" mentality, it's just that I sometimes sense a tenseness or an edgy feel when some mixes of players are on the court. It seems to have gotten more pronounced lately. I'm sure loosing does that. But the real question is who is there that will rise to the challenge and take over the leadership? It seems that anyone that tries to step up is either shunned or tuned out by the "clique". I'm not sure who is in the clique, but part of me wants to say TJ and Murph...Maybe not...

                        In my opinion, we haven't had a real leader since Reggie quit. Can you imagine him tolerating sulking and slighting your teamates? I can't...Let me revise that thought a little...Jack, I think was that guy last year and that's why his loss was so damaging to this team.

                        Just my .02 folks...
                        http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
                        "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                          Ok, I posted what I thought was a fairly positive and uplifting post about how the undermanned and out talented Pacers played a decent game, I even complimented the coaching.

                          And I come back today to see that it has turned into this????

                          Fair enough, I want to play as well.

                          I think I will agree that there are player issues and Count55 using Anthony Johnson as a comparison to D. Jones seems pretty accurate. It does appear at times he rubs some of the guys the wrong way. I know that back during the time frame of which U.B. does not want us to speak (some kind of win streak or something) that even though we were winning there were a couple of times that he and Granger were really sniping at each other on the court.

                          However let's not all over look one giant pink elephant in the room here. There have now been two independent outside the Indiana media reports that Troy Murphy is disgruntled. One of which if I recall right even made the statement that he was unhappy about having to split time with Hansbrough. Thus leading me back to my thoughts about the Pacers outsmarting themselves by making it to obvious that the players with the expiring contracts are either not going to be here or if they are here at all it will be on much smaller salaries. It might be kind of like your boss telling you to train your replacement without actually telling you they are firing you but in the end you know.

                          I then wonder how much of this goes on with T.J. & even maybe Mike.

                          Hey, you can't blame me for going in this direction. I wanted my thoughts to be happy and serene but Uncle Buck using his normal pessimism and dark sider influence took us here. As you know I am always trying to look for the good in people.


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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                            Edit: Any guesses on who all is disgruntled?
                            Last edited by Speed; 12-31-2009, 12:44 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              There have now been two independent outside the Indiana media reports that Troy Murphy is disgruntled.
                              Interesting point. Do you remember what the sources were? It seems like one was Chad Ford and the other was some beat reporter... I don't remember when or where. Would love to go read those things again.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Quick thoughts about the loss to the Grizz.

                                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                                Interesting point. Do you remember what the sources were? It seems like one was Chad Ford and the other was some beat reporter... I don't remember when or where. Would love to go read those things again.
                                Yes, one was Chad Ford. The second was Brian Windhorst from Cleveland.

                                http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index...._assess_r.html

                                I also think that Alex Kennedy from Hoopsworld/RealGM mentioned it, but he has no sources outside of Orlando and has dubious reliability.

                                One of the things that is problematic with the internet is that it's difficult to tell when reports are actually from multiple, independent sources, and when they are simply recycling what they've heard previously.

                                In other words, it is a decent possibility that Windhorst and Kennedy were simply re-reporting what Chad Ford said.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X