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

Fire Frank Vogel

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

    Four of the five years he has coached this team we have made the playoffs. Twice to the E.C. finals. The one year we didn't make the playoffs we missed it by the very last game of the season.

    Coaching is not now nor has it been our issue these past two seasons. We have a very poor mix of players and an absolute dearth of shooting. Now that doesn't mean Frank is above criticism, he's not. Our offense is bland and simplistic at times. However he draws up plays that get shooters open shots only to see them clang off of the rim at one angle or the other.


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

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

      IF we make changes in the coaching department... I STILL rather have us keeping Vogel and make changes in our assistant coaching lineup. Ohh... how I'd LOVE to get Brian Shaw back here as an assistant coach somehow...

      Our talent level isn't that great IMHO and what makes it worse is that the combination of players we have don't add up all that well. I really don't like what I'm seeying on the floor and haven't liked it for a large part of the season. At the sametime to me we are very much in a transitional year and this summer could be extremely interesting and telling to watch and see where TPTB take our team. The one thing I do fear is that caprise and the MAD contracts that will go with it... I just hope we won't be one of the teams handing out cRazY contracts and especially not to at best mediocre players...

      So, what I guess I am saying is ... however boring it may sound: keep the Larry and Frank linked up, try to get Shaw somehow and try to add another good piece (maybe two) to the players puzzle (preferably by lessening the number of duplicating players) ...
      and let's see where we stand.

      And most importantly: DO NOT SIGN RYAN friggin' ANDERSON FOR A LARGE SUM OF MONEY!!!
      Last edited by Mourning; 04-11-2016, 04:43 AM.
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

        Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
        Since the Dirk era is coming to an end, I wonder if Carlisle would be interested in coming back.

        Some of our players could really use a kick in the butt in stead of a pet on the head every time they do something wrong.
        A lot of criticism from the Carlisle years was that Rick couldn't control the players. I mean Artest and SJax are a handful for anyone, but a popular complaint was that Carlisle pandered too much to JO (the patented throw-it-to-JO, everyone else stands and watch) and that this caused resentment with the other players. Btw I recall Bball being more critical of Carlisle and JO-ball than almost anyone else (not named Peck), but maybe my memory is playing tricks on me...

        A look back at the Carlisle years show that his Pacer teams were defensively gifted but the offense ranges from mediocre to inept. Sounds familiar to anyone?

        To be fair to Rick, obviously he isn't the same coach anymore that he was more than 10 years ago, and maybe that makes all the difference. But then you start to wonder, 10 years from now what kind of coach will Vogel be? I'd bet that he'd be a damn fine one.

        Look, I get it, sometimes teams need a change, and the coach is the easiest guy to change. But I think Frank's track record can stand up to Rick's at a similar point in their careers. And Mark Jackson is just laughable as a comparison.
        Last edited by wintermute; 04-11-2016, 05:24 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
          IF we make changes in the coaching department... I STILL rather have us keeping Vogel and make changes in our assistant coaching lineup. Ohh... how I'd LOVE to get Brian Shaw back here as an assistant coach somehow...
          Why shouldn't we just make a head coaching change and take importance off the assistant coaches? I think the idea of reshuffling the assistant coach roster is one that has sailed. If the HC is not cutting it, then it's too late to try and prop him up with assistants.

          Vogel's problem, just as Rick's was, is he tried to establish himself as one type of coach to fit the roster and then ultimately needed to be a different coach to deal with how things turned out as JO's ego grew as his game regressed and then there were Tinsley, Sjax, and Artest that all needed handled in various degrees. And Reggie retired taking away an example of a player doing what the coach wanted.

          Vogel, same as Rick did, would benefit by a new team and clean slate for a new start. And having this experience to avoid some of the pitfalls.
          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


          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

            I would find it hard to say no to bringing back Carlisle.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

              Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
              I think if Larry is still here next season. Don't be surprised to see Mark Jackson here coaching next season.
              Mark Jackson is a self serving, backstabbing ego-maniac who was also one of the laziest coaches in the league during his stint with the Warriors.

