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

Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

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

  • #31
    Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

    exactly what i was trying to point out in another thread...all these people want to tank and get a high draft pick and blah blah blah...

    sorry but
    Antonio Davis
    Dale Davis
    (Granted we traded him) Eric Piatkowski
    Fred Hoiberg
    Travis Best
    Erick Dampier
    Austin Croshere
    Al Harrington
    Primoz Brezec
    Danny Granger

    don't seem like the answer to this franchise...of course...lets keep hoping!
    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

      I grow sick of the Granger hate, he's averaging 17.5 ppg, in whats now an offense based around him and Mike, shoots a respectable 45% from the floor and 38% from 3 range, and 82% from the line, while guarding usually the team's top offensive force, and grabbing 6 boards a game, and missing 4 games in his career.

      In terms of the Pacers they've drafted quite well, sure there's picks they could have done better with, but they've done very well with later picks, which either were on the Pacers or other teams.

      I'll go a step further and post what players were picked 1 spot ahead of us.

      1990 -- Round 2, Pick 44 -- Milwaukee Bucks take Steve Henson
      1991 -- Round 1, Pick 12 -- New York Knicks take Greg Anthony
      1991 -- Round 2, Pick 40 -- Detroit Pistons take Doug Overton
      1992 -- Round 1, Pick 13 -- Denver Nuggets take Bryant Stith
      1993 -- Round 1, Pick 13 -- LA Clippers take Terry Dehere
      1993 -- Round 2, Pick 38 -- Washington Bullets take Conrad McRae
      1993 -- Round 2, Pick 50 -- Houston Rockets take Marcelo Nicola
      1994 -- Round 1, Pick 14 -- New Jersey Nets take Yinka Dare
      1994 -- Round 2, Pick 40 -- Miami Heat take Jeff Webster
      1994 -- Round 2, Pick 43 -- Portland Trailblazers take Shawnelle Scott
      1995 -- Round 1, Pick 22 -- Charlotte Hornets take George Zidek
      1995 -- Round 2, Pick 51 -- Sacramento Kings take Dejan Bodiroga
      1996 -- Round 1, Pick 9 -- Dallas Mavericks take Samaki Walker
      1996 -- Round 2, Pick 51 -- Vancouver Grizzlies take Chris Robinson
      1997 -- Round 1, Pick 11 -- Sacramento Kings take Oliver Saint-Jean
      1998 -- Round 1, Pick 24 -- San Antonio Spurs take Felipe Lopez
      1999 -- Round 1, Pick 25 -- Miami Heat take Tim James
      2000 -- Round 1, Pick 26 -- Denver Nuggets take Mamadou N'Diaye
      2000 -- Round 2, Pick 55 -- Golden State Warriors take Chris Porter
      2001 -- Round 2, Pick 40 -- Seattle Supersonics take Earl Watson
      2002 -- Round 1, Pick 13 -- Milwaukee Bucks take Marcus Haislip
      2003 -- Round 2, Pick 48 -- New Orleans Hornets take James Lang
      2004 -- Round 1, Pick 28 -- San Antonio Spurs take Beno Udrih
      2004 -- Round 2, Pick 59 -- Minnesota Timberwolves take Blake Stepp
      2005 -- Round 1, Pick 16 -- Toronto Raptors take Joey Graham
      2005 -- Round 2, Pick 45 -- Philadelphia 76ers take Louis Williams
      2006 -- Round 1, Pick 16 -- Chicago Bulls take Rodney Carney
      2006 -- Round 2, Pick 44 -- Orlando Magic take Lior Eliyahu
      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

      ----------------- Reggie Miller

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

        Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
        exactly what i was trying to point out in another thread...all these people want to tank and get a high draft pick and blah blah blah...

        sorry but
        Antonio Davis
        Dale Davis
        (Granted we traded him) Eric Piatkowski
        Fred Hoiberg
        Travis Best
        Erick Dampier
        Austin Croshere
        Al Harrington
        Primoz Brezec
        Danny Granger

        don't seem like the answer to this franchise...of course...lets keep hoping!
        How many of those were Top 10 picks?

        If we finish middle-of-the-pack again next season, we're going to get a pick on par with the players you've posted. How does that make us any better down the line? Are you content with being mediocre forever?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

          Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
          I'd have to agree DD was a great pick, but when you're drafting in the 20's every year you're not going to have much luck drafting an impact player.

