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

My Jim O'Brien thread...

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

  • #91
    Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Does anyone ever consider that we seem to revert to the outside jumpers because teams have figured out how to deny the inside game?
    Are you serious?

    How many more seasons of jump shooting basketball do you need before you realize that, that's the way Jim coaches basketball?

    Hell man, I ranted on the hiring of Jim from the very first day about his offensive system being designed around taking the first open shot, regardless of where it was and where it took place in the shot clock.

    You've had 3 1/4 seasons to see it first hand, and you still have your head buried in the sand.

    It's not the execution of the offense, that IS the offense.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      You've had 3 1/4 seasons to see it first hand, and you still have your head buried in the sand.

      It's not the execution of the offense, that IS the offense.
      Funny, earlier in the season we were being successful getting the ball into the post and playing a more front court game. People here were even commenting on it.

      Are you saying that teams only started fronting the post and doubling Roy because we stopped using him and went back to the perimeter offense without any reason to do so? That would seem like a silly adjustment, to defend a guy we weren't going to use in the first place.

      I have said in the past and I will say again that I think JOB moves to his comfort zone too quickly. I will admit that this is probably a case of it. But it isn't like he woke up one morning and said, "The post offense is working and Roy is scoring a lot. We need to nip that in the bud right now!"
      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


      • #93
        Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Funny, earlier in the season we were being successful getting the ball into the post and playing a more front court game. People here were even commenting on it.

        Are you saying that teams only started fronting the post and doubling Roy because we stopped using him and went back to the perimeter offense without any reason to do so? That would seem like a silly adjustment, to defend a guy we weren't going to use in the first place.

        I have said in the past and I will say again that I think JOB moves to his comfort zone too quickly. I will admit that this is probably a case of it. But it isn't like he woke up one morning and said, "The post offense is working and Roy is scoring a lot. We need to nip that in the bud right now!"
        Agreed, hence my "runs home to Momma" comments.


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

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
          I think he has been fairly disciplined.

          I'm ready to read some heavy Peck artillery myself, to confirm that there really was a detente.




          Well the artillery won't come out until we declare open war. Right now we have moved from Detente to the cold war so what you will see is more of a covert assault with a dash of espionage thrown in for good measure.

          When the artillery appears, & I am now almost 100% confident that it will, people may not like where I am aiming it. To blame O'Brien for being O'Brien is like blaming a lion for being a lion.


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

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

            http://www.nba.com/playerfile/roy_hi...ame_stats.html

            Take a look at Roy's fg attempts per game. Do you notice anything? I sure do. Without doing the math and just eyeballing it, I would estimate that Roy was getting 13-16 shots per game up until the Dec. 1st.

            Since then, I did do the math, he's getting 9 fg attempts per game, with a hig hof 14 and a low of 6 against PHO where he hit freaking 4 of them. He went 4 of 6 from the floor, in 18 freaking minutes. Sure, he had 4 fouls but against a team that doesn't have Robin Lopez, that has always been soft guarding the middle you get your starting center who was putting up great numbers at the start of the year, 6 freaking shots?


            I'm sorry, but while you say Jim didn't decide to start going away from him, I think it's pretty damn obvious he isn't telling the team to focus on getting him the ball.

            Maybe it is the other player's faults for going away from him, but Jim is the coach. He should be coaching the team to actually force the ball into Roy. That obviously isn't happening, when his shots per game have been cut down by about 40%. That IS on Jim. That is his responsibility to correct the team when they start getting away from the style of basketball he wants to see.

            The quotes we are getting is him talking about "spacing the floor." That's his solution. That's what I've been *****ing about now for almost 4 seasons.

            He thinks you spread the floor outside-in. His solution to free up Roy, is to shoot more from outside. "Instead of working on getting Roy the ball in better positions, let's just shoot the ball more from outside. If we start knocking down outside shots they can't pack the middle."

            That's all fine and dandy, but outside of the last 3 games, Roy had still been shooting the ball well.

            6-8 against Utah, 4-6 against PHO, 6-9 against Tor, and 5-8 agasint Mil. That's 21-32 65.6%. Then the next game he went 6-11, which is still above 50%. Atlanta he struggled and then he struggled last night.

            Is Roy really playing that badly, or are they just going away from him?
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Take a look at Roy's fg attempts per game. Do you notice anything? I sure do. Without doing the math and just eyeballing it, I would estimate that Roy was getting 13-16 shots per game up until the Dec. 1st.
              And I would estimate that's when defenses started focusing on denying him the ball.

