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

2 Many Injuries

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

  • 2 Many Injuries

    I have stayed positive all year. These Pacers have a poor record, but are more fun to watch & are much better at staying out of strip club gun fights.
    I go check out a pair of knockers from time 2 time, but I try to refrain from busting off a few rounds (of ammo) on the way home.
    ...wait... that still doesn't clarify the above statement, hahaha.

    Two things to say here:

    #1
    Dracula "wings of grey" ticked me off when he had meetings w/ season ticket holders.
    Why? Well he said the most loyal fans told him they wanted a team they can be proud of more than anything.
    He said to each season ticket holder every time quote
    "No you don't. You want a winning team."
    I thought it was pretty damn rude & demeaning when he said that.
    I'm not a season ticket holder, but that was how I felt.
    It felt like a jab at me.
    After spending some $$ on the Pacers this year I know he was way out of line w/ those comments.
    I swore to not spend a penny on last years Pacer team.
    Now that it is cleaned up I'm back on board.
    I'm not calling for Obie's head here, just hope he knows that we the fans were right & he was out of line to question our integrity.

    #2
    Injuries, injuries, injuries.
    This is just sad.
    I thought when we played at Pepsi during the preseason the brass said Dun could go if it were a regular season game.
    He is missing the whole damn year like it is a Tom Brady injury.
    I'm mad because either he & many other guys on our team either don't play w/ pain or the team is full of BS when they reveal our player's statuses.
    I wanted to keep the team together, but Dun is easily tradable.
    He isn't Granger, but plays in his spot. We have Rush to back up Danny for much less money.
    I'm not just attacking Dun, it seems every player gets listed for a nagging injury & then it just keeps on going like the pink bunny.
    Tins isn't in uniform, because (at least partly) we were fed up w/ his constant injuries.
    J.O. was never in any trouble, but he fell out of favor for the injury reasons.

    Now I will post stats from the Miller/Smits teams.
    Notice games played out of 82 for these guys...
    No wonder they were good.


    97-98
    Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
    Reggie Miller 81 81 34.5 .477 .429 .868 .60 2.30 2.90 2.1 .96 .14 1.58 1.80 19.5
    Rik Smits 73 69 28.6 .495 .000 .783 1.70 5.20 6.90 1.4 .55 1.21 1.84 3.30 16.7
    Chris Mullin 82 82 26.5 .481 .440 .939 .50 2.60 3.00 2.3 1.16 .48 1.43 2.30 11.3
    Antonio Davis 82 12 26.7 .481 .000 .696 2.30 4.50 6.80 .7 .55 .88 1.26 2.90 9.6
    Jalen Rose 82 0 20.8 .478 .342 .728 .30 2.00 2.40 1.9 .68 .17 1.61 2.10 9.4
    Mark Jackson 82 82 29.4 .416 .314 .761 .80 3.10 3.90 8.7 1.02 .02 2.12 1.60 8.3
    Dale Davis 78 78 27.9 .548 .000 .465 3.00 4.80 7.80 .9 .65 1.12 .94 2.70 8.0
    Travis Best 82 0 18.9 .419 .300 .855 .30 1.10 1.50 3.4 1.04 .06 1.35 2.40 6.5
    Derrick McKey 57 4 23.1 .459 .235 .714 1.30 2.40 3.70 1.5 1.00 .53 1.39 2.70 6.3
    Fred Hoiberg 65 1 13.4 .383 .376 .855 .20 1.70 1.90 .7 .62 .05 .34 1.60 4.0
    Austin Croshere 26 0 9.3 .372 .308 .571 .40 1.30 1.70 .3 .35 .19 .50 1.20 2.9
    Mark West 15 1 7.0 .476 .000 .500 .40 .60 1.00 .1 .13 .27 .53 1.00 1.5
    Mark Pope 28 0 6.9 .341 .333 .588 .30 .60 .90 .3 .11 .21 .36 1.30 1.4
    Etdrick Bohannon 5 0 2.2

