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

Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

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

  • #16
    Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

    Originally posted by Frank Slade View Post
    In the back of my mind, that's what I have been thinking as well. Given all the circumstances, and the number crunch, it just seems logical that some move will go down soon.
    For all we know they could have a trade on the table and be showcasing Marshall.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

      Unfortunately, I'm kind of with UB on this one. I just don't have that excitement that I've had in years past. I'm not basing it all on preseason games...I just haven't been enthusiastic about this roster since we started making trades. That is because I thought when would start trading that we'd be getting rid of those players that needed to be dealt.........but that didn't happen.

      Which has led me to wonder.

      Was this Donnie and Larry's vision all along? This wildly athletic roster of guys with no real shooters or fundamentalists among other things? Is this what they had hoped for entering the offseason?

      Or, was it a product of circumstances? Perhaps originally they had an entirely different vision in their mind, but just couldn't achieve it because the players they needed to trade/acquire were just not available in terms of making deals work. Sure, they picked up a couple nice acquisitions in the offseason, but that starting lineup still involves players who probably shouldn't be here. I just honestly don't feel as though this was the starting lineup Larry had in mind for us this year...but I could be wrong.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

        Originally posted by rcarey View Post

        Was this Donnie and Larry's vision all along? This wildly athletic roster of guys with no real shooters or fundamentalists among other things? Is this what they had hoped for entering the offseason?

        Or, was it a product of circumstances? Perhaps originally they had an entirely different vision in their mind, but just couldn't achieve it because the players they needed to trade/acquire were just not available in terms of making deals work. Sure, they picked up a couple nice acquisitions in the offseason, but that starting lineup still involves players who probably shouldn't be here. I just honestly don't feel as though this was the starting lineup Larry had in mind for us this year...but I could be wrong.


        I think it was a combination of both.

        Yes TPTB wanted a more athletic team. But I think they tried to trade Tinsley and Jax (and DW said they considered trading Saras) but the offers (if there were any from other teams) were so poor the Pacers felt like they were better off keeping them and hoping they would play well and increae their trade value so they could be traded either at the deadline or next summer.

        That is why I posted several months ago that this rebuilding that started with the Artest trade is a two year project - I believe that because JT and Jax are still on the team.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          7. I'm not sure what to think about Saras. Not good from the field, leaving his man open for jumper after jumper & trouble bringing the ball up the floor. I just don't understand what is going on with him. Has the NBA figured him out? Is he fatigued? Was he never that good to begin with? I don't know the answer but something is wrong.
          hmm, but I thought you guys all understand he has hit the rookie wall

          seriously, I wish Saras left this God forgoten club. on paper this season looked o.k. (apart from the coach), but in reality it's shaping up to be the same as last year, but with a worse start. playing with dopehead ganstas and a coach who built you "rookie walls" last season is no fun.
          on the other hand, I'm being sarcastic, of course. hope will be the last one to die. Pacers will pick it up and everything will be fine (though not sure how that might happen). I hope that if Saras will be played at PG consistently he will become a big asset to this team. his return to Europe would be a big dissapointment (in terms of basketball in general). . ah, whatever..

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I think it was a combination of both.

            Yes TPTB wanted a more athletic team. But I think they tried to trade Tinsley and Jax (and DW said they considered trading Saras) but the offers (if there were any from other teams) were so poor the Pacers felt like they were better off keeping them and hoping they would play well and increae their trade value so they could be traded either at the deadline or next summer.

            That is why I posted several months ago that this rebuilding that started with the Artest trade is a two year project - I believe that because JT and Jax are still on the team.
            The problem is that SJax has put his trade value in the crapper and Tinsley's isn't much better... tho Tinsley could improve his by not being injured/sick (or pretending to be) over the course of several games.

            I still don't think there really is a vision for this team. Or it's a diluted vision with everyone's ideas being in the pot (that is owners, Walsh, Bird, Carlisle, and probably a few others as well). That's why it's all a mess. There's no clear vision and direction for this team. It's a team built by committee.

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              The problem is that SJax has put his trade value in the crapper and Tinsley's isn't much better... tho Tinsley could improve his by not being injured/sick (or pretending to be) over the course of several games.

