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

The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

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

  • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Sure but that is nothing to write home about their goal with all those picks was to at least get one star and so far they got nothing.
    They have two more swings. It will probably yield something big, and they weren't going to be a contender with that core, they made out very well.

    Comment


    • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      Yes, comparing Adam Morrison to Kevin Durant makes all the sense in the world. Perfectly lucid argument.

      Kevin Durant is the best player on the warriors. He's the best player on almost any team he wants to play for. What you or anyone else thinks of him winning a championship in golden state is irrelevant.

      There's a way to measure accomplishments with at least some objectivity given the circumstances. Objectively speaking, Kevin Durant will have had one of the easiest roads to the Finals of any star in history....actually probably the easiest. Best player or not, he's on a team that already has a ring and 73 wins without him. Objectively speaking, there have been quite a few stars who have had more impressive roads., I.e. virtually every other star in history.

      A ring is a ring, but there's a reason that there are sports writers, books, message boards, etc. People like to talk about this stuff. Biases obviously creep in at times, but there is also a certain set of objective facts that can't be argued.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-12-2017, 07:42 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        There's a way to measure accomplishments with at least some objectivity given the circumstances. Objectively speaking, Kevin Durant will have had one of the easiest roads to the Finals of any star in history....actually probably the easiest. Best player or not, he's on a team that already has a ring and 73 wins without him. Objectively speaking, there have been quite a few stars who have had more impressive roads.

        A ring is a ring, but there's a reason that there are sports writers, books, message boards, etc. People like to talk about this stuff. Biases obviously creep in at times, but there is also a certain set of objective facts that can't be argued.
        KD obviously realized he wasn't mentally wired to be the kind of star that gets his team over the hump by himself. He obviously didn't think playing with Westbrook was going to get him there either (and after many postseason failures, he had good reason to believe so).

        So instead of continuing to waste his years, he went to a place that he felt placed him in the best position to get over that hump.

        So many people bash guys like Barkley or Marino for not winning a ring. Perhaps had they made a decision like KD during their prime, they would have won a championship. That context and objectivity goes both ways

        Comment


        • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          KD obviously realized he wasn't mentally wired to be the kind of star that gets his team over the hump by himself. He obviously didn't think playing with Westbrook was going to get him there either (and after many postseason failures, he had good reason to believe so).

          So instead of continuing to waste his years, he went to a place that he felt placed him in the best position to get over that hump.

          So many people bash guys like Barkley or Marino for not winning a ring. Perhaps had they made a decision like KD during their prime, they would have won a championship. That context and objectivity goes both ways
          I don't blame KD leaving OKC, but it was by far the weakest superstar move in NBA history.
          https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

          Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

          Comment


          • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

            I can't believe I'm defending KD or anyone on the warriors. Lol I pretty much hate that team and am not the fondest of KD.

            Comment


            • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              KD obviously realized he wasn't mentally wired to be the kind of star that gets his team over the hump by himself. He obviously didn't think playing with Westbrook was going to get him there either (and after many postseason failures, he had good reason to believe so).

              So instead of continuing to waste his years, he went to a place that he felt placed him in the best position to get over that hump.

              So many people bash guys like Barkley or Marino for not winning a ring. Perhaps had they made a decision like KD during their prime, they would have won a championship. That context and objectivity goes both ways
              Surely there's some sort of middle ground between not being in a good situation versus going to a 73 win team that already has a ring. His life, but it's just boring as hell from a drama standpoint.

              You're really overreacting about OKC's post season failures. Finals in 2012. Lost to a possessed Spurs team in 2014 (ended up eliminating the Spurs in 2 out of the 3 times they played....not too shabby). Crumbled last year against a 73 win Warrior team after having a 3-1 lead. 2013 and 2015 were ruined by injuries to Westbrook and Durant.

              Yeah they had some tough losses, but the talent was there to take it all. Look at how long it took for the Miller Pacers and Manning Colts to finally break through to the championship round. The best lick their wounds and come back the next year.

