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

Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

    Some very interesting comments from unnamed GM's. I personally and without following college ball at all, see a lot of stiffs that are going to be taken in the top ten. I was watching NBATV's 2 hour preview show and got a chance to look at some of the power forwards that are going to go in the first round. (I pray the pacers don't take one of those)

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ftnotes-080624


    Heat president Pat Riley, assured Shawn Marion won't opt out of his contract, has explored draft deals.
    It's looking clearer and clearer that the Bulls will be taking Derrick Rose with the No. 1 pick, so much of the attention in the draft is turning to the Miami Heat, who are slated to select second.

    Michael Beasley is the obvious choice at No. 2, but the Heat's words and actions behind the scenes continue to point to a possible trade if Rose goes No. 1.

    Sources said Heat president Pat Riley made a number of phone calls on Monday trying to gauge what was available to the Heat at No. 2 after finding out that Shawn Marion will not opt out of his contract.

    One source told Insider that the Heat are revisiting trade talks with the Grizzlies. Insider reported several weeks ago that there was talk that Memphis would give up Mike Miller, Kyle Lowry and the No. 5 pick as part of a package for the No. 2 pick. The same source said the Heat are asking the Grizzlies to sweeten the deal by substituting Mike Conley for Lowry. The deal would be Conley and the No. 5 pick to Miami for the No. 2 pick and Daequan Cook.

    That trade would land Riley the point guard he covets and still get him a high lottery pick in the draft. The Heat would likely choose between Kevin Love or Brook Lopez at No. 5.

    While the price is high for the Grizzlies, they have great depth at the point guard position and could afford to lose Conley. Memphis' biggest need is at the power forward position, and Beasley appears to be a once-in-a-decade talent at the 4 -- a perfect fit for a young and upcoming Memphis team.

    The Heat are also talking to the Timberwolves, Sonics and Clippers. The problem is the Wolves don't have much to offer. The Sonics can offer Chris Wilcox and the No. 4 for a deal that brings them the No. 2 and Mark Blount. That could save the Heat cap space. But it may not be enough.

    The Clippers have a player that Riley covets deeply in Elton Brand. A deal that swaps Brand and the No. 7 pick for Marion and the No. 2 pick could be another alternative for Riley if he isn't comfortable with Beasley.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Think you've got the Rose-Beasley debate figured out? One respected NBA general manager who's drafting in the second half of the first round said the Bulls and virtually everyone else is getting it wrong.

    "Michael Beasley is far and away the best player in this draft," the GM said. "He's going to dominate in this league. How could you pass on him? I know everyone is talking about character this and character that, but come on, he's not a bad kid."

    As for Rose, the GM says he thinks he's overrated: "Derrick Rose is a good player, I get that. But he's not a franchise player. I don't think people are getting with Rose what they think they're getting. He's athletic and plays really hard. But he has just decent court vision and can't take over a game offensively."

    When asked about the Heat possibly passing on Beasley at No. 2, the GM said, "It's a joke. He's so much better than anything the Heat are going to get offered. I don't understand it."



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Westbrook

    Some veteran GMs drafting later in the first round are scratching their heads at our last mock draft -- especially some of the high risers in the draft.

    "Russell Westbrook is a role player who probably is a sixth man on a good team," one GM said. "How has he risen to a top-10 pick? I'd take Leandro Barbosa over him any day of the week. Westbrook is athletic, fast and plays defense, but a top-10 pick? I don't see it."

    Here's another GM on Robin Lopez: "Can you name the last time a guy who averaged five rebounds per game in college was suddenly labeled a rebounder in the draft? Robin Lopez is a backup, not a lottery or mid-first-round pick."

    Said another GM: "Name one international player who has made [it] in our league who's averaged five points per game or less in his home country. Alexis Ajinca is a workout wonder, but there is no precedent for a player with his poor production making it in the league. He's going in the lottery?"





