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

Cowherd: JO most overrated

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

  • #61
    Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    Agree 100%.

    If Garnett had been mentally tough enough to get in the paint at both ends of the court and do what JO did, maybe the Wolves would have had some post season success with him.

    Or maybe his body would have taken the same beating as JO's took.

    Either way you lose, with JO's willingness to play in the paint even though his body couldn't take the pounding, or KG's refusal to play in the paint when his team needed him to ("You're a seven-footer, not a SF. Get in the paint where you belong, softie.") What we do know is that JO appeared to be tougher mentally that Garnett, but we don't know who was tougher physically.

    I do think that if JO had insisted (especially back in 2002/3/4) on playing SF at 220-225 pounds we wouldn't be talking about his injuries, and we'd be screaming at him to get in the paint where we needed him.

    Is there any truth to the rumor that Garnett was pictured on the side of a milk carton in Boston this week?

    I'm rather shocked that a few of you are questioning KG's mental toughness. We must have a different definition of mental toughness, because I think KG is has mentally tough as anyone in the whole NBA. He might lack a little in the basketball IQ department and he is too unselfish, but he's tough.

    Does anyone else agree with me that JO is a much softer player than KG.

    Really though to me the bottomline is number of games played.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-18-2008, 04:05 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      Agree 100%.

      If Garnett had been mentally tough enough to get in the paint at both ends of the court and do what JO did, maybe the Wolves would have had some post season success with him.

      Last I checked, Garnett as a Wolve went as far in the postseason as JO did (conference finals).

      Maybe if Garnett would have ever had some decent help around him the Wolves would have gone out of the first round more years. It's no coincidence that when they got Spree and Cassell that Garnett was able to take them further than ever.

      If people would actually look into the teams the Wolves played in the playoffs from 97-03, they would find that KG's "playoff failure" label is vastly overrated.

      1997: In KG's second year, they take the defending WCF champion Sonics to a 5th and deciding game in the first round. Should they have won this series as playoff virgins? No way.

      1998: Lost to the twin tower duo of the Spurs

      1999: Lost to the Trail Blazers, who were in the midst of 3 straight conference finals appearances.

      2000: Tragically lost Malik Seally and were beaten by the Blazers, who almost Eliminated the Lakers 2 rounds later.

      2001: Spurs, who had the best record in the league.

      2002: Mavericks

      2003: Lakers, who were red hot going into the playoffs and were the 3 time defending champion.

      Then in 2004, KG finally gets a cast and wala, they make the conference finals.

      Should the Twolves honestly have beaten any of those teams in that 7 year period? Every single one of those teams that knocked out Minnesota from 97-03 had superior rosters to the Wolves. Compare what Duncan had to what KG had, or compare what Nowitzki had to what KG had. You have to be kidding if you really think that the Wolves should have beaten any of those teams.

      KG consistently faced much tougher competition in the first round than JO's Pacers did. 2 of the 3 playoff series JO has won has come against Boston (who one of those years was a complete joke of a team).

      I mean, if KG's Wolves would have ever been embarassed by a team as medicore as say, the 03 Celtics (who were swept by NJ the next round), then I would be calling out KG as well. But every one of those years you can say that the Wolves were beat by a superior team.

      JO and KG both made the conference finals in 04. The Pacers went through Boston (an absolute joke), and Miami (a respectable team on the rise). The Wolves went through Denver (superior to Boston) and Sacramento. I think KG had a tougher road.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-18-2008, 06:29 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

        UB,

        I can keep this simple. Any seven-footer who thinks they are a small forward is a mental wimp in my book. That puts Jon Bender at the top (or bottom) of the list, with Garnett as a close second.

        I also find Garnett to be very selfish, for the same reason. He wasn't willing to get in the paint and help his team, so they had to construct a goofy roster around having him play on the perimeter. Sure, he was willing to share the ball with a goofy, unbalanced roster, so maybe on the playing court he was unselfish but he was a nightmare to build a team of complimentary players around. Meanwhile, he stood out on the perimeter, made some spectacular plays, and convinced everyone that he was a megastar.