              I still don't think there really is a vision for this team. Or it's a diluted vision with everyone's ideas being in the pot (that is owners, Walsh, Bird, Carlisle, and probably a few others as well). That's why it's all a mess. There's no clear vision and direction for this team. It's a team built by committee.

              -Bball
              It is an experiment that may or may not turn out. I plan to give it a couple months before I make a final judgment.

              My instincts have told me the team is not respecting the need for shooters and physical players enough. I remember when we had some poor shooting teams in the past. We were not very good at all back then.

              I am also concerned about some of our smallish players getting banged up. Al already hurt his back. Not sure if it was from guarding the bigger Utah frontline, but I doubt it helped.

              Also, with this team we are relying on a number of unproven players....more than at any time in the recent past. We sent Pollard, Cro, AJ and Freddie and received Quis, Powell, Greene, Baston, Williams, White and Marshall. Maybe athletically we got an upgrade...but we lost a ton of experience. ... maybe we should add Jamison Brewer...

              Usually when an NBA club is relying on young players, they are promising players that were picked in the lottery. In contrast, we are relying on players from Euroleague, late first round picks and second round picks to come through for us while our other players are in a different kind of court. Not a good situation. It seems like this "idea" is merely on paper or in someone's mind...like the Saras deal.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                Speaking of bad shooting, here are some numbers that aren't so reassuring:

                Preseason Game #1 FT% = 64.9%
                Preseason Game #2 FT% = 75.5%
                Preseason Game #3 FT% = 65.6%

                We're not a very good shooting team in general. During those close games in the regular season, we're going to need every bit of help we can get. Making our free throws will be crucial. Since we have no real pure shooters on the team, a lot of our points are going to come from using that athleticism and driving hard to the hole. That's going to result in a lot of fouls (assuming we stick with that plan), and it does no good if we get to the line and miss our free throws.

                And once again, I agree with Bball. I remember we were both calling for someone to step up and proclaim a future vision for this team quite some time ago. However, it seems as though you have 3 guys who all want different things. You can almost see the roster divided into those 3 parts (players like Sarunas and Williams were in Larry's vision, guys like Armstrong appealing to Rick, Daniels for Donnie, etc.). I don't know if those are right per se, but you get the idea.

                All three of those guys have a different opinion on how the team should look, and it's as if they're trying to bunch them all together and hoping for the best.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  I am also concerned about some of our smallish players getting banged up. Al already hurt his back. Not sure if it was from guarding the bigger Utah frontline, but I doubt it helped.

                  I don't see any evidence that guarding bigger people causes injuries. Al played a lot of hard minutes the past two seasons. And what I mean by that is he played a lot of minutes, over 40 minutes per in close games and he was involved in almost every play, he was counted upon to produce and be a leader, and that takes a lot out of a player - much more than guarding bigger players.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Maybe Iverson guarded him too, but I specifically recall Marbury guarding (LMAO) Sarunas when Lithuania beat the US. Sarunas looked nothing short of incredible during that game. Marbury played off him early on and Sarunas got hot....and was visibly having a great time draining three's. Marbury was trying to return the favor, but was not nearly as successful shooting. I was convinced at the time that Sarunas was a combination of Jason Kidd and Steve Nash. I now truly think that game was an aberration.
                    Well, that game was not coincidence. Saras really was one of the major players taking his teams to the titles. We were used to him being clutch and we were confident that he will play his best game when in matters. I thought he will repeat his success, but...

                    Imo Pacers didn't became his club. And this is essential for a PG. He is a stranger playing the team game. Maybe the team didn't accepted him and it's hard to build confidency without team support. That's why his fire is gone (referring to Unclebuck). And I guess his fire is/was not acceptable for some players and his fire was not supported.

                    Otoh take into accaunt that Tinsley is also playing bad. Is this coincidence? Is this just a preseason and lack of the training together? Is this RC and his old game? We'll see, but I'm not very optimistic at the moment.
                    I'm really sorry because of my english (which is my 3-4 language) and I really appreciate Your patience. I hope this board will make me better

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post

                      I still don't think there really is a vision for this team. Or it's a diluted vision with everyone's ideas being in the pot (that is owners, Walsh, Bird, Carlisle, and probably a few others as well). That's why it's all a mess. There's no clear vision and direction for this team. It's a team built by committee.