              For a long time, Dirk Nowitzki looked like a guy who wasn't ever going to win a ring. If he would have forced his way to the Lakers back in 2008, he would have looked pretty good piggy-backing off of Kobe for a couple rings. But it wouldn't have been near as impressive as what he ultimately did with the Mavs in 2011. Now that was an interesting sports story of perseverance and battling. Infinitely more impressive than when Durant wins his GS ring.

              What sucks is that we'll never know what Durant was truly capable of. Sure he can win a ring in GS while being the best player, but that team can win a ring without him. That's not entertainment.

              I'll put my Reggie Miller homer plug in here. He probably had 10% of Durant's talent and never had teammates who were anywhere near as talented as Curry, Thompson, or Westbrook. He suffered some brutal ECF's but kept trying with the Pacers instead of waking away with his tail tucked between his legs. It paid off with the 2000 Finals trip. Give Reggie Durant's talent and he wins multiple rings as the man on his own team.

              Comment


              • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                Give me Kevin Durant's talent and I could win multiple rings too!

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                  Nowadays, yelling "I'm coming" means a guy is a "lunatic". It's a really soft league nowadays. Sad that Westbrook has to be torn down so that Durant can be absolved of the fact that he doesn't want to compete.
                  Personally I just found it lame to be chirping when you are down 19.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Nowadays, yelling "I'm coming" means ...
                    Nah, never mind ................

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      Give me Kevin Durant's talent and I could win multiple rings too!

                      Very well thought out retort. Me talking about another NBA player = "I could do it!"

                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-12-2017, 08:20 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Yeah they had some tough losses, but the talent was there to take it all. Look at how long it took for the Miller Pacers and Manning Colts to finally break through to the championship round. The best lick their wounds and come back the next year.

                        For a long time, Dirk Nowitzki looked like a guy who wasn't ever going to win a ring. If he would have forced his way to the Lakers back in 2008, he would have looked pretty good piggy-backing off of Kobe for a couple rings. But it wouldn't have been near as impressive as what he ultimately did with the Mavs in 2011. Now that was an interesting sports story of perseverance and battling. Infinitely more impressive than when Durant wins his GS ring.

                        What sucks is that we'll never know what Durant was truly capable of. Sure he can win a ring in GS while being the best player, but that team can win a ring without him. That's not entertainment.

                        I'll put my Reggie Miller homer plug in here. He probably had 10% of Durant's talent and never had teammates who were anywhere near as talented as Curry, Thompson, or Westbrook. He suffered some brutal ECF's but kept trying with the Pacers instead of waking away with his tail tucked between his legs. It paid off with the 2000 Finals trip. Give Reggie Durant's talent and he wins multiple rings as the man on his own team.
                        One most people don't care about because the media stopped checking for Dirk after he finally won a ring.

                        The narrative was how he can't win. He finally won and Dirk was quickly forgotten after that.

                        The reason why nobody cares about Durant either way is that he's incredibly forgettable to the point crafting that narrative is just dull.

                        He accept people think less of him and doesn't really care. Dirk cared, LeBron cared etc. Durant just wants a ring and not much else.


                        I also think Reggie wouldn't win with OKC either. People forget luck plays a role sometimes timing is everything.

                        Michael Floyd got busted for a DUI gets cut by the Cardinals and unfortunately wins an SB with the Pats in the process while Larry Fitzgerald doesn't do those things and is ringless. Right place right time.

                        What looks good on paper doesn't translate on the court/field.

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        KD obviously realized he wasn't mentally wired to be the kind of star that gets his team over the hump by himself. He obviously didn't think playing with Westbrook was going to get him there either (and after many postseason failures, he had good reason to believe so).

                        So instead of continuing to waste his years, he went to a place that he felt placed him in the best position to get over that hump.

                        So many people bash guys like Barkley or Marino for not winning a ring. Perhaps had they made a decision like KD during their prime, they would have won a championship. That context and objectivity goes both ways

                        I bet Barkley wished he made that decision even if he won't admit it.