        The biggest reason Garnett's team only advanced beyond the first round of the playoffs one time (and only forced Game #5 once (swept twice,
        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


        • #64
          Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

          What the heck just happened?

          I'll try this again.

          UB,

          I can keep this simple. Any seven-footer who thinks they are a small forward is a mental wimp in my book. That puts Jon Bender at the top (or bottom) of the list, with Garnett as a close second. You can figure out a few others I don't care for.

          I also find Garnett to be very selfish, for the same reason. He wasn't willing to get in the paint and help his team, so they had to construct a goofy roster around having him play on the perimeter. Sure, he was willing to share the ball with a goofy, unbalanced roster, so maybe on the playing court he was unselfish but he was a nightmare to build a team of complimentary players around (not that McHale was competent, but a decent GM also would have told him to shut up and get in the paint.)

          Meanwhile, he stood out on the perimeter, made some spectacular plays, and convinced everyone that he was a megastar. He realized that NBA fans no longer appreciate the big guys that do the dirty work - look at all the criticism Shaq got while being the best and most dominant player in the league.

          The biggest reason Garnett's team only advanced beyond the first round of the playoffs one time (and forced Game #5/7 once, they were swept twice and lost 1-3 three times - JO's playoff record was better than that so that comparison is irrelevant - read that again, that's five years where Garnett won a single playoff game or less, the only time that happened to JO was his first year with the Pacers when we were the #8 seed. How's that for a run-on parenthetical?) is Garnett's selfishness to play SF and force the team to be constructed around his unwillingness to play in the paint. Dean Garrett had to be a major part of Minnesota's rotation, for goodness sakes, just because KG was selfishly playing on the perimeter because he was too much of a pretty boy to get into the paint.
          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


          • #65
            Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Does anyone else agree with me that JO is a much softer player than KG.
            Much? Obviously not. But assuming that because of how he presents himself that KG likes to get in the paint and bang with guys like Ben Wallace in his prime is just as wrong to me.

            This is KG at times... ARR ARR ARR BRING IT...fade jump shot

            Not that a nice fade doesn't have it's place in a rounded game, and I hate that JO gets blasted for working that shot (make it more sure, but it's not inherently bad to have it), but at times KG has shown the intimidation face much more than the intimidation play.

            I'd say a guy like Oakley intimidated the paint a lot more than KG with a lot less expression about it. I'd say Dale did too, and in that regard I'd clearly give the edge to Dale over JO as well (that's just for Peck right there).

            But every one of those years you can say that the Wolves were beat by a superior team.
            Odd that a team with MVP KG would always be worse than the team they were playing, don't you think? And let's be a little fair about that Boston thing, the Pacers had one of the WORST records in the NBA post-all star that year. It was the massive Ron meltdown with Isiah's new "Quick" flopping big time.

            Let's not confuse comparing JO to KG now with comparing them then. The Pacers had a rep and results to match of being one of the most physically grinding defenses out there in JO's prime. Ron was a big factor in that, but with Tins, Reggie, Harrington and Brad Miller joining them I'd say JO was right behind Ron as a critical factor in earning that rep.

            KG's WCF team was coached by Flip, a guy with a big time rep as an all offense coach, thus the questions when he came to Detroit.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-18-2008, 08:25 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              What about hyperbole? Jesus used parables to make his points.
              But not BABY Jesus. You're thinking of the GROWN MAN Jesus, while Peck is clearly talking only of the Baby Jesus.

              [yt]zKDC2iBQTYg[/yt]
              Last edited by Anthem; 06-18-2008, 08:43 PM.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                Guys could we please stop saying tough and Jermaine O'Neal in the same sentence. My head is about to explode.

                How about we all agree on this, Jermaine O'Neal and Kevin Garnett are neither tough players either physically or mentally.

                The mere thought of either of these two having to go agains the Pat Riley Knicks makes me smile.

