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

Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

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

  • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

    Originally posted by lumber man View Post
    I don't know how either player is in "The Locker Room". But, I met Jack at the mall one time and He is without a doubt the most down to earth and sincere celeb I have ever ran into. He gets a bad rep in Indy, but I'm willing to bet that he is a great teammate. I would never trade him for an injury prone player who isn't really any better anyway.(Just my opinion.)
    Very true. Every time I've talked to Jack I've been stunned how nice of a guy he is.

    I would do this deal straight up, but I would definitley miss Jack. I would most DEFINITLEY not add Harrison in the mix.

    Comment


    • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

      Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
      Frank,

      The question was theoretical in nature. Having not been aeround the Clippers, I have no way of knowing what type of teammate Maggette is, nor do I know what type of preseence he has in that mix.

      Generally speaking, I would caution against making any judgments about players based on public perception. For instance, I have spoken to multiple players over the years that have mentioned both Latrell Sprewell and Rasheed Wallace as being among those considered by their peers to be excellent teammates, which would probably run contrary to what most fans would believe. Conversely, I've heard negative reviews from players I respect regarding teammates that are held in high esteem by fans, but not necessarily by their peers.

      In other words, I think this is a category that can't be evaluated by those without first hand knowledge.

      MJB
      Mark,

      I wish there were examples you could share.

      Some of us have hypothecated on here that - in support of what you're saying - that Anthony Johnson and Austin Croshere - although they said things publicly last season that resonated with the fans and appeared to be acting more "professional" than their teammates - may have caused more "lockerroom" type problems than they solved. In fact, I think Conrad wrote something similar in one of his QotD's after they were traded.

      I'm fairly certain you don't feel compelled to use any current examples, but do you have any examples that us old-timers might appreciate/ understand?

      If I could be so bold as to ask this, for most of us oldtimers we first heard of the concept of "chemistry problems" with the early-1990s Pacers. A great team on paper that was stuck at 0.500. Chuck and Michael were traded away, but chemistry didn't improve, or at least the W-L record didn't improve. For example, we've heard that neither Bo Hill (Bo doesn't specifically name Pooh in his coaching book, but its easy with hindsight to connect the dots) nor Larry Brown nor their teammates could get along Pooh Richardson. In the meantime, Detlef was traded for Derrick and by the end of that season we were playing in the ECFs. Coincidence? Was Detlef somebody that the fans thought was a "great guy" in the lockerroom but was really high maintenance? Or was the chemistry problem just on the court, where Detlef seemed to need so much space that he got in both Reggie's and Rik's way on the same play? Or was it all Larry Brown? Is there anything you could explain from that frustrating era for Pacers fans.

      (And, for the record, if you say anything bad about Chuck Conners Person, my all-time favorite player, I will do this: )

      But I wonder if the generaly public/ PD could get a better understanding of what a chemistry problem is really like/ caused by, and how that's the same or different than a "lockerroom cancer."

      I think its safe to say that many of us see SJax's on court ballhogging, on court uncoachability, on court confrontations with his teammates, and say, "he's got to be bad for chemistry." But there's more to chemistry than that.

      Of course, with all those things above, he could still be okay for "chemistry" but still a key reason why the team is not playing well. Those obviously aren't the same things either but I think we as posting community take the short cut and equate them.

      Of if you could give some examples on a no-name basis...
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

        anyone know if Eric Pincus has weighed in on this rumor yet? He claimed to have good connections with the Clips front office.
        "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
        -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

        Comment


        • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          I'd include Harrison to get this deal done, and I'd probably trade either White or Williams, you can't miss what you never had. I wouldn't include Granger unless we can get Livingston, but that is a pipe dream. (In fact I'd trade anyone on our roster for Livingston)
          Being a Clippers follower/fan as well (since moving to LA)... I agree!
          Here, everyone have a : on me

          Comment


          • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

            Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
            RWB,

            No, I don't. You may have seen enough to make an informed judgment about whether a player does things on the court that are detrimental, but that's just one aspect of the "good teammate" equation. I remain convinced that none of us can judge whether or not a player is a good teammate without being privy to the daily team dynamic, both on and off the floor.

            MJB

            I do see your point Mark and appreciate the banter.