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    One potential deal that could have an interesting impact on both teams? Sounds like the Suns and Clippers are talking about a deal that would send the No. 7 pick and Corey Maggette to Phoenix for Barbosa and the No. 15 pick.

    That deal only works if Maggette decides not to opt out of his contract this week. If he opts out, Maggette couldn't be signed-and-traded until mid-July.





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Batum

    It looks like French swingman Nicolas Batum is ready to hit the workout circuit again. Batum's agent, Bouna Ndiaye, told ESPN.com (and every team in the league) that Batum was cleared this morning by the respected Cleveland Clinic Heart and Vascular Institute.



    As we reported late last week, Batum ran into some trouble during stress echo testing -- a treadmill test that measures the health of the heart -- in Toronto and New Jersey, raising fears that he may have a heart issue.


    Ndiaye said teams will get a full medical report on Tuesday morning detailing his physical. If teams are satisfied with the results, it should put Batum (who slipped to No. 33 in our last mock draft) back into the first round.


    He works out for the Spurs in San Antonio on Tuesday.





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    The NBA released its Green Room invitations Monday. No huge surprises there. Sixteen players were invited. My advice is that three of them decline. Robin Lopez, Darrell Arthur and DeAndre Jordan are predicted to go anywhere from No. 12 to No. 28.


    There's a very real chance that one of those guys sits in the room a long time before hearing his name called. My gut tells me Jordan is the most likely candidate to have a long night in the Green Room.



    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

    after the gasol trade, the league needs to regulate any grizzlies trade.

    riley looking to screw anybody he can...


    Ya Big Stud!!!!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

      that bolded text is pretty much what i've been saying for the past year. and yes, the vast majority of the pfs in this draft are stiffs. you have people on here dying for the pacers to draft a pf who hardly played his freshman year, and then averaged just solid numbers on a bad florida team. pacersdigest needs to stop overvaluing decent players who's teams went far in the tourney (arthur, chalmers, augustin, westbrook) and those who were on god awful teams which allowed them to put up the numbers they did (speights).
      Last edited by croz24; 06-24-2008, 03:11 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

        Croz24-

        You make a decent point (particularly on Speights). But frankly, if
        Westbrook would be only a 6th man on a very good team, that
        might well make him the Pacers 2nd best player in fairly short order.

        Seperately, but relatedly, other than Alexander who you've been
        pushing for weeks now and Rose/Beasley, who do you really like
        in this draft that might be there at #11 ?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

          croz-

          i disagree.

          speights and arthur appear to have more talent than a jordan or ajinca or r. lopez or randolph or mcgee...

          and we don't need another wing... greene, rush, etc....

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
            that bolded text is pretty much what i've been saying for the past year. and yes, the vast majority of the pfs in this draft are stiffs. you have people on here dying for the pacers to draft a pf who hardly played his freshman year, and then averaged just solid numbers on a bad florida team. pacersdigest needs to stop overvaluing decent players who's teams went far in the tourney (arthur, chalmers, augustin, westbrook) and those who were on god awful teams which allowed them to put up the numbers they did (speights).
            TPTB appear to be leaning heavily towards a PG or Big Man at the PF or C and unfortunately....we are in the unenviable position of picking the cream of the "we have no idea whether they will pan out or not" crop.

            If you were Bird and had to pick...assuming that the Big 5 ( Rose, Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless ), Westbrook, Gordon, Brook, Alexander ( or Gallinari ) are gone...which is likely...then who would you choose then?

            Obviously we would pick the best player available.....the problem is that the best player available will likely be one of the players that you mention that most of us here are overrating.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              TPTB appear to be leaning heavily towards a PG or Big Man at the PF or C and unfortunately....we are in the unenviable position of picking the cream of the "we have no idea whether they will pan out or not" crop.

              If you were Bird and had to pick...assuming that the Big 5 ( Rose, Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless ), Westbrook, Gordon, Brook, Alexander ( or Gallinari ) are gone...which is likely...then who would you choose then?

