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

Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 11
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 template Next
  • #1

    Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

    http://sircharlesincharge.com/2017/0...s-bird-ruined/

    A series of poor decisions by team President Larry Bird has taken the Indiana Pacers from Eastern Conference contender to a team without an identity

    The Indiana Pacers are broken, and Larry Bird has ruined them.

    Even if they continue to play the Cleveland Cavaliers closely in the remaining games of their first-round series, this team’s window has closed. A young team that gave Miami’s Big 3 a serious scare in the 2013 and 2014 Eastern Conference Finals was disassembled piece by piece at the hands of Bird, culminating in the firing of head coach Frank Vogel this past offseason.

    Bird rightfully earned an Executive of the Year award in 2012 for his role in assembling the team that went to two straight Eastern Conference Finals. Stellar drafts that nabbed future all-stars Roy Hibbert, Paul George, and fringe candidate Lance Stephenson as well as nice trade and free agent acquisitions (George Hill and David West anyone?) gave the team a great, young core.

    Installing Frank Vogel as head coach gave the kids a hard-nosed leader who placed a premium on defense and hustle. Two Eastern Conference Finals in the ensuing years had this team in position to contend for an extended period.

    Still fresh off a Game 7 loss to the eventual champs in Miami, nobody could have forecasted that a grizzly injury Paul George suffered in a Team USA scrimmage in Vegas would derail the Pacers’ 2014-15 season.

    In part because of the freak injury, Indiana went from Eastern Conference powerhouse to mediocre in sixth months’ time. It was always going to be hard to contend when the Pacers were missing their superstar.

    But Bird had already weakened the team’s core before George’s injury when he played hardball with Lance Stephenson (fresh off a mostly excellent playoff run) and lost, watching the budding player leave via free agency to the Hornets for three years and $27million.

    It might have seemed like a lot at the time for a small-market franchise that had just given a max-contract to Paul George the previous offseason and had Hibbert on the books for $14.5 million a year as the team’s defensive anchor. That being said, $9 million a season for a young, core piece (one who hung tough with LeBron) on a contender was, at worst, the going rate and and, at best, a bargain.

    Predictably, the 2014-15 Indiana Pacers stumbled, finishing with a 38-44 record that saw them miss the playoffs. Without George and Stephenson, the offensive burden rested on point guard George Hill and offseason acquisition C.J. Miles. The Pacers were never going to win with Hill and Miles as focal points of their offense, but the two players did their parts by turning in career seasons on reasonable salaries.

    BIRD, TO HIS CREDIT, RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO BREAK UP THE OFFENSIVE CORE. AND THEN HE TRADED THE WRONG PLAYER.
    Frank Vogel earned praise for the job he did in guiding the Pacers to another top-10 defensive rating and narrowly missing the playoffs without a true star. There was a lot to like heading into the 2015-16 season. A healthy Paul George was back, as were Miles and Hill. The offseason pickup of scorer Monta Ellis and drafting of promising rookie Myles Turner gave Indiana its best offensive squad in George’s tenure, even if the defense was bound to take a step back with the offseason trade of Hibbert and non-tender to free agent David West.

    The question with all that offense was whether or not those parts fit together. The team finished the season with a 45-37 record and the seventh seed in the Eastern Conference.

    They eventually lost to a hungry Toronto team in a tough seven game series in the first round where their mismatched offensive parts looked confused. This highlighted the glaring split between the offensive and defensive identities of that team. While they finished with another top three defensive rating for the season, their offense was bottom five.

    Vogel’s teams are designed around defense and efficient offense. Bird had assembled a team of inefficient scorers who needed the ball in their hands.

    And here we are, with the Pacers again trailing LeBron and the Cavs in a playoff series. Only this time they don’t have the team to fight back and make it a series. They might take one at home, but this series will be over by the time the buzzer ends in Game 6.

    This year’s team once again had potential. Bird, to his credit, recognized the need to break up the offensive core. And then he traded the wrong player. Before the season George Hill was sent to Utah in a three-team trade that brought back point guard Jeff Teague from the Hawks.

