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

Decent article in the star about he collapse of the last good pacer team

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

  • #31
    I appreciate this article. I think it was well written, and you can take what you want from it. I guess the only questions for me is who do you believe. If you listen to David west he is putting all the blame on Management. I'm sure Bird see's it a different way. I'm siding with Bird on this and I have no problems with how he ran the organization at this time.

    D West sounds like a complainer. Everyone has the co-worker that complains about management and owners not doing the right thing and throughout the article West's complaining reminded me of one of my co-workers that constantly complains about management. The fact that Orlando Johnson is brought up in the article is laughable. I don't care what type of locker room guy he was, he is not a rotational NBA player and that is a fact. Bynum and Turner were brought in to boost the bench. For years we had a major drop off in bench production. So why not bring in Bynum and Turner to increase bench production before the playoffs. It makes perfect sense to me. This is where it's Vogel's job to make sure that every player has a clear idea on what their role is. Coach Pop loved G Hill, but he traded him because they wanted to draft Kawhi. It's the business.

    After reading this article my conclusion is outside of Granger this team had no real leadership. Many here thought West was the leader but he was not. PG was too young to be the leader, Hibbert was to weak. When situation would arise the players had no one to talk to and lead them in the right direction.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post
      I appreciate this article. I think it was well written, and you can take what you want from it. I guess the only questions for me is who do you believe. If you listen to David west he is putting all the blame on Management. I'm sure Bird see's it a different way. I'm siding with Bird on this and I have no problems with how he ran the organization at this time.

      D West sounds like a complainer. Everyone has the co-worker that complains about management and owners not doing the right thing and throughout the article West's complaining reminded me of one of my co-workers that constantly complains about management. The fact that Orlando Johnson is brought up in the article is laughable. I don't care what type of locker room guy he was, he is not a rotational NBA player and that is a fact. Bynum and Turner were brought in to boost the bench. For years we had a major drop off in bench production. So why not bring in Bynum and Turner to increase bench production before the playoffs. It makes perfect sense to me. This is where it's Vogel's job to make sure that every player has a clear idea on what their role is. Coach Pop loved G Hill, but he traded him because they wanted to draft Kawhi. It's the business.

      After reading this article my conclusion is outside of Granger this team had no real leadership. Many here thought West was the leader but he was not. PG was too young to be the leader, Hibbert was to weak. When situation would arise the players had no one to talk to and lead them in the right direction.
      I put this on Bird. You cannot trade the friggin face of the franchise, Danny Granger, without repercussions. Danny was the longest tenured Pacer, and there is value having a former all-star on the team. If you have the guts to trade away Granger, you cannot trade for a draft bust like Evan Turner. In conclusion, trading a former all-star face of the franchise for a draft bust was very stupid, and should have got Bird fired during the off-season.
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post

        I put this on Bird. You cannot trade the friggin face of the franchise, Danny Granger, without repercussions. Danny was the longest tenured Pacer, and there is value having a former all-star on the team. If you have the guts to trade away Granger, you cannot trade for a draft bust like Evan Turner. In conclusion, trading a former all-star face of the franchise for a draft bust was very stupid, and should have got Bird fired during the off-season.
        I’m sorry, but Granger was not “the face of the franchise” in 2014. Nowhere close. I appreciate what Granger did here, but sometimes people act as if we traded Reggie Miller or something.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post

          I put this on Bird. You cannot trade the friggin face of the franchise, Danny Granger, without repercussions. Danny was the longest tenured Pacer, and there is value having a former all-star on the team. If you have the guts to trade away Granger, you cannot trade for a draft bust like Evan Turner. In conclusion, trading a former all-star face of the franchise for a draft bust was very stupid, and should have got Bird fired during the off-season.
          Let me ask you this question. Were you in favor KP trading either Thad, Bogey or Collison at the trade deadline?

          You have to remember when we traded Granger away he was a very hurt player for 2 years prior. So it was either we ride a beat up Granger into the playoffs, or we try to make a trade help us in the future and in the playoffs. Paul George was becoming the face of the franchise I hate to say it, but Granger was becoming the odd man out. Yes he was loved in the locker room by teammates and coaches, but he wasn't able to do anything on the floor. Evan Turner at the time still had some promise and he was on the final deal of his rookie contract. IMO many gms would make that trade. It's a low risk high reward trade. Bird probably thought that he had a emotionally stable team that could separate business from personal. Now we are realizing that this team couldn't do that.

          Take a look at the 2016-2017 Celtics. IT had a damn near MVP season and led his team to the ECF. Jae Crowder and Avery Bradley were major contributors. The Celtics traded all 3 in the offseason. both Horford and Smart are not sitting back discussing this trade talking about how the Celtics Did IT wrong. They moved on and are handling business like any other professional NBA player would.

          We have to look at this realistically we had a team of mentle midgets. Lance should have been worried about performing well so he can get paid on his next contract and worry less about Evan Turner replacing him. Hibbert should have been worried more about anchoring the defense instead of Bynum. West should have been more focused on being the new leader instead of worrying about everyone else business.

