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

Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 8
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
  • #61
    Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

    Because I must be open minded to a DRASTIC CHANGE despite it's enormously low probability, I don't want to just bash JOB if he does chose to do this. However wouldn't something like this only further prove that at the very least JOB of last 2 years had zero clue what he was doing with the roster.

    Here's the logic - you need a banger PF who has strong lateral speed and brings tons of disruptive energy. You needed it two years ago which is why you draft Tyler.

    Josh randomly gets a chance to come in 2 years ago and does things like fight for tough boards that Troy couldn't get, gets switched onto SFs and proves he can keep in front of them even 15 feet away from the rim, and shows outstanding hops for oops, blocks and general disruption near the rim.

    Does he pick up too many fouls and not have a well developed offensive game, sure, but a good coach realizes he's lucked into finding part of the solution to a major problem - tough PF play. He also realizes Josh is so young he's virtually a rookie and is paid zilch so he can be here for the long haul.

    Contrast this with Troy (and Rasho the year before) who make so much money and are old enough that they are certain to be primary pieces moved as soon as possible. In fact many GMs would have considered buying out Rasho for the savings and to make room for youth development.

    What's the worst that happens if you start feeding Josh those 10-15 minutes (ditto Hibbert at C) instead of your slow footed bigs who aren't part of the long term picture? If they don't improve then you find out sooner that you need to punt on them, and you don't miss the playoffs "more" somehow (forget the draft pick improvement even since that's not the goal).

    But if they do improve then by now when you announce to the fanbase that Josh could get 36 minutes no one thinks it's nuts and no one doubts his ability. It's exactly the opposite. The fans would have been seeing these guys develop and anticipation would have been growing. See Reggie's rookie year BEHIND JOHN LONG, who didn't exactly have a bad year himself. A kid proving himself off the bench gets people interested in seeing more.


    And as a coach it means that by the time you are ready to rely on him, he's improved enough to make good on those kinds of minutes.


    And then on top of that strategic benefit, you clearly spent the last season fending off chants at home for Josh to play, callers to the show lighting you up for your approach to Josh's PT, and the entire "irrelevant" scandal which made you look like a horse's a** and irrationally stubborn.


    And if anything summed up the last 2 years with JOB that moment was it. You needed good PF play. Josh gave you a nice burst with some chance PT vs an elite team. During that stretch of play (the first half) your team was neck and neck with said elite team. And you dismissed it as irrelevant rather than wishing he could have kept it up for another 14 minutes and maybe helped get the win (not to mention wishing the rest of the team could have picked up the slack in the 2nd half too).



    JOB is the anti-MacGyver. Yes it's a tough spot, but when you luck into MINI solutions that when added together give you a big solution and you fail to recognize them then it's no surprise you're not finding success.

    And overcorrecting to "Josh starts and goes 36 minutes" after wasting 2 years of zero development time with him only exacerbates the problem. Now Josh will wilt under that PT and look foolish taking tons of 3s and JOB will be able to say "see, I knew he stunk".

    Apply the tool correctly and you can get the job done. But to intentionally use it incorrectly to prove that you knew it wasn't a helpful tool is a Quixotic approach to proving your strategy is better than the fans realize.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 10-02-2010, 08:45 AM.

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

      Wait, I thought O'Brien hated Josh (I could dig out dozens, maybe hundreds of posts) and I thought O'Brien was too stubborn to change.
      That was fans talking about JOB THE LAST TWO YEARS.

      JOB today - Josh is the type of PF I could start and use for 36 minutes

      JOB last year - Josh's play was irrelevant.

      That's JOB vs JOB, not vs the fans. No way in hell Josh improved that much in the last few months of the summer. Not possible. Not 5 minutes to 36 minutes improved. Danny didn't do that, Reggie didn't, Rik didn't, Dale didn't.

      Josh would WIN MOST IMPROVED if he were to simply adequately start and play 36 minute as, say, the 28th best starting PF. People would be talking about him coming out of nowhere.

      And who put him in "nowhere"??? JOB the last two years.


      All this suggests is that perhaps JOB has STOPPED BEING stubborn and/or stopped hating Josh....or has been dictated too.

      Or is blowing smoke on things that won't actually happen.

      But no one was wrong for questioning him the last 2 years. Even JOB of this year appears to take exception with JOB of last year's view on Josh.

      Comment

      • #63
        Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        JOb was just getting tired of explaining why he's not playing McRoberts...and he got a little testy.

