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

NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

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

  • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

    Originally posted by Pitons View Post
    Pacers leads NBA in blocks - 6,5.
    And almost half of them are JO.

    If JO continues to dominate the post defensively, he has a real shot at DPOY. His 1 on 1 defense leaves much to be desired however.

    But Ben Wallace never was a good 1 on 1 defender in the post and he had no trouble winning it.

    Comment


    • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

      Originally posted by Moses View Post
      And almost half of them are JO.

      If JO continues to dominate the post defensively, he has a real shot at DPOY. His 1 on 1 defense leaves much to be desired however.

      But Ben Wallace never was a good 1 on 1 defender in the post and he had no trouble winning it.
      Ben also gets you a lot of steals, and can come out on the perimeter as a big man and defend.

      Comment


      • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

        Yeah, when I see JO switching out on guards and stopping them, I'll admit JO is in the same class defensively.

        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: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

          Skiles is nuts. No wonder Ben doesn't want to play for him.

          http://info.detnews.com/pistonsblog/index.cfm

          My prediction, if anybody wants to recall, was that the Ben Wallace-Scott Skiles relationship could blow up by Thanksgiving. I was off by one day. Skiles yanked Ben out of the game early on Friday, and kept him on the bench for more than 10 minutes. He might has well have kept Ben on the bench the rest of the game for all the production he got out of him -- 20 minutes, no points, no rebounds. It was the first time in over 500 games that Ben failed to grab at least one rebound.

          Now, before I go on, understand that all is not lost there. Both Ben and Skiles have to find a way to make it work. There is too much at stake for both. They both know that, and I suspect they will work it out. But it's been rocky and it's going to be rocky.

          The NBA game has downsized. There is a premium on quickness and scoring. Ben Wallace can effectively guard players of all sizes. But Ben doesn't score. And these days, teams can't get by playing four on five. That was part of the conflict last season with Ben in Detroit. It is inevitable that there will be more cases where Skiles feels he has to combat small-ball, or double-digit deficits, with his five best scoring options (if he can even find five scoring options with that crew). Ben is going to have cut him some slack on that and go quietly to the bench.

          The Chicago media isn't about to accept that -- a part time role for their big free agent signing. No way. The headlines are already making snarky references to the "$60 million man." You know Ben hates that. He's Mr. Blue Collar, everyman, just trying to feed my family guy. To be viewed as an overpaid underachiever, oh my goodness. That has to be eating him up. But paying a guy $60 million isn't going to make him a different player. Ben is still Ben, and Ben is never going to be an offensive threat. That shouldn't be a news flash for anybody.

          Is Ben unhappy in Chicago? Yes, he is. He's not throwing in the towel, but the transition hasn't been pleasant. When Skiles and John Paxson came to Ben's house over the summer to make their recruiting pitch, Ben asked Skiles point-blank if there was anything he needed to know about him, his coaching style or his personal preferences. Skiles told him no, he loved Ben just as he was. But the minute Ben signed the contract, Skiles pulled him aside and told him that he could no longer wear the headbands and arm bands that had been his trademark in Detroit. Strike one.

          Skiles has also embarrassed Ben during practice several times -- stopping practice to make him tuck in his shirt and ordering him to tape his ankles (which Ben never does) -- silly power-trippy things like that. Strike two.

          And now Skiles is yo-yoing him in and out of games -- the ultimate indignity to Ben.
          Strike three? Nah, probably just a foul tip. Like I said, there's too much at stake for Ben to blow it up this quickly. But, these are not fun times in the Windy City.

          By the way, if you read this and think I am gloating over Ben's struggles, you are dead wrong. As I have said before, Ben is and always will be one of my favorites. I don't have any problem saying that. He was as straight-up and solid a pro as I've ever covered and I miss him. I am not, nor are the Pistons players, coaches and front office personnel, rooting against Ben Wallace. It's just that, well, him clashing with Scott Skiles, early and often, was about the most predictable thing in the NBA this season.

          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: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

            Power trip or not, I believe you do what your coach tells you to do as long as he is your coach.

            Comment


            • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

              Warriors sitting in the zone defense all game so far and that is causing Jazz some problems, because they are forced to shot from the outside and they do not like it. 43-39 Warriors so far.

              Comment


              • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                .....and the wallace/skiles clash continues.....

                As I said before, Skiles is playing with fire telling Ben he can't be Ben. This is going to end badly for him. Ben does not like being told what to do.

                http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....ulls-headlines

                Skiles, Wallace butt heads in win
                Headband issue overshadows win

                By K.C. Johnson
                Tribune staff reporter

                November 25, 2006, 10:25 PM CST

                NEW YORK -- Red is a bold color, which made Ben Wallace's decision all the more glaring.