            Back to one of your original questions concerning this. Why would someone want to discuss rumors? As others have expressed its because we are fans. Not to sound rude, but you can't understand and here is why.

            Mark Boyle can not do his job unless he is somewhat dispassionate about the Pacers. Mark I know you hope the team does well, wins a championship, and so forth, but plain and simple you're on the inside and have seen too many things. While the other 2,500 plus who visit this site gloriously remain in the dark and our only commitment is to be fans. Many do have the clinical eye, but without some Springer talk mixed in this would be a very boring site.
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

              Being liked by your teammates doesn't make you good for chemistry; in fact it can make a player even worse for chemistry.

              A player who cusses out his coach (which Jackson said he has done) sounds like a bad lockerroom presence to me. I didn't hear it, maybe there is more to it but I feel fairly certain that it isn't a good sign.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                Being liked by your teammates doesn't make you good for chemistry; in fact it can make a player even worse for chemistry.

                A player who cusses out his coach (which Jackson said he has done) sounds like a bad lockerroom presence to me. I didn't hear it, maybe there is more to it but I feel fairly certain that it isn't a good sign.
                That depends on who gets to decide the definition of "chemistry".

                And that's why some posters have concerns that the Pacers management seems to have assembled a posse for Jermaine this summer, which may improve the "I like my teammates" variable but may not improve chemistry.

                You can't have players fighting, but they don't need to all be fraternity brothers, either.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                  FlavaDave,

                  Private conversations I've had on that subject, if any, must remain so.

                  That said, I think people that listen to our broadcasts are aware that I am a Stephen Jackson advocate. This is not to say that I think Jackson (or any other player, for that matter) is without fault. In fact, I've been critical of his periodic on court peccadilloes on more than one occasion. Still, though it is occasionally misdirected, I admire his passion and am very impressed by his commitement to being on the floor through pain and the type of nagging injuries that often cause other players to sit.

                  In short, while I personally would never consider any player untouchable, this is one player I would have no difficulty having on my team if I were in charge.

                  MJB

                  P.S.: On an unrelated note, that is a great avatar, Fool. I look forward to your posts, just so I can enjoy it.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                    The Clips would do this deal because Jack would add toughness. I think putting Cassell and his rings on a team with Jack and his ring would work wonders for that team. Sometimes it's not about getting the most talented player, sometimes it's about getting the player that best fits the makeup of the team.

                    The Pacers would only do this deal because it would get rid of Jackson just like the majority of fans want. There really isn't any other valid reason for us to want to do this. We already have 4 players on this roster that can do what Maggette can do. Let's not be greedy.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                      Jay,

                      Though I appreciate the question, I would be hesitant to "name names". For one thing, many of the things I see and conversations I have are private and must remain that way. For another, while I have access that the average fan lacks, that doesn't mean I'm an expert on what goes on in the locker room. I don't play with these guys, nor do we hang together, and my relationship with the players is not one that would afford me the same sort of insight that somebody who is immersed in that culture on a daily basis would have.

                      As a very general statement, I would say that my own idea of a good chemsitry guy or a good teammate would be an individual that puts the good of the group ahead of his own agenda. This, I think, holds true in any group endeavor, be it a basketball team or a business office.

                      MJB

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                        Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                        I admire his passion and am very impressed by his commitement to being on the floor through pain and the type of nagging injuries that often cause other players to sit.
                        And there in lies the rub. As fans we love passion and Stephen with the PROPER direction would be a fan favorite. However, until proven otherwise he is just another Ron Artest (another passionate guy) on a smaller scale. Stephens' good teammate passion escalated the most embarassing incident in Pacer history and possibly the NBA.
                        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                          Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                          Jay,

                          Though I appreciate the question, I would be hesitant to "name names". For one thing, many of the things I see and conversations I have are private and must remain that way. For another, while I have access that the average fan lacks, that doesn't mean I'm an expert on what goes on in the locker room. I don't play with these guys, nor do we hang together, and my relationship with the players is not one that would afford me the same sort of insight that somebody who is immersed in that culture on a daily basis would have.

                          As a very general statement, I would say that my own idea of a good chemsitry guy or a good teammate would be an individual that puts the good of the group ahead of his own agenda. This, I think, holds true in any group endeavor, be it a basketball team or a business office.