              Obviously we would pick the best player available.....the problem is that the best player available will likely be one of the players that you mention that most of us here are overrating.
              I think you have to go either Augustine, Chalmers, Speights or Koufos. I know, I can't believe I just typed Koufos! But considering all that's left, a 7' 1" big man with close to 3 point range isn't bad.
              Turn out the lights, this party's over!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                that bolded text is pretty much what i've been saying for the past year. and yes, the vast majority of the pfs in this draft are stiffs. you have people on here dying for the pacers to draft a pf who hardly played his freshman year, and then averaged just solid numbers on a bad florida team. pacersdigest needs to stop overvaluing decent players who's teams went far in the tourney (arthur, chalmers, augustin, westbrook) and those who were on god awful teams which allowed them to put up the numbers they did (speights).

                15 points and 8 rebounds a game in 24 minutes are pretty damn good numbers. That is 22 and 12 per 36 minutes.

                Sure there are questions about Speights, there are questions about everyone in our draft range, but The kid has legit size, athleticism, and he produced in college. That is a lot more than I can say for just about everyone else I have heard about us drafting.

                oh and Joe Alexander may be one of the most overrated player in this draft. Bringing him to a team chock full of small forwards makes no sense.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                  I think the bolded part sums up my Westbrook feelings. I get very nervous reading that DW is thinking of taking him at 6. Not sure if I'd feel the same at 11.

                  Yeah, he's a monster athlete but he doesn't have the basketball skills to go that high - not to me anyway.

                  Now since DW likes to mislead folks and since Chad Ford has shown himself full of a willingness to be mislead it's probably OK - but I'll be nervous right until we pick Thursday. And if Bayless is still there (which I have a hard time believing) and we take Westbrook I will be very, very puzzled and desperately hoping I'm wrong.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                    Westbrook will be a 6'4 version of Marcus Banks... Also, the GM who questioned Robin Lopez is right on the money - teams are only interested in him because he seems like a taller Anderson Varejao, but that's not a great - or valid - comparison.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                      Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                      Westbrook will be a 6'4 version of Marcus Banks... Also, the GM who questioned Robin Lopez is right on the money - teams are only interested in him because he seems like a taller Anderson Varejao, but that's not a great - or valid - comparison.
                      Who are your top 11 players in this draft?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                        I think the bolded part sums up my Westbrook feelings. I get very nervous reading that DW is thinking of taking him at 6. Not sure if I'd feel the same at 11.

                        Yeah, he's a monster athlete but he doesn't have the basketball skills to go that high - not to me anyway.

                        Now since DW likes to mislead folks and since Chad Ford has shown himself full of a willingness to be mislead it's probably OK - but I'll be nervous right until we pick Thursday. And if Bayless is still there (which I have a hard time believing) and we take Westbrook I will be very, very puzzled and desperately hoping I'm wrong.
                        Just the fact that you have heard a lot about Gallinari and Westbrook tells me Walsh picks neither.

                        I'm thinking you guys end up with Gordon.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                          IMF-

                          I think that DW trades the pick unless Mayo somehow slides
                          to #6 which ain't gonna happen. Wouldn't surprise me if he tries
                          to trade back a few spots and takes Augustin.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                            Just the fact that you have heard a lot about Gallinari and Westbrook tells me Walsh picks neither.

                            I'm thinking you guys end up with Gordon.
                            Personally, I think it's him or Alexander. Of course if Bayless should drop IMO we grab him - I just can't see Seattle doing that though - unless Minn picks Lopez which would be a bad move but McHale is still the GM, right?
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                              Just the fact that you have heard a lot about Gallinari and Westbrook tells me Walsh picks neither.

                              I'm thinking you guys end up with Gordon.
                              The Knicks will draft EJ and the Pistons will pick DJ White.

                              Why?

                              Just to **** me off, that's why.

                              Like I've said before, we're stuck in a bad spot at #11. The difference between #11 and, say, #8 will be much bigger than people think. We're in No Man's Land. Again.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X