Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

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

  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

    I'm not sure if they were tired or if they Nellie told them to slow it down.....but did anyone else notice that they way that the Warriors played in the last 1/2 of the 4th QTR and OT was different then the way that they usually played?

    It seemed like they were out of rhythm and couldn't hit shots that they usually hit. Most notably in OT.....4 points in OT? That's horrible.....not only did it come down to poor shooting....it was mistake after mistake....what's worse is that the Jazz were making similiar mistakes.

    The way I look at it....the Warriors handed the game over to the Jazz....they simply couldn't execute when they had to.

    BTW.....although SJax was a HORRIBLE 4-18 ( with a typical 2-10 from the 3pt line ), I will compliment him for doing the one thing that he should always do when he hits his typical streaky shooting....he drove to the hoop to draw fouls. At the very least...he recognized this.

    One more thing......who is covering Okur? From a coaching perspective....is he significantly different then Dirk ( from a offensive POV )? If not....is SJax be covering him?
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Yeah, because I didn't spend 3 years hearing "Jackson's the devil, you're an idiot if you don't agree, if he's traded everything gets better because he's the cancer that holds us back". Nope, that in no way ever got really freaking old. But you get a few months of "hey, he doesn't suck" and it's more than you can tolerate.

      Seriously, tell me that crap wasn't paraded out day after day.

      I'm not saying he's god anyway, so maybe own up to that fact. Maybe admit that I just said he's not particularly defendable and 30% of the time he annoys me.

      Oh, you skipped that part. I wonder why? Maybe because straw man is easier to kick around and be sarcastic with. Frankly I'm square in the middle on the issue and always was. That's how I am on most issues. It's people far left or right that see my view as "extreme".

      I'm not pushing for Jack as star player or Mr. Nice Guy. I'm just saying "he's not the devil". If you see that as me saying "he's god" then what's it say about the skew on your view?


      I'm not excusing away any of his bad play, but you guys are excusing away his good play. Explain why that is?
      I've seen some accolades thrown Jax's way since the start of the playoffs. Seth, you've gotta admit that he didn't play that spirited with us. Maybe if RC allowed him to he could've, but RC didn't so Jax didn't.

      Jax raises his game to another level playing uninhibited ball with Nellie. The truth is he didn't fit in with our style of play under RC. He had entirely too much time to think. He plays much better instinctively, when there isn't time to weigh his options.

      There is not much middle ground with Jax, you either like him or you don't. One thing for sure there is a lot of sentiment on both sides (much more on one side) as over 14,000 hits would attest to the emotions he stirs up in people.
      .

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
        What Sloan has done with that team was amazing. I'm sleepy eyed from staying up to watch the game last night. How great was that game. I am REALLY rooting for the Jazz, not cause I don't like GS or Jackson, but they run that team the way WE should. Great game.

        Go Jazz!!

        How often do you see NBA teams all boxing out their men so well on the defensive boards that the rebounds are often falling to the floor?

        Good fundamental basketball is way more entertaining to me than dunks and threes.

        If there are any people from the Jerry Sloan coaching tree in the running for the Pacers job, I could get behind him real quick.

        Jack & 4-18... just another Jeckyl & Hyde Jack performance. No big thing.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          I'm not sure if they were tired or if they Nellie told them to slow it down.....but did anyone else notice that they way that the Warriors played in the last 1/2 of the 4th QTR and OT was different then the way that they usually played?

          It seemed like they were out of rhythm and couldn't hit shots that they usually hit. Most notably in OT.....4 points in OT? That's horrible.....not only did it come down to poor shooting....it was mistake after mistake....what's worse is that the Jazz were making similiar mistakes.

          The way I look at it....the Warriors handed the game over to the Jazz....they simply couldn't execute when they had to.

          BTW.....although SJax was a HORRIBLE 4-18 ( with a typical 2-10 from the 3pt line ), I will compliment him for doing the one thing that he should always do when he hits his typical streaky shooting....he drove to the hoop to draw fouls. At the very least...he recognized this.