    98-99 Lockout

    Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
    Reggie Miller 50 50 35.7 .438 .385 .915 .50 2.20 2.70 2.2 .74 .18 1.52 2.00 18.4
    Rik Smits 49 49 25.9 .490 .000 .818 1.50 4.10 5.60 1.1 .37 1.06 1.53 3.20 14.9
    Jalen Rose 49 1 25.3 .403 .262 .791 .70 2.40 3.10 1.9 1.02 .31 1.47 2.60 11.1
    Chris Mullin 50 50 23.6 .477 .465 .870 .50 2.70 3.20 1.6 .94 .26 1.20 2.00 10.1
    Antonio Davis 49 1 25.9 .471 .000 .703 2.40 4.70 7.00 .7 .45 .86 1.02 2.80 9.4
    Dale Davis 50 50 27.5 .533 .000 .618 3.10 5.20 8.30 .4 .40 1.14 .86 2.30 8.0
    Mark Jackson 49 49 28.2 .419 .311 .823 .70 3.10 3.80 7.9 .86 .06 2.02 1.20 7.6
    Travis Best 49 0 21.3 .416 .373 .843 .40 1.20 1.60 3.4 .86 .08 1.27 2.30 7.1
    Sam Perkins 48 0 16.4 .400 .389 .717 .80 2.10 2.90 .5 .31 .29 .46 1.50 5.0
    Derrick McKey 13 0 18.8 .442 .000 .824 1.40 1.80 3.20 1.0 .92 .31 .92 1.80 4.6
    Austin Croshere 27 0 9.2 .427 .276 .870 .60 1.10 1.70 .4 .26 .30 .85 1.20 3.4
    Al Harrington 21 0 7.6 .321 .000 .600 1.00 .90 1.90 .2 .19 .10 .52 1.20 2.1
    Fred Hoiberg 12 0 7.3 .286 .111 1.000 .20 .80 .90 .3 .00 .00 .25 .90 1.6
    Mark Pope

    99-00

    Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
    Jalen Rose 80 80 37.2 .471 .393 .827 .50 4.30 4.80 4.0 1.05 .61 2.35 2.90 18.2
    Reggie Miller 81 81 36.9 .448 .408 .919 .60 2.30 3.00 2.3 1.05 .31 1.59 1.60 18.1
    Rik Smits 79 79 23.4 .484 .000 .739 1.20 3.90 5.10 1.1 .25 1.27 1.37 3.20 12.9
    Austin Croshere 81 14 23.3 .441 .362 .848 1.70 4.70 6.40 1.1 .54 .74 1.49 2.50 10.3
    Dale Davis 74 72 28.7 .502 .000 .685 3.50 6.40 9.90 .9 .70 1.27 1.23 2.70 10.0
    Travis Best 82 0 20.6 .483 .376 .821 .20 1.50 1.70 3.3 .93 .06 1.30 2.50 8.9
    Mark Jackson 81 81 27.0 .432 .403 .806 .80 2.90 3.70 8.0 .94 .12 2.15 1.40 8.1
    Sam Perkins 81 0 20.0 .417 .408 .825 .80 2.80 3.60 .8 .38 .41 .78 1.70 6.6
    Al Harrington 50 0 17.1 .458 .235 .703 .90 2.20 3.20 .8 .50 .18 1.30 2.60 6.6
    Chris Mullin 47 2 12.4 .428 .409 .902 .30 1.30 1.60 .8 .60 .19 .60 1.30 5.1
    Derrick McKey 32 0 19.8 .398 .435 .768 .90 3.30 4.20 1.1 .91 .41 .59 2.50 4.3
    Jonathan Bender 24 1 5.4 .329 .167 .667 .20 .70 .90 .1 .04 .21 .29 .80 2.7
    Jeff Foster 19 0 4.5 .565 .000 .680 .60 1.10 1.70 .3 .26 .05 .11 .90 2.3
    Zan Tabak 18 0 6.3 .471 .000 .625 .90 .90 1.80 .2 .17 .50 .61 .70 2.1