                        Same with Marino especially Marino.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                          Dirk wasn't "forgotten". His Finals performance has been continuously talked about for the last 6 years. It's universally lauded as one of the great individual runs in NBA playoff history. I honestly have no idea what in the world you're talking about.

                          Sure, Dirk hasn't been talked about in the present much in recent years because Dallas hasn't won a playoff series since then and hasn't been relevant, but that's a totally different thing.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-12-2017, 08:26 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Dirk wasn't "forgotten". His Finals performance has been continuously talked about for the last 6 years. It's universally lauded as one of the great individual runs in NBA playoff history. I honestly have no idea what in the world you're talking about.

                            Sure, Dirk hasn't been talked about in the present much in reason years because Dallas hasn't won a playoff series since then, but that's a totally different thing.

                            Well I must've missed it because while it was talked about how they beat the vaunted Heat in 2011 after that nobody seemed to care. It was like the 2004 Pistons yeah you remember that but not much else about them. Now part of it has to do with Dirk not being big on the media thing like so many of his peers. The rest is that he's not the face of the league and LeBron not winning the big one was a much bigger story back then than Dirk actually breaking through.

                            Its why with Durant its forgettable because he's not the face of the NBA LeBron is that and he doesn't seem nearly as unlikeable as LeBron does.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                              Individual Plus minus is usually ******** but tonight it told the story.

                              Reggie Jackson minus-25

                              Ish Smith plus-26

                              Pistons 102 Toronto 101

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Surely there's some sort of middle ground between not being in a good situation versus going to a 73 win team that already has a ring. His life, but it's just boring as hell from a drama standpoint.

                                You're really overreacting about OKC's post season failures. Finals in 2012. Lost to a possessed Spurs team in 2014 (ended up eliminating the Spurs in 2 out of the 3 times they played....not too shabby). Crumbled last year against a 73 win Warrior team after having a 3-1 lead. 2013 and 2015 were ruined by injuries to Westbrook and Durant.

                                Yeah they had some tough losses, but the talent was there to take it all. Look at how long it took for the Miller Pacers and Manning Colts to finally break through to the championship round. The best lick their wounds and come back the next year.

                                For a long time, Dirk Nowitzki looked like a guy who wasn't ever going to win a ring. If he would have forced his way to the Lakers back in 2008, he would have looked pretty good piggy-backing off of Kobe for a couple rings. But it wouldn't have been near as impressive as what he ultimately did with the Mavs in 2011. Now that was an interesting sports story of perseverance and battling. Infinitely more impressive than when Durant wins his GS ring.

                                What sucks is that we'll never know what Durant was truly capable of. Sure he can win a ring in GS while being the best player, but that team can win a ring without him. That's not entertainment.

                                I'll put my Reggie Miller homer plug in here. He probably had 10% of Durant's talent and never had teammates who were anywhere near as talented as Curry, Thompson, or Westbrook. He suffered some brutal ECF's but kept trying with the Pacers instead of waking away with his tail tucked between his legs. It paid off with the 2000 Finals trip. Give Reggie Durant's talent and he wins multiple rings as the man on his own team.
                                No doubt! But that's my point, KD just isn't wired in that way. As much as many want him to be, he doesn't want to "win it on his own". Many guys don't seem to nowadays.

                                It somewhat goes back to AAU where players team up in order to dominate.

                                As far as those playoff losses with Russ, I agree they weren't that bad. But with KD not enjoying his time with Russ, it had to have made those heartbreaking losses that much worse. I'm not making an excuse for KD, but according to his comments, he didn't enjoy playing with Russ. KD wanted a more fluent offense that incorporated passing and ball movement, Russ wants to impose his will on the game.

                                I don't like KD much, but in a lot of ways he seems to understand that the game is changing. While Russ channels his inner 2006 Kobe, KD wants to go the route that GS has started.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X