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

Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

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

  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

    Originally posted by JimmyJames View Post
    I have no doubt about that. As I said, I don't think he will. But would you really be shocked if he did? I don't see it happening unless it was a lop sided deal in our favor. And it blows the PG/Turner one-two punch right out the window.
    But Bird wants change. So I am not going to put anything past him. I was not shocked by the Vogel move. I would not be totally shocked if he traded PG.
    I don't think he will though. I think part of getting a new coach is to get more out of PG. I think Bird wants a coach to be tougher on PG. I think Bird thinks PG could be tougher.
    I think trading PG is possible if Bird plans on retiring soon and he wants to turn over the team to Pritchard to start a rebuild and get younger. I could see that scenario.

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      The best franchises in the league have everyone in their FO and coaching contributing and deciding on the moves they make. Do you believe that Buford makes moves without consulting Pop? Modern FOs are pluralist. Ours isn't.
      Bird already said the new coach will be involved in draft and free agency, we have proof this has been the case in the past. Again, you are just wrong.




      And that's why I was asking all these questions before. I want to know how the culture is.
      And I've explained it. The Pacers are a well respected organization (many franchises wouldn't have survived the brawl) that keeps staff and front office figures for a long time. There's not much change. Walsh has been with the franchise for 25+ years.

      The fans, casual fans, and community do not value Bird's "Hoosier legend" status enough to give him a pass. Most people I talk too (I live/work downtown Indy but also do business across state) for the most part weren't in love with Vogel but also question Bird's moves. But no matter the opinion of Bird, nobody cares about his legacy as a player anymore. In sports, people care about "what have you done for me lately." If Reggie became the GM, he would be scrutinized immediately if didn't have early returns. Coaches, GMs, etc. aren't given much time because of their playing career. This is not the 90s.


      Bird has more control than most GMs in the league. Just look at the FO situation of other successful franchises not named Cleveland (I don't know if you can really call them a successful franchise since their success stems from LeBron).
      If anything, Bird has less control working with Pritchard. Unless you believe that he just is Bird's tote hanging off his tit.

      It's one thing to have an opinion, its another to base it off nothing.

      I'm not trying to say that Bird hasn't been successful. He has. He did an amazing job until PG broke his leg. Aren't you the same person who has said that sports are "what have you done for me lately"? Well, what has Bird done for us lately except from not re-signing this franchise's winningest coach?
      Vogel wasn't perfect. He may have cost us going further. I don't know if that's correct, but it's absolutely a possibility. If that's correct, if Bird is correct, the Pacers might be poised to be contenders next season. As a fan of this team, I'm hoping that's correct.

      Coaches, GMs, etc don't get fired because of a rebuild year. 1070 has been talking all week about Bird having a year or two. If he fails, he won't have a job. Brunner said yesterday that his job hinges on making PG happy. Like I said, I don't think you understand how it is here and just kind of make your own narrative fueled by Bird hate over 1 freaking year.



      Ignore the fans? Sure. Ignore the coaches, the scouts and the rest of the FO? No.
      The post you quoted was in response to you saying "Bird is not going to care whether we, as fans, agree with his moves or not. ."

      Yes, Bird should not give a rats *** what you think. We already know he listens to FO and scouts, so this point is invalid.

      Again, I cannot claim to know whether Bird takes the opinions of his associates into consideration or not. That's something that only Bird knows.

      And, to be honest, whether Bird does that or not wasn't even my initial point. My initial point was that your argument that Bird's job is on the line because he's going to get criticized if he fails is moot. Bird has never cared about being criticized and he won't start now. The Simons are not going to fire Bird for all the reasons being mentioned above and elsewhere in this thread. Bird will be our Head of Basketball Operations until he decides to retire. He will never be fired and his job will never be on the line. It should but it never will be. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.
      My only point was Bird's legendary playing career as a Hoosier native has no bearing at this point of his career as a GM. His career as a GM, coach and figure after his playing career is what gives him credibility.

