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

A question for the coaches and strategists

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

  • A question for the coaches and strategists

    The Pacers committed 29 fouls last night. The Lakers made 20 fouls.

    But look here: The Lakers got 38 shots off of those 29 fouls, while the Pacers got to the line only 17 times thanks to the Lakers' 20 fouls.

    Clearly, the Pacers didn't simply foul more than the Lakers, they also gave more bad, two-shot fouls.

    Against the Knicks (Dec 17), the Pacers fouled 23 times and gave 36 shots. The Knicks fouled 15 times and gave 10 shots.

    I looked at the season, and find that the Pacers consistently are giving not just more fouls, but more shots per foul. That is true in 27 out of 35 games.

    This could be a good thing if most of the Pacers' free throws were coming after a score ("AND ONE, *&^%#&%^(^%#!!") But I don't think that is the case. More likely the Pacers get slap-happy when the other team is in the bonus. A year ago, we were talking about David Harrison's proclivity to foul. Now the whole team is doing it!!


    In the Lakers game, free throws was the margin of victory. We don't know what would have happened if the Pacers hadn't fouled (would the Lakers have missed shots?), but we know the result was a 16-point loss.

    Ordinarily, a few fouls is just the price of playing hard defense. But if that price begins to get too high and starts costing you games, you have to change. Does there come a point when you say, "Stop fouling and let 'em shoot it"? How do you coach a change like this?
    Last edited by Putnam; 01-07-2008, 01:01 PM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post


    Ordinarily, a few fouls is just the price of playing hard defense. But if that price begins to get too high and starts costing you games, you have to change. Does there come a point when you say, "Stop fouling and let 'em shoot it"? How do you coach a change like this?
    The problem is that a lot of the Pacers fouls are right at the basket, so if they didn't foul they would be dunks or layups

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      The problem is that a lot of the Pacers fouls are right at the basket, so if they didn't foul they would be dunks or layups

      Is the Pacers propensity to foul a product of opposing bigs getting the best of our bigs or is it due to poor perimeter defense?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

        I think there is a perfect explanation for this, the Pacers are just a flat out bad defensive team.

        We don't have good defensive players and as a result we play poor team defense. Maybe we just haven't gotten use to the scheme but I am thinking we are just a bad defensive team.

        Tinsley gambles a lot on defense. Not quick enough IMO to stay in front of all these speedy guards. Mike Dunleavy plays smart but like Jamaal is just to slow. Danny, sure he has the tools and he is our best perminter defender but that isn't really saying much. He isn't no all defenseive team material.

        Jermaine is an excellant help defender. As many say he cleans up a lot of messes. The problem is he has to clean up to many messes due to our lack of perminter defense. Jeff is one of the best defensive bigs in the league IMO. He can guard the Duncans and the Dirks.

        I think that Owens, Rush, Daniels, Williams, and even David Harrison can play some solid defense. But it really isn't enough. These are our backups. We need stronger defensive play from our starters.

        We have a couple bright spots on the defensive end but not enough. For us to be where we want to be, a championship contender, some more changes need to be made. We need to get better defensively because we just don't have the right players.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

          Originally posted by rommie
          We don't have good defensive players and as a result we play poor team defense. Maybe we just haven't gotten use to the scheme but I am thinking we are just a bad defensive team.
          The Pacers do OK at limiting the other team's field goal attempts, and keep the other's team's field goal percentage within bounds most games. The only statistical measure where the Pacers are consistently beaten is free throw attempts and points off free throws. And they are very good in rebounding (thanks both the the speed of the Pacers' game and a good genuine effort.)


          Seems to me if they were just plain bad, they'd be falling behind consistently in all those measures.

          UncleBuck makes a good point (#2). The Pacers give more 2-point shooting fouls in close to the basket BECAUSE of missed assignments further out.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

            Personally i believe it is amost entirely to do with the type of defencive system the pacers play, fronting the post and playing lots of help. This immediately leads to hacking at people when they break free from the perimeter, epecially if the bigs are too slow to rotate and get good position.

            To go into this more detail!

            The Defence is instucted to play help, encouraging pertimeter players to get up on there man and play in there face, this the leads to more defenders being beaten off the dribble, or by pick'n'rolls etc.

