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

Why make this statement???

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

  • Re: Why make this statement???

    Peck, you are going to blow my cover.

    But what Peck says is correct. Respect for the position of coach. Criticizing the coach is always the easiest thing to do (I know it has gone beyond that at this point this season)

    Typically what I try to do is present the other side. When someone says JOB is an idiot for going small. I think it worth pointing out that at times going small is good (or hey, at least lets discuss the issue rationally) . When Jim says the younger players need to earn their playing time or that they need to learn to win as they earn their playing time. While everyone is having heart failure over those comments, I like to point out that they make a lot of sense and if the coach was anyone other than JOB you wouldn't be ready to jump out the window. lets at least discuss these coaching issues rationally - that has pretty much stopped months ago.

    Comment


    • Re: Why make this statement???

      Originally posted by Peck View Post

      I think right now he is in defiant mode with the fans, believe me I think he knows what most people think but just doesn't care.

      Couldn't agree more. It seems his mindset is his way is right, and everyone else is wrong. He must feel he's smarter and superior to others that don't see it his way.

      Comment


      • Re: Why make this statement???

        Do you, UB, now feel compelled to try and rationalize everything he does though?

        I understand the counter argument to McRoberts, I really do. This is his second stop, and while I think he's serviceable, he doesn't do anything that makes him stand out. If we just focus on him, and him alone, there wouldn't be a month's worth of arguing about him.

        But the whole situation boils down to, who would you rather prefer play the 4. Josh or Mike?

        There's nothing wrong with telling people they should try and be more civil, i.e. not calling Jim stupid etc. But at the same time, IMHO you try and rationalize the undefensible.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Why make this statement???

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Do you, UB, now feel compelled to try and rationalize everything he does though?

          I understand the counter argument to McRoberts, I really do. This is his second stop, and while I think he's serviceable, he doesn't do anything that makes him stand out. If we just focus on him, and him alone, there wouldn't be a month's worth of arguing about him.

          But the whole situation boils down to, who would you rather prefer play the 4. Josh or Mike?

          There's nothing wrong with telling people they should try and be more civil, i.e. not calling Jim stupid etc. But at the same time, IMHO you try and rationalize the undefensible.
          I think everything Jim does has a rational explanation - I honestly believe that and I try to present that rational explanation. That doesn't mean I agree with Jim on everything - far from it.

          It would be better if we discussed Josh McRoberts without regard to Jim O'Brien - it seems as though everything we discuss is tinged by Jim and that causes the discussion to get really heated. I often try to steer away from Jim and just discuss the actual issue.
          I love discussing basketball issues - Discussing Jim O'Brien stopped being enjoyable at least 4 months ago.

          As to your question - would I rather have Mike or Josh pay the 4. Honestly that isn't a big issue with me either way - I don't have a strong opinion. I can see it both ways. But when almost everyone in the forum is saying play Josh at the 4, and Jim plays Mike or D. Jones, I like to point out the advantages of doing so
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-04-2010, 03:03 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Why make this statement???

            I'm sure you've said either directly or indirectly, and I've just forgotten, but please tell me you work in some capacity with a PR firm?
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Why make this statement???

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I'm sure you've said either directly or indirectly, and I've just forgotten, but please tell me you work in some capacity with a PR firm?
              No I don't. Insurance Company. Are you saying I'm in the wrong line of work?

              Comment


              • Re: Why make this statement???

                Ummm, maybe not, depending on what you do for the company. My dad is an insurance agent, I constantly hear him talk his way through situations.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Why make this statement???

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  I think I'm older than you. It's close for sure. You are grasping at straws with this angle.

                  Bob Hill was a better coach than JOB. JOB is in Versace land or George Irvine land, and you are defending him.

                  I'd love to hear you explain how those 2 got the short end of it and should have been kept around too.

                  At least back then when Stipo got hurt, SMITS PLAYED. We didn't hear "well let's just go small ball because Rik is no good".


                  Not only that, but Rik even said in a recent article that he feels that being thrown to the wolves HELPED HIM learn the game quicker and improve sooner.

                  JOB's response to that was to play Rasho 1200 minutes and Roy 1000. Do you want to make the case that Roy would be equal or worse now if he'd played 1700 minutes last year and Rasho played 500?
                  And the difference is, Bo (and even Q-tip head) adjusted their gameplans for the roster they had. Its still popular to call Bo a "soft, offensive-minded" coach because that's the roster he had. While Larry Brown was re-making the Pacers into a tougher, defensive minded roster, Bo Hill was taking the Spurs to 61 wins and the WCFs. So that's always been a false argmument anyway.

