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

Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

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

  • #16
    Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    I'd be okay with this if the team would then turn around and trade two of the allstar PGs to round out its roster. Or use that PG to trade down to get the player that makes your team better. You are right that it would be a mistake to pass over the PG in your example, but that doesn't mean you are bringing him to training camp.

    You are advocating the draft as a collection of assets. But basketball is a team game in which you piece together a roster to perform better than a collection of individuals. You must balance "drafting for need" with "drafting the best player available."

    That's why - for all of Shade's ranting about Bayless - I ignored him because I thought Rush and Jack - mature, winners, leaders, very solid basketball players - were the perfect way to trade down when Bayless fell to us. And for "need", I do agree that it isn't for next season's need. Rush and Jack were brought in to be the future starting backcourt, not necessarily the immediate starting backcourt. Although, by the end of the season, that is what we had and those two guys had a lot to do with a late-season playoff push.

    Couldn't say it better than that.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      I'd be okay with this if the team would then turn around and trade two of the allstar PGs to round out its roster. Or use that PG to trade down to get the player that makes your team better. You are right that it would be a mistake to pass over the PG in your example, but that doesn't mean you are bringing him to training camp.

      You are advocating the draft as a collection of assets. But basketball is a team game in which you piece together a roster to perform better than a collection of individuals. You must balance "drafting for need" with "drafting the best player available."

      That's why - for all of Shade's ranting about Bayless - I ignored him because I thought Rush and Jack - mature, winners, leaders, very solid basketball players - were the perfect way to trade down when Bayless fell to us. And for "need", I do agree that it isn't for next season's need. Rush and Jack were brought in to be the future starting backcourt, not necessarily the immediate starting backcourt. Although, by the end of the season, that is what we had and those two guys had a lot to do with a late-season playoff push.
      I think the draft is still more for asset building than anything else. Piecing together a roster that fits together is where trades come in, and that's what GMs win the Executive Of the Year award for. It's almost always for a trade/trades they've made and not a draft pick.

      Taking a look at the top contenders for the past few years, they've either been hitting the jackpot with the no brainer #1 overall picks or they've been making trades with the assets they've built up (Boston/Miami are good examples of that).

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

        I think the important thing about the draft is to figure out how to take what it can give you, rather than trying to force what you need out of it. d_c is right...trades are where you shape the roster and target needs.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          You are advocating the draft as a collection of assets. But basketball is a team game in which you piece together a roster to perform better than a collection of individuals. You must balance "drafting for need" with "drafting the best player available."

          I realize I am using as extreme example here, but I bet the Blazers wish they had decided to use the draft as a way to collect a bunch of assets when they decided to pass on Jordan. Really I think that is exactly what the draft is for.

          I think you always take the best player available, doing anything other than that will hurt a team in the long run.

          Look at the pacers in the late 80's and early 90's. They collected a few assets, Smits, Wayman, Person, Reggie, Kellogg, Herb Williams - but that as a group wasn't a very good team (I realize I am being very liberal with my application here as far as who played with who and when) but the Pacers didn't become a very good team until they molded the roster with players like McKey, Workman, Byron Scott, Mark Jackson. The only players that were drafted that "fit" perfectly were Dale and Antonio (although AD was twop years later) But if you look back at that draft Dale was an excellent pick - it isn't like we passed Kobe to take a fit player such as Dale.


          Look at the two teams in the Finals - you have Howard and Kobe (although Kobe was a draft day deal) that were drafted, but almost all the other complimentary players were acquired by trades.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-02-2009, 01:43 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

            Originally posted by d_c View Post
            FWIW, I thought Howard was the right pick by Orlando.

            I did however, expect Okafor to be a better player than he's turned out. Don't get me wrong, the guy is a very good NBA player. He's a double double guy and he's excellent defensively, but where the Hartford Courant guy was clearly wrong was that Okafor was actually much closer to his ceiling coming out of UCONN than he had realized.

            Okafor is a very good kid and he's worked very hard, but he's just never really developed an offensive game to be a top flight bigman. He spent a lot of time with Hakeem working out offensive moves in the post during the offseason, yet he's really not much better of an offensive player than when he first came into the league.

