Daniels active in win

Gary wrote:

<quoted text>
So when Gilbert is a free after this season and signs a huge multi-million dollar contract are you going to start disliking him?

As long as he or they don't become a crybaby!

IPS graduates 52 percent wrote:

<quoted text>
Charge him with jay walking for all I care, but the FACT remains what he did and what he pled guilty to are very different things. That's how the court system works, plead guilty to a lesser charge.
Driving a Cadillac that was not properly registered - FACT
Without a valid license - FACT
In a car thick with marijuana smoke, with an active blunt in the front ashtray - FACT
With the butt of an unlicensed, stolen gun visible from outside the car – FACT

FACT- He wasn't charged with drug or gun charges. No lesser charge to plead to if he wasn't charged to begin with. You see, the way the court system actually works is that you are first charged with a crime, then you either cop a plea, or go to trial (provided the charges aren't dismissed). I would surmise that in your universe the court system means that a person is charged and convicted of a crime even if they're never charged with said crime to begin with.

Enough Jibberish.
Hopefully the team stays out of trouble and focuses on basketball... we get it...
The Pacers look re-vitalized and fun to watch. I'm actually looking forward to this season now. I wasn't so excited last year. They are still in the eastern conference where everyone has a chance.
GO PACERS!!!

Durango Hoosier wrote:

Enough Jibberish.
Hopefully the team stays out of trouble and focuses on basketball... we get it...
The Pacers look re-vitalized and fun to watch. I'm actually looking forward to this season now. I wasn't so excited last year. They are still in the eastern conference where everyone has a chance.
GO PACERS!!!

The change from Carlisle to O'Brien will be good for several more wins. Carlisle burned his guys out.

No Blood for Pastel wrote:

<quoted text>
FACT- He wasn't charged with drug or gun charges. No lesser charge to plead to if he wasn't charged to begin with. You see, the way the court system actually works is that you are first charged with a crime, then you either cop a plea, or go to trial (provided the charges aren't dismissed). I would surmise that in your universe the court system means that a person is charged and convicted of a crime even if they're never charged with said crime to begin with.

"Williamswas initially charged with possession of marijuana, driving without a license, driving with an expired license plate and failure to signal a lane change, records show."

IPS graduates 52 percent wrote:

<quoted text>
"Williamswas initially charged with possession of marijuana, driving without a license, driving with an expired license plate and failure to signal a lane change, records show."

No, actually he was CHARGED in the court documents with only traffic violations. The prosecutor did not file drug charges. Remember the interminable discussions on these forums about Williams not actually being charged with drug offenses. People were blasting the cops for not ordering a blood test to test for pot. People were screaming about how common citizens would have been charged with drug possession.

Williams was charged with a traffic violation, and that's what he pled no contest to. I'm sorry that it wasn't more serious than that, but that's the way it was. Get over it.

DARRIN wrote:

I have been fed up with the Pacers off court problems. But it is a new year and I do want to be a fan. I liked alot of things I saw on the court last night. Maybe with a new coach brings new ideas. Daniels looks like a real key to the season. If these kids can stay out of trouble off the court, I am willing to move on as a fan. What else is there to do when the Colts are not playing?

Good points. I like to watch hockey even though no one else does.

IPS graduates 52 percent wrote:

<quoted text>
With the butt of an unlicensed, stolen gun visible from outside the car – FACT

Because he obviously knew his dad's friend's gun was unlicensed and stolen. I mean, every time I see a gun it automatically dawns on me that it MUST be unlicensed and stolen.

DARRIN wrote:

I have been fed up with the Pacers off court problems. But it is a new year and I do want to be a fan. I liked alot of things I saw on the court last night. Maybe with a new coach brings new ideas. Daniels looks like a real key to the season. If these kids can stay out of trouble off the court, I am willing to move on as a fan. What else is there to do when the Colts are not playing?

It's good that you want to be a fan, I guess, even if you are a bandwagon fan. And before you start throwing the 'legal troubles' spiel at me, the Colts have had more players arrested than the Pacers over the last few years.

So he can pass more than a blunt....Who cares? Pacers sux.
Nice clip on the news, what 500 people there!