          The reason I asked about Thad, Bogey and Collison is because we all had them on the trade block. I would at least consider Thad the leader of this team. I look at trading Thad the same way as trading Granger. His time is coming to and end, hes a leader but if we have a chance to make a move to affect the future of this team then it should be made.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post


            The reason I asked about Thad, Bogey and Collison is because we all had them on the trade block. I would at least consider Thad the leader of this team. I look at trading Thad the same way as trading Granger. His time is coming to and end, hes a leader but if we have a chance to make a move to affect the future of this team then it should be made.
            We did?

            I suppose it might depend on what you mean by trade block. I consider that you are trying your hardest to make a trade for them - really hard, and not waiting around for a perfect deal. Is that what we were doing?

            Comment


            • #36
              Nothing too Earth-shattering in that article to me. All of these details have been leaked and discussed before many times. I think we all should've known by now that it was a mistake to trade Danny Granger (my wife has refused to follow the team since that trade). Letting Lance go made no sense either considering he didn't make much more in his deal with Charlotte but he could've been still upset about the Evan Turner situation.

              It's all over with now and bringing this up now when that team has been dismantled for almost 2 years doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Star should be focusing on the collapse of this current Pacers team as the Playoffs approach.

              Comment


              • #37
                Bird has admitted before that he just doesn't worry about "Fit" when building a team. Hence why he signed Monta Ellis.

                I get that trading Granger for Turner was a smart move on paper. But i'm going to tell you what. The Pacers have never made a move like that before in the history of the franchise. I think everyone in the organization below the front office was completely shocked by that move. Many times when players get moved they don't show up that morning and say good bye to everyone in the building and i mean everyone.

                I recall David West saying in a post game interview after the Pacers won big that night. That he just felt the team was complete now with Danny on the floor. Even though Granger didn't have a stand out game that night, I mean he hit a couple big threes, but standard production off the bench.

                The person who said that the team was just tight knit so much that it was their downfall pretty much summed it up correctly.

                Bird just didn't have a clue about that kind of stuff.

                But additionally, Vogel simply did not handle the addition of Turner very well. He had no idea how to implement him properly.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                  We did?

                  I suppose it might depend on what you mean by trade block. I consider that you are trying your hardest to make a trade for them - really hard, and not waiting around for a perfect deal. Is that what we were doing?
                  Sorry maybe I could have clarified that better in my post. I'm not actually talking about the front office having them on the trade block. In the thread that we had around trade deadline. Practically everyone on this forum was in favor of us trading either Thad, Bogey, or DC which would mess up the team chemistry that we had going on at that time. I just compared that to the Granger situation. Thad is a leader on the court and in the locker room, and I feel like practically half the forum was in favor of moving him to improve the team. Which is what we tried to do in the Granger situation.

                  Team chemistry is important, but we overrate it on this forum. Toronto traded away a player that was beloved in the organization and around the community. Lowry caught feelings, but so what. They looked at it as this is a chance to make the team better let's go all in. Teams make these kind of tough moves all the time, but for some reason we dwell on this trade like we gave away Reggie in his prime.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post
                    The reason I asked about Thad, Bogey and Collison is because we all had them on the trade block. I would at least consider Thad the leader of this team. I look at trading Thad the same way as trading Granger. His time is coming to and end, hes a leader but if we have a chance to make a move to affect the future of this team then it should be made.
                    Come on man, you have to be kidding.

                    Granger has played 9 seasons in Indiana. During this time he was a symbol of hope for many of us in the post-brawl days. He eventually had an outstanding season that made him win the MIP and participate in the all-star game. Two seasons later, he lead us to the playoffs where we had a competitive season against the Bulls thanks to his excellent performance, all while playing in a team that didn't even have a single legitimate starter (Dunleavy? Murphy?), with his name constantly appearing in trade rumors and the GM calls him out for regressing and not working hard enough. During those times, even though he was 6th in the league in PPG, he never asked for a trade, never called out his teammates nor his horrible coach. With the addition of D.West, Hill, and the gradual improvement of Hibbert and George, he was the best player on a black-horse team that challenged the Heat and took them to 6 games in their championship season.

                    Thad has been in Indiana for 3 years including this season. I love him, he's my favorite player on the current squad, but he doesn't have Granger's legacy.

                    I know this would sound silly, but if it were up to me then we'd retire Granger's jersey
                    Originally posted by Piston Prince
                    Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                    "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                      Come on man, you have to be kidding.

                      Granger has played 9 seasons in Indiana. During this time he was a symbol of hope for many of us in the post-brawl days. He eventually had an outstanding season that made him win the MIP and participate in the all-star game. Two seasons later, he lead us to the playoffs where we had a competitive season against the Bulls thanks to his excellent performance, all while playing in a team that didn't even have a single legitimate starter (Dunleavy? Murphy?), with his name constantly appearing in trade rumors and the GM calls him out for regressing and not working hard enough. During those times, even though he was 6th in the league in PPG, he never asked for a trade, never called out his teammates nor his horrible coach. With the addition of D.West, Hill, and the gradual improvement of Hibbert and George, he was the best player on a black-horse team that challenged the Heat and took them to 6 games in their championship season.

