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

Non-Colts thread

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

  • #91
    Re: Non-Colts thread

    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
    I think you underrate the Seahawks. Wilson is a better QB than people give him credit for.
    Maybe, but there's a terrible combination of "NFC" and "West" going on there. I don't plan on watching them or anyone in their division any time soon. When I finished my TiVo of the Steelers last night and then saw that last night's game was an NFC matchup, I turned the TV off.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
      Did anyone watch the BAL - PHI game?

      These refs are in over their head.
      As I said above, you know its bad when Dan Dierdorf (DAN DIERDORF!!) is proving throughout the broadcast that he's much sharper than the replacement refs.

      Now I've been listening to him for most of my life and I enjoy his stories and love of the game, but he's struggled to keep pace with the action for years. He's been turning into John Madden(ing) for years. In fact, I'll bet these refs are so bad that Madden might even be thinking about a comeback. They could blow a call on the field, and then he could talk for five minutes about some rule that only exists in his head while the guys in the booth run a replay from a different game just to see if he'll notice that he's circling the wrong player with his telestrator!
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Non-Colts thread

        What do you guys think about the Bucs/Giants kneel down thing?

        In case you didn't see it, the Giants were going to kneel, up a touchdown with the clock running out. The Bucs actually rushed them and knocked Eli backwards.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
          What do you guys think about the Bucs/Giants kneel down thing?

          In case you didn't see it, the Giants were going to kneel, up a touchdown with the clock running out. The Bucs actually rushed them and knocked Eli backwards.

          This is in a very grey area. The Giants were only up one score. It wasn't a blowout. They should expect the defense to still be trying to strip the ball and get it back if there was still "some" time left on the clock. Up two scores and I think its a nobrainer cheap shot. But I don't want my team to quit if they're only down own score if there is still time on the clock.

          It is tackle football, not kneel-down or touch football.

          That's why victory formation usually has a saftey deep down the field behind the QB. In case something happens.

          I've always thought that the team should put in the backup QB to take the kneel-downs just in case the defense wanted to still play the rest of the clock.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Non-Colts thread

            Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
            What do you guys think about the Bucs/Giants kneel down thing?

            In case you didn't see it, the Giants were going to kneel, up a touchdown with the clock running out. The Bucs actually rushed them and knocked Eli backwards.
            Completely bush league in my opinion. The game is over at that point. You're not going to cause a fumble. You're only going to get people hurt.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Non-Colts thread

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              Completely bush league in my opinion. The game is over at that point. You're not going to cause a fumble. You're only going to get people hurt.
              I'd agree completely if it were a 2-score game. I haven't made up my mind in a one-score game. How often do teams go to the kneel-down with just a one-score lead? I honestly don't know. I think the clock should decide when the game is over, not one of the coaches acting unilaterally. I think you wait for the losing team to surrender, not just have the winning team dictate the end of the game before the clock is out.

              But I don't completely buy the injury argument that much either. These guys are in pads for one thing, and in that situation you aren't going to have two guys colliding at full speed or the scenario that most offensive players get hurt in - twisting and reaching for an extra yard. The offensive guy is already trying to go down.

              Again, two-score game, clearly cheap and unneccessary. A one-score game is debatable because I'm not sure the kneel-down is appropriate in the first place.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                As I said above, you know its bad when Dan Dierdorf (DAN DIERDORF!!) is proving throughout the broadcast that he's much sharper than the replacement refs.

                Now I've been listening to him for most of my life and I enjoy his stories and love of the game, but he's struggled to keep pace with the action for years. He's been turning into John Madden(ing) for years. In fact, I'll bet these refs are so bad that Madden might even be thinking about a comeback. They could blow a call on the field, and then he could talk for five minutes about some rule that only exists in his head while the guys in the booth run a replay from a different game just to see if he'll notice that he's circling the wrong player with his telestrator!
                dungy was unbearable on SNF, defending the refs. we know he is a conservative on social issues, guess on econ too!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Non-Colts thread

                  I don't like unwritten rules and I think you play to win, legally, until you can't realistically win anymore. When you are down by one score, you can win on a fumbled snap or QB fumble before he kneels down. Therefore, you try to make that happen, even if the odds are <1%. It's like running to first base on a ground ball out in baseball, to me.

                  On Mike & Mike this AM, Golic had a great point. The O-linemen should have known the defenders were coming. You know what an " I give up" stance looks like, and you know what a "I'm going to knock your head off" stance looks like. The NYG linemen should have seen they were going to get the second variety. They should have expected it, too.

                  Different story altogether if the lead were 9 points or more.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Non-Colts thread

                    Golic is always the voice of reason on that show. He doesn't reflexively overreact to everything like most of the mainstream sports media.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Non-Colts thread

                      Peter King's MMQB starts out with a rant on the poor officiating.

                      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...k-2/index.html

                      then he takes Coughlin's stance on the kneeldown play
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • Re: Non-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        I'd agree completely if it were a 2-score game. I haven't made up my mind in a one-score game. How often do teams go to the kneel-down with just a one-score lead? I honestly don't know. I think the clock should decide when the game is over, not one of the coaches acting unilaterally. I think you wait for the losing team to surrender, not just have the winning team dictate the end of the game before the clock is out.
                        When they are ahead, the other team is out of timeouts, and kneel downs can run out the clock? Every. Single. Time. Ask Herm Edwards what should be done in that situation.