      Further, he has a successful track record building contenders in a small market. Again I ask, who available has been better?

      Guys like Rick Fuson, Pete Philo or Dinwiddie would not work with an evil jerk who doesn't listen to them. These are some of the best in the business. We have an award winning medical staff. We have above league average number of scouts on the payroll. Simon doesn't waste money. This is a well respected franchise across the league.

      There is no logic in your claims about Bird listening to the people he's worked with for years. It's just you still bitter about moves you don't agree with.
      Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-14-2016, 04:48 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        We know that he did. The PG example is not recent. I definitely believe that Bird was listening to others when he build his great teams. But I don't know if he's listening to them anymore. I don't know of a lot of scouts that would suggest him to build a backcourt full of ball-dominant players.

        Regardless, what I believe doesn't really matter. It's just my opinion. I don't claim it to be fact.
        When debating opinions, usually someone brings facts that they are basing their opinions on. You have no facts, and your opinion is illogical.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

          I will say this, one thing I've heard reported is Bird is the only one in the organization that has supported George Hill over the past FEW years (following first ECF when he went ghost). I agree that there are some things that Bird may not listen to anyone about, but it certainly is not across the board for all decisions. Franchise would not be well respected, have the personnel we have or even survive.

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            I will say this, one thing I've heard reported is Bird is the only one in the organization that has supported George Hill over the past FEW years (following first ECF when he went ghost). I agree that there are some things that Bird may not listen to anyone about, but it certainly is not across the board for all decisions. Franchise would not be well respected, have the personnel we have or even survive.
            Out of curiosity, where have you heard that or seen reported?

            And G.Hill def didn't go ghost in the first ECF. He had 4 games over 16 (although he had 2 single digit games also) It was the second ECF that he "struggled".

            Comment


            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Out of curiosity, where have you heard that or seen reported?

              And G.Hill def didn't go ghost in the first ECF. He had 4 games over 16 (although he had 2 single digit games also) It was the second ECF that he "struggled".
              My mistake, it was the second, but I first heard it on 1070 a few years ago. I can probably dig it up, its been said on there a few times and George Hill has always been a polarizing topic with the local media.

              Comment


              • Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                My mistake, it was the second, but I first heard it on 1070 a few years ago. I can probably dig it up, its been said on there a few times and George Hill has always been a polarizing topic with the local media.
                Not directed at you, but I'm just dumbfounded by the perspectives on G. Hill. From my vantage point, he is the consummate team player / gap filler... a championship level 4th-5th option who is very happy to be deferential in the spirit of team success. He has real base skills in perimeter defense and shooting. He rarely makes "dumb plays". He will never be considered an alpha dog. He is far from an elite player. But he is a very strong cog in a team concept.

                I just can't understand why people misread him. Why can't they instead embrace what I believe to be a very important personality within a 5 man team concept? I just don't get why people want to make him something he isn't, and why he's not appreciated for what he is.

                Given the current financial dynamics, he is an exceptional value as well. If the alpha guard goes down with an injury, he is more than capable of stepping into that breach.

                I don't think that perspective is irrational love for George. Nor do I think I'm "hating" on him. He just is what he is, and that's good for where we need to go.
                Last edited by docpaul; 05-14-2016, 07:22 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                  Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                  Not directed at you, but I'm just dumbfounded by the perspectives on G. Hill. From my vantage point, he is the consummate team player / gap filler... a championship level 4th-5th option who is very happy to be deferential in the spirit of team success. He has real base skills in perimeter defense and shooting. He rarely makes "dumb plays". He will never be considered an alpha dog. He is far from an elite player. But he is a very strong cog in a team concept.

                  I just can't understand why people misread him. Why can't they instead embrace what I believe to be a very important personality within a 5 man team concept? I just don't get why people want to make him something he isn't, and why he's not appreciated for what he is.

                  Given the current financial dynamics, he is an exceptional value as well. If the alpha guard goes down with an injury, he is more than capable of stepping into that breach.

