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

Our Problem is Tinsley

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

  • Our Problem is Tinsley

    Let me start this post by saying that I am still hoping for a successful series and even a possible championship. In order to do so, we would have to play beyond our ability and shoot really well. But this team has a track record of doing so, and there is a destiny thing with Reggie. So, I'm a fan and an optimist in that sense.

    Secondly, let me make the point that Jamaal Tinsley is an extraordinary basketball player. He's the only player I can think of who creates moves that I couldn't even have imagined--didn't even know they were a possibility until he executes them. The really great players seem to be able to make the move and find the open space that all of us from our armchairs can see from an elevated camera view. But Tinsley--he can execute moves that don't seem to exist, even from an elevated view. He's fantastic in that sense.

    But, yes. I think he is the flaw in our team. His inconsistency was with us last playoffs against Detroit. And he is with us this year as well.

    My problem with Tinsley is simple: he can't hit a damn outside shot--or a free throw--with consistency. He certainly can penetrate and make great moves and score. He also can make great passes, which is somewhat of a redeeming quality amidst his liabilities.

    I think the Pacers missing piece is a good point guard who can shoot well. We currently have a great point guard who shoots not so well. AJ is an okay point guard, not a good one, but he shoots well.

    We don't need a great point guard. We need a good one. A good one that can shoot.

    We don't need a great point guard to win a championship. We need a good point guard who can shoot well. Billups is not a great point guard. He is good (and a great defender) and he shoots very well. He brought a champtionship to Detroit.

    The same can be said for Tony Parker, Avery Johnson, Paxson and the other guy for Chicago, Dennis Johnson with the Celtics and several other teams.

    We don't have an offense. We have the Jamaal Tinsley show. It's quite a show. He can be very great at times. But you must play team offense to win a championship. Since he can't stretch the offense and create more opportunities for the other players, he is forced to control the ball most of the 24 seconds, make an offensive move or dump it off last minute to another player. It becomes a one-man, often an two-man, sometimes a three man offense. Not good enough.

    One of two things must happen. Tinsley must become consistent. Hard to see that happening at this stage in life. Usually, by this time, you're either a consistent outside threat or you aren't. Or . . . we must trade Tinsley in the offseason--while his value is very high--for a GOOD point guard who can also shoot. Those of you who will berate me regarding how fantastically great Tinsley is at penetrating and creating need to please understand my point that a GOOD point guard that we got in exchange for Tins could also do that.

    Could we make a straight trade--Tinsley for Bibby? Do you think Bibby, a good point guard and good shooter, would take the Pacers to the next level? I think he would.

    Some will say Rick is to blame that we don't have a four or five man offense. But if Tins can't stretch the defense, then you can also argue that Rick is forced to play Tinsley-type ball. Or . . . he can go with AJ, which he seems to do a lot more than expected for a backup. Or . . . he can beg the front office to trade for point guard who does what AJ does (shoot) and what Tinsley does (penetrate and dish) but just not quite so extremely well.

    I think I've made my point. We live and die with Jamaal Tinsley. We shouldn't have to. The problem needs to be solved next year either by Tinsley or by Larry Bird.

    Until then, we hope these guys will continue to play beyond their ability and that the inconsistent, streaky Tinsley hits a bunch of threes down the stretch.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  • #2
    Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

    He was starting to be very consitent before he got hurt, right now for a guy who has missed what 2 months, he is playing good.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

      Originally posted by McKeyFan
      Let me start this post by saying that I am still hoping for a successful series and even a possible championship. In order to do so, we would have to play beyond our ability and shoot really well. But this team has a track record of doing so, and there is a destiny thing with Reggie. So, I'm a fan and an optimist in that sense.

      Secondly, let me make the point that Jamaal Tinsley is an extraordinary basketball player. He's the only player I can think of who creates moves that I couldn't even have imagined--didn't even know they were a possibility until he executes them. The really great players seem to be able to make the move and find the open space that all of us from our armchairs can see from an elevated camera view. But Tinsley--he can execute moves that don't seem to exist, even from an elevated view. He's fantastic in that sense.

      But, yes. I think he is the flaw in our team. His inconsistency was with us last playoffs against Detroit. And he is with us this year as well.

      My problem with Tinsley is simple: he can't hit a damn outside shot--or a free throw--with consistency. He certainly can penetrate and make great moves and score. He also can make great passes, which is somewhat of a redeeming quality amidst his liabilities.