                O'Neal would not get across the half court mark before he was turning to the nearest ref. to complain about being touched and Garnett would sit on the floor and cry when he ran into a back pick set by Mason.

                I just don't get this argument at all when it comes to O'Neal.

                I would never argue that he wasn't a good basketball player or that he couldn't shoot, rebound, block shots, etc., etc.

                But I thought the one thing that was almost common, even among J.O.'s biggest fans, was that he did not like physical contact. In my life I have never seen a person more indignant about being touched by a defender in the paint than J.O.

                The entire reason we have to have a Foster, Miller, etc. was because we needed someone who would by a physical defender.

                But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a hater.


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

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                  Odd that a team with MVP KG would always be worse than the team they were playing, don't you think? And let's be a little fair about that Boston thing, the Pacers had one of the WORST records in the NBA post-all star that year. It was the massive Ron meltdown with Isiah's new "Quick" flopping big time.

                  Let's not confuse comparing JO to KG now with comparing them then. The Pacers had a rep and results to match of being one of the most physically grinding defenses out there in JO's prime. Ron was a big factor in that, but with Tins, Reggie, Harrington and Brad Miller joining them I'd say JO was right behind Ron as a critical factor in earning that rep.

                  KG's WCF team was coached by Flip, a guy with a big time rep as an all offense coach, thus the questions when he came to Detroit.
                  Go back and read my post. I was talking about 97-03, the years Garnett's teams were beat in the first round (when I said they were beat by superior teams). Last I checked, Garnett won MVP in 2004 (which is the year that the Wolves went to the WCF's).

                  When you look at the teams that knocked the Wolves out from 97-03, I don't think you can rationally say that the Wolves should have won any of those series'

                  And since when is the best team automatically the one with the MVP (in reference to your "odd that a team with MVP KG would be worse than another team" remark)? The last 5 MVP's have been awarded to guys whose teams didn't win it all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a hater.
                    No problem, I will.

                    I'm tired of fighting the same battles, so I'm sitting this one out. Jermaine will be gone after this summer anyway, so we can all talk instead about how much we like Danny Granger.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                      Garnett +1 Championship
                      J. O'Neal 0 Championship

                      In the end, that is all that counts.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                        Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                        Garnett +1 Championship
                        J. O'Neal 0 Championship

                        In the end, that is all that counts.
                        I sure hope not. Because if that's all that counts, the lesson learned is "When offered a max contract by the Indiana Pacers and the San Antonio Spurs, ditch the Pacers."
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                          Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                          Garnett +1 Championship
                          J. O'Neal 0 Championship

                          In the end, that is all that counts.
                          brian scalabrine +1 Championship
                          charles barkley 0 Championship


                          first ballot hall of famer?
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                            I should just keep eating popcorn but instead here I go....

                            JO fans should just skip to the next post.

                            Of course JO is not the most overrated NBA player. At one time he probably belonged in the discussion tho, at least among active players.

                            Someone else has already mentioned it but JO is simply overpaid now... nobody in the hierarchy of the NBA overrates JO any longer. Maybe a few diehard fans still live on some "ifs and buts" but that pool is drying up as well.

                            JO was a very athletic player who came to a team that was riding a wave of popularity locally (as well as nationally). The Pacers had acquired many new fans in that recent period of time. Not just bandwagon fans but young people who had come of age watching the '90 era Pacers. At that time many (especially newer fans) thought Walsh could do no wrong and that the Pacers were perennial contenders for life. The local media at the time helped fuel that scenario. These new fans were people who hadn't experienced the ebb and flow of the NBA nor known of the Pacers when 20 wins was an accomplishment. Of course a lot of older fans were still pretty giddy about the ride we'd just been on.

                            Personally, I think a lot of younger fans thought the Pacers, if they lacked anything, lacked some 'showtime'. Well, here come JO, thrust into the spotlight out of necessity as much as anything. He could "throw down". He had the raw tools and a team in desperate need of a player possessing just that with the way Walsh had allowed things to play out. He was not just groomed to be the franchise player, he was handed the mantle almost immediately.