          One more thing......who is covering Okur? From a coaching perspective....is he significantly different then Dirk ( from a offensive POV )? If not....is SJax be covering him?
          The Warriors feed off their shooting. If they're hitting everything else falls in line, even their defense remains tough. If they're not hitting, they start to second guess themselves and try to play tentatively which doesn't work for their type of team.

          As far as Okur, I don't think they respect him as highly as Dirk. They knew if they could stop Dirk they could cut the heart out of the Mavs. Not so, with the Jazz. They have too many tough-minded players. If they want to advance further, they should include guarding Okur a little tighter.

          Before the series, I stated that AK47 could be the difference maker and so far he has put up much better numbers than in the regular season.
          .

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Yes, I wish the trade was SJax, Saras and Harrington for Ike, Dunleavy and McLeod.

            But that didn't work under the cap.

            And to get rid of a guy that has been so openly disrespectful of his coach, so bad about shot selection, so bad about turning the ball over or not getting back on "D", SJax had to go.

            Would I rather they just cut him and eat his contract than take back Murphy's contract? Probably. But that's basically what they did - they cut him and Saras and had to eat the financial equivalent - Murphy's contract. And then they traded Al and Powell for Dunn, Ike, and McLeod.

            That's how I'll always look at this trade.

            And I will forever be okay with eating Murphy's contract because it allowed us to get rid of the circus that surrounded SJax and Saras. Now, just because we're eating Murphy's contract does not mean that he needs to spend much time on the court.

            Tinsley and JO tried to play hurt the last couple months of the season. If that trade hadn't happened, who's to say that they would've tried to play hurt? As has been true the past four seasons, injuries to JO and Tinsley had much more to do with a late-season disappointment than any other factor (including Ron-Ron's mental breakdowns.) I can't envision any scenario in which this Pacers are in the 2006-07 playoffs, period.
            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: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by ajbry View Post
              Yeah, I ain't really got any excuses at this point for the first 2 games, he's just played some awful basketball. Hopefully going back to Oakland will get him back to his normal self.
              Like UB said, this is just Stephen Jackson. He wasn't going to continue shooting the ball as well as he has, because that's his game. That's all I wanted everyone pining over losing Jack to remember, that you have to take the bad with the good.

              Jack will have hot shooting games, but he'll also have horrendous shooting games, turn the ball over constantly (mostly because he's not a strong ball-handler), and let his man score while he's *****ing at the refs. When he's not shooting well, it really gets in his head and affects the rest of his game, and then he tries to force things on the offensive end and it just snowballs from there.

              For me, I was finally completely done with Jack when he let Adam Morrison light him up for 3 quarters before he finally decided to play some defense and basically locked him down the rest of the way. That shows a severe lack of effort, not ability, and we don't need that anymore. If we had wanted that, we wouldn't have traded Ron away.

              Jack isn't a horrible player by any means, but the negatives while he was here outweighed the positives. Yeah, we downgraded in talent to get something for him, but that's at least partially his fault for hindering his trade value with his off-court behavior.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                You know what I want, it's very simple. Just people saying the following things:
                "Jack wasn't all that bad, kinda neutral and not bad for the pay"
                "That trade was a big mistake that cost the team wins and cap issues"

                I'm not saying Jack was great or should be back now or that Al was panning out as hoped. In fact I strongly agree that Al wasn't working out like we wanted and that Jackson was inconsistant and at times too volitile.
                Seth, is it really so inconceivable that TPTB couldn't risk Jack helping instigate another situation like the brawl?

                Jack was given a million and one chances to adapt and make good here, and he failed.

                Do you really believe that Jack only got booed on the court for his play? How about Tinsley? No, they got booed for playing badly on the floor at times AND being involved in thugish behavior off the court AND having been here for long enough to have learned better by now.

                You know why Granger and Dunleavy get a little more leeway than Jack on the court, other than the fact that both players are still in their "honeymoon" period here?

                Neither Granger nor Dunleavy:

                - helped instigate a brawl from which the franchise is still trying to recover
                - constantly undermined and cussed out their coach on national television
                - constantly let their man score while they *****ed at the refs on the other end
                - got in trouble off the court for firing a shotgun outside of a nightclub, almost immediately after TPTB promised to clean up their image after the brawl and "Ron Artest era"

                Add to that that Jack has already stated that he is who he is and that he's not going to change, and he had to go. Part of the reason we got so little for him is because he hindered his trade value significantly by doing all of the above.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  JO was charged twice two since I assume you mean the brawl as Jack's other "arrest/charged".

