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

Stephen Graham

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

  • #16
    Re: Stephen Graham

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    You really have a short memory. Last year this board, other boards as well, was clamoring for JO'B to give Graham more PT. He was producing when he got minutes. It is the same clamoring this year with McBob. Chances are if McBob is still a Pacers next year it will be the same as like Graham this year. The only difference is McBob has more possible upside than Graham, but he'll never be close to the PF the Pacers need. He's nothing more than an energy player with some athleticism at best. A David Lee is something he's never going to be, but I'd settle for McBob being a Chris "Birdman" Anderson w/o the baggage. IMO, he'll never be that either. I don't see McBob being this important rotational player others seem to feel he will be. JMOAA
    What have you seen that makes you so sure that is his upside?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Stephen Graham

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      There was this one dude, named Fred Jones, he won an NBA Dunk Contest as a Pacer... he mighta been "ok" at dunking.
      As was Terrence Stansbury and Darnell didn't get the name Dr. Dunk for nothing.
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Stephen Graham

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

        So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.
        That argument went out the window the day we were told JO wasn't practicing with the team, eventhough when JOb was hired he said if you didn't practice, you didn't play.

        Every time a thread pops up asking what people don't like about JOb, that's part of my gripe.

        He came in talking a big game about what his expectations were from players, and how everyone, including the star players, had to earn their playing time.

        Well, JO didn't practice but played just the same amount as he would if he did.

        JOb is going to give the established player, even if they're washed up like Rasho, the nod before any end of the bench player.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Stephen Graham

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post


          JOb is going to give the established player, even if they're washed up like
          Rasho, the nod before any end of the bench player.


          You think it's bad this year wait until next year when he has Hibbert, Rush, McBob(if he's still here), and 2 rookies from the up coming draft. That's 5 out of 15 young players on the roster. Just how much you think those new draft picks are going to be playing in Obie's contract year?

          That leaves

          Ford
          Granger
          Murphy
          Foster
          Diener
          Jack... if he's here.
          Graham... if he's here.
          Dunleavy... misses a hunk of the season if not all of it.
          Tinsley.. if he hasn't been bought out.

          That leaves 1 roster spot to be filled if Graham and Jack are back and if Tinsley isn't bought out. If Graham isn't on the roster like some propose, that is 2 spots that will have to be filled with those easy to find "anywhere players" with valuable experience who can be gotten cheap that can be role players that produce. Possibly 3 if Tinsley is waived or bought out.

          Lets say that Jack and Graham are back, and Dun is injured. That means the Pacers have 7 players with numerous years experience plus this years rookies Hibbert and Rush. Those 7 vets and Hibbert and Rush will get be getting the minutes. The rest will only get blowout, mop up, injury, or players in foul minutes.

          Bird will be lucky to be able to bring in some new KRush, Diener, Flip Murray type players to fill out the roster and stay out of LT Land unless he can make a trade that includes one or more of Ford, Murphy, Dunleavy, or "Tinsley" and the chances of that happening is slim and next to none.

          Add this to if Granger, Murphy, and Jack don't have the seasons they have had this season, it's going to make for a loooooong season next year. Just be prepared. JMOAA

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Stephen Graham

            Originally posted by WetBob View Post
            What have you seen that makes you so sure that is his upside?
            Not sure about what you are asking. Are up asking what makes me think McBob upside is his energy and athleticism? Or something else?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Stephen Graham

              I think we shouldn't resign him hoping Brandon is with us next season will fill Stephen's place. Stephen has it games here and there. He's definitly better this season than last season

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Stephen Graham

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

                So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.
                That's part of the story. As usual in our society and particularly in the NBA, the other part has to do with money.

                With Jeff Foster and Troy Murphy, we have two pretty decent PF's with a lot of NBA experience. Nothing flashy, but both players are arguably starters on scrub teams in the NBA. Troy has the highest salary on the team. Jeff has the 5th highest of active players and soon to be the 3rd highest of active players if Quis and Rasho go bye bye. That's getting pretty close to 20 million tied up on two very average NBA starters...and a significant percentage of our cap.