Adam wrote:

<quoted text>
It's good that you want to be a fan, I guess, even if you are a bandwagon fan. And before you start throwing the 'legal troubles' spiel at me, the Colts have had more players arrested than the Pacers over the last few years.

Yeah right...I know it's math and it might be tough but there are over 40 players on an NFL roster. What 12 on the Pacers? Out of the Pacers over half have been on the other side of the law the past three years...Colts over 20? I think not. Get a clue before you spew.

Marquis is going to shock people that aren't aware of his abilities.

He's the kind of player we need because he does so many of the little things that are rarely noticed. Not only does he add alot to our depth, he makes everyone around him better, and complements the game O'Brien wants to establish.

I'm not surprised that there's some negativity out there, but the smart fans will give him a chance, and support him. IMO, he's a really good player, and comes across as quiet natured.

Go Marquis!

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah right...I know it's math and it might be tough but there are over 40 players on an NFL roster. What 12 on the Pacers? Out of the Pacers over half have been on the other side of the law the past three years...Colts over 20? I think not. Get a clue before you spew.

So 4 guys can get in trouble on a 15 man roster for the Pacers, and 6 or 7 can get in trouble for the Colts, but it's ok because the Colts have more people? At what point does it start to matter? Let me answer for you - there is no point.. as long as the team is winning championships.

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah right...I know it's math and it might be tough but there are over 40 players on an NFL roster. What 12 on the Pacers? Out of the Pacers over half have been on the other side of the law the past three years...Colts over 20? I think not. Get a clue before you spew.

Oh, and I don't really find math that tough. You look like you could use some lessons though. Here's a quick recap (Steven Jackson + Jamaal Tinsley + Marquis Daniels + Shawne Williams)= 4. 4/15 = 26.6%. So your claim that "over half of the Pacers" have been in trouble with the law is actually 26.6%, not taking into account new players. It seems you're one of the masses who has constructed this fantasy of the Pacers for no other reason than they have played poorly the last couple seasons.

That'll be $25.00 for the tutoring session. I take credit or debit too.

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah right...I know it's math and it might be tough but there are over 40 players on an NFL roster. What 12 on the Pacers? Out of the Pacers over half have been on the other side of the law the past three years...Colts over 20? I think not. Get a clue before you spew.

Over half of the 14 man roster? Let's see. Daniels, Tinsley, and Williams. That's 3. HALF of 14 would be 7, wouldn't it?

Adam wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and I don't really find math that tough. You look like you could use some lessons though. Here's a quick recap (Steven Jackson + Jamaal Tinsley + Marquis Daniels + Shawne Williams)= 4. 4/15 = 26.6%. So your claim that "over half of the Pacers" have been in trouble with the law is actually 26.6%, not taking into account new players. It seems you're one of the masses who has constructed this fantasy of the Pacers for no other reason than they have played poorly the last couple seasons.
That'll be $25.00 for the tutoring session. I take credit or debit too.

Take your money and invest it reading lessons moron...I said three years, now go re-do your math. You clearly have nothing better to do.

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>Take your money and invest it reading lessons moron...I said three years, now go re-do your math. You clearly have nothing better to do.

So the current roster is going to be blamed for incidents involving two people no longer on the team?

Adam wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and I don't really find math that tough. You look like you could use some lessons though. Here's a quick recap (Steven Jackson + Jamaal Tinsley + Marquis Daniels + Shawne Williams)= 4. 4/15 = 26.6%. So your claim that "over half of the Pacers" have been in trouble with the law is actually 26.6%, not taking into account new players. It seems you're one of the masses who has constructed this fantasy of the Pacers for no other reason than they have played poorly the last couple seasons.
That'll be $25.00 for the tutoring session. I take credit or debit too.

Here ya go. Go find someone to read this article to you from FoxSports. Then maybe, you'll have a clue. Or not...http://msn.foxsports.com /nfl/story/7343980

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>Here ya go. Go find someone to read this article to you from FoxSports. Then maybe, you'll have a clue. Or not...http://msn.foxsports.com /nfl/story/7343980

So an article that didn't have a single thing to do with the Pacers is relevant why again?