                  I don't think that perspective is irrational love for George. Nor do I think I'm "hating" on him. He just is what he is, and that's good for where we need to go.
                  I think George Hill is a great player. I'm hoping the next coach uses him properly and we get a career year of GHill.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    I think George Hill is a great player. I'm hoping the next coach uses him properly and we get a career year of GHill.
                    I don't mean to pick on this post...and seriously this isn't a big deal. But it's a good example of the types of posts we see on PD.

                    Is George a great player like Kevin Durant or Paul George? Is a guy in his prime who scored 12ppg and 3.x assists great? I would say that, as a starter, it might qualify as good. If he scored 8ppg in 30 minutes I would say not so good. Just being real here. Maybe you just said that because you like his game which is fine. He's a solid player. I would even say good or even very good on his best days. But not great and not even really close to it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I don't mean to pick on this post...and seriously this isn't a big deal. But it's a good example of the types of posts we see on PD.

                      Is George a great player like Kevin Durant or Paul George? Is a guy in his prime who scored 12ppg and 3.x assists great? I would say that, as a starter, it might qualify as good. If he scored 8ppg in 30 minutes I would say not so good. Just being real here. Maybe you just said that because you like his game which is fine. He's a solid player. I would even say good or even very good on his best days. But not great and not even really close to it.
                      I mean, c'mon. Of course nobody is calling George Hill a great player. It's unfortunate that I'd have to be so specific.

                      When I say great player, I mean he is a great player to have on your team. Does whatever he is asked, he's really close with teammates including our superstar, goes out of his way to befriend and learn the cultures of foreign players and I do love his game.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                        BTW, I really like his game. I think with a point forward or a SG with point skills, George is a great fit on a starting unit. Let's face it. He makes very few mistakes and brings a variety of skills to the table. But only under circumstances where he doesn't have to distribute and create for others. Someone else really needs the ball so he can move without it and get in a good position to score efficiently which he also does very well. I love George. I love him even more as a 6th man.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                          I'd like to see the new coach use GHill as a starting 6th man where he starts, first to come out, and runs the second unit/closes games. When you see a much deeper team like the Raptors never playing w/o Derozan or Lowry on the court during the regular season, it really makes me think we weren't playing the most efficient lineups with the all bench units. The Lowry with the bench lineups are killer.

                          I really hope the new coach is capable of blending the bench with starters, and that helps George Hill get to a better situation to succeed.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            I'd like to see the new coach use GHill as a starting 6th man where he starts, first to come out, and runs the second unit/closes games. When you see a much deeper team like the Raptors never playing w/o Derozan or Lowry on the court during the regular season, it really makes me think we weren't playing the most efficient lineups with the all bench units. The Lowry with the bench lineups are killer.

                            I really hope the new coach is capable of blending the bench with starters, and that helps George Hill get to a better situation to succeed.
                            I'd rather see Ellis come off the bench than George Hill. It'll never happen though.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                              Originally posted by Handoverfist View Post
                              I'd rather see Ellis come off the bench than George Hill. It'll never happen though.
                              I think it depends on how free agency works out. But make no mistake, Ellis bailed out PG plenty of times throughout the season. Yes, Ellis has his flaws, but I think PG likes playing with him because Ellis can consistently create a shot when PG is in trouble and he did shoot a lot less this year.

                              That said, if we have Ellis coming off the bench, its great news because that means we've signed someone better. As it stands I think Monta and Ghill have to be starters.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Bird already said the new coach will be involved in draft and free agency, we have proof this has been the case in the past. Again, you are just wrong.
                                Did he say that in a newer interview? I don't think that he said anything like that in the Vogel interview but it's possible that I've missed it.


                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                And I've explained it. The Pacers are a well respected organization (many franchises wouldn't have survived the brawl) that keeps staff and front office figures for a long time. There's not much change. Walsh has been with the franchise for 25+ years.