                What happens if JOb plays Josh and sits Troy and Jeff? Well, that may result in a number of bad things. First, it can only hurt Troy and Jeff's trade value. That's not good when you have 20 million tied up. Second, it makes the owners look foolish for over-paying bench warmers. It's not good to make your bosses look too foolish. Third, it has the potential to cause problems in the locker room. Not too likely with these players, but just another risk. Also, it will raise Josh's market value if he plays well. That means we contend with other teams when we look to re-sign him. It is just a lose-lose situation when you have highly paid vets who are not obviously inferior players than the rookie.

                There may very well be other weightier reasons for not playing McBob, but these are enough to keep him glued to the bench too.

                Edit: Wow. Josh is paid only 7% of what Troy is paid.
                Last edited by BlueNGold; 03-23-2009, 07:54 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Stephen Graham

                  I don't think this Graham Mcbob comparison holds any water.

                  In limited minutes last year, Graham showed that he could score, now in some more extended oppurtunities, he has also shown he can't do anything else. People wondered if he might be a player, we knew he could score, we knew he was agressive... I was curious myself, but he has been exposed at this point.

                  In limited minutes this year, Josh has shown he can do a LOT of things. I have seen him block shots, play really good man defense, pull down tough rebounds, take a guy off the dribble and dunk, hit a long jump shot, pass at a high level... guy has size, guy has the hops.

                  Josh Mcroberts was once one of the top high school recruits in the country, Stephan Graham is Joey Grahams twin brother.

                  Josh is really raw, came out of college too early, had a bit of a bad rep attitudewise, but I try not to factor this stuff into my analysis. I just try to analyze what I have seen when he has been on the court, he is a guy who can DO a lot of stuff. I am quite intrigued by this. reputations aside. If you have seen him play you cannot deny the upside there. Not superstar upside, but "end of bench guy" doesn't really tell the whole story. The guy has barely gotten a chance to play and its only his second year.

                  People sometimes talk about Mcroberts like he is this "known commidity" ...When in reality he is younger than our two prized rookies Hibbert and Rush. Youngest guy on the team. With a coach that favors vets and is already being pressured to play two rookies, it isn't really surprising to me that he isn't finding Josh any minutes this season. You know he isn't getting on the court till he has mastered Obrien's damn "defensive system" that doesen't seem to work anyway.
                  Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 03-23-2009, 08:41 PM.
                  "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


                  • #24
                    Re: Stephen Graham

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    Not sure about what you are asking. Are up asking what makes me think McBob upside is his energy and athleticism? Or something else?
                    You said it was likely he would be the equivalent of a Stephen Graham if given time, and that his upside would hopefully result in Chris Anderson but that seems unlikely.

                    I'm curious, what you have seen that would lead you to believe this.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Stephen Graham

                      Originally posted by TroyMurphy3 View Post
                      I think we shouldn't resign him hoping Brandon is with us next season will fill Stephen's place.
                      Stephen's place is the end of the bench. I'm expecting a lot more than that from Brandon next year.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Stephen Graham

                        The only way you can compare Graham with Mc Roberts is who dunks the ball better? They play different positions.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Stephen Graham

                          both graham's are quality 6th or 7th men off the bench, nothing more, and the ceiling is prob a good 6th man, i would keep him around if i were you guys, both of them are flat out freakishly strong and deceptively agile players and both can be really streaky and if not accounted for can go off for 15-20 on some nights, not bad for a decent $.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Stephen Graham

                            Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                            You said it was likely he would be the equivalent of a Stephen Graham if given time, and that his upside would hopefully result in Chris Anderson but that seems unlikely.

                            I'm curious, what you have seen that would lead you to believe this.

                            WOW! I had to go back and re-read my post to see what you are trying to say. I'd suggest you do the same.

                            I NEVER said McBob would be the equivalent to Graham if given time in regards to play. What I did say was that you could compare them in regards to posters clamoring for more PT for them. Graham last year and McBob this year. Next year if McBob gets the extra playing time, that some want, he could be like how others felt about Graham by showing his faults that wasn't obvious until he got that extra PT.

                            IMO, I feel posters are over rating McBob's abilities. I don't feel he has the capabilities nor the toughness of being a Chris Anderson, but would be extrtemely pleased if he was. What happens is when a player puts on a Pacers uni that player immediately becomes the next "whatever" the Pacers need by the fans. How many times has this happened?

