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

Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

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

  • Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    Yes I know we have discussed this topic what seems like everyday for years. But perhaps this might be a little different take on the topic.

    I get frustrated with the argument I hear often when many of you (most of you) suggest that the Pacers team would be better now had the younger players gotten more time the past 2 or 3 seasons. That makes a lot of sense, and how could anyone argue with that. It is true if Josh had been playing 35 minutes a game for 2 seasons he would be better than he currently is. How much better, I don't know, we will never know.

    The flip side is that sometimes players need to develop at their on speed. Maybe throwing Josh out there two seasons ago 35 minutes per game when he wasn't ready might have hurt his development - who really knows, I don't. Another offshoot of this is that for most younger players they develop perhaps as much during the offseason as they do during the season - reasoning is in the summer they can really work on their game and their bodies without having to worry about "winning games"

    OK with that as the intro, what I really want to discuss (before the season starts) is which players do you want to see developed. I get very frustrated when many of you suggest after the fact, that we should have developed the younger guys because "we knew the team wasn't going to be any good". My question is, when do we know the team isn't going to be any good. Do we know right now this years team isn't going to be any good?

    We know if George, Lance, Magnum are all played 30 minutes every game this season - those three guys will be better in March and April this season and for next season. So before the season starts anyone willing to go on record and suggest they need to get big minutes and if that hurts our chance to win games - so be it.

    Bottom-line I don't want to hear next summer you complain about how the young guys should have been developed if you aren't willing (before the season) to sacrifice wins now for the future and and if you do want the younger players developed then I don't want to hear you complain about us not making the playoffs.

    it seems to me for about 3 seasons now many of you have had it both ways. You want the team to win, but then after the fact you complain about how the young guys weren't developed. You wait until midseason and seemingly suggest that you knew all along the team was going to stink and look how dumb can the pacers be they should have been developing the young guys all along.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-14-2010, 10:51 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    I been saying for years now that they should be developing the guys by giving them playing time, we know about the three years rebuilding procces, why not make it two years? at this moment I don't care about winning but give the young guys enough
    Playing time so they can help the team next year.

    By the way I don't want to see Posey,Foster,Solo and Dun taking minutes from those guys either, maybe a max of 15 min unless somebody gets hurt.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I been saying for years now that they should be developing the guys by giving them playing time, we know about the three years rebuilding procces, why not make it two years? at this moment I don't care about winning but give the young guys enough
      Playing time so they can help the team next year.

      By the way I don't want to see Posey,Foster,Solo and Dun taking minutes from those guys either, maybe a max of 15 min unless somebody gets hurt.
      Ok, then just to clarify - you would be fine with 22 wins (for example or maybe even fewer wins) if the younger guys get the majority of the playing time. Which players do you want getting the majority of the minutes then

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

        More PT is always preferable when it comes to developing players. This isn't the NFL, where you might get Cutler'd and you start hearing footsteps.

        Of course, this allows me to pull my favorite dead horse out of the closet and beat on it some more. There's a perfect compromise between winning and developing players. It's about a hundred miles straight up I-69. But noooo, it's much more important for young players to sit and watch Jimmy's genius at work then actually get out on a court. Might as well be sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture on basketball theory for all the good it does.



        Seriously, if we keep Lance and we don't send him up, TPTB are hopeless.

        :

        Alright, now that I got that out, let's talk about the real world where Ft. Wayne apparently doesn't exist. Though not by design, Jimmy is being forced to play McRelevant simply due to the lack of options. I'd sure like to see Rolle getting Jeff's minutes, as well, but that'll depend on how the roster shakes out.

        Overall, we've got an outside shot of making the playoffs, and we should try for it. Regardless of if Mike's gonna be here next year, I think he's in a better position to help us do that than PG. Now, if the season falls apart, which it may very well do, you've got two options. Either showcase Mike for a trade, or start feeding the kids minutes. But if we're 10 games out, there's no point in playing guys who simply aren't going to be here next year. But we may very well need a different coach before that'd happen.
        Last edited by Kegboy; 10-14-2010, 09:40 AM.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          The flip side is that sometimes players need to develop at their on speed.
          I think this is a crucial point. Maybe cooking is a useful analogy: If a recipe calls for a dish to bake for 30 minutes at 350 degrees, you can play around with the settings (e.g., 20 minutes at 425), but it may take a lot of trial and error and you still may not precisely replicate the finished product. Moreover, for many dishes, nuking simply is not an option.