            Now the rotations mean that the big man 'should' step in to cover, then, the weakside defenders rotate round to cover the man that has just broken through.
            Unfortunatly, so far this season this team hasn't been nearly fast enough, so it leads to a hack on the opposition player as they are about to take a lay-up or dunk. Obviously it's better the hack them than to let them have to 2 easy points, but better still is rotating fast enough to stop the play.

            One of the issues that i know what raised before the start of the season and that i know i discussed was how difficult it is to learn this defence, and how it has to become almost natural to the players, knowing exactly where they are suposed to be, reading the game in advance, unfortunately the Pacers are not in this position yet, and until they are, they will foul a lot!

            Similarly with fronting in the post, if a player is pushed off the post, a lob pass past them leaves the opposing big free under the basket, so all that can be done is get the nearest defender to him to foul hard and stop the dunk!

            A few games back i remember a period of play where Jermaine showed in about 7 or 8 offences almost all the possible good and bad parts of this offence, he took a charge by rotating perfectly, got a steel on the weakside, and blocked a shot helping on a drive, he also picked up two fouls, one blocking foul where he didnt get there in time, and one hack where he had no other choice, and they also got a lay up somewhere in there cause there was no help anywhere to be seen, which, even on an isolation, i'm willing to bet makes Dick Harter very angry!
            (Yes i am one of those mad people that decides to watch a game twice through just so the second time they can look at each indiviual aspect, such as one teams defence or one players movement!)

            So yeah, i think it's all to do with the Obrian/harter defence we play, emphansising help, and yes, i do think it can be learnt to avoid fouling, but i definitely dont think the pacers have got it yet!

            It's certainly made a lot harder by the fact none of our perimeter players are good enough defenders to give the bigs a better chance, so i dont think it's fair to just blame the bigs, i truely believe 1 elite perimeter defender would make a huge difference to the pacers, possibly to the tune of 10 -15 points a game! Well, i can dream that one day i will watch a well oiled defencive unit for the pacers not just teams like the pistons doing it to us!

            As always JMO!
            'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
            Animal Farm, by George Orwell

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              UncleBuck makes a good point (#2). The Pacers give more 2-point shooting fouls in close to the basket BECAUSE of missed assignments further out.
              The Pacers are not the quickest team in the league as far as lateral movement goes. Murphy, Shawne, Mike and Tinsley, for sure, have a difficult time guarding individually...which is a big reason O'B (and Harter) stress just a few defensive fundamentals like proper rotation and helping out. When we do like he says...defend as a team...we can get stops. If that breaks down, or really great slashers and passers are facing us, the opponents blow through our perimeter.

              That leads to the bigs as a last line of defense, leading to more fouls from trying to react at the last moment, leading to more free throws for the opponents. Our bigs have a much higher foul-per-minute rate than anyone else on the team.

              So the fouls add up, we get in the penalty, then the opponent shoots every time Shawne or Danny or whoever slaps instead of moving their feet. It feeds on itself.

              The "good" defense coach describes is the only cure for a team with the personnel we have...moving the feet, rotating correctly, talking, helping out...good team D. When we become a bunch of individual defenders we are definitely sub-par.


              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

                Originally posted by kester99
                Our bigs have a much higher foul-per-minute rate than anyone else on the team.

                This is true.

                It is also true for a lot of other teams. The NBA top 11 foulers this season are:

                C. Boozer
                D. Granger
                D. Howard
                A. Bogut
                Z. Ilgauskas
                M. Moore
                S. O'Neal
                S. Dalembert
                M. Yao
                D. Stoudamire
                B. Miller
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

                  we could have gone old school and played box and 1 on kobe.

                  is it box and 1 or box in 1? where 1 guy sticks with the best defender and then the rest play a 4 man zone down the paint.

                  I remember in our league this year, our Coached had us practiced a 1 3 1 zone. and when perfected, a very good defensive strategy with lots of trapping area.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    This is true.

                    It is also true for a lot of other teams. The NBA top 11 foulers this season are:

                    C. Boozer
                    D. Granger
                    D. Howard
                    A. Bogut
                    Z. Ilgauskas
                    M. Moore
                    S. O'Neal
                    S. Dalembert
                    M. Yao
                    D. Stoudamire
                    B. Miller
                    True, my well-drawn friend...so I dug further. We have 4 of the top 49 foulers-per-48 minutes at the center position (78 found total). There are 30 teams. At a statistical average, we should have what? 1.6? guys on that top 50 list. They count Sims, so we have 4. (David, Sims, Murph, Jeff)

                    Likewise at forward, where JO, Danny and Shawne are listed in the top 28 of 173....umm...28 guys, 30 teams...we should only have 14/15ths of a guy on that list. We have three.

