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

O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

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

  • O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

    Sorry, no link, I am referring to what O'Brien said on his show last night. He was asked what he believes the Pacers roster lacked.

    His answer was very clear and concise.

    1) they need defensive toughness. he said his greatest disappointment about this team is the lack of defensive toughness to play defense for 48 minutes. It isn't that the players don't try, but they lack a certain toughness that is needed on the defensive end.

    2) that one offensive player - perimeter player that you can just give the ball to late in games, when the defense is set, when they have scouted you - that one player who can create a shot when things break down, when the shot clock is winding down. Pacers don't have that. OB mentioned Kobe and Paul Pierce type of player.

    It is good to know that he has a clear idea of what this team needs, both of which I agree with 100%.

  • #2
    Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

    Should we try to solve this through the draft, I hope we get O. J. Mayo!
    Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 02-08-2008, 09:10 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

      ok, for whatever reason, that irked me.

      1. Obie is installing a system that BREEDS poor defensive intensity. If he has a problem with that, then he has himself to blame. He certainly isn't putting his players in the best position to play quality defense.

      2. Yes, the Pacers could use Kobe Bryant. So could 27 other NBA teams that don't play in LA, and even one that does play in LA.

      I have a problem with that, because it seems like side-stepping responsibility. It's very easy to shift public focus and say you don't have a stud all-world player as the reason you're losing. Not every coach gets to play without an all-world shot-maker, like Obie had in Iverson and Pierce during his previous jobs.

      I question his ability to lead his team if he's really implying he needs a top-10 player in order to win games. The Pacers did that for a full decade.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

        Morris Almond is the answer...let's go get him!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          ok, for whatever reason, that irked me.

          1. Obie is installing a system that BREEDS poor defensive intensity. If he has a problem with that, then he has himself to blame. He certainly isn't putting his players in the best position to play quality defense.

          2. Yes, the Pacers could use Kobe Bryant. So could 27 other NBA teams that don't play in LA, and even one that does play in LA.

          I have a problem with that, because it seems like side-stepping responsibility. It's very easy to shift public focus and say you don't have a stud all-world player as the reason you're losing. Not every coach gets to play without an all-world shot-maker, like Obie had in Iverson and Pierce during his previous jobs.

          I question his ability to lead his team if he's really implying he needs a top-10 player in order to win games. The Pacers did that for a full decade.

          So even though what OB said is 100% truth, you would rather he lie and say something like we have enough on our roater, we don't need anything. Kstat I don't know what you want him to say, he was just being honest. Pacers don't have a player who can create something out of nothing. In years past the pacers had Reggie who could at times, Smits who was a factor whenever he got the ball, Rose could create a shot, Artest could and even Stephen jackson can even if it is a bad shot.

          I don't think OB is saying he wants a hall of Famer type player, but the team needs a creator

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            So even though what OB said is 100% truth, you would rather he lie and say something like we have enough on our roater, we don't need anything.
            I'd prefer he accept some responsibility, instead of contradicting his actions with his words.

            If he's so displeased with the defense, he shouldn't be coaching a style that encourages it.


            Yes, everything he said was the truth. The problem is he left out himself and his system among the things that needed improvement. It's like your car catching fire and saying you need new tires while leaving out the fact the rest of the body is charcoal.
            Last edited by Kstat; 02-08-2008, 09:25 AM.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

              Well, every team in the league needs a Kobe or Pierce. However, my guess is he just said the first few players that came to mind to fit that mold. One being somebody who played for him. Thinking on the spot type thing. Certainly he can't have any delsions about the Pacer's ability to acquire the guys he named. Giving him the benefit of the doubt.

              Now, K-Stat, I think the whole coaching oriented part of your post has validity. Defensively, I think JOb is forcing a system on a team who does not have the personnel to play it. Offensively, I'm not all that thrilled either b/c I think his system smacks a little too much of gimmickry. By that I mean, it encourages too many people to just bomb away outside s opposed to having ball and player movement and attacking the basket.

              Of course, it would also look better with superior offensive talent. Likewise, it could be that it's the team's poor execution of the offense. Particularly on D, though, I am seriously questioning the decision to utilize and continue to utilize the current approach.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                ron artest ?

                *runs*
                If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                [/center]
                @thatguyjoe84

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                  Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                  Now, K-Stat, I think the whole coaching oriented part of your post has validity. Defensively, I think JOb is forcing a system on a team who does not have the personnel to play it.

                  I'm considering starting another thread for this. You bring up an interesting point. But this style of defense is designed to work with poor individual defenders. This defensive system should be perfect for the Pacers personnel. Jeff Foster is taylor made for this system, a healthy JO is taylor made for this system. The reason why this system was designed in the first place was to help a team full of poor individual defenders play as one unit and the whole would be much better than the parts.

                  The first tenent of the system is help and recover, all five guys playing together. It does not take good individual defenders to play this system - not at all. It is designed to compensate for poor defenders. That is the purpose of it

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I'm considering starting another thread for this. You bring up an interesting point. But this style of defense is designed to work with poor individual defenders. This defensive system should be perfect for the Pacers personnel. Jeff Foster is taylor made for this system, a healthy JO is taylor made for this system. The reason why this system was designed in the first place was to help a team full of poor individual defenders play as one unit and the whole would be much better than the parts.

                    The first tenent of the system is help and recover, all five guys playing together. It does not take good individual defenders to play this system - not at all. It is designed to compensate for poor defenders. That is the purpose of it
                    UB, that's a complete fallacy.