        The NBA is a business and sometimes the message needs to be framed for the fans. The reality is, if he played McRoberts, fans would not want to see Murphy on the floor. If Murphy sits on the bench, his value plummets...and that's a huge contract to sit on the bench.

        Now that Murph's been traded and more of the bloated contracts get moved, things will start to make more sense...
        Yes, because you know what has zero trade value in the NBA? Underpaid players aged 20-22 that continue to improve and show potential every time you play them.

        Troy's CONTRACT was always going to improve his trade value as time passed, even if he didn't play at all. But Josh playing 10-15 minutes last year and 10 mpg the prior year makes him a very high value target for other teams.

        Why not lock him into an extra year for cheap, then work him up enough that you can trade him for a talented, cheap PG. Then you don't even have to eat Troy's salary on the return.


        ALL PLAYERS CAN BE SHOWCASED. They all can have trade value from what they do on court.


        And oh by the way, showing what a player can do has a dark side to it....you also show everyone what they CAN'T DO (ahem, defend anything with better moves than a telephone pole).



        Originally posted by Pacers#1Fan View Post
        Personally, at this point I see arguing and complaining about JOB's coaching style and philosophy as pointless as a tuna scented douche. You can do it as much as you want but it's not going to change/improve the situation.
        So basically the old "if (situation) is inevitable, sit back and enjoy it". Good call.

        "Man, this cancer is making me miserable".
        "Stop complaining, it's not like it's going to change anything".



        By the way, is there ANYTHING that our arguing and complaining here at PD could change/improve? Just checking before I waste my time posting anything ever again.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 10-02-2010, 09:10 AM.

        Comment

        • #64
          Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

          By the way, is there ANYTHING that our arguing and complaining here at PD could change/improve? Just checking before I waste my time posting anything ever again.

          You never know who is reading PD. We were talking about getting Collison months before the trade went down. You see a lot of stuff in the star that says the fans are upset about certain things ,and sure enough it had already been posted about on here.

          Can we really change things, no, but the forum is a big part of the true fan base and maybe somebody important will read your posts.

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

            Unfortunately, I had to thank your post only once. It deserves more than that IMO.

            Actually, it is unfortunate that I felt the need to thank your post at all because I want so much for it to not be true.

            I also unfortunately share your view in its entirety because my opinions of our team, McRoberts, and especially our coach are, as frequently happens, extremely similar to yours. Experience can sometimes be a cruel teacher, and it has been for us with respect to the coaching that has gone on here.

            There may be some hope for Josh being used the way we think he should be instead of camped between the high post and the arc. I think the fact that JOB has stated at the start of the whole "Josh is starting" thing that he is not evaluating Josh on the basis of his shooting, coupled with his reference to his getting deflections, etc indicates that, due to his favorite player not named Antoine Walker being gone, O'B is being forced to live with having an active 4 as opposed to a "stretch 4". That is countered, however, by watching the scrimmage footage we are being shown which have shown Josh at the arc quite a few times. To be fair, though, we have also seen him in the vicinity of the rim as well, making some good hustle plays.

            This reversal on McRoberts will be watched extremely closely, even in the media, and O'B has to know that. I just hope, like I am sure you do, that if McRoberts shoots 3's he makes enough of them to stay on the court so he can at least sometimes do what he does best.

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

              Originally posted by TooBigNdaPaint View Post
              I also like McBob's toughness and his body makeover this past summer. He does appear to be a very cerebral player and understands exactly what JOB wants to achieve in his Offensive and Defensive sets. I also like Magnum Rolle alot as well. I believe we signed Magnum Rolle because we expect to trade somebody before the season starts. Worst case, we cut someone like AJ Price because Lance Stephenson has MORE size and upside than AJ Price (although if Lance is convicted of a felonious assault, he'll be cut).

              My worst fear is that JOB will start 2-3 slow-twitch players like he did last year and we'll be BEHIND by 15 pts before the 2nd QTR starts. I want to see guys that can play DEFENSE start the game. We definitely DON'T need one dimensional guys who can SHOOT it (Dun-Dun) but can play NO defense. Or guys who can REBOUND (Jeff Foster) but can't SHOOT it. I hear that Paul George and McBob had the HIGHEST rated PRACTICES due to their DEFENSE and ability to get their hands (steals, deflections, etc.) on the ROCK. Brandon hasn't impressed me too much in practice because he's still very passive on OFFENSE. I'll never know WHY he doesn't rise up over his defender and just shoot the rock. He's got springs in his legs but he has NO confidence still in his shot nor much of a killer instinct.

