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

Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

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

  • #76
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

    I always thought JO's effeciency in the post & ability to "rebound in traffic" against above average big men was lacking. I also thought he got his shot blocked way too much for a nimble & athletic 6' 11" big. There are no stats for the first two observations but I did find the link below that shows in 06/07 (the only one of his prime years available) that he had his shot blocked 60% more than the league average.

    http://www.hoopdata.com/scoringstats...7&gp=0&mins=20

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
      I remember him struggling.
      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=garneke01



      Take what conclusions from that. Revisiting this in stats is different. JO struggled is what I remember. I am not looking at Duncans. And the reason why is because it is not going to matter what stats say, it is what we chose to remember. I think JO struggled against comparable talent.
      So JO was shutdown by two hall of famers in Duncan and KG and that is supposed to be bad? I remember West been shut down by Battie, that is bad.

      Sure I was not the biggest JO fan but lets not go crazy the guy was pretty damn good even if his attitude was not the best ever, I guess we should talk about Kobe or MJ for not creating good "team chemistry" as possible when they were winning back to back championships.

      I would also like to mention that we had for about 5 years "team chemistry" kind of guys and that team sucked bad.
      Last edited by vnzla81; 12-26-2013, 10:09 PM.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Do we really have to go back to rewriting history to make Donnie something horrible and suck in order to build up Bird even more? What do you think would have been done differently if Donnie had stepped down immediately? Not made any trades and told the Pacers' sponsors to just suck it up and keep writing checks? Larry Bird would have NOT drafted Shawne Williams? Larry Bird would have NOT hired Jim O'Brien? Reggie Miller would have NOT retired? Jermaine O'Neil would have NOT been injured?

        All they had to do was tell Jackson to stay away from the team while they waited for a deal to come along. This is what they did with Tinsley (a deal never came along) and Artest after his trade demand. They (and I should say Walsh since Mullin said he only talked to Walsh) didn't have to panic by packaging Jackson with a decent player in Harrington for a couple of ungodly overpriced players in Murphy and Dunleavy, who made the playoffs a whopping 0 times in their 8 seasons together in Golden State in Indiana. That very well may have been the worst trade in Pacer history. It crippled the team for several years and made us an awful team on the basketball court.

        Pacers 06-07 record before the trade: 20-18, on track for a playoff seed.

        Pacers record after the trade: 15-29

        Pacers record the next three full seasons with Dun and Murph eating up a ton of the cap: Too awful to calculate.

        You certainly should listen to sponsors, but you don't let sponsors who have no clue about basketball tell you how to run your franchise. The Pacers should have met them halfway and benched Jackson while they waited for a deal. The Pacers had absolutely 0 leverage after Artest made his trade demand, yet they still were able to get Peja for him, who most importantly was an expiring contract. With patience, they could have gotten a better package for Jackson that didn't kill them financially for several years.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-26-2013, 10:31 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

          how was a better deal gonna come along? Every team knew the players had to be traded. They did nothing for us sitting on the bench. You said it yourself, we did it with Tinsley, and no deal ever happened. As much as Murphy and Dunleavy sucked, it was better than just leaving the problem on the bench.

          Not to mention the problems this could have caused with the NBAPA.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            All they had to do was tell Jackson to stay away from the team while they waited for a deal to come along. This is what they did with Tinsley (a deal never came along) and Artest after his trade demand. They (and I should say Walsh since Mullin said he only talked to Walsh) didn't have to panic by packaging Jackson with a decent player in Harrington for a couple of ungodly overpriced players in Murphy and Dunleavy, who made the playoffs a whopping 0 times in their 8 seasons together in Golden State in Indiana. That very well may have been the worst trade in Pacer history. It crippled the team for several years and made us an awful team on the basketball court.

            Pacers 06-07 record before the trade: 20-18, on track for a playoff seed.

            Pacers record after the trade: 15-29

            Pacers record the next three full seasons with Dun and Murph eating up a ton of the cap: Too awful to calculate.

            You certainly should listen to sponsors, but you don't let sponsors who have no clue about basketball tell you how to run your franchise. The Pacers should have met them halfway and benched Jackson while they waited for a deal. The Pacers had absolutely 0 leverage after Artest made his trade demand, yet they still were able to get Peja for him, who most importantly was an expiring contract. With patience, they could have gotten a better package for Jackson that didn't kill them financially for several years.
            two parts are contradictory: you can't sit out SJax and expect a good trade to come along.
            Peja was an expiring who was coasting toward his next contract.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
              how was a better deal gonna come along? Every team knew the players had to be traded. They did nothing for us sitting on the bench. You said it yourself, we did it with Tinsley, and no deal ever happened. As much as Murphy and Dunleavy sucked, it was better than just leaving the problem on the bench.

              Not to mention the problems this could have caused with the NBAPA.

              Artest demanded a trade, the Pacers banned him from the team and had 0 leverage.......and yet they still were able to get Peja, who was a good player with an expiring contract. That was an extremely favorable deal for the Pacers.

