-
-
Re: Why make this statement???
I think just the opposite. The comments last night were probably 10 minutes after a loss - he was upset, I hardly think he'll say anything like that to Josh today when either Jim or one of the other coaches meets with Josh to go over his play.
By the way I have heard Jim be very disagreeable in his post game press conferences pretty much all season long towards many of the players. We've had several threads about itComment
-
Coach Vogel on the Chicago crowd in game 4 : "I only heard pacers fans. I didn't see any red, I saw Pacers fans I saw yellow and blue, and I heard Pacers chants. That's all I heard the whole game."
http://www.cacawebdev.comComment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
I feel Jim's comments were a tad ignorant. On the other end, I'm sure Josh wasn't jumping for joy of his game. The overall demeanor killed whatever "joy" I'm sure Josh or any other of the players had of his showing last night. BUT, at the same time I feel his efforts shouldn't have gone unnoticed.
I feel that it's a better time than not to get him into the rotation permanently.
Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
Buck, we've ridden together on a lot of this, but I think you just jumped the shark.
It is impossible for me to think you didn't see this coming the minute the words left JOB's mouth.
I also can't believe you'd see this as an "oh, well" comment. There's a point at which the responsibility for the toads coming out of one's mouth has to hit home. If nothing else, with all the other piling on that is taking place, one would think JOB would realize he needs to be a little more careful about what he says.BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
No, I'm not excusing it, just trying to put it into proper perspective. coaches especially right after a loss say a lot of things they shouldn't. Stan Van Gundy I'm sure in Orlando gets critized for his post game comments all the time and many other coaches too.
BillS, Nooooo, say it ain't so, I thought we rode together until the season ends. No I have no one, nothing, I'm all alone - it is lonely,
Does anyone have the video of the press conference?? I would like to see itComment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
Wells: Your team just got destroyed by the best team in the league, your lead scorer was embarrassed by Ron Artest, your point guard was joking around with players on the other team. You also have one of the worst teams in the league, as I like to point out...But let me just ask - were you pleased with how McRoberts played?
O'Brien: (Bleep) you.
Can't say I would be in a great state of mind to answer that question either...but it is sweet of all of you to stick up for young Josh. He might need a hug, too
Last edited by nerveghost; 03-03-2010, 11:03 AM.Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
He did say soemthing nice about Rush (which he does quite often, but I know many of you don't think he ever does) I'll be looking for the next nice thing he says about Josh.
Pacers.com
“He’s trying to do whatever to score. I thought Brandon Rush did a really good job on him. He finds the way. If he’s not knocking down shots, he’ll get to the foul line. He’s a very aggressive player.” – O'Brien on Kobe BryantComment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
The problem is no longer simply that JOB isn't in love with playing the kiddies. It's seeming more and more that he's actively and openly antagonistic against them.
Brandon Rush? AJ Price? Josh McRoberts? For all of these guys, it's not just that Obie doesn't seem to be supporting them. He actually seems to be frustrated by their success.This space for rent.Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
How easy is it to find something good to say about your 2nd year wing after he just played a lights-out defensive game against the best scorer in the league?He did say soemthing nice about Rush (which he does quite often, but I know many of you don't think he ever does) I'll be looking for the next nice thing he says about Josh.
Pacers.com
“He’s trying to do whatever to score. I thought Brandon Rush did a really good job on him. He finds the way. If he’s not knocking down shots, he’ll get to the foul line. He’s a very aggressive player.” – O'Brien on Kobe Bryant
He doesn't get a free pass for that.Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
There was no reason for JOB to make that comment at all. What does that do? I wonder if the players respect him as the coach, and if not, would a comment like that really motivate a player, or damage them?
I love how he used the word irrelevant describing McBob's play. Well, that's exactly what his comment was, irrelevant.
I just don't get this guy. New coach please.Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
Again, this willingness to chastise multiple players (particularly Rush) in the media is indicative of either a complete lack of a filter on his part, which I highly doubt, especially after a loss of a game that he can't possibly be very upset about due to the infinitessimal odds of our even competing with the Lakers, let alone winning it, or if he does have a filter as most do when on camera or mic, he could easily be expected IMO to do far worse when those items that expose this behavior to the public are no longer present in a private setting.