                  Of course the brawl was his fault and was so indicative of everything he stood for, right? I mean until Rio he had that long string of off-court incidents.

                  Dale Davis has had as many "incidents" as Jackson since the brawl, no one thinks he's pyscho or a thug, he just made the Pacers all-time team in fact. Marquis has been in 2 just this past season, he wasn't getting boo'd when he played.



                  As for the "now he's trying" - the NUMBERS SAY YOU ARE WRONG. He put up similar numbers in Indy (adjust for tempo perhaps, but that's all) despite "not trying"??? I guess he just got lucky all the time in Indy. Sheesh.

                  No, the truth is that Pacers fans are being forced to swallow the REAL view of Jackson with him on another team and getting national coverage. If he was in Indy and had that series vs Dallas he would have been BOO'D IN GAME 6.

                  Yes, you know it's true. Why? Well he got booted from 2 games, fined 50K for his refusal to go quietly the first time, he jawed with refs several times instead of getting back, took several poor shots per his norm and turned the ball over off the dribble late in games several times too. He was partially to blame for the 2 losses to Dallas.

                  And that's why he was boo'd and hated in Indy, that list of items right there. He had games in Indy where he got boo'd the entire first half despite having a great game, only to have the fans slowly back off because he was playing so well that night.

                  And don't even dare mention Rio, don't do it. Why? Because some of you or fans like some of you were booin'g BEFORE RIO HAPPENED. It wasn't Rio or some crime spree that made fans hate him, the Pacers were trying to spin the "we're good guys" thing BEFORE RIO HAPPENED.

                  This despite the fact that Jackson didn't have off-court legal issues at that point.


                  Jackson in GS is the same Jackson that was in Indy. 100% identical. I see nothing different in his game at all. Same bad shots, same turnovers, the same exact list that had him getting boo'd LAST SEASON in Conseco.

                  He's just had 2 bad games vs Utah, his pairing with AK47 is clearly not in his favor. It will probably continue for this series. Just what I was saying during the Dallas series. This is the SAME JACKSON. I'm freaking sick of people excusing away the good stuff out of fear of being wrong when I'm saying "hey, it's good AND bad still". It is, we see it right now.



                  Here's my beef with this subject. It's not Jackson at all. He's not particularly defendable and about 30% of the time he annoys the heck out of me. It's about hypocritical, flip-flopping, whiny fans who talk some tough game about what they want and how it should be but in no way actually make good on those beliefs.

                  No one showed up to see the milk drinkers lose games. Yet ironically none of the few that did show up boo'd Dunleavy when he took the same bad shots as Jack, blew layups, got smoked on defense and handed out FEWER assists.

                  Sorry, but to me that's embarrassing. It suggests fans that don't understand the game they are watching. Booing or cheering for on-court activity should not be dependent upon who that person is. Especially in light of the fact that Jackson has yet to be convicted of anything at Rio (not that he won't, but at least let him have his day in court).

                  If you hate it when Jack does it then hate it when Granger does it or DA does it (talk about 3pt chucking) or when Ike does it.


                  And perhaps reconsider having "booing" in your list of ways you "support the team". What, just shutting the heck up isn't good enough to make the point, or not showing up?

                  You said his actions were 100% the EXACT same, and I merely pointed out that they weren't.

                  He's never been arrested as a Warrior, he's never served a 30 game suspension, and he's never been fined/suspended for conduct detremential to winning either.

                  For the record, I'm done debating anything with you, whether it be about Jackson or the weather. You go every which way with your arguments and I think that you believe you've never been wrong before, so I see it as a waste of my time. I say that in the nicest way possible, no sarcasim I swear. I don't think it's personal, from all accounts your a nice guy.

                  EDIT: Shade, Jack didn't fire a shotgun BTW. Other than that, I fully endorse your post, if it matters.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                    Seth, is it really so inconceivable that TPTB couldn't risk Jack helping instigate another situation like the brawl?