                      Thad has been in Indiana for 3 years including this season. I love him, he's my favorite player on the current squad, but he doesn't have Granger's legacy.

                      I know this would sound silly, but if it were up to me then we'd retire Granger's jersey
                      You're not alone. I also think #33 should be retired for Granger. The Pacers are stingy with retiring numbers, especially in comparison with other teams.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                        Come on man, you have to be kidding.

                        Granger has played 9 seasons in Indiana. During this time he was a symbol of hope for many of us in the post-brawl days. He eventually had an outstanding season that made him win the MIP and participate in the all-star game. Two seasons later, he lead us to the playoffs where we had a competitive season against the Bulls thanks to his excellent performance, all while playing in a team that didn't even have a single legitimate starter (Dunleavy? Murphy?), with his name constantly appearing in trade rumors and the GM calls him out for regressing and not working hard enough. During those times, even though he was 6th in the league in PPG, he never asked for a trade, never called out his teammates nor his horrible coach. With the addition of D.West, Hill, and the gradual improvement of Hibbert and George, he was the best player on a black-horse team that challenged the Heat and took them to 6 games in their championship season.

                        Thad has been in Indiana for 3 years including this season. I love him, he's my favorite player on the current squad, but he doesn't have Granger's legacy.

                        I know this would sound silly, but if it were up to me then we'd retire Granger's jersey
                        We have a very high threshold for retiring jersey's, which I for one appreciate. I love Danny and in retrospect I actually believe he is tied for first in my all time favorite Pacers (for those of you who know what I think of Dale Davis that should tell you a lot). But because we have a very high scale for the rafters I wouldn't retire Danny or Dale's for that matter. Now if Danny would have been able to come back and contribute to a title team or even a team that got to the finals I would be all for it. BTW there is nobody else close to having their numbers retired either and yes I vote no on any player who requested to leave the franchise. That means both Paul and Jermaine.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                          If a team can keep their starters intact all year and still fall apart in the locker room, they never had it. These guys are better at making excuses than they were at leading. None of the starters on that team were good enough locker room guys to overcome losing a benchwarmer and a veteran. All championship teams go through changes and hardships. These guys couldn't. This article just makes me loath the players on that team honestly. West is an excuse maker, Hibbert had the worst mentality of any NBA player I can remember, and PG and Hill weren't good enough leaders to whip people into shape. Throw in Turner and Lance being children and you can see how self-serving this team really was. They weren't going to get by the Heat because they weren't mentally tough enough. That's why they blew Game 3 in the Eastern Conference Finals the year before and didn't show up for Game 7 at all. The same thing would happen even if Granger and Orlando Johnson were kept on the team.
                          This to the 100th power.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I liked Granger a lot more as an individual than anybody else in the core of the 2013-14 group. That tells you my opinion of them. I mean, I loved them regardless b/c they were the Pacers. I backed whatever success they could have 100% like I do every single Pacers team. Personally, I'd take the 90s - 2000 finals core, current core, and even the brawl group over the 13-14 + core guys. I don't know why. I should dislike the brawl guys way more.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Nobody except Roy knows who the "selfish dudes" were, but it was probably more than two guys the way Roy said it. Paul had his pants down most of the time and we all heard about the catfishing and the stripper getting knocked up. Oh, let's not forget Hibbert's wife. Dude could not keep his pants on. Then you have George Hill who even admitted he didn't like Lance taking his "property". It's clear he wasn't team first, the definition of selfish. Then you have Lance fighting with the new guy, who basically landed in a cesspool of immaturity. That team made the brawl team look mentally strong and mature...smh.

                              So Roy was right about much of that. Yet, Roy was the biggest problem of all because his game went straight south to the point he's out of the league. Paul and Lance will be in the league a long time.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                                Come on man, you have to be kidding.

                                Granger has played 9 seasons in Indiana. During this time he was a symbol of hope for many of us in the post-brawl days. He eventually had an outstanding season that made him win the MIP and participate in the all-star game. Two seasons later, he lead us to the playoffs where we had a competitive season against the Bulls thanks to his excellent performance, all while playing in a team that didn't even have a single legitimate starter (Dunleavy? Murphy?), with his name constantly appearing in trade rumors and the GM calls him out for regressing and not working hard enough. During those times, even though he was 6th in the league in PPG, he never asked for a trade, never called out his teammates nor his horrible coach. With the addition of D.West, Hill, and the gradual improvement of Hibbert and George, he was the best player on a black-horse team that challenged the Heat and took them to 6 games in their championship season.

                                Thad has been in Indiana for 3 years including this season. I love him, he's my favorite player on the current squad, but he doesn't have Granger's legacy.

                                I know this would sound silly, but if it were up to me then we'd retire Granger's jersey
                                Granger was my favorite player for years but come on
                                now. We are really acting like granger was Reggie. I mean he wasn’t even jermaine or pg. at the time he was traded Granger was providing nothing on thhe court and we needed more firepower on the bench. Don’t forget that our bench was horrible and we needed more firepower badly. After being traded granger never was close to the same player he was in his prime. I feel like even if we didn’t trade him we wouldn’t have won a chip and we would then be complaining about Bird holding onto Granger for too long after his prime.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X