            It's ultimately about talent. There's a lot of good character guys who work hard on their games but still there are aspects of their game that don't develop. Okafor is an example of that. Guy is an excellent player and I'll have him on my team anyday, but realize he's basically the same player now as when he came out of college.
            What were you basing that on? I thought Okafor was going to be really good but I didn't know if he was going to be better than Howard simply because I had never watched Howard play. Not to mention that you never know with these high schoolers. I mean, how could you say that?

            I thought it was one hell of a risk - especially just a few years removed from Kwame Brown, who had looked just as impressive in high school IIRC. It was a tough pick, especially with such a great big man on the board as Okafor. Was the risk/reward of Howard worth missing out on Okafor? I thought no. I don't remember that many people disagreeing with that and even if they were, what could they possibly be basing that on in June of 2004? It's not like Okafor flopped - he was the Rookie of the Year.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
              What were you basing that on? I thought Okafor was going to be really good but I didn't know if he was going to be better than Howard simply because I had never watched Howard play. Not to mention that you never know with these high schoolers. I mean, how could you say that?

              I thought it was one hell of a risk - especially just a few years removed from Kwame Brown, who had looked just as impressive in high school IIRC. It was a tough pick, especially with such a great big man on the board as Okafor. Was the risk/reward of Howard worth missing out on Okafor? I thought no. I don't remember that many people disagreeing with that and even if they were, what could they possibly be basing that on in June of 2004? It's not like Okafor flopped - he was the Rookie of the Year.
              My only point in this thread is I would rather swing for a homerun and strikeout occassionally with a Kwame Brown, with the hope that you hit a homerum some of the time and get a Dwight Howard, then to take the safe sure thing such as Wally, Okafor, Battier. Reason being you don't win with Battier, Okafor, Wally being your best player - but you do with Howard.
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-02-2009, 01:58 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                My only point in this thread is I would rather swing for a homerun and strike occassionally with a Kwame Brown, with the hope that you hit a homerum some of the time and get a Dwight Howard, then to take the safe sure thing such as Wally, Okafor, Battier. Reason being you don't win with Battier, Okafor, Wally being your best player - but you do with Howard.

                Adam Dunn, is that you?
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                  Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                  What were you basing that on? I thought Okafor was going to be really good but I didn't know if he was going to be better than Howard simply because I had never watched Howard play. Not to mention that you never know with these high schoolers. I mean, how could you say that?

                  I thought it was one hell of a risk - especially just a few years removed from Kwame Brown, who had looked just as impressive in high school IIRC. It was a tough pick, especially with such a great big man on the board as Okafor. Was the risk/reward of Howard worth missing out on Okafor? I thought no. I don't remember that many people disagreeing with that and even if they were, what could they possibly be basing that on in June of 2004? It's not like Okafor flopped - he was the Rookie of the Year.
                  Any draft pick is a risk, but Howard had everything going for him, based on his talent, physical attributes, family background and character. And you simply can't base your pick on what happened with some other guy with some other team 3 years prior. You can't let that control what you do.

                  As for Kwame, realize that the guys picked around him were every bit as risky: Curry, Chandler and Gasol.

                  Guys picked after this group like Shane Battier and Jason Richardson obviously turned into very solid players, but you can't spend the #1 pick on guys like that (you can't build a team around good but not great wing players). Doesn't work that way.

                  As for Okafor, I thought he'd be good but I also saw some limitations in his game even in college. He had decent size for his position, but he wasn't a freak and he always seemed a bit mechanical offensively. I still thought he'd be better than he turned out offensively.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    That's why - for all of Shade's ranting about Bayless - I ignored him because I thought Rush and Jack - mature, winners, leaders, very solid basketball players - were the perfect way to trade down when Bayless fell to us. And for "need", I do agree that it isn't for next season's need. Rush and Jack were brought in to be the future starting backcourt, not necessarily the immediate starting backcourt. Although, by the end of the season, that is what we had and those two guys had a lot to do with a late-season playoff push.
                    Technically, the "pick" was Bayless... the (hypothetically) highest talent left on the board. We drafted Bayless to accrue the asset, not because we wanted him to play for us.