                    Jack was given a million and one chances to adapt and make good here, and he failed.

                    Do you really believe that Jack only got booed on the court for his play? How about Tinsley? No, they got booed for playing badly on the floor at times AND being involved in thugish behavior off the court AND having been here for long enough to have learned better by now.

                    You know why Granger and Dunleavy get a little more leeway than Jack on the court, other than the fact that both players are still in their "honeymoon" period here?

                    Neither Granger nor Dunleavy:

                    - helped instigate a brawl from which the franchise is still trying to recover
                    - constantly undermined and cussed out their coach on national television
                    - constantly let their man score while they *****ed at the refs on the other end
                    - got in trouble off the court for firing a shotgun outside of a nightclub, almost immediately after TPTB promised to clean up their image after the brawl and "Ron Artest era"

                    Add to that that Jack has already stated that he is who he is and that he's not going to change, and he had to go. Part of the reason we got so little for him is because he hindered his trade value significantly by doing all of the above.
                    EXACTLY. Jack was a good player with baggage, and almost all of that baggage was while he wore a Pacers uniform, and it became too much of a mess to deal with. How people defend his role in the brawl is amazing to me too. I'll defend his flare-up pre-cup throwing that night, but not after.

                    Al Harrington was also NOT working out. He was sometimes very good, often mediocre, and playing out of position at 3 because he's too slow for that. And frankly, he and JO together on the court doesn't work long-term. It just doesn't. They both need the ball on the block (except when Al is shooting his 3's). Defensively, he wasn't bringing it. And like Jackson, his offense was streaky.

                    I will always feel this way: Jack = Good, but streaky, trouble-bringer Al = Good, but streaky, defense-lacking

                    That DOES NOT mean that I think they suck or sucked. They didn't. And I don't have to take shots at other players to make my point.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by Naptown Seth from another thread
                      And BTW, I'm trying to keep full-on Jack debate out of here, there is another thread for that and I'm trying to be more aware of it. My point is that the Warriors TEAM is very likeable yet people refuse to buy into it because of one player on that team.

                      What part of "I don't like Jackson" applies to Baron, Matt, Jason, or Biedrens? Or even Al for that matter. Or Saras. Hey, if Saras was reborn in GS I'd be the first to say the Eurofans were right and that RC was the wrong coach for him, and I'd certainly enjoy watching him play if it was like what GS is doing right now.
                      I'm entertained by Golden State. I have no problem enjoying good basketball regardless of what uniform it is. I don't see many people here disliking the Warriors because Jackson is on the team. They have exciting players and are fun to watch.

                      That doesn't change the fact that I don't feel that Jackson upheld his part when wearing a Pacer uniform. Regardless of how well Golden State or Jackson does it won't make me wish for him back. He isn't a player whose game I especially like, and I didn't like how he carried himself in Indy.
                      "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: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        EDIT: Shade, Jack didn't fire a shotgun BTW. Other than that, I fully endorse your post, if it matters.
                        I knew that. I think I meant to type "shot a handgun." Or maybe I'm just getting lazy since summer is here. Or maybe I'm just retarded.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                          Jack in this series thus far:

                          Game 1: 16 pts. on 5-14 (35.7%), 1 board, 4 assists, 3 steals, 5 turnovers in 45 minutes
                          Game 2: 18 pts. on 4-18 (22.2%), 3 boards, 1 assist, 2 steals, 2 turnovers in 46 minutes

                          For an average per game of: 17 pts. on 28.1% shooting, 2 boards, 2.5 assists, 2.5 steals, 3.5 turnovers in 45.5 minutes
                          This looks kinda familiar:

                          http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=658904

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Btw, why is it the Golden State Warriors rather than the Oakland Warriors?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              What would that make us? The Hoosier State Pacers?

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Another busy and controversial day for Jack, I swear this dude has had more storylines in the playoffs so far than every other player combined:

                                http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/460...wants_la_or_ny/ (The one already posted in the other thread, about the JO trade possibility)

                                http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/460...lur_at_jackson/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X