              If teams poke around and do their homework, I don't think Mark Jackson is going to be coaching any NBA team anytime soon. I don't think he'll be hired by any NBA organization in any capacity, for that matter.

              And if you think Vogel doesn't have a clue on how to run a modern day NBA offense, wait till you get a load of Mark Jackson. You could sign a 40 year old Jermaine to this team and Jackson would be feeding him in the post every trip down the floor.
              Last edited by d_c; 04-11-2016, 06:18 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                A lot of criticism from the Carlisle years was that Rick couldn't control the players. I mean Artest and SJax are a handful for anyone, but a popular complaint was that Carlisle pandered too much to JO (the patented throw-it-to-JO, everyone else stands and watch) and that this caused resentment with the other players. Btw I recall Bball being more critical of Carlisle and JO-ball than almost anyone else (not named Peck), but maybe my memory is playing tricks on me...

                A look back at the Carlisle years show that his Pacer teams were defensively gifted but the offense ranges from mediocre to inept. Sounds familiar to anyone?

                To be fair to Rick, obviously he isn't the same coach anymore that he was more than 10 years ago, and maybe that makes all the difference. But then you start to wonder, 10 years from now what kind of coach will Vogel be? I'd bet that he'd be a damn fine one.

                Look, I get it, sometimes teams need a change, and the coach is the easiest guy to change. But I think Frank's track record can stand up to Rick's at a similar point in their careers. And Mark Jackson is just laughable as a comparison.
                I don't see the same level of intellect with Frank Vogel. Rick has a great basketball mind and the only thing holding him back was that he wasn't that personable. Frank is personable but doesn't have the talent. That's not to say he's a bad coach, he's just not elite and I doubt he ever will be as good as Rick Carlisle...and Rick will never be as good as Larry Brown. Larry was absolutely brilliant...the best Pacer coach ever.

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  I would find it hard to say no to bringing back Carlisle.
                  It would be a gift from heaven to have Rick Carlisle back in Indy. I seriously doubt we get that lucky.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                    Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
                    Since the Dirk era is coming to an end, I wonder if Carlisle would be interested in coming back.

                    Some of our players could really use a kick in the butt in stead of a pet on the head every time they do something wrong.
                    This is kind of funny but spot on. Interestingly, Rick was ejected for this very reason. The team needed a kick in the butt...or maybe it was the teeth. Jim O'Brien was just the jerk to do it. Not much of a coach, but he made quick work of it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                      Personally I like Vogel a lot. I think he had been hamstring more by some of the player personalities than anything else. I'd be pissed if he was fired. I also think Bird is a basketball savvy guy who knows he has a pretty good guy leading the team.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        Personally I like Vogel a lot. I think he had been hamstring more by some of the player personalities than anything else. I'd be pissed if he was fired. I also think Bird is a basketball savvy guy who knows he has a pretty good guy leading the team.
                        When you coach a team that cannot win close games after blowing blowing 4th quarter leads, when you coach a team that cannot win in OT, when you get swept by the Kings, Blazers, and Jazz, and when you lose to Toronto's backups are all things that get coaches fired. It all depends on Bird's tolerance level. I'm not sure Larry is in the business of firing his coaches, especially after how long JOB was here.
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          It would be a gift from heaven to have Rick Carlisle back in Indy. I seriously doubt we get that lucky.
                          He signed a 5 year extension with the Mavs this past November, so I don't think he's leaving Dallas anytime soon.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                            It seems like a lot of people tend to think that losing close games is an indictment on Frank's coaching acumen. I'm curious as to why. Close games are about the closest thing you get to a coin flip in the NBA. I know when people want a coach fired they pull the "should have had them focused for the first 45 minutes (or so) and this game wouldn't have been close" card. (Which, btw, is the exact same argument all of our opponents that aren't on record setting paces give for firing their coach for the exact same game.)