      I think the Pacers missing piece is a good point guard who can shoot well. We currently have a great point guard who shoots not so well. AJ is an okay point guard, not a good one, but he shoots well.

      We don't need a great point guard. We need a good one. A good one that can shoot.

      We don't need a great point guard to win a championship. We need a good point guard who can shoot well. Billups is not a great point guard. He is good (and a great defender) and he shoots very well. He brought a champtionship to Detroit.

      The same can be said for Tony Parker, Avery Johnson, Paxson and the other guy for Chicago, Dennis Johnson with the Celtics and several other teams.

      We don't have an offense. We have the Jamaal Tinsley show. It's quite a show. He can be very great at times. But you must play team offense to win a championship. Since he can't stretch the offense and create more opportunities for the other players, he is forced to control the ball most of the 24 seconds, make an offensive move or dump it off last minute to another player. It becomes a one-man, often an two-man, sometimes a three man offense. Not good enough.

      One of two things must happen. Tinsley must become consistent. Hard to see that happening at this stage in life. Usually, by this time, you're either a consistent outside threat or you aren't. Or . . . we must trade Tinsley in the offseason--while his value is very high--for a GOOD point guard who can also shoot. Those of you who will berate me regarding how fantastically great Tinsley is at penetrating and creating need to please understand my point that a GOOD point guard that we got in exchange for Tins could also do that.

      Could we make a straight trade--Tinsley for Bibby? Do you think Bibby, a good point guard and good shooter, would take the Pacers to the next level? I think he would.

      Some will say Rick is to blame that we don't have a four or five man offense. But if Tins can't stretch the defense, then you can also argue that Rick is forced to play Tinsley-type ball. Or . . . he can go with AJ, which he seems to do a lot more than expected for a backup. Or . . . he can beg the front office to trade for point guard who does what AJ does (shoot) and what Tinsley does (penetrate and dish) but just not quite so extremely well.

      I think I've made my point. We live and die with Jamaal Tinsley. We shouldn't have to. The problem needs to be solved next year either by Tinsley or by Larry Bird.

      Until then, we hope these guys will continue to play beyond their ability and that the inconsistent, streaky Tinsley hits a bunch of threes down the stretch.
      Ahh yes! Finally someone with the same opinion as me! I totally agree with you!
      31 Forever

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

        Are you kidding me? The contacts don't match..We would never get Bibby for Tinsley.

        Don't blame Tinsley for Indianas horrible offense..Nobody can move with the ball except for him. SJax has horrible handles and Reggie is afraid to dribble through his legs..Jermaine ONeal posts and can create his own shot..But he isn't quick and he doesn't pass effectively out of Double teams due to his hindered court vision. Our Centers are rebounders and garbage men. They put back offensive rebounds and tip ins and occassionally step back for a 12-15 footer.

        Don't blame this teams bad play on Tinsley..He's the only thing keeping us from scoring above 60..He has to be the Jamaal Tinsley show..Because they clog his passing lanes. I'd much rather have Tinsley then AJ on the court. Tinsley has much better ball control and can get our teams offensive sets run with 18 seconds still on the shot clock opposed to AJ's 8.

        It's not Tinsleys fault..Detroits defense is fantastic and we just plain suck *** at shooting.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

          As far as flawed players and their detrimental effect on this team go, Tinsley is pretty far down the list. He's not perfect by any means, but he's causing less problems than a number of other stars on this team.

          IndyToad
          *makes lightsaber noises*

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

            I have always been someone who preferred consistency over variance. By variance, I mean a guy like AJ Moye when he was with IU or Austin Croshere. At times, these guys come into the game, make some big plays, and really turn things around. At other times, these same players turn the ball over, miss shot after shot, and ruin any chance of winning.

            Tinsley is typically one of these "variance" type guys. However, I just do not think that we would have won with Anthony Johnson. His defense is average, he always picks up his dribble, and he rarely makes a crisp pass. So in this case, if my options are either Tinsley or Johnson obtaining the majority of the point guard minutes, I am definitely going to give it to Tinsley. He does make mistakes, and he is a horrible shooter. He has gotten better, but I think he has reached his peak--- I hypothesize that his shooting ability has only gotten better because he didn't play organized basketball until he was in his last teens.