                                The fans, casual fans, and community do not value Bird's "Hoosier legend" status enough to give him a pass. Most people I talk too (I live/work downtown Indy but also do business across state) for the most part weren't in love with Vogel but also question Bird's moves. But no matter the opinion of Bird, nobody cares about his legacy as a player anymore. In sports, people care about "what have you done for me lately." If Reggie became the GM, he would be scrutinized immediately if didn't have early returns. Coaches, GMs, etc. aren't given much time because of their playing career. This is not the 90s.
                                I see. Fair enough about the fans and the community. Still, that doesn't mean that the FO ascribes to the same attitude. Bird has not faced any repercussions by his employers over his recent screw-ups. Where's the accountability for Bird?

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                If anything, Bird has less control working with Pritchard. Unless you believe that he just is Bird's tote hanging off his tit.

                                It's one thing to have an opinion, its another to base it off nothing.
                                Is Pritchard's role really that big? I don't see him mentioned that often in articles that focus on our FO. Those articles tend to be 90% about Bird even when they're written by the local press.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Vogel wasn't perfect. He may have cost us going further. I don't know if that's correct, but it's absolutely a possibility. If that's correct, if Bird is correct, the Pacers might be poised to be contenders next season. As a fan of this team, I'm hoping that's correct.
                                Vogel wasn't perfect but he's probably better at his job than Bird is.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Coaches, GMs, etc don't get fired because of a rebuild year.
                                Don't tell that to me. Tell that to Bird. Vogel was let go during of a rebuild year.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                1070 has been talking all week about Bird having a year or two. If he fails, he won't have a job. Brunner said yesterday that his job hinges on making PG happy. Like I said, I don't think you understand how it is here and just kind of make your own narrative fueled by Bird hate over 1 freaking year.
                                And I'm gonna ask once again. Who's gonna fire Bird? We know for sure that Simon ain't gonna do it. Bird will stay with the Pacers until he decides to step down himself. Whether we sink or swim during that period is anyone's guess.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                The post you quoted was in response to you saying "Bird is not going to care whether we, as fans, agree with his moves or not. ."

                                Yes, Bird should not give a rats *** what you think. We already know he listens to FO and scouts, so this point is invalid.
                                I never said that Bird should give a rat's *** about what you and I think. I only mentioned because you brought up the whole "Indiana community doesn't see him as a Hoosier legend" thing.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                My only point was Bird's legendary playing career as a Hoosier native has no bearing at this point of his career as a GM. His career as a GM, coach and figure after his playing career is what gives him credibility.
                                Would he have his career as a GM and coach if he wasn't a legendary player, though? He's playing career jumpstarted everything else.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Further, he has a successful track record building contenders in a small market. Again I ask, who available has been better?

                                Guys like Rick Fuson, Pete Philo or Dinwiddie would not work with an evil jerk who doesn't listen to them. These are some of the best in the business. We have an award winning medical staff. We have above league average number of scouts on the payroll. Simon doesn't waste money. This is a well respected franchise across the league.
                                Once again, I'm not clamoring for Bird to be fired. I'm clamoring for him to reconsider a plan that I consider to be extremely shortsighted and potentially harmful for the future of the team. That's all.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                There is no logic in your claims about Bird listening to the people he's worked with for years. It's just you still bitter about moves you don't agree with.
                                I didn't make any claims. I only said that I don't know if he still doesn't. Not knowing whether he does or not is not the same with claiming that he doesn't.

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                When debating opinions, usually someone brings facts that they are basing their opinions on. You have no facts, and your opinion is illogical.
                                Facts can only be presented when they exist. Neither one of us can know what Bird does and doesn't do. Neither one of us can know what he thinks. Therefore, neither one of us has any facts to support their position. We're both just expressing our opinion.

                                You believe in Bird and that's completely fine. You have every right to do so. I don't believe in Bird and I have every right to do so as well. In the end, it's Bird's moves themselves that will prove one of us right and the other wrong.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X