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

JOb is firmly with the vets

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

  • #46
    Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

    Could the insistence on playing the veterans down the stretch in games and criticizing the young guys be part of showcasing the vets for trades while keeping demand for our young talent as filler as low as possible, all the while improving our draft positioning?

    This would explain why not playing our most effective lineups / players together, and then playing them in ways that make the overall team underperform to a level that even Kravitz thinks the players are trying to get O'Brien fired sometimes.

    The thing that pretty much refutes that is the fact that Danny, just like last year, was playing big minutes while not practicing despite having one long term heel injury that wasn't healing and then on the knee injury. Unless of course that was to generate ticket sales as opposed to winning games.

    Nah, I doubt that the Pacers are purposely doing these things. Perhaps I only wish that this were part of the Three Year Plan.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

      Originally posted by GuffeyRay View Post
      Gee another bash Murph thread disguised with different title. Special.
      Gee, another guffeyray post complaining about people complaining about Murphy..............Thanks.

      On to Obie. He is a horrible coach, that is obvious. And every single one of these players that are drawing criticism deserve it.

      Indianapolis is way too soft. Imagine the criticism Troy would endure just about anywhere else.
      Last edited by Taterhead; 12-10-2009, 10:22 AM.
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Tyler was dead tired when he came out of the game in the 4th quarterm, sure he could have brought him back in around the 4 minute mark but I'll take Jim's word on it about Tyler's inexperienced pick and roll defense - which is a very difficult thing for young players to grasp and we know the Blazers were going to Roy 100% on pick and rolls in the last 5 minutes of the game.
        I haven't read this, but I'm fairly certain Tyler waved to the bench to be taken out. He did this twice before he was subbed out.

        I'll have to watch the broadcast and see if I can pick it up on there.
        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
          I disagree. With Carlisle, Indiana made the playoffs each year he was coach except for his final year. Plus, Indiana was a projected championship team until the brawl and poor player decisions derailed the entire franchise. I still believe Carlisle was the better coach between him and JOB. Look at their respective records...
          I agree, but Carlisle's downfall was that he, like Bird, hinged the entire teams fortunes on JO, counting on him to be a leader and 'franchise player'. Especially his last season, I got sick of the entire team dishing ball into JO, watching him go 1 on 2, 1 on 3, while the other players stood around. It was boring to watch and brought the team no real success.

          JOB, on the other hand, appears to be more worried about keeping his job. As such he is playing the same tired, losing hand he was dealt when he came instead of considering the greater good of the franchise by playing the young guys.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

            Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
            I haven't read this, but I'm fairly certain Tyler waved to the bench to be taken out. He did this twice before he was subbed out.
            Tyler had played from the 5:16 mark of the third to the 7:56 mark of the 4th.

            From Indy Cornrows:

            After the game, JOB mentioned that along with the minutes Hansbrough played, he also feels the rook has more to learn before he's ready for winning time and that his pick n' roll defense still leaves them exposed. That's why Hansbrough wasn't tapped to return to the game. Not sure even JOB believes his line of reasoning to the question, but the reality is, the coach managed the rotation quite well. The vets just didn't have enough for Brandon Roy and believe me, the rookies wouldn't have either. Besides Hansbrough would've had to play 17-straight minutes and Price 15-straight minutes if left in to finish the game. They certainly aren't ready for that type of burn.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

              The thing that bugs me is not that many posters disagree with Jim O'Brien, no problem with that, we can discuss that, some will agree some will disagree. But two things bug me 1) when posters disgaree with what Jim does and then instead of stating why they disagree and what they would have done differently, they place evil (for lack of a better term to make my point) motives on Jim. Like the thread last week about Jim is just going to play Mike more than he should or this thread where it is suggested he is only playing some guys because they make a lot of money. Questioning the motives of the coach IMO is too over-the-top.
              2) forgot my second point -

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                Tyler had played from the 5:16 mark of the third to the 7:56 mark of the 4th.

                From Indy Cornrows:
                Good quote from Cornrows.

                I can accept Tyler being tired. I doubt AJ was.

                But, at least once, I'd like to see the team making the run finish the game, and see what happens.

                I think we would have had a much better result. I also think Brandon Roy toyed with us all game and simply took over at the three minute mark. He is a beast.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  The thing that bugs me is not that many posters disagree with Jim O'Brien, no problem with that, we can discuss that, some will agree some will disagree. But two things bug me 1) when posters disgaree with what Jim does and then instead of stating why they disagree and what they would have done differently, they place evil (for lack of a better term to make my point) motives on Jim. Like the thread last week about Jim is just going to play Mike more than he should or this thread where it is suggested he is only playing some guys because they make a lot of money. Questioning the motives of the coach IMO is too over-the-top.
                  2) forgot my second point -
                  I completely disagree with your second point, and I think you are evil.