              We didn't have to go into complete salary hell to get rid of Jackson. Personally, I think they should have just kept playing Jackson. Maybe kicking him off the team would have caused trouble with the NBAPA, but what could they do about DNP-CD's in which he dressed? But like I said, I think they should have just kept playing him while shooting for the playoffs and working the phones for a better deal. I'll never believe that the only way to get rid of a decent player in Jax was to go into complete salary cap hell for a couple of boring overpriced players.

              Regardless, I hope the sponsors were happy (if the story is true). They forced the Pacers' hand and got rid of the bad guy. It sure was worth it, wasn't it? Three and a half years of boring, losing, unwatchable, and unpopular basketball....thanks in large part to Dun and Murph hogging up a ton of the cap. This is why you don't turn over business decisions to sponsors.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                two parts are contradictory: you can't sit out SJax and expect a good trade to come along.
                Peja was an expiring who was coasting toward his next contract.
                Jackson had one or two years left in his contract sending him home would have been a better choice than getting Murphleavy and the Pacers had two choices for Artest, Peja and Maguette, letting Peja just expire instead of resigning Al would have been the way to go.

                The thing is that Walsh wanted to keep the boat afloat and made a lot of stupid choices.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                  I had always liked Walsh but he made a lot of massive mistakes, the worst being a complete disregard for character while managing a multi-million dollar franchise. It wasn't just Jackson, Artest, etc. It was mental midgets like David Harrison, Rawle Marshall, etc.

                  It seems he made another huge mistake although maybe it wasn't avoidable. He traded Antonio Davis for Jon Bender, right? Davis went on to become an all-star and Bender went on to starring in summer pick-up games while getting paid 7 figures a year to sit in street clothes.

                  Anyway, I was a Walsh fan in the 90's and I can't say I know he's to blame for everything post 1999, but there's a lot of blood on dem hands.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                    It's hard to compare Sjax' situation to Tinsley's because there were things that weren't going to sit well with another team on or off the court that simply were (supposedly) much worse than what we knew about Sjax' issues.

                    But a big thing being left unaddressed, we're talking about after these things festered and blew up. What if we'd been proactive and made these moves when it was clear something might be brewing but wasn't anywhere near crisis mode?

                    It's not like one day the sponsor(s) went from pleased to "Sjax has to go!!!". That was a process. Same for the fanbase. They were more than willing to support the Pacers, even immediately after the brawl, even at the start of the next season, and what did that support get them? Selfishness on and off the court. Was it addressed switftly? No.... It was allowed to simmer, fester, ooze and finally blow up in our faces while all leverage just floated away every day it wasn't addressed.

                    And that is classic Walsh.

                    That is why, in hindsight, and with the current direction of the franchise in front of us, I think it's fair to ask if Walsh made the dark ages worse more than anything.
                    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


                    • #85
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                      Anyway, I was a Walsh fan in the 90's and I can't say I know he's to blame for everything post 1999, but there's a lot of blood on dem hands.
                      Yip...
                      And then the whiff last off season in improving the bench just seems to be further evidence IMO....
                      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


                      • #86
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                        Lets not act like those guys didn't have any value either after all the teams that got them were able to trade them even after asking for a trade like Jackson and Artest did.

                        JO to me had a lot of value but typical Walsh(I blame Bird on this too) kept the guy for so long that his value was almost nothing, Tinsley also had some value, I remember the report that the Pacers were close to getting Redick+Cook for Tinsley but then the deal felt through because of Houston.
                        Last edited by vnzla81; 12-26-2013, 11:17 PM.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                          Donnie Walsh obviously deserves a ton of praise for the Pacers' successes through 2000. We made the Conference Finals five times in a seven year period, which included an NBA Finals appearance in 2000. He drafted some awesome players in Person, Reggie, Smits, the Davises, etc, and traded for the likes of Mark Jackson and Jalen Rose. Not every draft was great, but it's impossible for a GM to hit it out of the park every year. Sometimes you miss. Overall, Walsh built a great team and deserves immense credit for it. I view Walsh like Bill Polian. Bill Polian drafted a ton of great players for a long time and won a Super Bowl, but his style eventually got stale and he found himself fired. Like Polian, Walsh was very good for a long time, but he simply lost his touch.

                          Walsh's downfall in Indiana started after the ECF loss to the Knicks in 1999. To put it bluntly, he overreacted to it. After watching young and brash players like Camby, Houston, and Spree bulldoze the Pacers, he thought that the wave of the future was young athletic teams as opposed to older veteran teams. Trading Antonio Davis for a draft pick was proof that Walsh no longer had much faith in that team contending for a championship. I don't care if Antonio wanted to start. You simply don't trade away a player that important for a draft pick if you are trying to win a championship. Of course, we all know what happened after the Antonio trade. The Pacers went on to their only NBA Finals appearance and played Shaq. Now I'm not going to sit here and say that Antonio would have made the difference against one of the most dominant players in history at his peak, but it sure as hell wouldn't have hurt. I'm sure the guys on the Pacers wouldn't have complained about Antonio giving them some relief by guarding Shaq. Even though he wouldn't have stopped Shaq, he could have at least helped the other guys stay more fresh on the other end of the court. Just an awful trade for a team that should have still been trying to win the championship.