    00-01

    Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
    Jalen Rose 72 72 40.9 .457 .339 .828 .50 4.50 5.00 6.0 .90 .60 2.93 3.20 20.5
    Reggie Miller 81 81 39.3 .440 .366 .928 .50 3.00 3.50 3.2 1.00 .19 1.64 2.00 18.9
    Jermaine O'Neal 81 80 32.6 .465 .000 .601 3.10 6.70 9.80 1.2 .60 2.81 1.99 3.50 12.9
    Travis Best 77 21 31.9 .440 .381 .827 .50 2.40 2.90 6.1 1.43 .14 1.65 3.20 11.9
    Austin Croshere 81 23 23.1 .394 .338 .866 1.50 3.30 4.80 1.1 .44 .62 1.68 2.20 10.1
    Al Harrington 78 38 24.3 .444 .143 .656 1.50 3.40 4.90 1.7 .81 .23 1.90 2.90 7.5
    Tyus Edney 24 0 11.0 .385 .167 .897 .20 .80 1.00 2.3 .71 .00 1.04 .70 4.4
    Zan Tabak 55 14 14.1 .527 .000 .426 1.20 2.70 3.90 .6 .18 .55 1.04 2.30 3.9
    Bruno Sundov 11 4 10.9 .488 .000 .600 .40 1.70 2.10 .2 .18 .36 .27 1.90 3.9
    Sam Perkins 64 41 15.6 .381 .345 .842 .50 2.10 2.60 .6 .52 .28 .30 1.00 3.8
    Jeff Foster 71 9 16.2 .469 .286 .516 2.00 3.50 5.50 .5 .55 .39 .73 2.10 3.5
    Jonathan Bender 59 7 9.7 .355 .268 .735 .20 1.00 1.30 .5 .12 .47 .71 1.20 3.3
    Derrick McKey 66 20 15.0 .441 .200 .778 .70 1.90 2.70 1.1 .73 .20 .71 2.10 2.2
    Terry Mills 14 0 8.1 .324 .176 .000 .30 1.20 1.50 .4 .21 .07 .71 1.40 1.8
    Lari Ketner 3 0 2.3 .000 .000 .000 .00 .00 .00 .3 .00 .00 .67 .00 .0


    01-02 (Trade w/ Bulls most every game was played by all.)

    Jermaine O'Neal 72 72 37.6 .479 .071 .688 2.60 7.90 10.50 1.6 .63 2.31 2.42 3.70 19.0
    Reggie Miller 79 79 36.6 .453 .406 .911 .30 2.50 2.80 3.2 1.11 .13 1.52 1.80 16.5
    Brad Miller 28 28 31.1 .562 .333 .823 2.70 5.10 7.90 1.8 .86 .43 1.46 3.10 15.1
    Brad Miller (TOT) 76 75 29.8 .499 .429 .775 3.30 4.90 8.20 2.0 1.00 .54 1.51 3.20 13.6
    Al Harrington 44 1 29.8 .475 .333 .799 2.20 4.10 6.30 1.2 .93 .48 1.77 3.80 13.1
    Ron Artest 28 24 29.3 .411 .215 .733 1.20 3.80 5.00 1.8 2.36 .57 1.75 3.90 10.9
    Ron Artest (TOT) 55 50 29.9 .423 .312 .667 1.30 3.60 4.90 2.3 2.56 .71 2.15 3.90 13.2
    Jamaal Tinsley 80 78 30.5 .380 .240 .704 1.00 2.80 3.70 8.1 1.73 .50 3.38 3.10 9.4
    Jonathan Bender 78 17 21.1 .430 .360 .773 .80 2.30 3.10 .8 .24 .63 1.23 1.90 7.4
    Austin Croshere 76 1 16.9 .413 .338 .851 1.00 2.90 3.90 1.0 .34 .38 .88 1.40 6.8
    Jeff Foster 82 48 21.8 .449 .133 .610 2.50 4.30 6.80 .9 .87 .46 .96 2.80 5.7
    Kevin Ollie 29 0 19.9 .400 .000 .804 .20 1.70 1.90 3.4 .90 .03 .90 1.10 5.4
    Kevin Ollie (TOT) 81 17 21.3 .388 .500 .824 .30 2.00 2.30 3.6 .77 .02 1.31 1.20 5.7
    Ron Mercer 13 1 16.4 .373 .200 1.000 .50 1.30 1.80 .8 .15 .23 .69 1.70 4.8
    Ron Mercer (TOT) 53 41 32.4 .397 .290 .798 .90 2.40 3.40 2.4 .60 .25 1.66 2.00 13.9
    Carlos Rogers 22 1 7.6 .558 .167 .526 .60 1.10 1.70 .1 .23 .27 .23 .80 2.7
    Primoz Brezec 22 4 7.3 .483 .000 .600 .70 .50 1.30 .3 .00 .32 .27 1.30 2.0
    Bruno Sundov 22 0 4.0 .400 .000 .000 .30 .60 1.00 .1 .14 .14 .18 .70 1.5
    Jamison Brewer 13 0 3.3 .400 .000 .000 .20 .50 .60 .7 .15 .00 .23 .20 .3