                            O. Greene the "D" specialist for the PG. Where is he now?

                            James "Flight" White... a waste that couldn't even make the team.

                            Shawne Williams... another overrated waste.

                            Al Harrington the savior that many thought was the answer the 2nd time.

                            Sarunas the European answer to the PG situation. Where's he now?

                            Ike D. the crown jewel of the GS trade. What's he with now his 4th team?


                            Hopefully you get the drift of what I'm saying. Pacer fans get too biased/hyped about a players ability once they don a Pacers uni. I don't see McBob being anything different. I was an advocate of Graham getting playing time, and I have to admit I am disappointed in what he has done with it. At the same time, I think he brings enough to the table to be offered a contract, but if he isn't I won't lose any sleep over it. Nor will I if McBob isn't a Pacer next year.
                            Last edited by Justin Tyme; 03-24-2009, 03:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Stephen Graham

                              What coaches and FO's look for in bench/ role players is to fill a void the team has. They look for those players to be able to either score, defend, or spread the floor by shooting the three. Those are the type of players you try to fill out a bench with. Stephen Graham is young and strong and athletic. He can get to the rim and score. That's perfect for a guy that can come in for 10 minutes and put up 6 or 8 points against the oppositions bench. That's all we ask for out of a guy that gets paid under $1m in the NBA. That's what we need him for. Its not about him developing into a great player. We hope he develops into a great role player. Smart and doesn't make mistakes. He isn't there yet. He has done anything but work his *** off to get better at this point and you keep guys like that. He can develop into a great role player. I hate hate hate hate hate hate the Lakers. But Derek Fisher is one of my absolute favorite players. He has developed a long career out of working his *** off and getting better. The guy starts for a great team and puts in about 20-30 minutes a night and doesn't make mistakes. He plays within himself and plays good defense for aguy who has always been told he is undersized. That is the type of career you pray for out of a guy like Stephen Graham. To halt his development would be dumb, because if you let him go, you start all over with a guy with similar potential and is only three years behind and you are guessing about his work ethic. I just don't get why people don't understand his realistic value.

                              McRoberts is still an "upside" player in the eyes of management. There should be greener pastures that people see. He needs to develop more. That's obvious. He needs more minutes. Thats obvious. This is the NBA. He needs to work harder to earn the playing time. I have to absolutely agree with JOB on that front. If the guy doesn't work hard, peace out. If the guy is working hard he should be given the opportunity right now though because of our playoff status. Its a fine line the coaches/management are running. They should in the interest of resting our starters give more minutes to the young guys as long as they are working hard. Maybe McRoberts hits the bong too hard and doesn't work as hard as he should during weight room sessions and practicing individual and team drills. We don't know because we aren't there. I have to agree with UB.

                              PS - I am still trying to figure out Justin, if you are an eternal pessimist or a devils advocate type.
                              Last edited by pacergod2; 03-24-2009, 12:12 PM.
                              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Stephen Graham

                                Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post

                                What coaches and FO's look for in bench/ role players is to fill a void the team has. They look for those players to be able to either score, defend, or spread the floor by shooting the three. Those are the type of players you try to fill out a bench with. Stephen Graham is young and strong and athletic. He can get to the rim and score. That's perfect for a guy that can come in for 10 minutes and put up 6 or 8 points against the oppositions bench. That's all we ask for out of a guy that gets paid under $1m in the NBA. That's what we need him for. Its not about him developing into a great player. We hope he develops into a great role player. Smart and doesn't make mistakes. He isn't there yet. He has done anything but work his *** off to get better at this point and you keep guys like that. He can develop into a great role player. I hate hate hate hate hate hate the Lakers. But Derek Fisher is one of my absolute favorite players. He has developed a long career out of working his *** off and getting better. The guy starts for a great team and puts in about 20-30 minutes a night and doesn't make mistakes. He plays within himself and plays good defense for aguy who has always been told he is undersized. That is the type of career you pray for out of a guy like Stephen Graham. To halt his development would be dumb, because if you let him go, you start all over with a guy with similar potential and is only three years behind and you are guessing about his work ethic. I just don't get why people don't understand his realistic value.

                                Very eloquently said!!!! This post should be kept for all to have referrence to in the future.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X