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

In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

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

  • #31
    Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

    I didn't mind Jackson. Tinsley was my problem and still is. Though the Dunleavy for Jackson wasn't that bad a move to me.

    Now the Murphy/Diogu for Harrington was the terrible move.

    Golden St. wanted Harrington for awhile, we should've never given into Murph just for Diogu. I don't care how Ike turns out. taking on Murph on top of Dun Dun was crazy

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

      Just like a sunset, soon as the Pacers hit a rough patch, out comes the we should have not traded Jackson garbage. I thought that we had buried that BS, but no here we are crying over the Jackson trade. I don't give a hoot if I get points over this post, I have no patience for that BS being spouted by some on this board.


      Jackson is freaking gone, get the hell over it and get on board with the team that we now have.

      Jackson was not a character guy, not matter how much lipstick you apply. Is he a thug, a quick survey of his transgressions sure does point in that direction.

      Am I happy with this losing streak, hell no, but it is a long season and who knows what trades are in store for this team.

      BTW, how is Golden State doing these days? Do they still like the trade?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
        I didn't mind Jackson. Tinsley was my problem and still is. Though the Dunleavy for Jackson wasn't that bad a move to me.

        Now the Murphy/Diogu for Harrington was the terrible move.

        Golden St. wanted Harrington for awhile, we should've never given into Murph just for Diogu. I don't care how Ike turns out. taking on Murph on top of Dun Dun was crazy
        I think the trade was fair.

        Pacers unloaded a guy they needed to unload and got a lotto pick from the previous year. Their cost was taking on the bigger contracts and giving up Harrington (which they gave up a pick for).

        The W's saved a lot of $$ under the cap and got a couple guys who fit in better and were more able to contribute in the short run. Their cost was taking on a volatile Jackson and having to give up Ike (who Mullin still liked a lot).

        The Pacers needed to unload Jackson, and I say that as someone who's team Jackson has helped immensely. I don't debate that at all. I will say that perhaps they should have looked at some deals that could have brought back players that had less salary committed to them.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

          Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
          BTW, how is Golden State doing these days? Do they still like the trade?
          The Warriors still like that trade very much. Helped end a 12 year playoffless streak and make a small bit of history in the playoffs while shaving off $30M in committed salary.

          The Warriors are the 3rd youngest team in the league. They are a team in transition. They were a rebuilding team last year, and a lot of people forget that. Question for anyone: Does anyone remember a thing about the Warrior team with a Derek Fisher, JRich, Murphy, Dunleavy, Adonal Foyle core coached by Mike Montgomery? Do you remember a single thing they did? Of course not. They were too insignificant for anyone to remember a thing about. They rebuilt out of that phase. The rebulding team just happened to get hot at the right time and surprised some people.

          And yeah, they really do miss Stephen Jackson right now during a pretty brutal stretch to open the season.
          Last edited by d_c; 11-15-2007, 03:57 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

            I like some of the players we have.

            Danny, is a great talent. Mike is a good basketball player.

            Shawne, Marquis, Jeff, Rush, Ike even Diener and Owens are all fine to have on the team.

            Troy we will see. I would love to see him play well. I just won't hold my breath that he will.

            Tinsley is what he is. He isn't a top 10 point guard, but he isn't a bottom 10 either. We just have to accept that. It has nothing to do with character or contract. You want a better shooter? Get rid of him? You want a quicker point guard? Get rid of him. You want a better point guard? Get rid of Jamaal.

            Jermaine is someone i'm worried about. Troy, Jamaal, maybe they pick it up, get more experience playing for Jim under em. But Jermaine, I just don't know. I think he is really worn down physically. I think that Jermaine is a good guy, and a good player, but he defiantly doesn't look like the player he was.

            I think that we have some nice solid guys. What we don't have is the leaders, the real go to guys. I was worried about not having another go to guy who will bring 20 a night, like Mike Bibby, however maybe we could use that.

            My worries to this team are Troy, Jamaal, and Jermaine. Troy, i'm hoping that he picks up the play with more playing time. I'm hoping Jamaal can breakout. I'm really worried about Jermaine though. Maybe it's just me, maybe it's the system but Jermaine is nothing like the player he was before. That concerns me.

            This team, is really heading no where. We have some issues we need to address. Maybe some will be taken care of as the players play together more, play for Jim more. Maybe they won't and maybe we still need to make other changes.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

              Originally posted by rommie View Post
              I like some of the players we have.

              Danny, is a great talent. Mike is a good basketball player.

              Shawne, Marquis, Jeff, Rush, Ike even Diener and Owens are all fine to have on the team.
              .
              .
              .
              I think that we have some nice solid guys. What we don't have is the leaders, the real go to guys. I was worried about not having another go to guy who will bring 20 a night, like Mike Bibby, however maybe we could use that.
              That pretty much describes just about every non-elite team in the league.