    After this Tinsley missed a bunch of games & like a virus it spread.
    It became worse each year.
    I remember giving a thumbs up to SJax because he played 81 games 2 years ago.
    Damn that used to be a given.

    Is it our players? Are they not as tough?
    Do players that play every game exist on other teams?
    It can't be bad luck year after year.
    1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
    3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
    5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
    7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.




  • #2
    Re: 2 Many Injuries

    Don't you mean "Too Many Injuries"? I understand what you mean, but come on. You go into detail with the rosters, but you can't make the title work!? lol

    Anyway, today's game is a little different. Plus, those teams were full of solid players at their positions. The group of guys we have now just doesn't work.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2 Many Injuries

      They had a graphic some time ago during one of the games that showed four of those players on the Miller/Smits led teams, played together more consecutive games then any other four ever had. So, that team is going to stand out injury wise against any team you compare it to.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 2 Many Injuries

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        Don't you mean "Too Many Injuries"? I understand what you mean, but come on. You go into detail with the rosters, but you can't make the title work!? lol

        Anyway, today's game is a little different. Plus, those teams were full of solid players at their positions. The group of guys we have now just doesn't work.
        Go to hell man!
        I know how to use variations on that word.
        I was typing for speed.
        I use tons of subs. for words in forums & in txt msgs.
        Who the hell has the time to type everything perfect like it is my resume or eulogy?
        Fact is I type w/ much less freedom on this board to please uptight language police like you.
        What gives you the right to use "Obie" or "TPTB" if I can't use the number 2 for all of my too, two & to needs?

        You are full of 5-3!
        That equals 2 pal.
        Don't jack my thread ever agin
        1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
        3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
        5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
        7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 2 Many Injuries

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          They had a graphic some time ago during one of the games that showed four of those players on the Miller/Smits led teams, played together more consecutive games then any other four ever had. So, that team is going to stand out injury wise against any team you compare it to.
          Good point/I didn't know that.
          I'm comparing our last 3 years w/ other teams' last 3 years as we speak.
          1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
          3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
          5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
          7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2 Many Injuries

            How serious Danny's and Dun's injuries? Any updates?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2 Many Injuries

              Well Dunleavy has been in the league for at least 5 years also and before this year he was playing through injuries and very rarely missed any games. I think this is just throwing gas on the Pacers fire of hate that has been going on since the warriors trade.
              JOB is a silly man

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 2 Many Injuries

                The Pacers have light at the end of the tunnel.
                I can see good things on the horizon.
                The injuries just seem a bit too frequent.
                1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
                3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
                5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
                7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



                Comment

                Working...
                X