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

Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

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

  • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    Dr. Goldfoot, I think it was you that made the thread about the over-emphasis of the need for a high-quality starting PG by pointing out Ron Harper/etc and how he was the starting PG for the champion Bulls and Lakers.

    Dunleavy's stats aren't great, but for fun I thought I'd compare his #s, as a SG (mostly), to Ron Harper's.



    Ron Harper

    1.77 A/TO ratio
    13.8 PPG
    44.5 FG%
    3.9 APG
    1.7 ST
    0.7 BLK


    So Ron Harper averaged slightly better numbers in slightly more minutes. I'm not saying Dunleavy is better or worse but their numbers are close and comparable. Harper hits a higher % with more points/assts per 40, Dunleavy rebounds more and turns it over less. Either way, Harper was able to help initiate the offense with a similar AST/TO ratio, so I don't think that's much of an issue.

    Yes but one key difference was Harper was a tenacious one on one defender and able to hold his own against a quicker point guard and yet still not be overpowered by a large point guard as well... edit and also in both cases he really wasn't responsible for initiating the offense.. see Jordan/Pippen/Bryant....
    You didn't think it was gonna be that easy, did you? ..... You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did.....
    Silly rabbit..... Trix are for kids.

    Comment


    • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

      Originally posted by able View Post
      So, Tins breaks the plays, bad start, his fault to many shots:
      (over the previous 4 games JT was 56% shooting adn 7 Ast avg)
      So let's look at what really happend in the first half:

      1st play: open pull-up JT : miss
      2nd play: pass Dun > dribble > miss
      3rd play: post-up JT kickout Murph > miss 3
      4th play: post-up JT kickout JO miss
      5th play: break, fake pass left, open jump miss
      (9.30)
      6th play: pass > Dun > DG miss
      7th play: pass > JO > Dun > Murph > JO score
      8th play: pass > DG > JO > travel
      (7.30) 4-14 Time out
      play not shown, miss
      drive > lay-up > miss > JO reb > 2FT
      break > Dun > DG > score
      pass > Dun > JT > JO (foul 2T)
      pass > JO score
      Lob to Dun, missed
      pass > Murph > JT > DG > miss
      pass > DG > JO > score
      pass > Dun miss 3
      pass > Murph miss
      Drive & Dish > JO fouled 2FT
      3.01 JT out DA in 15-25
      end of 1 : 18-34
      2nd: 10.00 Time out 19-40
      JT back in
      pass > DA > JO miss
      JT trips, > DA > Dun score
      pass > JO > DA > JO > JT Drive layup
      pass > DA > JO (st)
      pass > DG 3
      pass > DA > JO > DA > JT miss
      JT clearance, layup score
      pass > Dun miss
      nreak Dun > DA score
      JT Drive blocked
      pass DG miss
      pass > DA > Dun miss
      pass > DG > JO > SW > JO (oob)
      JT drive pull up score
      Break dribble JT lost/recover/score
      Break JT travel
      pass > JO > JT miss 3
      long pass DA score
      pass > SW miss 3
      drive JT blocked . JO (time out)
      pass JO > JT > JO miss
      pass > Mc > JO > Mc > JT > MC drive & loss
      JT Drive & layup score
      JT Drive fouled 2-2
      JT Drive & Dish JO lost ball
      JT Drive & Layup score (after reb bs)
      JT Drive and layup score

      idiotic 3 Ellis 42 - 65


      So, between 10.00 in the 1st ( we're minus 10 here) and 3.01 in th 2nd we lose another 11 pts down.
      We never recovered from that.
      Most starters were out during that time.

      For a "shoot first" I see a lot of "pass"

      sometimes it helps seeing a replay.

      But what this break down does not show is the amount of time that Tinsley had the ball prior to the first pass or shot. I swear (I didn't count so if somebody says I'm wrong then I'll just accept it) it felt like Jamaal had the ball for 14-17 seconds on almost every offensive set he was in last night. Yeah, that seems kind of high to me as well so maybe it's some hyperbole but my gut feeling is that he had it for at least 10 seconds if not more.

      I'm sorry but whenever he is in there the offense is now grinding to a halt & it has been far worse since the trade & frankly it has gotten worse & worse each game.

      The funny thing is that I loved Jamaal as a rookie. I honestly thought we were looking at Mark Jackson part two.

      But now that he is Allen Iverson part two I just have no use for him. I didn't want the original A.I. & I don't want his duplicate.