                  Regarding the first point, I think it's a good one. I can really see how people veer toward the theory that JOB has to play the large contracts to keep their value. It makes sense to me, but I have noticed how you and several others strenuously disagree. I even did a poll on the question a while back and was surprised by how many members here, smart ones, disagreed strongly with the theory. That fact has kept me, to date, from believing that JOB does what he does to keep up the value of large contracts.

                  That said, if you strip away the conspiracy theory that JOB is forced to play the larger contract players, it leaves you with him stubbornly sticking with players who have given us only losses, and whose plus minus is terrible, and whose play, on the face of it, seems largely inferior to the subs (my opinion anyway). And it is THOSE circumstances, flimsy at best for justifying the starters minutes and finishing minutes of TJ and Murphy, that lead to the conspiracy theories.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                    Ya I don't believe the large contracts must play theory. I think he'd play Stacy if he thought they could get some wins. He said in last weeks radio show. He's trying to be patient, but not dumb.

                    I think he's to that point where he's feeling the pressure of losing and all of the frustration that goes with that.

                    It think he's playing the guys who he thinks can have the best shot at winning, if you agree with who he thinks is the main problem.

                    I think he's in self preservation mode, mostly, that isn't mutually exclusive to the team goals, infact it is the same thing in a microcosm, win.

                    I just don't think Bird is pulling puppet strings on this, although I have heard Obie say he talks to Bird often, I think, daily. I just don't think it's micromanaged by Bird, Morway, or Simon. Part of the reason I don't think it's micromanaged is that Bird didn't even know how involved Harter was in the defensive concepts last year, I don't think he's given some overt or hidden edict to play high salary players.

                    Of course, this is all speculation. I could see a scenario where management says play Murphy and Ford big minutes through the trade deadline cuz we want to maximize value. I don't believe that, but it could be possible.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      That said, if you strip away the conspiracy theory that JOB is forced to play the larger contract players, it leaves you with him stubbornly sticking with players who have given us only losses, and whose plus minus is terrible, and whose play, on the face of it, seems largely inferior to the subs (my opinion anyway). And it is THOSE circumstances, flimsy at best for justifying the starters minutes and finishing minutes of TJ and Murphy, that lead to the conspiracy theories.
                      The only player that you could maybe make the point about is Murphy. Ford played and played rather well in the 5 game winning streak. And don't forget the only game the pacers have won in about 4 weeks here was the Clippers game and Murphy hit two big threes in that game late in the 4th quarter. Ford hit several big shots that were huge in winning at NY.

                      My point is while it seems so many cannot possibly see why Jim does what he does, I often can and do explain why he does what he does, you might disagree with it, but playing Murphy and Ford for example at the end of a close game is without question in my mind within the realm of reasonableness for a coach, in fact I think most any coach coaching this team would do the same.

                      Edit: yeah I don't think Bird micro-manages or tell Jim who to play. Bird has on several ocassions said he would never do that and I think if Bird or the Simons really put the hammer down on Jim to play certain players, Jim would walk, he's done it before when he left the Celtics.
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-10-2009, 11:17 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        Tyler had played from the 5:16 mark of the third to the 7:56 mark of the 4th.

                        From Indy Cornrows:
                        This is my biggest complaint with Obie, Tyler was obviously having a good game and instead of recognizing that and taking him out a little early so that he would be well rested for the last 5 minutes to actually help us win the game, he just leaves him out there for 10 minutes and lets him gas, sits him on the bench the rest of the night and gives some lame pnr defense excuse.

                        What about the rest of the game? What about boards, post defense, post scoring and rebounding............or the effort he gives on every end of the court and the contagious effect that has on the rest of the team? Or the free throws he produces just by being too stubborn to give up on a play? The kid struggles with one aspect and he gets the hook? The best players should play, and he has shown he is already years ahead of Troy Murphy despite being his junior. So let the kid play and work through the kinks and stop pretending that he is just not ready to appease a veteran.

                        And furthurmore to address Bucks point. I agree the criticism goes too far and there is no conspiracy by Obie. But what do people expect when he treats the young guys with such bias. Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster are the two most limited players on the entire team by a large margin. They both have glaring weaknesses. Yet they never get the hook? And anyone who thinks this is just another case of the fans clamoring for the young guys like they did under Carlisle or Brown is mistaken. Those were good teams that were producing wins with productive players. This team is none of the above.

                        I am actually quite shocked at the level of acceptance for this kind of lazy basketball in Indiana of all places. It makes me sick to think about that.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          The only player that you could maybe make the point about is Murphy. Ford played and played rather well in the 5 game winning streak. And don't forget the only game the pacers have won in about 4 weeks here was the Clippers game and Murphy hit two big threes in that game late in the 4th quarter. Ford hit several big shots that were huge in winning at NY.