                            But with the exception of George Hill and Monta(before this year anyway), all of our players have had problems with consistency in the past. And that doesn't matter whether they were on the Pacers or another team. To me, it seems more likely that our players are doing what they've done their entire careers than it is that Frank Vogel has somehow regressed or lost the team (This one is the most befuddling...this is basically a brand new team.)
                            Last edited by aamcguy; 04-11-2016, 11:20 PM.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                              When you coach a team that cannot win close games after blowing blowing 4th quarter leads, when you coach a team that cannot win in OT, when you get swept by the Kings, Blazers, and Jazz, and when you lose to Toronto's backups are all things that get coaches fired. It all depends on Bird's tolerance level. I'm not sure Larry is in the business of firing his coaches, especially after how long JOB was here.
                              That's a fair statement. Often times coach's fall on the sword even when it has nothing to do with their coaching, its just easier to change coach's in the NBA than it is to change rosters.

                              However the implication of your statement is that these issues are on Frank. I would offer an alternative. It's a lot on the players and as bad as I know this is going to be for some to hear but a lot of this and I mean a lot of this is on Larry Bird.

                              quick, in 3 seconds or less name our shooting guards? Can't do it can you because I said it in plural form. I'll make it easier, in 3 seconds or less name our one shooting guard? Hmmmmm...drat, still can't come up with one can you.

                              Rodney Stuckey, Joe Young, Monta Ellis, George Hill, Ty Lawson all are guards, none of them are a pure shooting guard and in fact none of them can shoot very well period. Yes I know George Hill had a period where he was shooting a very high % from three and that lasted what about a month and a half. I will file that away under the rule of even the sun shines on a dog's *** someday's.

                              Okay so Bird wants to play the spread offense like other teams do. I don't like it but okay I understand that is just the new normal so let's start naming all of the big men he brought in that could stretch the floor.

                              Our bigs are as follows. LaVoy Allen, Ian Mahinmi, Shayne Whittington, Myles Turner, Jordan Hill, Raheem Christmas.

                              Well let's see stretching the floor falls under the category of being able to hit consistently enough from the outside (not just three's) that the other big player has to come out an defend you. Okay Myles Turner can do that. Jordan Hill facing up from about 10-12 feet isn't a disaster. Mahinmi has made it so if he shoots from up to 14' nobody really cringes if he is open. LaVoy Allen is like a box of chocolates and both Whit & Christmas were none factors as they toiled away in Ft Waynes.

                              Now you may read the above and think to yourself, well that's not so bad. But here is the key factor in this. If he wanted to play a spread offense you know who might have been helpful here? Louis Scola who has remade himself into a fairly competent 3 point shooter. Or better yet, not that he has made a difference where he went but Rudez absolutely could shoot the ball better from distance than anyone on our team and IMO as the season progressed last year he got better as a player.

                              Now I'm not advocating that he was wrong for not sticking with Scola or rolling the dice for Buddinger, but you can't want to play a spread offense and then not give your coach players who can play it. No Paul George was never the answer at the 4.

                              Speaking of Paul George let us look a the list of wings Bird has accumulated. Well we have Paul who is more than fine then you drop off of a cliff with C.J. Miles, Solomon Hill & bottom out with Glenn Robinson 3. Miles can be fine, if he comes in and is hitting he can shoot you into a game. However more often then not he is not able to hit and he will not quit shooting and he will absolutely shoot you out of a game. Chase Buddinger was an absolute disaster that wanted out so bad that he left after he couldn't even sign with a playoff team. But once again we had just another player who came here and for whatever reason could not hit a wide open shot on a consistent basis.

                              In other words our roster is just a giant compilation of players who don't really fit together and I'm sorry but the fact that Frank Vogel has them in the playoffs and with 42+ just further shows to me that coaching isn't the issue.