      I'll say it now, I can't stand players who dominate the ball. That's why I'm not a fan of J.O.'s, that's one of the reasons I didn't like Artest & it's now the reason I can't stand seeing Jamaal in the game.

      I was rooting for Keith McCloud to get in the game, if that tells you anything. I would have suffered threw watching Orien Greene's offense if it meant less of Jamaal during that game.

      Is it Rick? I'll say this, I don't know how he couldn't at least not be partially behind it.

      I've read U.B.'s theory on this & while I find it interesting & frankly believable, I can't believe for a min. that Rick would just let Jamaal ruin the game because he was afraid to sit him.

      Oh what am I thinking? He was afraid to bench Artest so I guess there might be some truth to this.

      Anyway, I still am in the sun. Honestly I am.

      So let's hope Jamaal snaps out of this. Soon.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

        I don't care what the debate on Jamaal Tinsley is:
        "Jamaal Tinsley has averaged 21.8 points, 7.8 assists, 2.6 steals and .506 shooting" is just insane. Insane. Absolutely insane. I know stats lie but how much can that lie? I mean, damn! 22 and 8 on 50% shooting? There is not a single PG in the world who wouldn't be proud of those numbers.

        Comment


        • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

          04-05 NYK 82 82 40.0 .462 .354 .834 0.6 2.4 3.0 8.1 1.5 0.1 2.84 2.30 21.7



          Stats may or may not lie, but they certainly can be misleading.

          I give you another point guard who had a season of very similar stats. Would you consider him a good point guard? Better yet, would his team mates?

          Travis Best could have averaged 8 assist a game if given the reins of the team, however just because he got assist doesn't mean he can run an offense.

          Same for Jamaal. When he is on he is on, there is no doubt about that. He can hit his man for a perfect pass like few others can. However his new tendancy to dominate the basketball is just killing off what should have been a far better offensive structure.

          Is it all his fault? I have no idea, I'm not giving Carlisle a free pass on this one myself. But I just can't stand the way he played that game vs. the Warriors. In fact I'd rather sit threw a best Ron Artest highlight film than watch that again.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

            Peck, Jay, UB, While I agree (of course) with Rexnom in his last post here, a few small things:

            Peck, avg 1st pass was made at th 18 sec mark.
            UB, Rick's hands are everything but tied, he has a new title, he benched (and suspended) Jax with no hesitation whatsoever and
            Peck & UB; DA in an interview THIS WEEK said they are encouraging Tins to "go more for his shot".
            Now, Tins has said he learned a lot from DA this season, sees him as a big brother/father type and he has been clear in the past he was unhappy with his role (not pertaining to shots but to play-calling) so he's not shy to speak his peace.
            If it benefits the team (and JT missed one game with an injury, so we CAN do without him "if needed") Rick should and would not have 1 second of doubt in benching or suspending him.
            It is your conclusion he would get sick in that case and not play for 5 games, that is easy to check and if not real, then there are legions of chances to do something about it.

            I see Tins taking shots, Rick indicating he has to, DA encouraging him to do it, what more do you want to hear/see to make this Rick's idea, outside of Rick's history ?

            Yes he started of lousy (he's playing on a gimpy ankle, Buckner/Denari were clear in that) but after going 1-8 he went 8-16 after that (which is in line with his avg over the last 4) before this "bad game & wise he was doing 56% over the last 3, which is almost double of what Dun is shooting, who do you want to shoot, the guy who avg's 50% or the guy who barely breaks 35% ?

            In the list I supplied, at the end of the half he drives several times with high % results, but they are not "let's get in traffic and see where we end" drives, they were "clear outs" where everybody on the team cleared a path (or side) for JT to go to the hoop, they were set plays.

            I can fully understand why Tins is the whipping boy, if he leaves tomorrow some will rejoice and even take no PG over him, and the next who'll get the heavy guns aimed at him will be JO or Dunleavy.

            Sometimes I think you guys are masochists who want to be udnerdogs to accomplish the fairytale year after year.
            It seems hard to acknowledge you have one of the best PF's in the league on your team and a PG that CAN distribute (nto only did the guy take 24 shots he also dissed 10 Ast and if you just look at the list I made and the number of dishes missed by either Dun, Murph or JO you can easily extrapolate that to another 10 or 15 Ast over the course of the game.