    Teague is fine, and looked good most of the season, but he’s basically replicated what Hill offered, while Hill himself is a huge reason why the Utah Jazz made major strides this season. It would make a lot more sense to trade perennial chucker Monta Ellis and keep Hill. Of course, none of these moves would have mattered as much anyway had Bird not made his most questionable decision to date.

    Following last season’s Game 7 loss to the Raptors, Bird made the decision not to bring back head coach Frank Vogel, citing the need for a new voice. It was Vogel who allowed this team to overachieve last year, guiding them with his steady hand and focus on hard-work and defense. This year’s team slipped all the way to 16th on defense while only slightly improving offensively to 15th. Gone is the team’s identity, and that has shown more than ever in the Cavs series.

    The Pacers are lost on defense, forcing switches that have allowed LeBron, Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love to fully take advantage of mismatches. The gritty, physical Pacers team has been replaced by a team that looks lost on defense. Vogel would not have allowed this to happen.

    New coach Nate McMillan has been outcoached all series by Tyronn Lue. It was the coaching matchup where the Pacers usually had their biggest advantage. This lackluster Pacers’ team identity no longer lies in their coach. It lies in Bird; this is his mess.

    In a vacuum, some of Bird’s decisions make sense (and the Hibbert trade was the right move regardless), but this also shows Bird’s weakness. He didn’t see the big picture with this team and made reactionary moves in the moment.
    His team will lose the series to the Cavs because of his decisions and they’ll probably lose their star to free agency next year (if he doesn’t demand a trade before), if George’s recent postgame comments are any indicator. You have to wonder if that would still be the case were Vogel and Hill still in the spots now occupied by McMillan and Teague.
    Some good points but a little harsh on Bird, I don't mind Birds moves , (albeit Monta looks done now, but who could have saw that?)

    My bigger issue is if you thought a "new voice" was needed, then why bring in Nate? He should have kept Vogel, or at least made a gutsy move and took a chance on an up and commer
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

    Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
    http://sircharlesincharge.com/2017/0...s-bird-ruined/



    Some good points but a little harsh on Bird, I don't mind Birds moves , (albeit Monta looks done now, but who could have saw that?)

    My bigger issue is if you thought a "new voice" was needed, then why bring in Nate? He should have kept Vogel, or at least made a gutsy move and took a chance on an up and commer
    Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think Bird's biggest weakness is that even though he preached patience, his acquisitions are all short sighted. He gets paid to not only look at the present nature of the team, but what they can accomplish in a few years time.

    I don't think the Hill trade was bad, no one wants to pay 25 million to a 30 year old Hill. However, I agree Pacers traded the wrong player and we should have somehow tried to trade Monta Ellis for someone that fit our team better.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

      He writes this article like the Pacers had the choice of trading George Hill or Monta Ellis for Teague. Wasn't happening for Ellis. Article assumes a lot. Did we lowball Lance? I thought the offer we made was for more years at about the same $ per year. Very uninformed article.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

        Originally posted by immortality View Post
        Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think Bird's biggest weakness is that even though he preached patience, his acquisitions are all short sighted. He gets paid to not only look at the present nature of the team, but what they can accomplish in a few years time.
        I don't think Bird really has any interest in what happens in a few years time. I think his plan has been get the team set up to convince PG to re-sign then ride off into the sunset. we'll see how that goes obviously but once PG's decision's made either way I think Bird's done, obviously so if PG does leave.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

          Originally posted by Coach View Post
          Did we lowball Lance? I thought the offer we made was for more years at about the same $ per year. Very uninformed article.
          No. Lance got offered every dime possible short of cutting teammates to free up money, which his former agent suggested to Bird.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

            Bird has certainly made his fair share of bad moves in the last couple years - signing Monta and Stuckey together, Chase Budinger??, and most glaringly, replacing Vogel with Nate McMediocre.