          The point is that we have several players who simply may need more development time than just this coming regular season to out-produce our veterans for 10+ minutes a game toward a playoff effort. Acknowledging this doesn't imply that we should shelve them altogether this season. Once in a while, things seem to come together quickly for a player, but the vast majority of the time, unless one of them makes extraordinary progress in practice and in limited minutes, we should be at peace with the idea that they still need to "bake" for a while.


          "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

          - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Yes I know we have discussed this topic what seems like everyday for years. But perhaps this might be a little different take on the topic.

            I get frustrated with the argument I hear often when many of you (most of you) suggest that the Pacers team would be better now had the younger players gotten more time the past 2 or 3 seasons. That makes a lot of sense, and how could anyone argue with that. It is true if Josh had been playing 35 minutes a game for 2 seasons he would be better than he currently is. How much better, I don't know, we will never know.

            The flip side is that sometimes players need to develop at their on speed. Maybe throwing Josh out there two seasons ago 35 minutes per game when he wasn't ready might have hurt his development - who really knows, I don't. Another offshoot of this is that for most younger players they develop perhaps as much during the offseason as they do during the season - reasoning is in the summer they can really work on their game and their bodies without having to worry about "winning games"

            OK with that as the intro, what I really want to discuss (before the season starts) is which players do you want to see developed. I get very frustrated when many of you suggest after the fact, that we should have developed the younger guys because we knew the team wasn't going to be any good. My question is, when do we know the team isn't going to be any good. Do we know that know?

            We know if George, Lance, Magnum are all played 30 minutes every game this season - those three guys will be better in March and April this season and for next season. So before the season starts anyone willing to go on record and suggest they need to get big minutes and if that hurts our chance to win game - so be it.

            Bottom-line I don't want to hear all next summer you complain about how the young guys should have been developed if you aren't willing (before the season) to sacrifice wins now for the future and I don't want to hear you complain about us not making the playoffs.

            it seems to me for about 3 seasons now many of you have had it both ways. You want the team to win, but then after the fact complain about how the young guys weren't developed. You wait until midseason and seemingly suggest that you knew all along the team was going to stink and look how dumb can the pacers be they should have been developing the young guys all along.
            It appears that Roy agrees with you UB.

            http://beta.indystar.com/article/201...ail-to-surface

            Mike Wells
            Indystar


            In a perfect world, everybody would play, but if we want to win, we all need to be tied in together, and the best way to do that is to have the most experienced guys out there," starting center Roy Hibbert said. "Once in a while, you sprinkle in a young or new guy in there, but the core guys need to be on the court for us to win. We can't go five in and five out."
            ....
            Last edited by WhackoJacko; 10-14-2010, 09:48 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Ok, then just to clarify - you would be fine with 22 wins (for example or maybe even fewer wins) if the younger guys get the majority of the playing time. Which players do you want getting the majority of the minutes then
              I might surprise you with this answer but If JOB was developing the young guys by giving them playing time and not playing the old players that much I wouldn't be asking for his head(I think many guys here feel the same way)

              If I was the pacers I'll be starting Dc,Rush,Granger,Mcbob and Hibbert(this also means to play them the most minutes and have them at the end of the game) and I would bring of the bench AJ,PG,Dun,Hans and Rolle, I understand Lance not playing much because the Pacers have way to many wing players, if they win 30+ games good if they win 15 to 20 games fine with me either way they are not making the playoffs but at least we would know what we have and not only that the other teams in the NBA would also know what we have in the case the pacers ever want to make a trade.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                i really can't decide. i wanna see young guys develop, but on the other hand i'm sick of losing.

                the best thing i can do right now is hoping(or dreaming) winning will come with young guys getting lots of playing time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                  A bunch of factors here, I think. Historically they've drafted guys who were supposed to be NBA ready, so I'd expect them to be able to handle the mental part of travelling, being suddenly rich, all the catchings of fame really. So, I guess I'd expect them to play. Arguably their bodies are more mature, their minds are more right, they'd benefit most from the playing time. I think they did this with BRush, it didn't work really, but the idea was right. I think this was more from necessity and lack of option than just developing him. I think for Roy they could have done this better, but you know looking at Roy now it's hard to argue it WASN'T the right thing to do, honestly.

