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

2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

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

  • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    If Boston wins game 6, we will hear about a million references to 2004 Red Sox - Yankees in the media.
    They're already starting and if I'm the Celtics I want them. The Knicks will lock up and start thinking too much IMO (and maybe they already have). I honestly think New York needs to end this in 6, because MSG is not going to be crazy in game 7, it is going to be the largest collection of clenched buttholes in American history if they get to that game.


    Comment


    • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Looks like such a fool right now? It's JR Smith honestly what did you expect? The Knicks are a fascinating case study, you have Kidd and Chandler and then everyone else is a child on that roster that plays on a nightly basis.

      I thought the Celtics were done, but man....here's the thing the Knicks have run hot and cold, the Celtcis have also run hot and cold this season...I talked about it when we would discuss playing Boston first round, it all depended on what Boston showed up, well now the good Celtics are arriving right as the bad Knicks are, it could be the perfect storm. I can't even imagine what the mood would be in New York if they blew this.
      Terry all of the sudden morphing into 2011 Mavs Terry is a huge wildcard. That certainly makes Boston a much bigger threat. Plus Bass and Green playing well makes them flat out dangerous.

      I like Kidd, but last night showed that age prevents him from being a big contributor on a nightly basis. He's not even the Kidd that Dallas had two years ago.

      For all of the talk about how old the Celtics are, look at Garnett's rebound numbers this series: 9, 11, 17, 17, 18. Plus he hit that beautiful shot after faking Chandler out.

      Knicks are going to have to be on their A+ game to win game 6. I don't see Boston dropping that at home after scratching and crawling their way back into competitiveness. Game 7 at MSG would be one of the most tense game 7 environments in NBA history.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

        Well Simmons in game 1 kept saying he didn't think Green would keep playing so well so you can't waste his big game, but he has been consistently pretty good. Honestly games 1 and 2 were really close games for 60-75% of the game and then NYK was able to create space, 3 obviously not, but the Knicks really haven't controlled this series as much as a 3-0 lead usually indicates.

        Here's the wild card to me, Boston wins game 6 and gets a good start in 7, likelihood of MSG turning on the Knicks, booing ,etc.? 2 to 1? 3 to 1? This pretty much all rests on Carmelo, he is not getting any younger, he either wills his team to a win in this series or he is going to really set back his legacy.


        Comment


        • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

          Here's the kicker with this. We had three seasons this year. We started the year 18-5. We ended the year 16-2. In between we were 20-21.

          We play the way we did to start or end the season, it's a cakewalk. We play the way we did in that middle section and it's a tossup with the edge to the Celts based on experience. I didn't see it but based on the box we're back to that stagnant no-ball-movement style of play we spent January and February in. If that's what we're doing than we win or lose based on Carmelo or JR being hot or cold.

          Could be historic.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            This pretty much all rests on Carmelo, he is not getting any younger, he either wills his team to a win in this series or he is going to really set back his legacy.
            Quite the contrary. Winning a playoff series would spoil all he's accomplished in his career so far.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
              Well, I didn't see the game - was at a meeting and caught about the last minute on the radio. But based on the box score it looks like we pretty much played Iso-only with the odd drive from Felton. Now we'll always run a lot of Iso's - Anthony might be the best in the league at that so you should, but that isn't usually our whole game.

              Chances are we still win because even using that kind of no-ball-movement-basketball, Carmelo probably won't shoot that bad 3 games in a row but we won't beat the Pacers (if we get there) in Rd 2 playing that way.

              Oh, and that wearing black like for a funeral to the game was disgusting. I mean gee - nobody in Boston has had to deal with death or tragedy recently, have they? Pathetic.
              The wearing black like a funeral was in response to Jason Terry tweeting "You ain't dead til the coffin is closed. We opened the door a little bit." They were just responding to that, not thinking about anything outside of basketball. Maybe I'm being inconsiderate too, but that's the stuff the playoffs are made of. Not just Brandon Jennings saying "we're going to win in 6" (which everyone had a good laugh about). I've seen, on many occasions, posters here say the NBA is too "buddy-buddy" and everyone hugs after games and it's all rainbows and ice cream. A lot of us on here, and I'm sure around the NBA really miss the edge that came with the Pacers/Knicks, Bad Boys in Detroit, Celtics/Lakers, etc. When it was more than just a game. When the players took it personal. That's why I liked the bravado of Knicks players wearing black. Besides, the game was in NYK, not Boston.