                          Of course, the Antonio for the draft pick trade wouldn't have looked so bad over time if we had taken Wally, Rip, Andre Miller, Marion, or Jason Terry (the next five players drafted after Bender). But we somehow drafted a bust with the 5th pick in the loaded draft. But that's a topic for another day.

                          After the Finals, the team broke up and he continued his obsession with building a team stock filled with talent while ignoring the intangible chemistry aspects that made the 90's teams so successful. Everything bad that happened in the 2000's was a direct result of Walsh building a foundation on sand with JO/Artest/Tinsley, and later Jackson (who was signed a year after Bird came). After the Artest trade demand and subsequent off the court issues, every move the Pacers made was a reactionary move. We were constantly behind the 8 ball because we were pressured to get rid of bad seeds and subsequently took awful trades like the Dunleavy-Murphy one. Dunleavy and Murphy have nothing to do with the brawl era, but their arrival on the team was a direct result of the brawl era teams built on a foundation of sand collapsing. To put it bluntly, Walsh's post-Finals vision turned out to be a massive failure which almost brought the franchise to its knees.

                          How much was Bird to blame for all of this from 03-08? It's hard to say for sure, but we do know that JO/Artest/Tinsley were added before he came. Those weren't his guys. Whatever Bird was doing, he was trying to clean up a mess that he didn't make. He wasn't getting the opportunity to build a team his way from scratch. And it should be pretty obvious that Walsh still had substantial say. Chris Mullin said that he only talked to Walsh when he made the GS trade. I just have a hard time believing that Walsh sat around and twiddled his thumbs after being the top dog for 17 years. Those who complained about Bird during this time period were complaining about a "Vice President" who wasn't cleaning up the mess made by the "President" who was still hovering around. Not completely fair. We could never judge Bird until he was out on his own.

                          Of course, the most damning evidence that Walsh was holding Bird back is the fact that things immediately began to improve once Walsh left in 08. JO was immediately traded, and it seems pretty clear that Bird couldn't wait to dump him and would have done it sooner if it were up to him. Then we drafted Hibbert with the pick we got for JO and made that trade with Portland. We finally were beginning to see a clear vision and new hope. The goal was to draft talented guys who would also have good chemistry, which is something that Walsh completely ignored when he put together the early 00's teams. Bird's hands were still tied for a couple of years because of the hideous Murphy and Dunleavy contracts, but he continued to draft well in the mean time with guys like PG and Stephenson. Also, players like Rush and Hansbrough weren't great by any means, but they were decent enough. And when one started to complain, we shipped him out. By 2011 when all of the hideous contracts were gone, Bird was finally free from the haunting shadow of the post-brawl moves. That was the year where we traded the pick for George Hill and then signed West. It was brilliant GM work. And we all know what happened in 2012 when Walsh came back and made bad moves which were immediately cleaned up by Bird in 2013.

                          He did keep JOB for far too long, which will always be impossible to defend.

                          So to answer Bball's question, yes, I will forever believe that the franchise would have been better off if Walsh had left in 04 instead of 08. The sooner Walsh left and Bird took over, the better.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-26-2013, 11:19 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                            We didn't get Artest as part of Walsh's vision for the next gen Pacers... The wheels were falling off and Rose and Best were now in the malcontent camp (with Isiah at coach) and it reached a point something had to be done. Artest was a throw in on the trade. Not a negotiated piece of that trade we went after. Far from a centerpiece of it. I think some people forgot about that period of time and how things were spiraling downward, another situation festering until something had to give (see a pattern?), and then a trade was made. But Artest wasn't a target of that trade. Artest was a player Chicago forced us to take because they wanted him out of there and knew we had no choice but to take him because of the trouble with moving Jalen's contract (which is another questionable Walsh issue but that's another story itself). We had no leverage.

                            Then after getting Artest he did bring something to the table and we ran with it. But it was far from any kind of plan at all.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                              When it comes to Walsh vs Bird I feel like there is a lot of cherry picking and assumptions made with 0 evidence.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                                Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                                I always thought JO's effeciency in the post & ability to "rebound in traffic" against above average big men was lacking. I also thought he got his shot blocked way too much for a nimble & athletic 6' 11" big. There are no stats for the first two observations but I did find the link below that shows in 06/07 (the only one of his prime years available) that he had his shot blocked 60% more than the league average.

                                http://www.hoopdata.com/scoringstats...7&gp=0&mins=20
                                Thanks for those numbers but as you can see a 3rd year Dwight Howard got his shot blocked more than JO did in that season. Therefore, I don't think that this is really important.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X