                    We just traded him quickly, is all.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Technically, the "pick" was Bayless... the (hypothetically) highest talent left on the board. We drafted Bayless to accrue the asset, not because we wanted him to play for us.

                      We just traded him quickly, is all.
                      Agreed, and that's my point. I think those of you that are trying to nitpick at my post are proving my point. Take the best player available to you AND THEN make another decision about whether to keep the draft pick or keep your experienced player. Be very careful, however, about bringing both of them to camp to compete with each other. Don't stockpile for the sake of stockpiling.

                      What should Portland have done with our pick from the terrible Tom Owens trade? Draft Bowie?? Heck no. Draft Jordan and figure out which player (Jordan or Drexler) to keep, and then trade Drexler before training camp starts for a C. Imagine a lineup of Porter, Jordan, Kersey, Uncle Cliff, Buck, and Duckworth.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        Agreed, and that's my point. I think those of you that are trying to nitpick at my post are proving my point. Take the best player available to you AND THEN make another decision about whether to keep the draft pick or keep your experienced player. Be very careful, however, about bringing both of them to camp to compete with each other. Don't stockpile for the sake of stockpiling.

                        What should Portland have done with our pick from the terrible Tom Owens trade? Draft Bowie?? Heck no. Draft Jordan and figure out which player (Jordan or Drexler) to keep, and then trade Drexler before training camp starts for a C. Imagine a lineup of Porter, Jordan, Kersey, Uncle Cliff, Buck, and Duckworth.
                        But it's also a mistake not to bring the BPA to camp. If the BPA looks to be better than your current player, you keep the BPA. To take assets and get multiple fours like Love/Jefferson, and Camby/Griffin/Kaman, is better in the long run rather than trading the pick as is, which is what the Bayless trade was.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                          I was very, very wrong about Howard. I never expected him to be anywhere near the player he is today.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                            I remember feeling bad for the college player of the year, Jameer Nelson, for falling all the way to #20.

                            Also: Didn't realize TJ Ford was also a Naismith College Player of the Year.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                              Originally posted by flox View Post
                              But it's also a mistake not to bring the BPA to camp. If the BPA looks to be better than your current player, you keep the BPA. To take assets and get multiple fours like Love/Jefferson, and Camby/Griffin/Kaman, is better in the long run rather than trading the pick as is, which is what the Bayless trade was.
                              We got a starting backcourt for Bayless. I don't get your point. Without that trade, we don't have a starting SG today, we've still got an overrated PF that can't play, and we've got to figure out how to keep Bayless from dominating the ball when Danny is on the court. We did exactly the right thing - took the BPA even though he wasn't a good fit for the team we were building - and traded him for a number of key pieces of the team we are building.

                              In that case, the BPA wasn't really an overlap with any other position on our team. Cleary our backcourt needed a lot of help last summer. It was just determined (and probably correctly, although it is okay for you to disagree) that the BPA would not have meshed well with the rest of our team.

                              You see, the best overall player in the Bayless/ Diogu for Rush/ Jack trade last summer was Granger - Rush & Jack help make Danny Granger even better than Bayless could ever do by himself.

                              To your first sentence: if the BPA is better than your incumbent starter, then trade the veteran. That's fine. I thought I said that was okay? Clearly you don't automatically trade the draft pick, but you do trade one of the two. This is real basketball, not fantasy basketball.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Some Okafor vs. Howard quotes from 5 years ago

                                Good points, Jay.

                                I think Rush is going to be a better player than Bayless anyway. But by reading this forum a year ago, you would have thought we had traded Michael Jordan away.

                                Everyone knows Rush is a good defender. He also scored over 20 in 5 of the last 10 games of the year. He all of the sudden "got it" when it came to offense.

                                Bayless may have been the best player available at the time, but I think Rush will be the better player in 5 years.

                                I gotta hand it to Larry Bird. That was a good trade.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X