                            The problem is, JO was only "JO" when he had plenty of other very good players around him sacrificing their games. ...Something that he's yet to be willing to do.

                            He was soft and played with a sense of entitlement that really has never left his game. He was all about drama, whether it was making every injury appear to be career threatening (or else he must've had the lowest threshold of pain known to the NBA), or whether it was preening for the camera after even the most mediocre of plays. Maybe he wasn't being overly dramatic with those early 'injuries'... maybe that was just a precursor to what was to come later when he no longer healed as quickly.

                            I've spoken many a time about JO needing to have a lightbulb game where it all clicked. But that never happened. He never figured out how to sacrifice his own game for the betterment of team. The only thing he ever figured out was how to speak well in front of a camera... and speak well he did. If the subject was "JO" he could talk for days. He never found an interview where he couldn't talk about leading the team.. usually followed by talk of him dominating games, making the all-star game, etc.. Everything was (and so far still is) "Me, me, me..."

                            He never earned his huge contract. He got it based on potential... The Pacers handed him everything- From declaring him leader (instead of making him earn it) to putting him in a starmaker role where he relished in the limelight and we only fed the monster. He's usually referred to as a 20-10 player... altho I'm not sure he ever actually reached that plateau or did it for more than 1 season (if that). He got close... but the thing is... for the amount of offense we ran through him and how we focused on him 20-10 should've been a given. It should've been more. It wasn't.

                            Here was a power forward, on a max contract, on a team willing to hand him everything on a silver platter... and he couldn't even reach the 50% FG plateau. I don't think I've ever seen a player of his supposed stature (read: franchise player) who could so easily be taken out of his game mentally. He's been that way from the start.

                            He's continually made bad decisions with the ball... demanding the ball and then clanking fadeaways off the side of the rim... And that creates nothing but question marks and chemistry issues around him as players could see he wasn't progressing and was in fact becoming an albatross with his contract and on court demands. If he couldn't co-exist with Rose, how could he co-exist with Artest?

                            LMK the next time he blocks out because it will be a first.

                            On another team, it wouldn't have gotten this bad. Either he would've been put in his place and made to earn his role regardless of his contract, or been shipped off before his attitude, athleticism, or 'potential' declined. But in 49 states it's basketball... but this is Indiana... And Walsh didn't admit mistakes or give up on players.

                            So here we are, the contract is more of an albatross than ever, but JO's athleticism is gone and he's only a shell of his former self. But that shell is an impermeable layer of ego that still hasn't had that lightbulb game IMHO.

                            He still doesn't appear to 'get it'. Even with his skills eroded, it's all about JO being "the man" in his book. At least that is what I still hear when I hear him talk.

                            He's not "the man" and never was "the man".

                            His defense is overrated because he blocks shots... itself one of the most overrated defensive stats. His individual defense is so-so at best but he's learned the art of sliding into position for a charge or putting a shot into the stands. Altho when you swat a shot into the stands, the other team still gets the ball back. ...Also... Typically it's not his man he's taking a charge from or blocking. So while those are 'pretty' defensive stats, they don't get to the meat and potatoes of what the team needs on the court.

                            I still argue he could mean more to this team by taking a step back, swallowing the ego, closing his mouth, opening his mind, and simply becoming an overpaid role player.

                            When I think of JO I think of the NJ series when he first tasted the PO's with the Pacers and he had that big game (or big half as it were). Everyone was speaking his praises, including JO himself. Funny thing was, NJ adjusted and JO was minimized the rest of the way (including a stupid turnover in crunchtime of the deciding game which has been forgotten thanks to Reggie's last second heave). All JO's big talk meant nothing. That's the story of his career.

                            -Bball
                            Last edited by Bball; 06-19-2008, 01:24 AM.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a hater.
                              Not that I'd ever ignore you, but admins can't be put on ignore.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Cowherd: JO most overrated

                                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                                brian scalabrine +1 Championship
                                charles barkley 0 Championship


                                first ballot hall of famer?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X