            I am shocked though that you thought the Kings would trade Bibby for a guy like Tinsley. It may be argued that Tinsley could improve to a comparable level to Bibby, but why would anyone take that chance, even if the contracts matched up? Tinsley's upside is no greater than Bibby's upside, nor does he have one attribute that is greater than Bibby's.

            I also disagree with mentioning Tony Parker and John Paxson as if Parker is similar to Paxson. I don't have a great knowledge of Paxson, but I do know that doesn't match up to Parker. I don't believe a stat or other justification is needed. I just think you may have been searching for a not-so-distant historical example and grabbed the wrong guy.

            On a final note, no one in particular is to blame. Not Reggie, Jermaine, Jackson, Tinsley, or any other Pacer, including Carlisle, Bird, and Donnie Walsh. They are all to blame. No one has consistently played great, and all of them have put in a handful of bad games. As Reggie likes to say, we have a "puncher's chance" to win Game 6... and I believe that.

            Go Pacers. Win Game 6.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

              I have never thought Tinsley takes enough time on his free throws.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                Originally posted by vapacersfan

                Wait, did I just agree with something Indytoad said.
                You're making lightsaber noises too?

                IndyToad
                Hasn't been in any recent episodes

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                  Originally posted by ImCrazyB
                  Are you kidding me? The contacts don't match..We would never get Bibby for Tinsley.
                  I actually just asked the question. I'm not a RealGM type, so that's good to know. But do you think its just about contracts or is Bibby better?

                  Originally posted by ImCrazyB
                  Don't blame Tinsley for Indianas horrible offense..Nobody can move with the ball except for him...Jermaine ONeal posts and can create his own shot..But he isn't quick and he doesn't pass effectively out of Double teams due to his hindered court vision.
                  Agreed. He moves well with the ball. But, remember, we're not comparing him to AJ in this post, we're comparing him to a PG we could trade for who could also move the ball well for us --AND shoot.

                  And, I wonder if JO would pass out of double teams better if one of his regular options was a point guard at the top of the key.

                  Originally posted by ImCrazyB
                  It's not Tinsleys fault..Detroits defense is fantastic and we just plain suck *** at shooting.
                  In part, because our point guard can't shoot.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                    I 100% agree, cant imagine that so many people agreed on this!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                      I dont think the problem is that he cant shoot so much as that he does not want to. He has show that he can shoot. He had not been hitting and then in game three he hit a lot of shots and I think he could again but would rather get the ball to Jermaine. I would love to see Jamaal take over like he did when Jermaine and Jack were out. I hope us being against the wall makes Rick brush that offense off.

                      IMO the problem we are having is that we are too predictable in out offense. We need to mix it up. This was our flaw in 00 as well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                        Originally posted by BustedPants
                        I also disagree with mentioning Tony Parker and John Paxson as if Parker is similar to Paxson. I don't have a great knowledge of Paxson, but I do know that doesn't match up to Parker. I don't believe a stat or other justification is needed. I just think you may have been searching for a not-so-distant historical example and grabbed the wrong guy.
                        I'll concede that point. But they are similar in that they both can shoot from the outside better than Tinsley. And neither of them are better at dribble penetration than Tinsley, IMO.

                        Remember, I'm not arguing in this post whether Tinsley is a great player or whether he should be playing in this series. I'm asking if a hypothetical point guard we could obtain in lieu of Tinsley--someone better than AJ and a better shooter than Tins--would help the Pacer team more.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                          Originally posted by Ragnar
                          I would love to see Jamaal take over like he did when Jermaine and Jack were out.
                          Here's a question--and its related to BBall's post dissing JO. Who was the point guard when we went on our big run near the end of the regular season--AJ or Tins? And was JO out the entire time? I think he was.

                          BBall eludes to the Detroit win with AJ at point and no JO. The theory, I guess, is that such rosters force the offense to create movement because there is no crutch--not the crutch of dumping it in to JO and not the crutch of standing around and watching the Jamaal create fantastic drives.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                            Yowza. I strongly disagree with the initial post.

                            I'm going to leave it all alone, except to say that Tinsley's become a very good shooter when he's not flat-footed. Before we run him out of town, why not see what he does when he's healthy?

                            Or, to take the thread to its logical conclusion, why not get rid of every good player we have so we won't take the "talent shortcut?"

                            Tinsley is not the problem.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Our Problem is Tinsley

                              Tinsley hasn't played in ages, and hasn't had time to work on his shooting. He was shooting great in the beginning of the year, so please don't tell me he can't shoot the ball.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X