                Blatantly defying coach Scott Skiles' team rule prohibiting headbands, Wallace broke one out to match the Bulls' road uniforms Saturday night at Madison Square Garden.

                A much-needed 106-95 victory over the Knicks that snapped the Bulls' six-game losing streak now will serve only as a partial tonic to a much more flammable situation. Thirteen games into a four-year contract that will pay him $60 million, Wallace and Skiles appear to be at odds.

                One night after Wallace played a season-low 19 minutes 38 seconds, Skiles removed Wallace just 2:02 after tipoff for breaking the team rule.


                The Bulls had a team meeting for 25 minutes after the game.

                "That's an inside team matter," Skiles said.

                Is Skiles' worried Wallace's insubordination will become an issue?

                "No," he said. "I don't know why. I'm just not."

                Skiles wouldn't comment on why the rule is in effect. Wallace wouldn't comment on if he agreed with the rule.

                "I don't care about nothing," Wallace said. "All I know is we got the win."

                Asked if he understood why he was benched, Wallace mumbled.

                "Coach makes the decisions," he said. "I just play."

                After he was taken out, assistant Ron Adams went to talk to Wallace. Fellow assistant Pete Myers, Wallace's closest confidant, subsequently followed suit. Finally, assistant Jim Boylan, Skiles' right-hand man, visited him. And still the headband remained.

                When Wallace finally removed it, during a dead-ball situation with 2:41 left in the first quarter, Skiles called for Wallace to re-enter. He did so with 1:45 left in the first quarter and played 14:36 in the first half, grabbing four rebounds.

                But the trouble didn't end there. Wallace slipped the headband back on just before second-half play was set to start. Skiles immediately sent Malik Allen to the scorer's table before play started.

                When Wallace again removed the headband during a timeout with 5:46 left in the third, he re-entered just 81 seconds later.

                At this point, Boylan had taken over as coach after official Tim Donaghy ejected Skiles with two quick technical fouls 56 seconds into the third.

                In all, Wallace played 29 minutes, finishing with five points and seven rebounds.

                Given that the incident came on the heels of a game in which Skiles benched Wallace for the final 17:44, questions about Wallace's happiness are legitimate. Asked before the game why Wallace hasn't played like, well, Wallace thus far, Skiles painted a positive picture.

                "He has some games, but I think he would have to answer that," Skiles said. "We're not in any way unhappy with him."

                Showing energy early and at both ends of the floor, the Bulls built a 24-point first-half lead in a game they had to win to avoid another winless extended November trip.

                The Bulls forced 15 first-half turnovers in taking a 56-34 halftime lead. Luol Deng scored 16 of his 24 points before halftime, and Allen added 11 of his 15. Both Allen and seldom-used P.J. Brown contributed mightily in Wallace's absence.

                Kirk Hinrich added 21 points and eight assists for the Bulls.

                The Knicks ripped off a 21-11 run to open the fourth and halve their deficit and then pulled to within 98-93 on an Eddy Curry dunk with 1:46 remaining. But Andres Nocioni hit two free throws with 1:23 left and then took a charge from David Lee to right the ship.

                Beyond Wallace's apparent insubordination, Skiles' ejection and the six-game losing streak, the Bulls needed this victory to restore their confidence. Nocioni, who contributed 19 points and seven rebounds, made a startling admission before the game.

                "Defense is a mentality, and I think we have lost complete confidence," he said.

                Skiles listed six specific problems when asked what ailed the Bulls' defense.

                "There's many more, but I thought I was boring you," Skiles said, smiling.

                The Wallace situation is no laughing matter.

                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: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                  why is AKirlenko guarding Monta Ellis mfor 3 straight posessions. he was also gaurding Kobe for most of the game last night?
                  ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                  Comment


                  • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                    Ugly game, but I give a props for Nellie making it ugly and playing zone all 48 min. Jazz will need some practice tomorrow how to beat the zone. They totaly took our main strenght out of the game. Anyway we still lead NBA.

                    Comment


                    • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                      Wallace is just solidifying the perception that NBA players are spoiled prima donnas. Grow up and do what the coach says, even if you think it's stupid.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                        The ben wallace thing is hysterical to me. I mean is he joking? A HEADBAND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Jesus christ grow up you little girl.