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        But I don't completely buy the injury argument that much either. These guys are in pads for one thing, and in that situation you aren't going to have two guys colliding at full speed or the scenario that most offensive players get hurt in - twisting and reaching for an extra yard. The offensive guy is already trying to go down.
                        It's not the quarterback who is in much risk of getting hurt. It's the offensive lineman who needlessly have to deal with someone diving into their legs for no reason whatsoever.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • Re: Non-Colts thread

                          I think that's the real issue. TB wasn't trying to make a play on the football, they were diving for the offensive lineman's legs to try and disrupt the snap. That is not in the spirit of the game and to me it's no different than going for someone's head. It showed Schiano's true colors to me, I have no idea why he is a head coach in the NFL. Congratulations you had mild success at Rutgers. Big deal.

                          Schiano being the coach of someone who broke their bloody neck playing football should know better than anyone how dangerous the sport already is, why add an unnecessary play that could have seriously hurt the Giants o-line?


                          Comment


                          • Re: Non-Colts thread

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            When they are ahead, the other team is out of timeouts, and kneel downs can run out the clock? Every. Single. Time. Ask Herm Edwards what should be done in that situation.

                            Herm Edwards knows about miraculous finishes to games in the Meadowlands.

                            The former Jets and Chiefs head coach was part of arguably the most improbable victory in NFL history while playing cornerback for the Philadelphia Eagles in 1978. With his team trailing 17-12 and only seconds remaining, Edwards scooped up a botched handoff from Giants quarterback Joe Pisarcik to Larry Csonka and returned it 26 yards for a touchdown.

                            So Edwards was not surprised to see Bucs coach Greg Schiano attempt to create his own Miracle in the Meadowlands Sunday against the Giants at MetLife Stadium.

                            Trailing by a touchdown with five seconds remaining, no timeouts and the ball on the Giants 30-yard line, Schiano ordered his defense in a bunch formation to try and strip the ball from Eli Manning.

                            The play, in which Manning was knocked to the ground but handled the snap to end the game, drew a strong rebuke from Giants coach Tom Coughlin, who confronted Schiano after the game. Manning called it a cheap shot.

                            Edwards says Schiano’s decision was the right one, so long as the Bucs were only one score behind.

                            I think there’s no wrong answer,’’ Edwards said Monday. “It’s just common sense with coaches and players. Look at the clock, know what the score is, and players know if there’s enough time on the clock and it’s a one score game, you’ve got to know these guys are probably going to fire off so we’ve got to get ready, boys. This thing isn’t over yet. I get that part.

                            But when you’re a couple scores down and there’s 20 seconds left on the clock, you’re not winning that game. So be careful, because if you start doing that, somebody may want to pay you back. The coach doesn’t get paid back, it’s the players. If someone takes out your starting right guard and you’re up two scores with five seconds left, it’s not good.’’

                            While Edwards fumble recovery came during a botched handoff, the Eagles defense had a hand in the play-calling. Two plays before the Pisarcik fumble, the Giants attempted to kneel down and begin to kill the clock. But the Eagles, coached by Dick Vermeil, were taught to play every down.

                            After the defense surged on the Giants, they decided to call a couple running plays to the middle of the field.

                            “Our situation in ’78 was this: The Giants actually ran a play and then they turned around the next play and kneeled on it,[/B]’’ Edwards said. “[B]A skirmish occurred. We kind of knocked the center over, knocked Joe Piscarsik over.’’

                            According to Edwards, a week earlier Piscarsik had refused to run a play sent in late during the game form the Eagles’ offensive coordinator.

                            “Once the skirmish started, when they kneeled on the ball, they get back in the huddle, they run another running play,’’ Edwards said. “It goes for about five (yards). Now, the clock is going down to 26 seconds. They call a play in and say, “Now we’re going to run it again.’ Guys in the huddle are saying, “There’s no need to run it again. We’re under 30 seconds. We’re going to kneel on the ball.’ Joe is arguing, ‘coach said run it.’ Joe is still reflecting on what happened to him last week.

                            (Fullback Doug) Kotar comes to the line of scrimmage. I’m actually talking to Kotar. He thinks they’re kneeling. I shake his hand before the play even started. (Jim) Clack comes to center, he’s looking at the 40-second clock and Joe is looking back at Clark like we’re going to run the play. Clack is nervous because the 40-second clock is running down and he hikes the ball before Joe is ready. I watch the snap. Joe gets the ball, the timing of the run is off, Csonka comes through the line, it hits off his hip and I’m going if I can get this ball off the bounce I can score.’’

                            After the Miracle in the Meadowlands, teams developed the ‘victory formation,’ where helpless to stop the clock, they place a defensive back or receiver behind the center in case there is a fumble.

                            Edwards said the unfortunate thing about Sunday’s game against the Giants is that the kneel down debate has overshadowed what otherwise was a terrific game.

                            “This was a very emotional game,’’ Edwards said. “This has kind of become bigger than the game and it should’ve become that when the two coaches are head coaches. It’s one of those deals, maybe Tom could’ve handled it better. You call him the next day. But now it’s out there and we’re going to talk about it, we’re going to make it an issue.

                            “I don’t think there’s a wrong answer, but this is the answer. You talk about player safety. Don’t jeopardize players when you don’t have to.’’

                            That’s the key to Edwards. If the Bucs try this while trailing two scores with seconds remaining, then he’s not on board.
                            http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bucs/c...s-ii-vs-giants

                            Comment


                            • Re: Non-Colts thread

                              I think the point Brush was trying to make was that if the Giants had just knelt down on that play they would have won.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                I think that's the real issue. TB wasn't trying to make a play on the football, they were diving for the offensive lineman's legs to try and disrupt the snap.
                                It looks to me like they WERE trying to make a play on the football, as they actually got to Manning and knocked him over.

                                video is here:

                                http://www.nesn.com/2012/09/justin-t...-forgotte.html
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X