          The jury is still out on Danny and Shawne. Danny has improved every year, and remember Shawne would be a junior right now in college.



          It's interesting to compare Shawne's current year stats to Danny's first year:

          Pacer Season Team G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT%
          SW 07-08 IND 39 2 16.1 0.462 0.349 0.694
          DG 05-06 IND 78 17 22.6 0.462 0.323 0.777


          Pacer OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
          SW 0.9 1.9 2.8 0.9 0.5 0.3 1.15 2.30 7.3
          DG 1.7 3.2 4.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.03 2.70 7.5

          Very similar numbers. Danny was getting more minutes, but when corrected for this, the major difference is rebounds - Danny hits the boards much harder.

          In any case, if Shawne progresses as Danny has, this will be good. But this does not address the Pacers gluttony of SFs.

          Shawne Williams for Delonte West works, though if Shawne develops the way he's going, we might get more for him later down the road or he'd be more valuable as a 6th man, which we seem to have a surplus of with Daniels, Diogu, and Foster/Murphy.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

            Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
            exactly what i was trying to point out in another thread...all these people want to tank and get a high draft pick and blah blah blah...

            sorry but
            Antonio Davis
            Dale Davis
            (Granted we traded him) Eric Piatkowski
            Fred Hoiberg
            Travis Best
            Erick Dampier
            Austin Croshere
            Al Harrington
            Primoz Brezec
            Danny Granger

            don't seem like the answer to this franchise...of course...lets keep hoping!
            Those picks were all in the teens.

            Say we get the 5th pick in the draft this year, that is a decent possibility if we keep losing.

            How do you feel about getting a guy like Devin Harris, Raymond Felton, or even Dwayne Wade? All are recent #5 picks. Then again, so are Bender and Nikoloz Tskititzvili to be fair, but we've got enough "average" players so I'm willing to take a gamble on getting a superstar.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

              Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
              My vote for highest impact player drafted by the Pacers since 1990 would
              have to be Dale Davis - easily.

              He brought a toughness and interior presence never before seen on an NBA
              Pacers team.

              He was exactly what they had been sorely needing for a very long time, and
              was a key contributor to the Pacers being one of the best teams of the '90s.
              ...And exactly what the Pacers have lacked since they traded him... (altho even at 52 years old he was still able to bring some of that back when the Pacers signed him a couple of years back and he and Reggie helped to save the season).

              -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


              • #37
                Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                Those picks were all in the teens.

                Say we get the 5th pick in the draft this year, that is a decent possibility if we keep losing.

                How do you feel about getting a guy like Devin Harris, Raymond Felton, or even Dwayne Wade? All are recent #5 picks. Then again, so are Bender and Nikoloz Tskititzvili to be fair, but we've got enough "average" players so I'm willing to take a gamble on getting a superstar.
                Walsh (apparently) loves 7' project centers and also long and lean tweeners (players that can play SG/SF or even SG/SF/PF but are generally quite slow at SG, generally slow at SF, and totally too skinny and prefers to stay away from contact to be an effective PF). If we get a #5 pick, look for us to spend it on one of the above. Let's not forget, Bender was a #5 pick.



                -Bball
                Last edited by Bball; 01-30-2008, 06:23 PM.
                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


                • #38
                  Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                  I'm tired of the Bender hate. Yes, he came along slowly. Yes, he never realized his potential. Yes, that draft was loaded.

                  But the guy was forced to retire at the same age Danny Granger is RIGHT NOW. And for a couple years prior to that, his knees didn't allow him to play the way he wanted to. Be angry at the front office for covering up the severity of those injuries (Microfracture surgery on both knees) and extending him at the pay they did (although, again, 4 years, not 7), but it's despicable to beat a dead, retired horse who doesn't deserve your scorn.

                  I'd like to point that that last year, there was a game against the Spurs, and despite those bad knees, he dominated Bowen to the point he was commanding a double team from Duncan, and was still scoring at will. Jonathan Bender had the potential to be a force of nature on the level of Kevin Garnett or Shawn Kemp. The only thing that stopped him was a steep learning curve and two horrible knees.

                  I find it interesting that Len Bias OD'ed on cocaine, and he's a sad story. Bender tries his best and is forced to choose between retiring or living his 30s-death in a wheelchair, and some of you act like you'd spit on him if you saw him. It's despicable.