            Sometimes (seeing as also in this game he did not start shooting till later in the game outside of his first shot) I think he only gets told to do so when everybody else is failing and yes, he's TOLD to do it.
            Finally, when he left the game we were down 10 (after playing 10 minutes), due in main to missed shots by the aforementioned players (including DG) he went out for 5 minutes and came back down 21.

            Rick is a "numbers man" who keeps a very close eye on stats, and he will most certainly go for high percentage (JO JT) over "cold shooters" as Dunleavy or DA.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

              I like Hicks theory that Jamaal is being showcased.

              That said, the other theories can also be partially true. Until the trade, JT is our best option, so Rick goes with him. Rick encourages him to shoot, as we don't have much other firepower with Quis out and Murph recovering.

              And while Rick may not be afraid to bench JT in terms of intimidation, I think it's possible he's afraid to bench/discipline him in terms of hurting JT's confidence and attitude--Rick needs it to be good to survive until we trade for a better point guard.

              This is my theory--a synthesis of the various theories being peddled.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                Ok, let's assume we are trading him for a "better" PG, anyone mind listing the "better" & "available" pg's ?

                And yes, dishing neigh on 8 Ast p/g and shooting 50+% but no more then 14 times a game, doing 2.5 steal, neigh on 4 reb as well pls.

                And since "it" has to be better, perhaps a defensive ace on top of that.

                Let's get real here, if a PG like that were on the market, who wouldn't be bidding?
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                  We've seen over and over from Travis Best, from Chauncey, from Kenny Anderson, from AJ, how Rick wants his point guards to play.

                  He wants them to be scoring threats.

                  I think Rick's only regret is that Tinsley isn't shooting a higher percentage.

                  Jamaal looks very uncomfortable on the court, and his shots are often short because he looks tentative. This is not his "natural" way of playing the PG position. I think he's second-guessing himself a lot.
                  This is absurd. Now poor Tinsley is the victim, he's being made to shoot the ball against his will.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    You know, I've thought to myself many times "Jamaal is really playing when he shouldn't be. I can't believe he's playing with this injury/illness. He obviously feels miserable, but he's still trying. That shows a ton of heart and I really admire that".

                    But, I've never, in the six years he's been here, thought "Jamaal really hustled his a** off tonight. He gave it everything he had."


                    If he could just use his heart towards effort the way he can fight through problems, I wouldn't be complaining as much.
                    I'm sorry you haven't been able to see many games the past 6 years.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      I'm not convinced that Dunleavy sees the court any better than Tinsley, that he runs the team any better than Tinsley, or that he has better decision-making than Tinsley.

                      Let's figure those things out before handing him the keys, eh?
                      Even if Dunleavys no better, it opens a spot for a real defender in the backcourt. Stopping dribble penetration and slowing down the opponents pg would do wonderful things for this teams defense. If we're going to play defense with Murphy and Dunleavy we NEED a stopper at PG. Would be even better if we could get a real shooter back there too. Trade him or sit him, it's worth a shot. And not because Tinsleys so bad.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                        Defense would be nice from TINS, he seems to have trouble if he doesn't have the ball in his hands. He has the ability to play defense and get steals. I feel like somewhere in TINS there is consistant D, he just doesn't seem to be able to transmit it to the floor. We need better defense in our back court at both positions. If we have to make a trade to do so, then we should do it.
                        Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                        Comment


                        • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                          Originally posted by PacerMan View Post
                          I'm sorry you haven't been able to see many games the past 6 years.

                          I guess I walked away for a snack all those times that Jamaal went after a loose ball. And that whole matador defense thing..made that up.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                            Besides Dunleavy's poor defense, he also is dreadful near the rim. He doesn't pass well late in a drive and he doesn't really finish all that well most of the time either. Kind of a problem for a "creator", the same problem Fred had except without the abilty to get up over people and score it at the rim 50% of the time.

                            Otherwise I'd be open to moving Tins and shifting it to DunDun with a defense only PG (Greene is already on the team even).

                            Dunleavy is a nice all-around junk ball bench guy that you would appreciate if he was a 2nd rounder and paid like it. Kinda like Croshere.


                            Tinsley just isn't making good reads late in plays. He forces it against double teams, he shoots late when he's been defended well on a drive. It's not what he started off trying to do, it's what he chooses to do at the ends of plays that's been a problem.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Odd thoughts from the Warriors game....

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              I guess I walked away for a snack all those times that Jamaal went after a loose ball. And that whole matador defense thing..made that up.
                              Man, your snack timing is even worse than I thought.........
                              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X