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

Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

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

  • #76
    Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    You really think Iverson was getting preferential treatment from the NBA and the refs? Say what you want about the guy everywhere else in his life but he put his body on the line to draw fouls. He was fearless with the ball in his hands. Of all the players to suggest getting preferential treatment, Iverson seems pretty unlikely. I imagine few superstars have caused more headaches for Stern.
    He did what Wade does now for the most part - throw himself into defenders to draw fouls. And he got the calls far more often than not. He was a below average shooter and defender. Once he lost his speed (aka ability to draw fouls), he was awful.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      He did what Wade does now for the most part - throw himself into defenders to draw fouls. And he got the calls far more often than not.
      I think this is a complete misrepresentation of both Iverson and Wade. Completely dispresctful of two of the greatest to play the game.

      While drawing fouls is/was a part of their game, that can be said for every good player. Ever. Including Reggie. But it isn't their main facet.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

        One of the most clutch players in history
        Smothered Chicken!

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

          AI was a great scorer. There is a reason the GM of the Sixers went out and put four of the best defenders in the league around him. He can't defend outside of playing the passing lanes, which he did extremely well. He was easy to pass over or drive around or post up or shoot over or well, just about anything. Those teams made it to the finals because they defended at such a high level and AI was capable of making tough shot after tough shot after tough shot. Throw in an occaional 12 footer from the other players (not named Eric Snow) and the team had a touch of versatility. That was a very good team and the year they made it to the finals they had a lot go right for them to get there. I'm not talking about AI being great or not, he was. But the GM of that team deserves more credit for putting the right team around the kid.

          Reggie and Ray are a different ball game. Reggie generally played on much better teams overall than Ray did. Most of Ray's playoff appearances included him carrying his teams to even get there. Reggie didn't get double-teamed like Ray did typically. Look, I LOVE Reggie Miller. I just think that the general opinion on Ray Allen on this board is way less than it should be because he is getting compared to their idol. He's my idol too. I think Mark Jackson was one of the best PGs ever too. McKey and the Davis boys and Chuck Person all hold special places for me too. Jeff Foster might be the greatest center ever IMO (ok not really). Ray Allen is as good of a basketball player as Reggie was. Both top ten all time SG. It becomes an exercise in splitting microfibers in these discussions.
          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
            I think this is a complete misrepresentation of both Iverson and Wade. Completely dispresctful of two of the greatest to play the game.
            OK, while I am fully in with the discussion of Iverson as a top player, one of "the greatest to play the game" tears it for me. He lacked far too much to get to that level.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

              Iverson was a more individually talented player... Reggie was by far a more impactful team player. There's a reason Miller's teams were constantly conference finals candidates. He was a great leader, he set examples for his teammates, he was the pro of pros, his workout ethic was legendary, his drive and competiveness late in games and in the playoffs were not matched by many people in history, and it's all of these things that Iverson fell far short on. Iverson was a tremendous offensive player, but his game was all about *him*, and how his teammates complemented *him*. Iverson's game was more about how his teammates elevated him (give him the ball and clear out), whereas Miller's game was more about how he elevated his teammates on so many levels. Miller was also unfairly underrated in a lot of aspects, but namely defensively.

              Not only that... but Iverson was a PG, imo... lol. He was a scoring PG. He was... Derrick Rose Lite. DRose... Iverson.... Marbury.... to me those guys are all very similar players. Impressive to watch individually, but I never felt like they were championship caliber... DRose was legitimately close to being that, though. I still think we've seen the best of DRose, it's tough for me to imagine him and the Bulls being close to what they were before after his injury and the questionmarks around that team. Rose had the right mentality to go along with a skillset like Iverson and Marbury, but I always questioned whether his body would hold up. You could tell just watching, he was pushing his body to a point that nobody can sustain.

              I guess the best way for me to relate it is this.... between Iverson and Tim Duncan, who's game was more enjoyable to watch? Likely Iverson, on a pure entertainment level (although you'll get the purists who say "I enjoy watching Duncan's fundamentals better" blah blah blah... fundamentals aren't always fun to watch). Between those two, however, who would you bet on to win a championship? Duncan. It's just a certain way of playing and fitting into a scheme and making the sum of the parts better than yourself. I never felt like Iverson was in that mold at all, and thus was never really a true championship contender. He was more like a.... circus side show.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-07-2012, 10:35 AM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                42.5% shooters who star by volume shooting, like Iverson, do not belong in any such discussion, whether you consider him a PG or not.

                Big O was a PG. So was Maravich. So was Earl Monroe, despite being paired for years with PG Clyde Frazier. I consider West a SG.