                  As for the Pacers themselves, they've done a good job drafting considering where they've been picking. The one thing I can't fault this franchise about is their drafting. The truth is that it's very hard to pick a true impact player where we've been picking for the last 15 years.

                  It's time to go find that impact player.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                    I've always thought Walsh has been good at making draft picks. Bird seems to have the MO of making a good first round pick and then taking a flier on someone from Europe in the second round, such as Lorbek and Stanko. I like it that he's doing this.

                    I also like that Bird goes after players he really likes. He won a four team tug of war for Saras. He tried really hard to get Chicago's Gordon. (Harrington for the 5th pick if I remember right) He liked James White and got him. (He was also smart enough to cut his loses) He tried to get Bynum for JO. I still believe Kevin Martin was part of the Sacramento trade until Artest acted up wanting to go to LA.

                    Yes I know none of those have worked out in our favor, but I still like what Bird is doing. Look at all the players that have been in a Pacers uniform since the brawl. There's been a big turnover. It does appear that he finally found a keeper in Rush, but that could turn on him too since Rush will be a free agent. Thus my only question about Bird is he going to be able to keep players once we get them?

                    I do think that if we dropped all the way to 5th pick in the draft, Bird would somehow turn that pick into Gordon or Rose. Our luck though if we finished with the fifth worst record someone like the Knick's would vault over us by winning the lottery.

                    One more thought. Does anyone else thing Pat Riley is tanking on purpose? I'm thinking he wants another high draft pick like he got with Wade. A center to replace Shag?
                    Last edited by Will Galen; 01-30-2008, 06:57 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                      I'm tired of the Bender hate. Yes, he came along slowly. Yes, he never realized his potential. Yes, that draft was loaded.

                      But the guy was forced to retire at the same age Danny Granger is RIGHT NOW. And for a couple years prior to that, his knees didn't allow him to play the way he wanted to. Be angry at the front office for covering up the severity of those injuries (Microfracture surgery on both knees) and extending him at the pay they did (although, again, 4 years, not 7), but it's despicable to beat a dead, retired horse who doesn't deserve your scorn.

                      I'd like to point that that last year, there was a game against the Spurs, and despite those bad knees, he dominated Bowen to the point he was commanding a double team from Duncan, and was still scoring at will. Jonathan Bender had the potential to be a force of nature on the level of Kevin Garnett or Shawn Kemp. The only thing that stopped him was a steep learning curve and two horrible knees.

                      I find it interesting that Len Bias OD'ed on cocaine, and he's a sad story. Bender tries his best and is forced to choose between retiring or living his 30s-death in a wheelchair, and some of you act like you'd spit on him if you saw him. It's despicable.

                      As for the Pacers themselves, they've done a good job drafting considering where they've been picking. The one thing I can't fault this franchise about is their drafting. The truth is that it's very hard to pick a true impact player where we've been picking for the last 15 years.

                      It's time to go find that impact player.
                      Bender was a bust. There's nothing more to say there.

                      My problem is not with Bender, it is with management wasting a player AND a 5th pick in a loaded draft on a project when we didn't need a project (shouldn't have taken Al the year before if they wanted to risk the '99 pick on a (too) raw project with bad knees coming out of HS).

                      -Bball
                      Last edited by Bball; 01-30-2008, 07:02 PM.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        Bender was a bust. There's nothing more to say.

                        -Bball
                        Yes he was, but you'll never get some of us to think he was a bad pick.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Bender was a bust. There's nothing more to say.

                          -Bball
                          There's plenty more to say, but nothing that won't get me banned.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                            Yes he was, but you'll never get some of us to think he was a bad pick.
                            That's OK... but it doesn't hurt to try...

                            -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


                            • #44
                              Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              Yes he was, but you'll never get some of us to think he was a bad pick.
                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              That's OK... but it doesn't hurt to try...

                              -Bball

                              O.K., I'll try. Bender is Mo Pete's cousin. Had Bender's knees been the least bit adequate I'm convinced Jonathan would have been an excellent pick.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Since 1990, who has the Pacers drafted that is worth a d***

                                Originally posted by grace View Post
                                O.K., I'll try. Bender is Mo Pete's cousin. Had Bender's knees been the least bit adequate I'm convinced Jonathan would have been an excellent pick.
                                Ok... You've all browbeat me into this admission:
                                Had Bender been healthy, motivated, and a great basketball player then he would've been a nice player for the Pacers...



                                -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

                                Working...
                                X