                          My point is while it seems so many cannot possibly see why Jim does what he does, I often can and do explain why he does what he does, you might disagree with it, but playing Murphy and Ford for example at the end of a close game is without question in my mind within the realm of reasonableness for a coach, in fact I think most any coach coaching this team would do the same.
                          OK Buck, but what about all the games TJ and Troy just haven't shown up? I don't think a short stretch of descent play or two big threes in one game trump that.

                          The team is bad, the question is why. Usually in these instances the players that play the most minutes are where you look for the answers.
                          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            The only player that you could maybe make the point about is Murphy. Ford played and played rather well in the 5 game winning streak. And don't forget the only game the pacers have won in about 4 weeks here was the Clippers game and Murphy hit two big threes in that game late in the 4th quarter. Ford hit several big shots that were huge in winning at NY.

                            My point is while it seems so many cannot possibly see why Jim does what he does, I often can and do explain why he does what he does, you might disagree with it, but playing Murphy and Ford for example at the end of a close game is without question in my mind within the realm of reasonableness for a coach, in fact I think most any coach coaching this team would do the same.

                            Edit: yeah I don't think Bird micro-manages or tell Jim who to play. Bird has on several ocassions said he would never do that and I think if Bird or the Simons really put the hammer down on Jim to play certain players, Jim would walk, he's done it before when he left the Celtics.
                            Well said.

                            But from where I sit, by and large the runs have come from the second unit players and the skids have come from TJ, Murph and company. There are always opposite examples on both sides to pull from, like the ones you just noted.

                            We'll have to agree to disagree, and JOB doesn't have to agree to anything I believe, unfortunately.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                              The conspiracy theories at least give O'B more credibility. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand why he handles the team and its players the way he does sometimes.

                              Also, if any part of the conspiracy theories are true, O'B is not the initiator of those plans, he simply carries them out.

                              That would explain the extension to O'B's contract, and why, despite unsatisfactory results, and the fact that his coaching style has not changed at all this year compared to the last two (which is my opinion, and one I know some here disagree with), that the last word from Bird not that long ago was that he does not blame O'B for what has happened.

                              But, admittedly, it is a stretch to believe such theories.

                              It also, at times, is difficult to see what the Three Year Plan really is with our only advantage going forward being two expiring contracts, one of which is Murph who is such a unique combination of positive and negative factors that it is difficult to see where he fits in with most teams, not just ours, and Dunleavy, who is currently returning from significant time out and an uncertain future healthwise while being the backbone of our offensive execution once his conditioning returns, and who the Pacers would sorely miss after either trading or simply letting his contract expire.

                              Otherwise, we have virtually no one outside Foster or Hibbert, neither being world beaters at this point, who can be considered realistic trading pieces, unless teams are willing to take a flyer on Rush, who obviously has many issues, or Dahntay Jones, who I maintain is less effective offensively than his stats show, and who Denver would have kept if they thought he was effective enough defensively to be the stopper that his reputation indicated, unless he was actually a hindrance to overall team chemistry due to his being on the same team with other strong personalities like Billups and Anthony. In that most competitive teams have players with strong personalities in key positions, unless we receive one of them in any trade involving Dahntay, that may be an issue going forward.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: JOb is firmly with the vets

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                they did win 36 games last season
                                And JOB's preffered lineup has won ONCE this season. And it's this season that matters.

                                I don't understand how you can continue to defend him. His stubbornness does nothing for the team.

                                In a lot of cases those 90% of coaches are right, and the veterans do help you win. But in this case, the veterans have not been doing that. And it's obvious. And with Granger out, the Pacers are not making the playoffs. So why not let the rookies sink or swim? ESPECIALLY when they were so clearly out playing the veterans.

                                Heck, if Hansborough was tired, give him a three minute break. I kinda doubt Price was tired, seeing as I've seen him play a 61 minute game before, I think he could have handled the other seven minutes. These rookies are winners too..JOB made a mistake, and he's stated he's going to continue making that mistake. I wonder, if Price had made most of his shots, say made 7-10, ran the team well, took the lead back..would he have STILL put Ford in at the end, and when Watson was healthy again would Price continue to not get playing time? I think so. I think the man's so stubborn he goes with his lineup and doesn't watch the game.

                                If JOB is trying to win, I can obviously, and most of us, can come up with explanations over why he does what he does. But having an explanation doesn't mean it's right, and at some point when that explanation has been proven wrong *the veterans consistently losing* he won't change his theory. That's a bad coach and a really stubborn man.
                                Last edited by Sookie; 12-10-2009, 11:44 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X