              As for the series, Go Celtics! I love that Boston and Houston are both climbing out of that hole and making their series interesting. I thought this first round was going to be a snooze fest. Both of those teams won on enemy ground last night and can now tie it up at home. The injury to Westbrook has really slowed down OKC, and the Knicks, like DK said, are a schizophrenic team. Makes for great theatre.
              It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Terry all of the sudden morphing into 2011 Mavs Terry is a huge wildcard. That certainly makes Boston a much bigger threat. Plus Bass and Green playing well makes them flat out dangerous.

                I like Kidd, but last night showed that age prevents him from being a big contributor on a nightly basis. He's not even the Kidd that Dallas had two years ago.

                For all of the talk about how old the Celtics are, look at Garnett's rebound numbers this series: 9, 11, 17, 17, 18. Plus he hit that beautiful shot after faking Chandler out.

                Knicks are going to have to be on their A+ game to win game 6. I don't see Boston dropping that at home after scratching and crawling their way back into competitiveness. Game 7 at MSG would be one of the most tense game 7 environments in NBA history.
                Didn't you say "RIP Celtics" in a previous post in this thread? If there's one thing you can't do, it's count out a team with the championship pedigree and toughness of the Celtics, and with competitors like Pierce and Garnett. Sure, they may lose this series in the end, but they'll go down fighting. Most people thought they wouldn't challenge Miami last year, but they did, and without Avery Bradley too.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  The Knicks will lock up and start thinking too much IMO (and maybe they already have).
                  Already have.


                  Couper Moorhead (@CoupNBA)
                  As one of the league's best offenses during the regular season, the Knicks used 15.9 isolations per game. In the playoffs, it's been 26.6.
                  9:23 AM

                  Compare that to the playoffs last season, when the Knicks didn't have guards that could pass to Melo vs. Heat. They used 24.8 iso's then.
                  9:24 AM

                  Further, those 26.6 isolations per game for NYK would be the most for any playoff team since at least 2004 (as far back as Synergy goes).
                  9:33 AM

                  Also, those 26.6 isolations per game? The Knicks are scoring .707 points per possession with them. Lowest of any playoff team.
                  9:37 AM
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                    You Can't Count On J.R. Smith...The Knicks Can Count On That
                    Article by J.R. Gamble


                    The idiot version of J.R. Smith has let the Celtics — who were all but dead and buried — back into this series against the Knicks.

                    Knicks supporters have tried their hardest to separate the last 40 years of Knicks championship-futility from this “new” Knicks team, which, at times, has given us reason to believe that they have a more reliable DNA than past clubs.

                    There have been numerous games over the years where the Knicks inability to act with class and/or hit a shot have either pissed away championship possibilities or increased the difficulty of that task.

                    The Game 5 loss to Miami during the ‘93-‘94 season comes to mind. The brawl between Charlie Ward and P.J. Brown led to Patrick Ewing, Allan Houston, Larry Johnson and John Starks getting one-game suspensions spread out over the series' final two games. Ewing, Houston and Ward were suspended for Game 6; Johnson and Starks were suspended for Game 7, for leaving the bench. The short-handed Knicks were in a position to dethrone the Chicago Bulls that season, but lost games 6 and 7.

                    The momentum in this Celtics series is beginning to shift, and if the Knicks do go on to become the first team in NBA playoff history to blow a 3-0 lead, they can thank J.R. Smith, whose consistent mental collapses raise suspicion that he should be riding the little yellow bus home from The Garden every day.

                    This cat’s had more chances than Nate Robinson in an NBA Slam Dunk contest to show that he’s matured as a person and player.

                    You can’t really kill 'Melo, because every great player has some poor-shooting games. Even the great MJ had some stinkers. Fortunately, Scottie Pippen and a cast of other players were there to pick up the slack. J.R. Smith was supposed to be 'Melo’s wingman. Instead, he’s becoming the new Rasheed Wallace.

                    After a tumultuous career that’s included conflicts with coaches, a jacked up attitude and a penchant to wild out at the worst times, NY fans still embraced the New Jersey wild boy and Mike Woodson tried to be an encouraging, supportive father figure.