              I rather see Lance Stephenson on the court who has DOG in him and will play a very physical brand of NBA basketball. Lance only needs experience of JOB's offense and defensive sets. The VETS have a little edge but you can tell Lance will bring his killer instinct with him. Watch him slapping the bench table whenever he watches HIS white team get dogged on DEFENSE. He knows that he would be a mismatch as a PG and he sees the court so much better with his huge physical size. His reported LACK of defense is BS. Yes, he may not realize that NBA players will shoot it whenever any space exists to get their shot off but Lance is a quick learner and he'll be HELL for some opposing PG to defend or shoot over once Lance learns the nuances of playing defense in the NBA.
              Lance will never be quick enough to guard pg's in the NBA.

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Thanks for transcribing it.




                That sure makes it sound like Paul George is going to see time immediately to me. And that's exciting to me because I had been telling myself to expect a project for the first year or two before he's ready.
                Why?
                The evidence has been there all along.
                You really believed what Larry said?
                It's called keeping expectations low.
                Pretty sound advise in his position.
                Doesn't mean HE believed it.

                The word "I" hear, is that they are blown away by the kid and that they expect him to be an all star in time.
                The guys shot is effortless. And he's new to swingman!
                When he came in and showed not only extreme length and quickness on DEFENSE, but also a desire to work at it, well it was pretty clear right there that he CAN be something special.

                But you can't say that before the guys played a game that counts.

                Comment

                • #68
                  Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Me.

                  It seems like Obie is saying Josh's primary competition for PT is Foster and Solo. Is that not how you guys are reading it?

                  It seems weird not to mention Tyler in that context.

                  Was going to start a thread about it, but it seems pretty clear to me from the wording used by Tyler and others that he's still suffering the effects and learning to live with it.
                  He's clearly NOT said, "it's over, I"m 100% again".
                  It's all, feeling better, ready to try it out... kind of comments.
                  I think he's XX% back, ok to play again, but still having problems with it.

                  Had never heard the bright lights being a problem part.
                  Gee, good thing they play in dimly lit barns................

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                    Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                    Lance will never be quick enough to guard pg's in the NBA.
                    This is a fact. He will also struggle to guard SG's. This is why...with all of his basketball talents...he will always struggle in the NBA.

                    Can he overcome this? I don't know. ...but if it does not change he is a very flawed player.

                    ...and that ignores all the baggage of many varieties that he brings.

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      This is a fact. He will also struggle to guard SG's. This is why...with all of his basketball talents...he will always struggle in the NBA.

                      Can he overcome this? I don't know. ...but if it does not change he is a very flawed player.

                      ...and that ignores all the baggage of many varieties that he brings.
                      Yup. Lance playing the point has failed at every level for a reason.
                      Last edited by Sookie; 10-02-2010, 11:53 AM.

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                        Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                        Reminds me of time JOB was on Kravitz and Eddie after his first season. Kravitz was talking about walking to Kokomo and JOB said he'd go with him if Jamaal was still on the roster.

                        Kravitz asked him about all of the high praise he had given Jamaal when he was first hired and during the offseason/preseason. JOB's response: "I had no choice. He was all I had."

                        Hopefully his high praise of Josh is truly because he's earned it.......
                        The observation which I'm afraid of.

                        O'Brien has a history of making grandiose statements about players that never materialize, in particular power forwards.

                        That first year it was Tinsley, but it was also Ike Diogu who drew grand comments from O'Brien.

                        Last year it was Solomon Jones. O'Brien's comments made a lot of people think he'd start at center over Hibbert.

                        I'm not getting my hopes up about McRoberts after Jim's history. Besides, he's saying how Josh would play after one week of training camp.

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          I think Jones and Posey both should be mentioned in the possible cut/buyout category.

                          Or Trade? I would be ok with either of these being thrown in with an expiring for a 2 for 1 trade.
                          “It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            The observation which I'm afraid of.

                            O'Brien has a history of making grandiose statements about players that never materialize, in particular power forwards.

                            That first year it was Tinsley, but it was also Ike Diogu who drew grand comments from O'Brien.

                            Last year it was Solomon Jones. O'Brien's comments made a lot of people think he'd start at center over Hibbert.