                  I thought Carlisle had personality/ relationship problems, but I never complained about his x's and o's and complimented him numerous times (especially during the 61-win season but after that as well) for adapting to his roster.

                  O'Brien doesn't have a particuarly good roster to work with in the first place - right now (I still believe Tyler, Rush, Hibbert, Price can "grow into" being a better roster.) But he compounds the problem by forcing them into a gameplan that doesn't fit the roster (and its a gameplan that I don't like, either.)
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Why make this statement???

                    Think how you would feel if you heard Laker fans demanding Phil play Morrison more,
                    You really have no idea what you are talking about, and you don't even realize it either.

                    Ammo has 3229 minutes in his career including 2326 his ROOKIE YEAR ALONE.

                    Chris Quinn has 2849 minutes in his career, with a high of 1340 his 2nd season.

                    McRoberts has 537 CAREER minutes. Not even half what either of your two worthless player examples got in ONE SEASON.

                    JOE FREAKING ALEXANDER HAS MORE CAREER MINUTES than Josh, and that was all his rookie year in Millwaukee.

                    And Josh is playing for a crap team in desperate need of bigs right now. The backup PF is 6'6" DJones or DGranger. The backup center is Solomon Jones and he's not getting PT either.

                    Comparing getting Ammo more "let's take a look time" behind Kobe in LA to Josh playing behind Troy Murphy is ridiculous.

                    Plus, Josh is 22, Ammo is 25 and Quinn is 26.


                    It's not the same at all and I can't respect the opinion of anyone that says it is. AFTER Josh gets his 1400 minute season, then another 800 and is clearly going nowhere, everyone will stop talking about why he is no longer playing.

                    Josh hasn't been proven anything yet, and for a team that DESPERATELY needs front line help.


                    This isn't Quinn or Ammo, this is New Orleans refusing to play Collison after Paul got hurt.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Why make this statement???

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Bob Hill was a better coach than JOB. JOB is in Versace land or George Irvine land, and you are defending him.

                      Yay! More love for Bo Hill!

                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • Re: Why make this statement???

                        [QUOTE=Unclebuck;968992]

                        Discussing Jim O'Brien stopped being enjoyable at least 4 months ago./QUOTE]



                        Hmmm, about the time the season started.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Why make this statement???

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          No I don't. Insurance Company. Are you saying I'm in the wrong line of work?

                          I thought you were Jimmy's pitch man. J/K

                          Comment


                          • Re: Why make this statement???

                            As to your question - would I rather have Mike or Josh pay the 4. Honestly that isn't a big issue with me either way - I don't have a strong opinion. I can see it both ways. But when almost everyone in the forum is saying play Josh at the 4, and Jim plays Mike or D. Jones, I like to point out the advantages of doing so
                            This should be great...

                            Neither shoots a good 3, neither is a strong post defender (for DJ it's the height issue, he can work a SG in the post fine). Dun is tall enough to be good rebounder, but he's not a great footwork rebounder and has zero hops. Neither run transition faster than Josh, Dun is slow period and DJones just doesn't have the stride Josh does.

                            But other than all that, how is it a team is better off with them at the PF instead of Josh?



                            The "Josh debate" isn't about Josh, and I'm not the only one to make this point even in the last few pages. This is 100% a JOB debate. This is Roe v Wade, where the case becomes the debate point that represents the larger issue.

                            If it were only the Josh PT it would still be odd for a team that needs bigs not to be playing him, but it could be overlooked.

                            But it's also Roy last year, and Rush (remember the month or so of 5-8 mpg/DNP mid-year when Dun returned), and Price now, and DJones and Solo.

                            It's TJ Ford going from full starter to total DNP back to full starter. It's 2 PG starting all the time, but then no PT for the 3rd PG in spite of this (70 mpg for your top 2 PGs, ditto last year).

                            It's snide comments about Roy, Rush, and Josh, but nothing about Troy or Dun. It's positive comments about players that imply future playing time followed by no playing time.

                            It's about "see, I told you, we lose without small ball" followed by a string of small ball losses without any "whoops, guess I was wrong about that".


                            Do you realize what happens if they draft Favors this year? He'll be the only non-injured top 10 pick to get 300 minutes for the year, and promptly be labeled a bust.



                            No one cares about the losing right now. This guy isn't just in the slowest car out there, he's driving it into the wall, in reverse, through the infield, and against traffic and telling us all along that it's not his fault.

                            He's not making the most of what he's got, he's making the least of it.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Why make this statement???