That said, I do think that he gets very upset over losing, especially when he looks bad in the process, which leads to defensiveness in his responses during post game interviews, especially when the questions are regarding anything that he has a hand in as coach. That is human nature, but with him it seems more pronounced IMO, and this reaction on his part after a game that has more positive meaning as a loss than it would have as a win was really uncalled for, but no apology or change in O'B will be forthcoming. It will be as if nothing ever happened, IMO, in his mind because it simply reflects his disdain for Josh and the questions that his lack of playing time are bringing, and likely will again until Josh is all but forgotten due to not being seen once more.Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
Peck, I totally agree. I hate when people play the semantic games or go with this "who really knows" angle as if we've never interacted with other human beings before.
People have thoughts and emotions running inside, and no matter what they try those things will taint their comments. This is how experts learn to read for lying or even how your mom knew what you really had been up to.
JOB is obviously feeling some pressure about Josh. He's continued to have a weird chip on his shoulder in regards to Josh, Rush, Price and Roy. I think because of their draft status he's been more willing to hold down Josh and Price, but he's aware of the outside desire for these guys to play.
You non-attenders might not realize that their are catcalls from time to time and definitely big applause when these guys get in games. If Price were to come off the bench in the first quarter in Conseco at this point he'd get a huge round of applause.
So JOB is on the defensive. He's not going to play Josh and he's pre-excusing it just like he did with Roy and Rush last year and Price this year. There's always a reason, usually one that could easily also apply to someone he's not complaining about.
Did he dismiss Watson's first half assists because it was a loss?
BTW, let's say you are Buck or BillS and want to defend this, let me ask this specific question - how does JOB's comments HELP DEVELOP JOSH? He plays well, does some good things, proves himself ready to go after a long period of DNPs and instead of just complimenting him and reinforcing those positives so he knows there is a reward for them, instead he digs at him like some barter person trying to drive down the price.
He is HORRIBLE with the kids. Not just neutral, he's a big negative; a negative coach when it comes to developing youth on a team who's only reason for existence at this point is to develop youth for future seasons.
I'm not using hyperbole when I say that this guy actually offends me, and pretty regularly. It's insulting to my intelligence and carries a mean-spirited streak as well. He's combative to the fan criticism when really if he'd taken some of that criticism to heart and mulled it over he'd see that ultimately a lot of it would help him out in the long term.
And as we've also pointed out, he drew similar criticism from 2 Coach of the Year winners and guys who have both won 60 games - Phil Jackson and Rick Carlisle. If it were me I'd perk up my ears when guys with that pedigree had something to say.
JOB is the guy that tells Ted Williams to pipe down when he starts talking about hitting secrets because he's got his own way and it's working just fine.Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-03-2010, 11:50 AM.
Comment
-
Re: Why make this statement???
:insert foot into mouth: .... :look like a horses a**:
.... 
I would have loved to be there & followed up with:
"So Jim, lets turn the tables a bit. Let's say instead of looking at just one game's results we looked at the entire season's results, and lets say that you are Josh, & Larry or Mr. Simon is you, and this question was asked directly after the Houston game just last week, & the answer you gave about Josh's game was the same Larry/Mr. Simon gave when asked about you & that win - How would you feel?"
Then:
"Now Jim, lets put into contex that Josh is your youngest player, someone who has hardly played this year, who went up against agruably the best front line in the game today, on arguable the best team in the league, & 9 of Josh's points were in the first half that kept you in the game. Was Josh's contribution irrelavent in the first half because it was still a game, or was it made irrelavent in the second because Granger can't dribble, Watson started thinking he was TJ Ford, and you started worrying about being clowned for your coaching decisions by the Zen-Master again after the game, or is it both & are you pi$$ed because you will now have to answer even MORE McBob/PT questions?"Last edited by PacerGuy; 03-03-2010, 11:45 AM."Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
Comment
- If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
- 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:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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.
Tweet
all rights reserved Nije Dei Ltd
Powered by vBulletin® Version 6.1.0
Copyright © 2025 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2025 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved.
All times are GMT-5. This page was generated at 10:43 PM.
Comment