              Again, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

              I won't deny that Jim went away from the post too soon rather than finding different strategies to keep it in there, but I will continue to assert that defense against Roy was the cause.

              I mean, why would teams continue to deny the ball to Roy if they could use defenders more effectively some other way because films would tell them Jim was just stopping using the low post at all with no reason other than comfort zone?
              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


              • #97
                Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                But that's my point. Instead of trying to find new ways to get Roy the ball, he just puts his hands up in the air and says "Damnit, they got us. Now we have to shoot from outside?"

                THAT'S your/his solution? Gimme a freaking break.

                Instead of coming up with ways to counter-adjust, let's just scrap the whole damn game plan and chuck shots.

                Great ****ing plan.

                That's the argument. I'm not debating that teams adjusted to Roy, I'm complaining about Jim's readjustment.

                It's freaking horrible, like always. Jim doesn't readjust. He just goes back to what he knows. Chucking quick shots.

                EDIT: And combine that with the fact that Jim doesn't think Roy's played good this season, just tells me all I need to know.

                Jim doesn't value a post presence. I don't think he really cares that the defenses have changed their strategies towards Roy. I think it's given him the perfect excuse to go back to how he wants to play.

                He has no reason to readjust, because he doesn't give two ****s about the post. Maybe one, but definately not two.
                Last edited by Since86; 12-14-2010, 02:05 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  But that's my point. Instead of trying to find new ways to get Roy the ball, he just puts his hands up in the air and says "Damnit, they got us. Now we have to shoot from outside?"

                  THAT'S your/his solution? Gimme a freaking break.

                  Instead of coming up with ways to counter-adjust, let's just scrap the whole damn game plan and chuck shots.

                  Great ****ing plan.
                  Should I respond by saying your solution is to do nothing other than keep trying to pound it into the middle and ignore the rest of the floor because sooner or later something is bound to work?

                  I know that isn't what you said, and you know that just chucking jumpers isn't what I said.

                  I think we can agree with each other that the solution is a balanced attack but that if either attack constantly fails the other one becomes very vulnerable.
                  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


                  • #99
                    Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                    Bill,

                    Has anything changed on the offensive end as far as you can tell? If so can you see if we have made any counter adjustments?


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

                    Comment


                    • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                      I know chucking jumpers isn't what YOU said, but it's obviously what Jim wants because he doesn't correct the problem.

                      Can you cite any evidence of trying something new in getting Roy the ball in better positions? I know I can't.

                      But I can most certainly cite examples that he thinks stretching the floor would be the best way to attack it.

                      Whether or not you agree with his tactic isn't the debate. You're defending him, and his decisions. I'm attacking those. If you don't agree with that tactic, that he is using, then why are you defending him?

                      Jim is a big boy, he doesn't need someone to defend him, just because. You either agree with him, or you don't.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Especially with the zone rules. 10 years ago it was a lot tougher to defend the post - now it is easier and that is one reason why you see a lot fewer post ups. It is much easier to front the post because weakside help can get there. There is a reason why the game today is dominated by point guards and wings.

                        Not to suggest that you don't need big guys - but you don't need classic low-post players like you did 10 plus yeasrs ago
                        Based off of this....do you think that Bird made a mistake in drafting Hansbrough?

                        Hansbrough may develop a jumpshot and some offensive game away from the basket so that he can "stretch the offense" as time passes by....but it would seem that drafting a Player without an offensive game away from the basket doesn't seem to make any sense.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Bill,

                          Has anything changed on the offensive end as far as you can tell? If so can you see if we have made any counter adjustments?
                          I think we've made one adjustment, that has not worked, and has decreased rebounding.

                          We've moved Josh farther out, eliminated Tyler from the rotation, and played Posey more.

                          The idea is to stretch the floor, to pull the other post defender away from Hibbert. It's actually not a bad idea.

                          It's not working because the other post defender just doesn't see Posey/Josh as big enough threats to bother to guard, or they are willing to let a couple of threes go and prefer to defend Hibbert.

                          I haven't paid too much attention, but I'll watch for it next game, but it wouldn't shock me if the opposing team's PG backs off of our PGs to help with Roy too, because TJ and DC aren't shooters (DC's accurate but won't put it up unless wide open and left wide open) and don't have the ball very often.