                          MJB

                          Boooooooooo, come on Mr. Boyle, you can do better then that.

                          In all seriousness, I think a good chemistry guy is sort of a relative term. Someone can be great for chemistry in one place, or in a certain situation, but in another he can be very destructive.

                          For example, someone mentioned how Jack may get along with his teammates, but that doesn't mean he's good for chemistry if he's cussing out his coach and setting a bad example. Now, if Mike Brown were head coach, we all know the relationship they had and Jack probably wouldn't be cussing out Brown, thus not setting the bad example.

                          Another example would be Steve Francis. I don't think I remember any 'locker room' problems with Francis when he was with Houston and they were winning games. Then he goes to Orlando, and when they are losing all of a sudden he's a headcase and a problem. I know he started off on a bad foot by refusing to go to Vancouver when he got drafted, but from his start in Houston I think he was known as a pretty good guy for the team.

                          Of course, we can also talk about Dennis Rodman's adventures...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                            Of course, we can also talk about Dennis Rodman's adventures...

                            On the floor, Rodman was the epitome of a team player. Did the little things, didn't hog the ball, played great defense.

                            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: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                              I guess I might as well post my views on this rumored trade, and the discussion of "chemistry."

                              As far as the rumored trade for Jackson for Maggette....I would not make the trade if I were the Pacers. I'm not in love with Jackson, and I don't hate Maggette by any means, but I just don't feel that Maggette is enough of an upgrade to justify the injury risk he brings with him. I view Maggette as a slightly better overall player, however I think that Jackson is a better "fit" for our overall roster as it is currently put together. I view Jackson as having enough of a perimeter game to better compliment our other wing players. While he certainly isnt great at it, Jackson is this rosters best wing to post feeder, and he remains currently our best 3 point shooter. I actually view Jackson as a good shooter from deep, its not his shooting ability thats a problem but his penchant to take shots he shouldnt take. Im going on the assumption that we can fix that problem with a few changes in personnel and overall offensive scheme, so I think that for us (not necessarily the rest of the league) that Jackson is the better fit.

                              I also like Jackson's slightly bigger size and durability over Maggette. He can play bigger people that Maggette cannot defensively, as he is slightly heavier and 2 inches bigger approximately. My impression is that Jackson is bigger and more imposing physically than Jackson. Add that to the fact that Jackson will likely play 15 games per season more than Maggette, and its my judgement that I'd pass on this trade as it currently is constructed.
                              I dont see being able to pair Maggette with White or especially Daniels as easily as easily or often as I can Jackson.

                              Substitute "Morris Peterson" for Corey Maggette and I'd have a different opinion though....

                              MBOYLE is correct on the comments of "chemistry" however, and I can state that as a guy who has coached at some different levels. What appears to be one thing as far as we fans can see isnt necessarily the case behind closed doors. While in general I think the typical regard for "chemistry" is overrated, I can tell you from my perspective that my definition of chemistry goes like this:

                              1. How well does the player "buy in" to whatever Im trying to teach?
                              2. How committed is he to being the best player for the team he can be?
                              3. How well do his strengths compliment our other players games and our overall team structure on the floor?
                              4. How coachable is he.....does he cause distractions he shouldnt?
                              5. How important is winning to them vs their own individual success?

                              I dont in general think its important that players be friends off the court, or go out to dinner together, or hang out after hours, or joke around in the locker room together, or any of that....I just want them to be attentive, concentrate, buy in to the philosophy of the team and its goals, and to go out and give maximum effort all the time.

                              Chemistry is overrated in general, and sometimes the player who may not be "good for chemistry" is actually the player you need, and a player who is getting along with teammates and whatever is the player you need to eliminate....how a team's personality forms and evolves over time is a fascinating thing for me each year to watch, and the problems arent always as obvious as you might think from the outside.

                              JMO

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rumor - Jackson for Maggette

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Of course, we can also talk about Dennis Rodman's adventures...

                                On the floor, Rodman was the epitome of a team player. Did the little things, didn't hog the ball, played great defense.
                                That's exactly my point. After diving for loose balls and giving up easy layups to teammates and sacrificing himself for the team, he would then go kick a camera man or do something else strange. He was one of a kind.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X