                        Like a headband means a damn thing. Props to skiles for clowning ben wallace.
                        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                          I'm still laughing at everyone who thought the Bulls were going to be different this year just because they added Ben Wallace.

                          They'll probably finish the season off a few games below .500.

                          Comment


                          • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                            Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
                            The ben wallace thing is hysterical to me. I mean is he joking? A HEADBAND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Jesus christ grow up you little girl.

                            Like a headband means a damn thing. Props to skiles for clowning ben wallace.
                            Yeah, thats funny, imagine what Sloan would do with Ben. For some reason Derek Fisher has no problems playing without headband for the first time in his 10 year NBA carrier.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                              This one's for you, Hicks......

                              http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....ulls-headlines


                              Rick Morrissey In the wake of the news


                              November 27, 2006

                              Scott Skiles needs to start concentrating on things that matter. Things like, oh, I don't know, winning games, maybe?

                              Until Saturday that might have seemed like a bizarre statement concerning a guy known for being locked into the important things. But Skiles appears to be transfixed by a thin piece of cotton worth about $5.

                              Ben Wallace's headband doesn't matter.

                              Wallace's heist of Bulls funds does.

                              While struggling to win the occasional game, the Bulls are mired in the middle of a silly controversy that masks a bigger problem: Wallace, the man who is supposed to push the Bulls toward a deep playoff run, has been a major disappointment headed in the general direction of becoming a disaster.

                              But rather than state that self-evident truth, Skiles is fixated on his rules. One of those rules is that headbands are not allowed on the court. Why, I don't know. But you get the feeling that if Skiles had his way, everybody would be wearing short shorts and tall socks, circa 1984.

                              When Wallace wore a red headband Saturday night against the Knicks, it set off a war of wills that needn't have occurred. When he realized the fashion violation, Skiles pulled Wallace about two minutes into the game. Assistant coaches took turns tending to the big fella's psyche. He returned later in the first quarter without the headband. He wore it again just before the second half was to start and found himself benched again. He took it off and soon after was sent into the game again.

                              We'll assume that Wallace knew exactly what he was doing when he put on the headband in the first place. It was dumb for him to challenge Skiles so publicly. We'll also assume that there are deeper problems between the two men that need fixing.

                              But Wallace has earned the right to wear a stupid headband. Or do four Defensive Player of the Year Awards not give the guy any currency?

                              People will say Wallace's insubordination stands for something bigger, that players are supposed to follow rules, not question them. But this isn't the Army. We know this because the privates make more than the generals in the NBA.

                              Good coaches know to let go of the unimportant stuff.

                              Scott, see if you can stir up some muscle memory in Wallace, who seems to have forgotten how to rebound and defend. Second-tier centers are getting double-doubles against him.

                              The season isn't 15 games old, but already doubt is setting in: Did the Bulls give a four-year, $60 million contract to a 32-year-old center who might be hitting the wall of his career?

                              The Bulls' defense has been atrocious so far, which is almost unthinkable from a Skiles-coached team. The buzzword these days is "energy." It used to be called "hustle." The Bulls have neither right now, and Wallace gets some of the blame for it.

                              Now you're left to wonder how much of his struggles are caused by underlying tension with Skiles. Better that, I suppose, than wondering whether this is the best the man has left to offer.

                              Whatever the cause, Wallace needs to get it figured out. He should be professional enough to put any animosity aside and play hard. Getting no rebounds against Philadelphia the other night when you have a career rebounding average of 10.7 is a sin. It's like a Halle Berry movie without a makeout scene. OK, maybe not.

                              It has been a strange start to the season. Wallace told TNT he's actually 6 feet 7 inches tall, not 6-9, his listed height. At this rate, he'll be 6-3 and an insurance salesman by the end of the year.

                              It's true that the little things often add up to winning. It's also true that the small, petty things can bring on losing. This is small and petty.

                              You might recall that Darius Miles' agent accused former Bulls general manager Jerry Krause in 2000 of objecting to players wearing cornrows. Krause denied that, but like a lot of other things, it stuck to the sticky GM. This is a lot like that. Stupid.

                              Skiles isn't denying his no-headband edict. Maybe he should, to save himself the embarrassment of being so out of tune with his players.

                              The best way to defuse this would be for Skiles to show up Tuesday at the United Center for the Bulls-Knicks game wearing a suit, a tie and a headband. I'd suggest cornrows, too, but I don't think the hair-challenged Skiles is a miracle worker.

                              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: NBA Random Thoughts 2006-2007

                                Nets leads Atlantic division with 5 wins and 8 losses.
                                "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                                - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X