                          Comment


                          • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Has anything changed on the offensive end as far as you can tell? If so can you see if we have made any counter adjustments?
                            What we have seen a lot more than people would give credit for is attempts to score outside the paint that are NOT just run-to-the-3-point-line-and-toss-up-the-ball, which is what got people into this mindset last year and before.

                            We've seen offenses involving passing to beat the defensive rotation and get an open shot, we've seen double cutters, we've even seen trying to get Roy effective in the high post so that teams can't afford to just push him up out of the low post.

                            When those work, everyone thinks we're doing great. When those don't work, we suck.

                            What we have NOT seen is anything new footwork or positioning-wise for Roy himself in the low post. To be completely honest, I don't really know if Roy is up to it - his range is a bit wider than last year but he still isn't effective outside a certain point with a defender between him and the basket.

                            What I'd LIKE to see but know I won't is some set plays where Roy is in a specific place on the floor so a ballhandler can know exactly where he will be and a cutter can draw the fronter slightly out of position - then the ball goes to Roy who IMMEDIATELY shoots. I think there are two reasons we won't see this, the first being that JOB doesn't work that way, but the second being that I'm not sure Roy can be counted on to react that quickly when he gets the ball in his hands.

                            Other than that, the tactic which would be considered just fine from any other coach besides JOB, is to score better outside the paint and force defenders to come out rather than just block all the passing lanes to Roy.

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            If you don't agree with that tactic, that he is using, then why are you defending him?

                            Jim is a big boy, he doesn't need someone to defend him, just because. You either agree with him, or you don't.
                            I can disagree with someone in degree and still defend them against someone who disagrees with the entire principle.

                            Becoming more effective outside the paint is not just a valid way to score against a collapsing defense, it ultimately HAS to happen for any team to be more than just prisoners of the opponent's defensive ability.

                            Because it isn't happening due to the other 4 members of the team missing valid mid-range jumpers, which ARE being found and attempted, is not the coach's fault.

                            I disagree with JOB in that he makes it easy for the rest of the team to fall back on shooting from too far outside. I disagree with JOB for not having tools in his toolbox to create better scoring opportunities beyond read-and-react.

                            I do NOT fault him for thinking that the best way to relieve Roy's defensive pressure is by forcing the defense to do something else.

                            I defend him against people who go to the extreme. I agree with people to the extent I think he has problems.

                            How can I do otherwise?
                            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: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                              This is starting to get really freaking annoying. For the record, I have never said that Troy Murphy should have never played last year.

                              Also, for the record, I have never said the ONLY way to combat a collapsing defense is to just pound away at the paint.

                              Obviously you have to be able to shoot outside. You keep telling me I'm being extreme, when I'm the one saying that he should be doing BOTH!!!!!!!!

                              Damnit can I say that any louder.

                              HE SHOULD BE DOING BOTH!!!!!

                              Jim is the extreme one. He's only doing the ONE thing, SHOOTING OUTSIDE!!

                              How in the world am I the extreme one, when I can openly admit that knocking down jumpers will free up the middle? I also openly admit that you have to readjust to defenses clamping down on your post players.

                              Am I in the twilight zone? I am the extreme person when I say you have to do both, compared to a coach that only wants do do one? I'm the extreme one?


                              I've said it for a couple of weeks, about a month ago, and stopped saying it. This whole notion that I'm on the extreme side is getting freaking ridiculous, especially when you're the one that accused me of believing that Troy shouldn't have played at all last year, when I have NEVER EVER said it. And in fact, have said the opposite that I think Troy should have continued to start.

                              But yeah, other than those facts about our discussions, I can still be labeled the "extreme" one.





                              Okay....now I'm calm.

                              EDIT: I don't know how more in the middle I can get. I agree with him that shooters will free up Roy. I disagree with him in thinking that is the only way. I think you have to readjust and continue to emphasize getting Roy the ball in positions he can be effective.

                              To me the extreme would be 1) that Jim is just flat out wrong, and shooting will never open up the middle or 2) that Jim is right and that's the only way it will open up.

                              What else can I possibly think to get into this non-"extreme" side you clearly label me in?
                              Last edited by Since86; 12-14-2010, 03:00 PM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                                Since86, what drives me crazy is that I start out having the discussion with someone else, you jump in and ask me why I'm arguing against (something), I try to show I'm in the middle, and you then yell at me for arguing with you because you aren't the extreme.

                                Maybe we need to just realize that we are closer in our opinions than we admit and stop arguing with one another.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X