                              All you have to do is watch the end of the game play where Ellis misses a wide open Myles Turner under the basket for what would have been the easiest game winning shot in history and watch Frank's reaction as he jumps 5' in the air trying to get Monta to just look left.

                              Last edited by Peck; 04-12-2016, 03:42 AM.


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

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                That's a fair statement. Often times coach's fall on the sword even when it has nothing to do with their coaching, its just easier to change coach's in the NBA than it is to change rosters.

                                However the implication of your statement is that these issues are on Frank. I would offer an alternative. It's a lot on the players and as bad as I know this is going to be for some to hear but a lot of this and I mean a lot of this is on Larry Bird.

                                quick, in 3 seconds or less name our shooting guards? Can't do it can you because I said it in plural form. I'll make it easier, in 3 seconds or less name our one shooting guard? Hmmmmm...drat, still can't come up with one can you.

                                Rodney Stuckey, Joe Young, Monta Ellis, George Hill, Ty Lawson all are guards, none of them are a pure shooting guard and in fact none of them can shoot very well period. Yes I know George Hill had a period where he was shooting a very high % from three and that lasted what about a month and a half. I will file that away under the rule of even the sun shines on a dog's *** someday's.

                                Okay so Bird wants to play the spread offense like other teams do. I don't like it but okay I understand that is just the new normal so let's start naming all of the big men he brought in that could stretch the floor.

                                Our bigs are as follows. LaVoy Allen, Ian Mahinmi, Shayne Whittington, Myles Turner, Jordan Hill, Raheem Christmas.

                                Well let's see stretching the floor falls under the category of being able to hit consistently enough from the outside (not just three's) that the other big player has to come out an defend you. Okay Myles Turner can do that. Jordan Hill facing up from about 10-12 feet isn't a disaster. Mahinmi has made it so if he shoots from up to 14' nobody really cringes if he is open. LaVoy Allen is like a box of chocolates and both Whit & Christmas were none factors as they toiled away in Ft Waynes.

                                Now you may read the above and think to yourself, well that's not so bad. But here is the key factor in this. If he wanted to play a spread offense you know who might have been helpful here? Louis Scola who has remade himself into a fairly competent 3 point shooter. Or better yet, not that he has made a difference where he went but Rudez absolutely could shoot the ball better from distance than anyone on our team and IMO as the season progressed last year he got better as a player.

                                Now I'm not advocating that he was wrong for not sticking with Scola or rolling the dice for Buddinger, but you can't want to play a spread offense and then not give your coach players who can play it. No Paul George was never the answer at the 4.

                                Speaking of Paul George let us look a the list of wings Bird has accumulated. Well we have Paul who is more than fine then you drop off of a cliff with C.J. Miles, Solomon Hill & bottom out with Glenn Robinson 3. Miles can be fine, if he comes in and is hitting he can shoot you into a game. However more often then not he is not able to hit and he will not quit shooting and he will absolutely shoot you out of a game. Chase Buddinger was an absolute disaster that wanted out so bad that he left after he couldn't even sign with a playoff team. But once again we had just another player who came here and for whatever reason could not hit a wide open shot on a consistent basis.

                                In other words our roster is just a giant compilation of players who don't really fit together and I'm sorry but the fact that Frank Vogel has them in the playoffs and with 42+ just further shows to me that coaching isn't the issue.

                                All you have to do is watch the end of the game play where Ellis misses a wide open Myles Turner under the basket for what would have been the easiest game winning shot in history and watch Frank's reaction as he jumps 5' in the air trying to get Monta to just look left.


                                THIS! I LOVE Larry, but if we start looking at why our team has certain ''flaws'' then we should start with whom assembled/put together this team. I don't want Larry gone, but blaming Frank for trying to make something out of a roster with immense amounts of duplicating players on one hand and virtually missing certain qualities all together on the other is pretty ridiculous IMHO.
                                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X