                    Obie's defensive philosophy doesn't work because he has no defensive philosophy.

                    His philosophy is built around the offense scoring more points than the defense can cough up. Pack it inside as much as possible and pray you hit more bombs than they do. It's textbook nellie-ball.

                    His system isn't designed to compensate for poor defensive talent. It's designed to compensate for poor defensive strategy.

                    The closest that defense comes to "all 5 guys playing together," is if they all hold hands in a circle around the paint and watch the other team chuck up open jumpers. It's all help and no recover.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 02-08-2008, 10:01 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      UB, that's a complete fallacy.

                      Obie's defensive philosophy doesn't work because he has no defensive philosophy.

                      His philosophy is built around the offense scoring more points than the defense can cough up. Pack it inside as much as possible and pray you hit more bombs than they do. It's textbook nellie-ball.

                      His system isn't designed to compensate for poor defensive talent. It's designed to compensate for poor defensive strategy.

                      The closest that defense comes to "all 5 guys playing together," is if they all hold hands in a circle around the paint and watch the other team chuck up open jumpers. It's all help and no recover.
                      I could not disagree with you anymore than I do. I know you have watched Obie's teams play - and I don't understand what you are seeing, because it isn't what I see.

                      The reason this defensive system was deisgned in the first place was to be a system that could be played well even if a team had a number of poor individual defenders. That is the whole reason for the system

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I could not disagree with you anymore than I do. I know you have watched Obie's teams play - and I don't understand what you are seeing, because it isn't what I see.

                        The reason this defensive system was deisgned in the first place was to be a system that could be played well even if a team had a number of poor individual defenders. That is the whole reason for the system
                        UB, have you ever heard D'Antoni or Nelson rip his players for lack of defensive intensity?

                        It's a similar variation of the same system. Win with offense, defense supports the offense by encouraging the other team to take open jumpers.

                        It's an offense-first system. Bad defense comes with the territory. Larry Brown ran the most dumbed-down highschool offense ever in Detroit, but he did so as a way to support his defensive schemes.

                        His system was designed to score a lot of points and generate some interest. That's really the long and the short of it. There's certainly no defensive undertone that I've seen. It's very simplistic.

                        UB, let me lay it out for you. If Obie wanted to design a system that would make poor defenders look better, he wouldn't have devised this system. It's got a million holes around the perimeter, and it's only made worse by the fact it invites transition baskets like a snake-charmer invites poisonous bites.

                        This is probably why that comment irked me, because you never heard guys like westhead, Moe, Nelson or D'Antoni install a bombs-away no-conscience offense, and then turn around and say they're appalled by the lack of defense.

                        Mike Fratello might be the best coach I've ever seen at making bad defenders look good. He ran pretty much the total opposite of what obie's doing right now.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 02-08-2008, 10:19 AM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          UB, have you ever heard D'Antoni or Nelson rip his players for lack of defensive intensity?

                          It's a similar variation of the same system. Win with offense, defense supports the offense by encouraging the other team to take open jumpers.

                          It's an offense-first system. Bad defense comes with the territory. Larry Brown ran the most dumbed-down highschool offense ever in Detroit, but he did so as a way to support his defensive schemes.

                          His system was designed to score a lot of points and generate some interest. That's really the long and the short of it. There's certainly no defensive undertone that I've seen. It's very simplistic.

                          UB, let me lay it out for you. If Obie wanted to design a system that would make poor defenders look better, he wouldn't have devised this system. It's got a million holes around the perimeter, and it's only made worse by the fact it invites transition baskets like a snake-charmer invites poisonous bites.

                          This is probably why that comment irked me, because you never heard guys like westhead, Moe, Nelson or D'Antoni install a bombs-away no-conscience offense, and then turn around and say they're appalled by the lack of defense.

                          Mike Fratello might be the best coach I've ever seen at making bad defenders look good. He ran pretty much the total opposite of what obie's doing right now.


                          You seem to be looking at the offense and defense as one system. I am only talking about the defense. Maybe that is why we are miscommunicating.

                          Obie is taking the approach that a team can run and still play good defense. (I have some problems with the offense he has installed, but that is not what I was talking about. I was only eferring to the defensive sytem., and in that regard I stand by all my comments in this thread. needless to say I completely disagree with you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                            Obie is taking the approach that a team can run and still play good defense.
                            again, it's an overly simplistic view of things.

                            Sure, you can play good defense and run. LA did that for a whole decade. You just have to run off of good defense.

                            The way obie has his defense set up, he's trying to run off of the other team's bad offense. As I said earlier, there's plenty of help inside the paint, but since everything is geared towards protecting the paint, there's pretty much no help at all past 10 feet. Hence, all help, no recover.

                            Obie's trying to get the long rebounds tom long jumpers to turn into transition baskets.

                            Problem is, this is the NBA, and in the NBA, if you give up enough wide-open shots, most guys are going to find a groove eventually, and there will be no long rebounds to gobble up.

                            You seem to be looking at the offense and defense as one system.
                            I always do. Everything is connected in basketball. Offensive production and defensive production will always be directly related. Poor offensive decisions will always affect how well you play defensively.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 02-08-2008, 10:34 AM.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: O'Brien discusses what the Pacers roster needs.

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post



                              I always do. Everything is connected in basketball. Offensive production and defensive production will always be directly related. Poor offensive decisions will always affect how well you play defensively.
                              You sound like Rick Carlisle. Not that there is anything wrong with that at all.

                              we seem to be talking at each other and not with each other. Although we have exhausted the topic I do believe

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X