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              BTW guys my man Uncle Buck has been taking a beating on here (deservedly so ) but let's not lose sight of one thing.

                              U.B. is not a JOB supporter, although he has made the mistake of allowing himself to look like one.

                              He is opposed to the over the top reactions to every loss from early in the season.

                              If you actually listen or read what he is saying you will see he does not think O'Brien should be here.

                              He is just trying to be a couple of things

                              1. Devils advocate.

                              2. Keep the level of respect for the position. In other words you may not like the office holder but you should respect the office.

                              Besides what would the day be without Uncle Buck making BrushwithDeath lose his mind. Before that it was WetBob who absolutely hated U.B.
                              Well the issue is that the guy holding the position has no respect for the position. We are the ones demanding some respect for it by JOB, so UB is missing the point there if he's asking us to "be nice".

                              JOB's attitude has been really horrible. He's not just stubborn, but snide and caustic. Rick might have come off as cold, but he was typically polite and lightly positive. He was really good about bringing out true positives on players, not just BSing and not throwing them under the bus.

                              We forget that Rick was the calm one after the brawl. While Larry Brown was losing his mind, Rick was the one staying calm and on track with keeping the team together.

                              I can't even imagine JOB here during the brawl.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Why make this statement???

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I think everything Jim does has a rational explanation - I honestly believe that and I try to present that rational explanation. That doesn't mean I agree with Jim on everything - far from it.

                                It would be better if we discussed Josh McRoberts without regard to Jim O'Brien - it seems as though everything we discuss is tinged by Jim and that causes the discussion to get really heated. I often try to steer away from Jim and just discuss the actual issue.
                                I love discussing basketball issues - Discussing Jim O'Brien stopped being enjoyable at least 4 months ago.

                                As to your question - would I rather have Mike or Josh pay the 4. Honestly that isn't a big issue with me either way - I don't have a strong opinion. I can see it both ways. But when almost everyone in the forum is saying play Josh at the 4, and Jim plays Mike or D. Jones, I like to point out the advantages of doing so
                                Okay, so please..this isn't sarcastic reply or anything, just..if you see a rational explanation, please answer.

                                1. Why did Price lose his spot in the rotation? In the situation the Pacers are in, when we only want one of our point guards, why isn't that point guard playing?

                                And now, that TJ is starting to really stink and not care, and Earl is getting tired, AND JOB is starting both of them, why isn't Price getting any time?

                                Because, I don't see a rational explanation.

                                2. Why the comments about Josh? On the same night that you compliment BRush for his defense, and the next night praise Danny for his efforts..and then not play Josh in any competitive time at all.

                                3. Why has Hibbert been pulled from the starting lineup?


                                Look, honestly, if JOB's crazy rotation was winning games, and we were in the playoff race, then yes, I can see where there could be a rational explanation, but in this context? Really?

                                We're rebuilding. And we know that the Pacers organization wants to at least keep Hibbert and Price. We aren't winning anything this season, so what in god's name is the rational explanation for those two to be steadily losing minutes. Particularly when the guys that the Pacer's organization doesn't want (earl, Tj, Dun, Troy, Head) are getting plenty of minutes? Rational explanation?

                                Honestly, I think the explanation is simply this.
                                1. JOB doesn't like any player that can't hit the three. It's why, of the younger guys, Brandon gets the most time. Why he doesn't like Josh getting minutes, why he's quick to pull Hibbert.
                                2. In the choice of Vets vs Rookies, JOB always feels that vets are better. Despite no matter how much evidence to the contrary (and there is a lot in the cases of Price vs. TJ and Earl) I think, of all the younger guys, just from what JOB says, he actually likes Price the best. Price does exactly what JOB wants (pushes the ball, finds threes in transition, best shooter) JOB has never made a negative comment about Price, like he has Josh, Hibbert, and Brandon. The problem he has, is unlike Josh, Hibbert, and Brandon...Price has two vets at his position in the rotation. It's also why, the younger guys have to "earn" their playing time (apparently, out playing vets in practice and in games doesn't earn the time..so I'd like to know what would ) where as vets do not. They get it by default.
                                3. JOB's still trying to win, so he sticks strongly to his beliefs.

                                Problem is, his beliefs are not rational, are not contributing to winning OR developing the younger guys. And are a negative to the team as a whole.


                                The most positive thing about this season though, is that I do think the team likes each other. Particularly, those who are supposed to be part of the core group. They still cheer for each other, and help each other out. There are some exceptions there, but I think as a whole, they like each other. It's JOB they can't stand.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X