                    For a hot second, it looked as if Smith had it all together. He won The Sixth Man of the Year award and managed to control himself on the court for the most part. He got his share of technicals, but it didn’t cost the Knicks any crucial games.

                    That was until déjà vu struck and the Knicks were suckered into idiocy by crafty veteran Jason Terry, who baited Smith into throwing a flagrant elbow, which got him suspended for the Game 4 loss to the Celtics.

                    The Knicks showed terrible deficiencies without Smith in the mix. You’d think he’d be motivated to make up for his b***h-assness.

                    It’s unfathomable that Smith would return on Wednesday night for a closeout game at home, after letting the team down so miserably, and shoot 3-14 while getting hit with another technical for talking junk with Jason Terry…with the Knicks down by double-digits and looking super suspect.

                    Unfortunately, it seems official: Smith doesn’t get it and he never will. At this point, he’s developed such a reputation for lacking self control that any time he’s involved in extracurriculars on the court, he automatically gets blamed.

                    Adding insult to injury was Raymond Felton, who acted like he wanted to throw joints with some Celtics subs to make sure that he’s not available in Game 6 to be blamed for an epic Knicks collapse.

                    The Knicks will have to lose two more games to become a permanent member of the NBA’s biggest losers club. Their mannerisms and overall approach suggests that the wheels are falling off. It’s on Woodson and 'Melo to get the whip humming again. One thing the Knicks can count on is that they can’t count on J.R. Smith.

                    http://theshadowleague.com/articles/...-count-on-that

                    J.R. Gamble is a Shadow League contributor. He's been covering pro sports as a radio host and journalist since 1996. He's written for The Raleigh News & Observer, Newsday and SLAM Magazine.. He has co-hosted Sportsrap Radio with A Tribe Called Quest legend Phife Dawg.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Quite the contrary. Winning a playoff series would spoil all he's accomplished in his career so far.
                      ???
                      Melo lead the Denver Nuggets to the Western Conference Finals in 2009.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                        Already have.


                        Couper Moorhead (@CoupNBA)
                        As one of the league's best offenses during the regular season, the Knicks used 15.9 isolations per game. In the playoffs, it's been 26.6.
                        9:23 AM

                        Compare that to the playoffs last season, when the Knicks didn't have guards that could pass to Melo vs. Heat. They used 24.8 iso's then.
                        9:24 AM

                        Further, those 26.6 isolations per game for NYK would be the most for any playoff team since at least 2004 (as far back as Synergy goes).
                        9:33 AM

                        Also, those 26.6 isolations per game? The Knicks are scoring .707 points per possession with them. Lowest of any playoff team.
                        9:37 AM
                        The reason we finished the season so strong was the Melo trusted his teammates and moved the ball. He still scored a lot but is was much more in the flow. There was a lot of talk about the new Carmelo because even though his assist numbers weren't up he wasn't holding the ball for an eternity. It appears that he's reverted back to form which makes us an easy team to defend.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                          Is it me or are the Knicks totally ignoring Chandler? He is a top 5 center and he is just not a part of their offense
                          Smothered Chicken!

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                            Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                            ???
                            Melo lead the Denver Nuggets to the Western Conference Finals in 2009.
                            Led ??

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                              Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                              Is it me or are the Knicks totally ignoring Chandler? He is a top 5 center and he is just not a part of their offense
                              Other than P&R and offensive boards, Chandler isn't an offensive player.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 NBA Playoffs: (2) New York vs. (7) Boston (3 - 0)

                                Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                                The wearing black like a funeral was in response to Jason Terry tweeting "You ain't dead til the coffin is closed. We opened the door a little bit." They were just responding to that, not thinking about anything outside of basketball. Maybe I'm being inconsiderate too, but that's the stuff the playoffs are made of. Not just Brandon Jennings saying "we're going to win in 6" (which everyone had a good laugh about). I've seen, on many occasions, posters here say the NBA is too "buddy-buddy" and everyone hugs after games and it's all rainbows and ice cream. A lot of us on here, and I'm sure around the NBA really miss the edge that came with the Pacers/Knicks, Bad Boys in Detroit, Celtics/Lakers, etc. When it was more than just a game. When the players took it personal. That's why I liked the bravado of Knicks players wearing black. Besides, the game was in NYK, not Boston.
                                We had a choice between acting like children and acting like professionals. Just because you act like you're older than 15 doesn't mean you're buddies with the other team.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X