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

Saints @ 49ers

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

  • #31
    Re: Saints @ 49ers

    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
    No, its just incorrect
    Thank you for pointing out that you disagree with my opinion and hold a different opinion. For a second time.

    We've noticed.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Saints @ 49ers

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Prior to last week, Tom Brady was 0-4 in his last 4 playoff games
      No, that is incorrect. 0-3, if you count the Suoper Bowl as a playoff game.

      One Super Bowl (2007) & two playoff games (2009, 2010).

      personally I wouldn't count losing a Super Bowl game as a sign of futility, but whatever. After that, he had the only two one-and-dones of his career.

      You do also know that at one point in the middle of his career, Joe Montana was one-and-done for three times in a row, and that Peyton has (I believe) six one-and-dones in his career?

      Playoffs are tough. 15-5 is unequalled, as a winning percentage and 10 or more wins. Montana was 16-7.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Saints @ 49ers

        So Joe Montana is currently a better playoff QB than Aaron Rodgers? The answer is no. Why? Because Aaron Rodgers has done more recently than Joe Montana, which is pretty obvious considering Montana doesn't even play.

        I'm not talking about best of all time, I'm talking about who has been playing better in the playoffs over the past 5 seasons.

        Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees have had more postseason success in the past 5 years than Tom Brady.
        Last edited by Since86; 01-16-2012, 04:01 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Saints @ 49ers

          Brady has started 20 postseason games in his career. Two one-and-dones in games 18 and 19 don't indicate that the "last half" of his career has been a downer. Heck, if his performance was WORSE in each of those years and they had been a wild card team instead of a division winner, and won a wild card game, would that have made him better? He lost twice in a row in the round of 8. It happens even to the best of them, as I mentioned, three times in a row to Montana.

          Never has a sample size of two losses in a 20-game career been so over-extrapolated as a sign of a career slide.

          You can argue that Drew Brees is better right now than Brady, I suppose. But Drew Brees has never won a single road playoff game in his career. Not one. He also historically has not performed nearly as well outside of a dome, regular season or otherwise. His yardage record is an artifact of dome football. Brady is a dome? Well, his career passer rating is something like ten points higher in domes, even though all dome games for him are road games. I'd say his 5,235 would be higher.

          Brees can amass stats outside, like in SF, if he slings it 70 times. He just isn't the same, though. Not as precise, not as mistake-free, not as accurate. In the postseason, on the road, success for him is in fact UNPRECEDENTED. Zero wins. He is a lesser postseason QB than is Eli Manning, IMO, since Eli has got it done on the road.

          Aaron Rogers? What is the sample size there? He has has a grand total of one great regular season (this year), one great postseason, with road wins even (last year), one good regular season (last year), many so-so seasons, and a playoff performance that simply was not good at all (this year).

          Playoffs matter. Playoffs are tough. One loss, even two losses, or one or two wins don't mean a whole lot when there is a great sample size. When there is not a large enough sample size (as for Brees and Rogers), it's all we have to go on.

          There is certainly nothing to say I'd want Brees quarterbacking my team instead of Brady unless the game was inside, on turf, in front of home fans, preferably.

          With Brady it can be 30 mph winds in snow squalls on the road in Chicago, in sunny mild San Diego, in zero degrees at Foxborough, or wherever. He has performed well in those conditions.

          Aaron Rogers was remarkable this year. His mobility is something Brady cannot hope to duplicate. If he plays at a similarly high level for 2-3 years I would trust him to win a game as much as Brady. Right now though I can't say I would do it.

          Brady should have been the MVP this year, carrying statistically speaking a defense among the worst the league has ever seen, though I am sure he would be happier to be the Super Bowl MVP again.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-16-2012, 05:10 PM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Saints @ 49ers

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees have had more postseason success in the past 5 years than Tom Brady.
            yes, marginally so:

            Last 5 seasons for Brady:
            In playoffs: 3 wins, 3 losses, average passer rating = 94.3, zero missed playoffs as an active player/starter (one season missed to injury)

            Last 5 seasons for Brees:
            In playoffs: 3 wins, 2 losses, average passer rating = 107.1 (94.4 in 2 outdoor games), two times missed playoffs as an active player/starter

            Last 5 seasons for Rogers:
            In playoffs: 4 wins, 2 losses, average passer rating = 104.4, one time missed playoffs as an active player/starter
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-16-2012, 05:12 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Saints @ 49ers

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              So Joe Montana is currently a better playoff QB than Aaron Rodgers? The answer is no. Why? Because Aaron Rodgers has done more recently than Joe Montana, which is pretty obvious considering Montana doesn't even play.

              I'm not talking about best of all time, I'm talking about who has been playing better in the playoffs over the past 5 seasons.

              Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees have had more postseason success in the past 5 years than Tom Brady.
              Don't forget Brady has lost a recent season to injury so there's a hole in recent playoff runs for him.

              I'd be hard pressed to take Rodgers or Brees over Brady to QB a team for me next weekend. Brady has already proven he's a cool customer in the playoffs in various settings and his regular season work is still solid. There's no reason to think he'd be the weak link in a playoff run for NE.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Saints @ 49ers

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                yes,
                Fixed it for you. That's all you needed to say.

                It's like the PM vs. TB debate was flipped on it's head. For years we were told Brady was better by the simple fact that he won more. (along with Ben) Now that other QBs are winning more than Tom, you now need to look at their personal stats.

                Since we've gotten caught up on the pissing match between QBs, we can now revert the attention back to the original point.