                      -Bball
                      You keep posting as if vision is what this team needs. The problem is their vision conflicts with 29 other teams visions so getting what you actually envision is almost impossible. (Playing fantasy basketball wises up people that think putting together the basketball team you envision is easy.)

                      Then when you get something that is pretty good the wheels can still come off as we've seen. (injuries, suspensions) It takes awhile to salvage things under those conditions.

                      Harrington was a pretty good salvage job of the Artest situation, but we still have some more salvage work to be done before we can get back to looking at how the team actually fits together.

                      I think Bird has found out what Donnie already knew, citizenship counts almost as much as talent. I think that's why he passed on some point guards last draft. I'm still not exactly comfortable with him at the controls though, and I haven't figured out why.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                        Originally posted by Will Galen
                        You keep posting as if vision is what this team needs. The problem is their vision conflicts with 29 other teams visions so getting what you actually envision is almost impossible.
                        Tell that to Brian Colangelo.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                          If their direction is to get 5+players with the exact same skill set, then they're succeeding. But if their direction is to actually build a ball team, then they're failing.

                          Long/athletic players do work, but they can't be mirror images of each other. Each player has to bring something different to the floor, and that's just not the case with the Ps.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            If their direction is to get 5+players with the exact same skill set, then they're succeeding. But if their direction is to actually build a ball team, then they're failing.

                            Long/athletic players do work, but they can't be mirror images of each other. Each player has to bring something different to the floor, and that's just not the case with the Ps.

                            Who has the same skill set among the top 15 players. (keep in mind only the top 9 or 10 even matter) The players might not be good enough, but I don't see the "exact same skill set "

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                              I think they want all around players, not necessarily the exact same skill set.

                              This is a catch 22, if you have a Dale Davis who enforces, defends and rebounds then you have a role, he knows it, teammates know it, they can complement that. The pieces fit.

                              If you have a bunch of good all around players who all think they are better than each other thats horrible for a team, imho.

                              That's not to say it can't work however, if you can get very good all around players who fill in on a given night where another good all around teammate is struggling that turns into the whole being better than the sum of the parts. You need a 10 man rotation of Danny Granger, basically.

                              Impossible to find at the pro level, imo. You have everyone of these guys who were the stars in highschool, college and are used to being the man. They learn bad habits because their ability allows them to get away with it.

                              Look at the psychology of it really, most sucessful teams are 1 really amazing player and a second pretty amazing player and a bunch of guys sacrificing for the team. MJ and Pippen, Dwade and 30 something Shaq, which suprised everyone when Payton, Walker, and Jwill were willing to sacrifice for the team. The Pacers even, Reggie in the playoffs was that guy, amazing. He had Jalen (focused and in his prime) and a bunch of exceptional role players, imo. This is why SJ and Tinsley don't feel right to us, Tinsley mainly got paid and doesn't care enough, ducking now. JAX who thinks he is the Jalen to Reggie or even Reggie, really and he's not. As Granger takes only 4 shots last night and Jax shoots more than anyone else w/o 1 assist.

                              As a side note, I like to see numbers in JOs assist column.

                              So to sum it up, I think they are trying to get guys who are basketball players, not one dimensional, but the most important thing is to get guys who care completely unselfishly and what EVER philosphy will look awesome at that point.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Some quick random thoughts about the loss to the wolves....

                                Are we looking for same positions skill set, or just overall playing?

                                Quis, Marshall, Lampley, White, and Williams all play the same style. The level at which they play differ, but they all are long, athletic, solid to decent ball handlers that try to get to the rim with not much of an outside shot.

                                If you had to guard those players, what would you do? You'd make them hit an outside jumper, and take away the driving lanes.

                                Granted Lampley won't be there, and because of numbers Marshall won't either, but that leaves 3 players doing the exact same thing on a 12man roster.

                                Combine that with you're PGs that can't hit the broadside of a barn, you've got 2 positions that can't shoot a lick. Outside of Saras, and Armstrong but he's not going to be involved that much, you've got two positions dedicated to trying to get to the front of the rim. I'd consider them all drivers, just at different levels.

                                Powell hasn't set himself apart from Foster.

                                So every one of your new guys either mirror each other, or a player already on the roster.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X