                    Since none of those guys make it individually in the top 10, we can see that we have just quite a few guys with a fair number of fouls...which leads me back to the systemic, or 'team' problem, rather than just getting to point fingers at one or two particular knuckleheads.
                    Last edited by kester99; 01-07-2008, 09:11 PM.


                    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

                      Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                      Is the Pacers propensity to foul a product of opposing bigs getting the best of our bigs or is it due to poor perimeter defense?
                      Both, but our perimeter defense is our first problem.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Both, but our perimeter defense is our first problem.

                        I believe that to be the case also. The question would be, who is out there that we could trade for, without gutting the team as it now stands? Catch 22 if you ask me.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A question for the coaches and strategists

                          This is an interesting topic...deducing what's causing this team to foul at such a high rate while simutaneously trying to find ways to limit fouls and improve team defense.

                          The Hustler is correct. The defensive scheme the coaching staff has implemented is a learned scheme that relies heavily on team play. As the roster is currently formed, no one individual player will make that much of a impact. Because the Pacers don't have a lock-down defender, they rely heavily on help defense. However, I think that as the season goes on we'll probably see more players going 1-on-1 defensily because certain players have shown improvement in their individual defense.

                          Owens and Rush are two players I've witnessed who play very good 1-on-1 defense. These two along with Granger, JO, Foster IMO are the team's best individual defenders who coincidentally perform at a different position. Therefore, if I were JOB, I'd try to get this group on the court at the same time, particularly to start the third quarter. Statistically, this has been the quarter where the Pacers have stumbled the most. The following is a breakdown illustrating which quarter and the number of times per quarter the team has struggled to score in each loss:

                          1Q: 4

                          2Q: 5

                          3Q: 7

                          4Q: 5

                          While the above numbers show the Pacers have struggled to score at times in each quarter, it's been the third quarter where they have had their worse breakdowns defensively. What my study shows is that in each game where the Pacers were leading going into the half they've lost the lead in the third quarter by a margin of 10 or more points. In most other cases, the disparity in scoring has come moreso from sluggish starts offensively (which would explain the miscues in the first quarter), key players among the starters being in deep foul trouble and having to sit early (which would explain the miscues in the second quarter) or the team just running out of gas or relying more on jump shooting than driving the lanes (which would certaining explain their miscues in the fourth quarter). But nowhere have the Pacers struggled most often defensively than in the third quarter!
                          Originally posted by andreialta View Post
                          we could have gone old school and played box and 1 on kobe.

                          is it box and 1 or box in 1? where 1 guy sticks with the best defender and then the rest play a 4 man zone down the paint.

                          I remember in our league this year, our Coached had us practiced a 1 3 1 zone. and when perfected, a very good defensive strategy with lots of trapping area.
                          When I read that JOB wouldn't use Zone defense, I was a bit suprised! I realize there are some limitations with most zone defenses, such as the inability of interior players to be in the right position to rebound effectively, and the mismatches they can create when players rotate defensively, or that it's harder to defend screen-N-rolls from a zone, when implemented properly most zone defenses can limit your opponent's ability to score thereby taking your opponent out of their rythme.

                          You just have to be careful when going with zone defenses, but yes, they can be very effective! My advice to JOB would be to have each player start out in a zone defense after the score w/the man nearest the ballhandler taking up a defensive posture. I know normally, you want a Guard on a Guard, but if the ball hander is coming back down court in transition which is something teams have tried to take advantage of against the Pacers lately due to their lack of speed, you want the man closest to him to halt his progress and the best way to do that is to address him early at least at the half-court area long before he's able to get down court and setup the offense. Otherwise, you've either allowed the ball handler to go coast-to-coast on you or quickly run the offense.

                          A Zone defense will atleast met the opponent on the opposite end of the court. The Pacers could then go to man-D as the situation on the floor dictates.
                          Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-08-2008, 03:08 PM. Reason: Combined posts

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X