                            I'm not getting my hopes up about McRoberts after Jim's history. Besides, he's saying how Josh would play after one week of training camp.
                            What an entirely sane, intelligent post.

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Because I must be open minded to a DRASTIC CHANGE despite it's enormously low probability, I don't want to just bash JOB if he does chose to do this. However wouldn't something like this only further prove that at the very least JOB of last 2 years had zero clue what he was doing with the roster.

                              Here's the logic - you need a banger PF who has strong lateral speed and brings tons of disruptive energy. You needed it two years ago which is why you draft Tyler.

                              Josh randomly gets a chance to come in 2 years ago and does things like fight for tough boards that Troy couldn't get, gets switched onto SFs and proves he can keep in front of them even 15 feet away from the rim, and shows outstanding hops for oops, blocks and general disruption near the rim.

                              Does he pick up too many fouls and not have a well developed offensive game, sure, but a good coach realizes he's lucked into finding part of the solution to a major problem - tough PF play. He also realizes Josh is so young he's virtually a rookie and is paid zilch so he can be here for the long haul.

                              Contrast this with Troy (and Rasho the year before) who make so much money and are old enough that they are certain to be primary pieces moved as soon as possible. In fact many GMs would have considered buying out Rasho for the savings and to make room for youth development.

                              What's the worst that happens if you start feeding Josh those 10-15 minutes (ditto Hibbert at C) instead of your slow footed bigs who aren't part of the long term picture? If they don't improve then you find out sooner that you need to punt on them, and you don't miss the playoffs "more" somehow (forget the draft pick improvement even since that's not the goal).

                              But if they do improve then by now when you announce to the fanbase that Josh could get 36 minutes no one thinks it's nuts and no one doubts his ability. It's exactly the opposite. The fans would have been seeing these guys develop and anticipation would have been growing. See Reggie's rookie year BEHIND JOHN LONG, who didn't exactly have a bad year himself. A kid proving himself off the bench gets people interested in seeing more.


                              And as a coach it means that by the time you are ready to rely on him, he's improved enough to make good on those kinds of minutes.


                              And then on top of that strategic benefit, you clearly spent the last season fending off chants at home for Josh to play, callers to the show lighting you up for your approach to Josh's PT, and the entire "irrelevant" scandal which made you look like a horse's a** and irrationally stubborn.


                              And if anything summed up the last 2 years with JOB that moment was it. You needed good PF play. Josh gave you a nice burst with some chance PT vs an elite team. During that stretch of play (the first half) your team was neck and neck with said elite team. And you dismissed it as irrelevant rather than wishing he could have kept it up for another 14 minutes and maybe helped get the win (not to mention wishing the rest of the team could have picked up the slack in the 2nd half too).



                              JOB is the anti-MacGyver. Yes it's a tough spot, but when you luck into MINI solutions that when added together give you a big solution and you fail to recognize them then it's no surprise you're not finding success.

                              And overcorrecting to "Josh starts and goes 36 minutes" after wasting 2 years of zero development time with him only exacerbates the problem. Now Josh will wilt under that PT and look foolish taking tons of 3s and JOB will be able to say "see, I knew he stunk".

                              Apply the tool correctly and you can get the job done. But to intentionally use it incorrectly to prove that you knew it wasn't a helpful tool is a Quixotic approach to proving your strategy is better than the fans realize.
                              best post of the month

                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Fair enough. I hope i can take as good as I give.

                                If Josh is our best player at ower forward and he works well with Roy (that is the most important thing IMO) then I have no problem with Josh starting and laying as many minutes as he possbly can. I'll gladly eat my words.

                                On the other side of this is something I feel I need to mention. Wait, I thought O'Brien hated Josh (I could dig out dozens, maybe hundreds of posts) and I thought O'Brien was too stubborn to change.

                                so if I was wrong about Josh great I can admit it.
                                No one is more full of s--t than Jim O'Brien when it comes to saying one thing and his actions doing another. The only reason to pay attention to what he says is to compare it to other past comments that had no basis in reality on the court. Quite simply, his actions and words don't mesh.

                                I pay less attention to what Jim O'Brien says than to anything Ron Artest said.

                                O'Brien is a walking contradiction in terms coaching a brand of basketball I have no belief in what-so-ever. He talks a good game... but so did Isiah... And neither is a coach I want to see on the sidelines of my team. If O'Brien practiced what he preached I'd be behind him 100%. He doesn't.
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

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

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
                                Working...
                                X