                The best QB in the game is often times the loser. When it comes down to winning in the playoffs, running the ball and good defense wins out more times than simply having a great QB under center.
                Last edited by Since86; 01-16-2012, 05:19 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Saints @ 49ers

                  4-2 is better than 3-3, I'll give you that, even though all four wins were in one single apparently exceptional season.

                  Is 3-2 better than 3-3? I suppose it is, too, for right now. Let's see if 3-3 becomes 5-3.

                  There is no PM vs. TB postseason debate. 9-10 is NOTHING like 15-5, especially when the guy going 9-10 had a team good enough to perform just as well or better in the regular season, and in 5 of 11 years, also had a statistically superior defense (judged by yards allowed).
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Saints @ 49ers

                    I knew Indiana was a little behind on education, but we're taught that winning 60% of your games is better than winning 50% of your games.

                    Maybe 60=50 in other areas of the country, but here? 60>50 all day every day.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Saints @ 49ers

                      It would be better if you had the same sample size, right?

                      3-2 is fixed, for a year anyway. And Brees has never won a single playoff game in any season but one.
                      3-3 is not fixed. It may be 3-4, 4-4, or 5-3 really soon.

                      5-3 is better than 3-2. 0.625 > 0.600.

                      Got it?

                      Alex Smith is 1-0. Maybe you want to go with him?

                      If Shaq hit 2 free throws in a row one night and Reggie made 3 of 4, wouldn't you rather see both of them shoot a few more before you decide who is best to shoot the T? In this case, one guy is still shooting. Over his career, he's more like Reggie than Shaq. I'll wait and see if they go in.

                      And 15-5 is a hell of a lot better than 3-2. Why establish an artificial barrier going back in time? By the eyeballs of any sane person, the quarterbacking ability of Brady 2010 and 2011 is better than Brady of 2001, 2002, 2003. Accuracy, arm strength, consistency, ability to read defenses, even throwing while not stationary are all factors that he has improved due to refined mechanics.
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-16-2012, 06:36 PM.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Saints @ 49ers

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        It would be better if you had the same sample size, right?

                        3-2 is fixed, for a year anyway. And Brees has never won a single playoff game in any season but one.
                        3-3 is not fixed. It may be 3-4, 4-4, or 5-3 really soon.

                        That's not true about Brees. He won the Super Bowl in 2009, but also won playoff games in the 2006 and 2011 seasons. In 2006, the Brees-led Saints had a bye in the first round and then beat the Eagles in the division round before being slaughtered in the NFC Championship by Chicago. And this year the Saints beat the Lions in Wild Card weekend before losing to San Francisco. So Brees has won a playoff game in 3 of his 6 Saints seasons.

                        For some strange reason, profootball reference omits the Detroit game from Brees's playoff game log. Someone better fix that.

                        http://www.pro-football-reference.co...Dr00/gamelog//

                        Brees certainly could use a road win on his playoff resume'. But overall he played very very well against SF. Certainly well enough to win if his defense didn't let Alex Smith own them. I'm sure Brees and the Saints are heated at how that one ended and will be on a tear next season to get home field advantage. If they get the top seed then there is a great chance they become the first team to ever play a Super Bowl at home given that it's in N.O. next year.

                        It just has to tear the Saints up knowing that they would be hosting the NFC title game this week if they could have just stopped the Niners.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-16-2012, 07:25 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Saints @ 49ers

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          I'm sure Brees and the Saints are heated at how that one ended and will be on a tear next season to get home field advantage. If they get the top seed then there is a great chance they become the first team to ever play a Super Bowl at home given that it's in N.O. next year.
                          While still in their championship window, you think they'd shore up their weaknesses and really try extra hard to make a run for it when the SB is in their home town?

                          What kind of foolish thinking is that?
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Saints @ 49ers

                            Patriots fans worry that their current defense, not a bend but don't break defense" but rather a "break but try not to break into 1000 pieces" defense, giving up 411 yards per game, will not be fixed in time to avoid squandering Brady's best years. I would say that they thus have something in common with Colts fans, except for the fact that the Colts worst defense under Manning was nowhere close to as bad, statistically, as this Patriots defense.

                            To say that it would be the worst defense to ever win a Super Bowl, if they accomplish that, is an incredible understatement. This defense is worse than the 2008 Lions, the winless Tampa Bay Bucs of the 1970s, and any other team in history besides the 1982 Baltimore Colts and the 2011 Green Bay Packers. It would be quite a feat to overcome that, and the Ravens provide possibly the worst of all matchups.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Saints @ 49ers

                              I don't think the Patriots will have to worry about the defense screwing them over against the Ravens at home. If Brady plays to his potential, then that should be enough to get past Flacco and the Ravens. Of course, I'm sure the prideful Ravens defense will give him everything they have. But I ultimately think the Pats will make it to Indy.

                              The real cause for concern is if you run into Eli and the red-hot Giants receivers in indoor Lucas Oil. That's where the D could really screw the Pats over big-time.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Saints @ 49ers

                                What is 'bad' about the Patriots' defense? Porous secondary? Can't stop the run? I've not caught a Pats game all year...

                                I always thought the Colts would be better off if they were going to give up something on the defense to make it passing and not running. Go ahead and dare teams to throw and bet the other team will miss enough throws to help the defense out... But don't let teams run the ball and control the clock and pound the defense into submission.

                                At least if you have a good offense you can get back on the field and have a shootout... as opposed to watching the defense plow you over with safe, effective running plays while your offense sits on the bench and sees the clock tick away.
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X