                  The other side of this is Lance Stephenson, he just turned 20, his body is ready, his game is not. He has shown he needs to get his mind right, his house in order from a man standpoint let alone a player. I still think he should play though, not all year, not all game, but he needs a taste to hammer home how important this all is for him and what he needs to work on. This year is a huge test for him mentally, I think he'll learn alot about himself and the organization about him.

                  Bottom line is this. My biggest beef was playing vets, who weren't in the long term plans, ahead of younger guys - who were. On top of that, I didn't feel like there was a drop off to playing the youngsters, so it became very frustrating for me as a fan.

                  So with all that said, I'm okay with Lance playing sporadically, Magnum not at all. But I want Paul George to play quite a bit, to learn, plus I think he's almost already what we hope BRush would be.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                    Both. Do what it takes to win the most games we can, while developing the young guys to carry it even further. I think, as much as anything, playoff experience will stir up a hunger for success like nothing else.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                      Most of our core lineup is young, so they can play and devlop. As for the rookies, George will have to compete with B.Rush for the backup first wing in spot. He could get around 15 minutes a night if he plays well. Tyler will get his time. Lance and Magnum, if they are both still on the team might be hurting for playing time, but they might need a year to devlop anyway.

                      So, we can do both, but we have to try and win now. This city is sick of the pacers sucking. It would mean a lot if we have a winning record and make the playoffs.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                        I disagree. If you throw rookies out there to early and put pressure on them they do not always pan out. Confidence plays a large role in this game and if you fail over and over again all game long you will eventually just think you are that type of player.

                        Example. Josh is bigger and stronger this year. He can finally defend in the post and bang with the boys. 12 months ago I do not think this could of been possible. I think he finally looks like a 3rd year player instead of a robot out there.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                          I'd put Paul George and Tyler Hanbrough at the top of the list of players who need developmental minutes. McRoberts and Price can already earn minutes with the way they play (on this team, if not on better teams), and the other young guys (Stephenson, Rolle) can wait.

                          I don't have any idea about the way early minutes does or doesn't help young players in general, or our specific young guys. So I promise not to be one of those who gripe, whatever happens.




                          .
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                            Originally posted by dohman View Post
                            Example. Josh is bigger and stronger this year. He can finally defend in the post and bang with the boys. 12 months ago I do not think this could of been possible. I think he finally looks like a 3rd year player instead of a robot out there.
                            I was thinking about Josh, I think he just now has a defined position that fits. He wasn't mature enough physically before to be a PF and not nearly mobile enough to be a SF. It just took him awhile to fit into the position of PF. I think thats a big reason we have seen such a drastic improvement.

                            Clarification: It's not that he was ever projected to be a SF, it's just he was never ready to be a PF, until now.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                              I don't think the problem will be as large this year.

                              Last year, it wasn't that Murphy was a veteran getting time over younger guys. It was that he was less effective than McRoberts, when you applied both sides of the floor.

                              Same with A.J. He was our best point guard last year. That's why he should have gotten the most minutes.

                              This year, Dun will not be less effective than Rush or George (my opinion of course). Yes, he is less effective on defense but he is still okay, not in the terrible category. His solid offense makes him the better choice of player.

                              I wouldn't mind Posey getting some minutes this year if he were really effective. So far, he hasn't shown that. So George, Rush, McRoberts, Rolle ought to get them. Not to develop them but because they would be better.

                              So, the problem in the past, in my opinion, has not been the continuum between veterans and development. It has been Jim O'Stubborn's refusal to play younger guys who are better than vets.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X