            But DWest chose to leave. Getting anything out of the ghost of Hibbert's past (Joe Young & no longer having Hibbert) was more a feather in the cap than a criticism. And Lance, as we all know, made his decision despite getting a fair offer from Bird, as well as all the support he would never find elsewhere.

            I'm not a fan of CJ Miles, but it's not a terrible signing, and this article is pretty dismissive of Teague's contributions (statistically a top-10 point guard) while being quite generous to George Hill for playing only half the season.

            I've always supported Bird for the most part. I feel very strongly that we'd be more in-line with pre-season expectations of roughly the 4th or at least 5th seed if Frank Vogel was still our coach, and it is the most damning mistake Bird has made in the last few seasons. I just don't buy that PG's broken leg, DWest ring-chasing, and the completely unpredictable collapse of Roy Hibbert is somehow Larry's fault. I think his time here will be decided by PG. I doubt Bird wants to start over.
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

              When I look at the moves Bird made with my 20/20 hindsight I would say the Al Jefferson and Monta Ellis signings as well as Stuckey were the only bad signings I can think of. Everyone else is playing fine for what they make. I can't look at anyone else and say "He is way overpaid".

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                I find nothing here that I can disagree with. The new voice shouldn't have come from the departure of Vogel and hiring of Nate.....it should have come from the departure of Bird.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                  Originally posted by Coach View Post
                  When I look at the moves Bird made with my 20/20 hindsight I would say the Al Jefferson and Monta Ellis signings as well as Stuckey were the only bad signings I can think of. Everyone else is playing fine for what they make. I can't look at anyone else and say "He is way overpaid".
                  I agree......the problem is that the AlJeff and Monta ( or Stuckey ) signings are that it hindered our ability to improve. I'm okay with signing EITHER Monta or Stuckey...but not both.

                  I get back to the Old-School approach that Bird takes. Get as much talent as you can, throw it into the mixing pot, mix it up for a season and then hope that it tastes good by the ASB.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                    Bird picked Paul George and Miles Turner he's not all bad. He also built a contender just a few years ago. It wasn't his fault it fell apart.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Bird picked Paul George and Miles Turner he's not all bad. He also built a contender just a few years ago. It wasn't his fault it fell apart.
                      Sure....Bird laid the foundation but decided to use the wrong type of material to rebuild the rest of the house after the old one was dismantled.

                      The problem is that we now have a hodge-podge lego house that looks like my 3rd Grade daughter built out of spare lego pieces that she found in the couch cushions.

                      Technically, it's a lego house....but then one questions why part of the house is made up of space lego pieces, another part of the house is made up of Duplo lego pieces and you wonder why the roof is made up of lincoln logs.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 04-19-2017, 01:59 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                        I easily believe it was Vogel's time to go. The question mark I'll always have is replacing him with McMillian. I have this thought McMillian was brought in for this job sooner rather than later to begin with and his ascending to the head spot was always a foregone conclusion. But that still doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake in the end to follow Vogel with McMillian, even if McMillian had been promised (or all but promised the HC spot in the near future).
                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          I easily believe it was Vogel's time to go. The question mark I'll always have is replacing him with McMillian. I have this thought McMillian was brought in for this job sooner rather than later to begin with and his ascending to the head spot was always a foregone conclusion. But that still doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake in the end to follow Vogel with McMillian, even if McMillian had been promised (or all but promised the HC spot in the near future).
                          pretty sure Frank specifically sought out McMillan and brought him on, Bird didn't foist him upon him or anything

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                            Actually, it was David West that kind of "ruined" the Pacers. His departure forced Larry to have to rebuild suddenly and unexpectedly.

                            I'm not saying Larry's made the best moves since then, but West leaving forced Larry to do something he probably wasn't ready to do.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                              Besides, the Pacers aren't exactly what I would call "ruined." I feel like we're on the cusp of something, like we were the year before we signed David West. We need another West-type acquisition this offseason to move to the next level.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 template Next
                              Working...
                              X