              What team in the league doesn't have at least a few "nice" players or prospects? You wouldn't be able to name any because every team in the league will have at least a couple guys who are nice players or are good young prospects, even the team with the worst record in the league.

              The real go to guys who make impact are of course what is hard to find. That's why it was so comical for anyone to question Boston for making the moves they did this summer to get a couple impact guys like that (and yes, there were questions about it).

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                The Warriors still like that trade very much. Helped end a 12 year playoffless streak and make a small bit of history in the playoffs while shaving off $30M in committed salary.

                The Warriors are the 3rd youngest team in the league. They are a team in transition. They were a rebuilding team last year, and a lot of people forget that. Question for anyone: Does anyone remember a thing about the Warrior team with a Derek Fisher, JRich, Murphy, Dunleavy, Adonal Foyle core coached by Mike Montgomery? Do you remember a single thing they did? Of course not. They were too insignificant for anyone to remember a thing about. They rebuilt out of that phase. The rebulding team just happened to get hot at the right time and surprised some people.

                And yeah, they really do miss Stephen Jackson right now during a pretty brutal stretch to open the season.

                Maybe it is a good thing that people don't remember, but I say Jackson will give them somtething to remember and it won't be a good thing. The Pacers are trying to forget what Jackson did to this once proud franchise, so I am thrilled he is gooooonnnnnnnne.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                  Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                  Maybe it is a good thing that people don't remember, but I say Jackson will give them somtething to remember and it won't be a good thing. The Pacers are trying to forget what Jackson did to this once proud franchise, so I am thrilled he is gooooonnnnnnnne.
                  I don't doubt for a second that the Pacers needed to unload Jackson. They did what the needed to do. The question asked was about how the Warriors liked the trade.

                  The fact is, the Warriors themselves had to do a trade. They needed to make a move for a variety of reasons and they made it. It worked out (unless you want to argue that they were better off keeping on the path they were heading).

                  Will Jackson end up going nuts and derailing the team? Well then they'd just go back to being a really bad team again, something which they had done for the previous 12 seasons WITHOUT Stephen Jackson.

                  I'll repeat this again. If Jackson somehow blows up (in the wrong way) this year, he'll have 2 more years left on his deal. The Warriors just bought out Adonal Foyle, who had 2 more years left on his deal at almost 50% more money than what Jackson's final 2 years make.

                  They bought out a guy who makes more money than Jackson and has been a model citizen. They'd do the same to Jackson if the situation called for it. Right now, it's just the opposite. They need him back in the lineup.
                  Last edited by d_c; 11-15-2007, 04:26 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    I think the trade was fair.

                    Pacers unloaded a guy they needed to unload and got a lotto pick from the previous year. Their cost was taking on the bigger contracts and giving up Harrington (which they gave up a pick for).

                    The W's saved a lot of $$ under the cap and got a couple guys who fit in better and were more able to contribute in the short run. Their cost was taking on a volatile Jackson and having to give up Ike (who Mullin still liked a lot).

                    The Pacers needed to unload Jackson, and I say that as someone who's team Jackson has helped immensely. I don't debate that at all. I will say that perhaps they should have looked at some deals that could have brought back players that had less salary committed to them.
                    I don't mind the trade. I actually like Dunleavy more then Jackson despite what some think there talent levels are.

                    Yes the Pacers got rid of Jackson, but they could've done that for just Dunleavy. Dunleavy for SJax was the orginal deal. Golden St. asked about Harrington, and the Pacers said Diogu. Mullin was like ok, but you take on Murphy as well, and we'll take Sarunas off your hands. That's how it worked.

                    It could just be the fact that Diogu is hurt, and didn't play much last season, but I'll take shoot the ball Harrington and his value/contract over shoot the ball Murphy and his value/contract. Especially in this O'Brien system.

                    All in all, I don't care b/c the trade is over. I was just responding to a post. The main guy I've wanted gone this entire time, is still starting at PG for the Pacers. He may be the best option we have at that position, but I'd be much happier with a 3-5 record without him, then the 3-5 record we have with him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                      Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                      I don't mind the trade. I actually like Dunleavy more then Jackson despite what some think there talent levels are.

                      Yes the Pacers got rid of Jackson, but they could've done that for just Dunleavy. Dunleavy for SJax was the orginal deal. Golden St. asked about Harrington, and the Pacers said Diogu. Mullin was like ok, but you take on Murphy as well, and we'll take Sarunas off your hands. That's how it worked.

                      It could just be the fact that Diogu is hurt, and didn't play much last season, but I'll take shoot the ball Harrington and his value/contract over shoot the ball Murphy and his value/contract. Especially in this O'Brien system.

                      All in all, I don't care b/c the trade is over. I was just responding to a post. The main guy I've wanted gone this entire time, is still starting at PG for the Pacers. He may be the best option we have at that position, but I'd be much happier with a 3-5 record without him, then the 3-5 record we have with him.
                      I'm not sure if the Warriors would have done Dunleavy for Jackson straight up. They were wary about Jackson. In fact, Mullin was hesitant as it was to do the final deal, but Nellie kind of goaded him into doing it.

                      Originally, Mullin just wanted to do Harrington for Murphy (which is what he tried all summer long to do with the Hawks). The Pacers of course said no way to that and then countered with throwing Jackson, Dunleavy and Ike into the deal as well, and Mullin gave in.

                      The Pacers (like a lot of teams in the league) would like an upgrade at PG, but it's a tough position to fill. Good PGs are at a premium. That position is a crap shoot in the draft once you get past the top 5-6 picks. Acie Law isn't quite Chris Paul. He's not even Raymond Felton. Tinsley is a talented guy, but he's not someone you want to give too much responsibility to.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                        Originally posted by d_c View Post
                        I'm not sure if the Warriors would have done Dunleavy for Jackson straight up. They were wary about Jackson. In fact, Mullin was hesitant as it was to do the final deal, but Nellie kind of goaded him into doing it.

                        Originally, Mullin just wanted to do Harrington for Murphy (which is what he tried all summer long to do with the Hawks). The Pacers of course said no way to that and then countered with throwing Jackson, Dunleavy and Ike into the deal as well, and Mullin gave in.

                        The Pacers (like a lot of teams in the league) would like an upgrade at PG, but it's a tough position to fill. Good PGs are at a premium. That position is a crap shoot in the draft once you get past the top 5-6 picks. Acie Law isn't quite Chris Paul. He's not even Raymond Felton. Tinsley is a talented guy, but he's not someone you want to give too much responsibility to.
                        I dunno, I could've been wrong but I believe it was Dunleavy for Sjax straight up, or Sjax and Runi. The Harrington for Murphy I heard was the 2nd of the deals

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                          This should not be the team anybody wants because they just don't have that much talent. After all is said and done they will still be awful and the reason is that the only really talented guy is one or two injuries away from also being a BENDER. JO just can't bounce back as he used to and the expectation that he can is naive. After that the only really high draft picks we have are two guys who failed to live up to their potential. Foster, Tinsley, Harrison, were late 1st rounders; the only mid-first rounders we have are granger and Williams and even they can't be expected to carry any team. Go to the really good teams and find the superplayers were drafted 1-7.

                          So rebuild the team the way all teams are built through the draft. When we get a Duncan, James, or KG we can have a talk about character or talent.

                          I am really sad we didn't trade JO because it is going to be pathetic to see him become a decrepit old player. I'm beginning to think we need to find a GM to run this team who is long on smarts and short on sentimentality.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                            I'm getting into this thread a little late. But off the top of my head - yes this is the team many wanted after the incidents, minus JT and JO.

                            If JO and JT were both traded over the summer (replaced with young prospects) and the team looked like this - we would be much more accepting of this team that appears like it will struggle to get 30 wins.

                            the "reason" for keeping JO and JT was to try and win as many games as we could this season and rebuild, retool the team on the fly and never drop to the bottom.

                            As I posted after one of the recent losses, the last thing I want is a 25 win team with JO and JT still on the roster. I would be "more OK" with a 25 win team if both had been traded.

                            makes sense?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              I reject the notion that it is an either/or scenario.

                              You either have talent or you have good characters is not something I believe in.

                              What we are seeing is the end result of years of keeping talent at the expense of character and then still to this day not totally purging some of the character issues we have.

                              So I guess to answer the main question, no.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                                Like I said, I do agree that it isn't either/or. Just that Jack was painted with a broad brush coated in hyperbole and nearsightedness.

                                Jackson is still a far better SG defender than Dun. Even if Jack wasn't on it every night, his off nights were no worse and at least he could step it up when needed. He is a very physical perimeter defender as well, much like Ron. The power of that impact has been really devalued around Indy. The defense to finish the year last year wasn't just bad in my opinion, it was statistically bad too.


                                So the question really is, especially with the anti-JO drums now beating, is whether people want the new, soft run n gun team or a hard nosed defensive team that scores poorly.

                                Everyone got so worked up about personalities that they forgot that you have to go inside the cage for 48 minutes and actually execute things 2-3 times a week.

                                I don't want talent at all costs, but let's not turn $10 into $100 either.

                                As I posted after one of the recent losses, the last thing I want is a 25 win team with JO and JT still on the roster
                                How about a 25 win team with the top 2 contracts being Dun and Troy for years to come?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X