                My list:

                MJ
                West
                Kobe
                Wade
                Clyde
                Gervin
                Reggie
                Dumars

                An ESPN panel has a similar list but includes Iverson, with Reggie #7

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...me-greatestsgs

                Fan voting at ESPN in the above link has this ranking:

                1 Jordan (39,178 #1 votes) 662,176 total poll points
                2 Bryant (3,989) 576,960
                3 West (519) 525,234
                4 Drexler (158) 396,665
                5 Gervin (86) 385,612
                6 Maravich (485) 380,135
                7 Iverson (287) 376,933
                8 Miller (225) 326,212
                9 Monroe (38) 257,438
                10 Dumars (155) 245,920
                11 Wade (153) 211,970
                12 Thompson (42) 192,212
                13 Jones (34) 155,151
                14 Greer (26) 143,180
                15 Sharman (37) 112,509


                so any argument that "most non-homers think he's not top 10" is silly.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-07-2012, 11:39 AM.
                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


                • #83
                  Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                  I think Wade could be ranked higher than Reggie Miller when it's all said and done, but if he retired today would he? No, he doesn't have the longevity yet of Reggie. I think that's what you have to take in account right now. For instance if Kobe retires today, is he still ranked higher than Reggie? Absolutely.

                  The Ray Allen, Reggie debate is a close one. I don't think you could say that either one ever had any great help (until Allen with the Celtics), but both had some respectably good help throughout a lot of their respective careers. Reggie had Smits, Mark Jackson, J. Rose, and the Davis's; whereas Allen had Cassell, Big Dog Robinson, and Anthony Mason. It was only in Seattle where Allen was largely left for dead.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    OK, while I am fully in with the discussion of Iverson as a top player, one of "the greatest to play the game" tears it for me. He lacked far too much to get to that level.
                    He's the best under 6'2" scorer in the history of the game.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      From what I always understood clearly defined positions like POINT guard and SHOOTING guard didn't come around until about 30 years or so, give or take. Before then, there were guards, forwards, and posts. This is why guys like Jerry West, Big O, etc were good scorers but also averaged high assist numbers as well, or why guys like Elgin Baylor (who was 6-5) was a double double machine. Players tended to just play to having clearly defined "roles"
                      The Big O and The Logo were the Bird/Magic of the 60's. These guys, especially Oscar, were beyond position, they were the total game and leaders. Everyone who played with them played better. If Oscar is not in the G.O.A.T. conversation, there is not a list, IMHO.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        He's the best under 6'2" scorer in the history of the game.
                        No, he scored the most total points in a career, among players that size or smaller.

                        Efficiency matters. He was a tremendous ball-hog with freedom to throw up anything.

                        He was no Isiah Thomas. Heck, he was no Tiny Archibald either, or Calvin Murphy for that matter.

                        Isiah: 45%
                        Tiny: 47%
                        Calvin: 48%
                        AI: 42.5%, 40% in the playoffs

                        -----
                        on the thread topic,

                        look at "effective FG%" at under advanced statistics at basketballreference.com

                        Reggie: 54.4%
                        MJ: 50.9%
                        Gervin: 50.7%
                        Wade: 50.0%
                        Dumars: 49.8%
                        Drexler: 49.5%
                        Kobe:48.6%
                        West: 47.4% (but no 3-pt. shot in his era, likely would be >50 with it)

                        Iverson: 45.2%
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-07-2012, 01:40 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


                        • #87
                          Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          I don't like including combo guards in a list of shooting guards... Iverson, Big-O, West, and Dumars to me were more PGs than anything, but they also played some 2-guard. Here's my list of top pure shooting guards up to Reggie:

                          1. Michael Jordan
                          2. Kobe Bryant
                          3. Clyde Drexler
                          4. Dwyane Wade
                          5. Reggie Miller
                          I can agree that maybe AI and Big O weren't shooting guards but Dumars? He played 90% of the time at SG. They had this really good PG there by the name of Isiah Thomas who played about 38 minutes a game and even when he went to the bench, Vinny Johnson or Gerald Henderson would come off the bench to play PG. Even during the Grant Hill days Dumars split time with Allen Houston for a couple of years at SG. Houston would go to the bench and Lindsey Hunter would come in and run the point.

                          Joe wasn't just a SG, he was one of the best all-around SGs to ever play the game.
                          Last edited by naptownmenace; 09-07-2012, 01:53 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                            Sure, but he also spent 5 years mostly at PG. He was a 'tweener in size to begin with, really kind of small for a SG, but big for a PG and he had the ability to move the ball up the court and set up the offense.

                            I agree with you that of all those mentioned, Dumars might be the greyest of those candidates, where you might aim him more at the SG position... But even so, getting back to the point of this thread, I don't know if I'd place him above Reggie. He was a fine player, but.... as good as Reggie? I mean let's face it, Dumar's cast was considerably more epic than what Reggie had most of his career. Isiah... Lambier... Rodman... Salley. Reggie never had an Isiah-level player alongside him... you'd almost certainly be talking championships if he had. Dumars wasn't the undisputed leader of that team and carried them on his shoulders like Reggie did with Indy. I just think they have different contexts and while Dumars certainly was a very fine player, I can't imagine that if you reversed the two players teams, that Dumars would've been able to carry the Pacers for almost two decades... whereas you could easily see Reggie fitting in with those bad boys.

                            I'm not saying that any of those 4 players weren't fantastic at that position, but it's tough to pigeon-hole a guy who can play across multiple positions and say "he was this". Just doesn't seem logical to compare Reggie Miller to... Oscar Robertson. Allen Iverson. I don't really recall Miller having any head-on-head battles with Iverson. Did they ever draw assignments on each other? I mean they played against each other, but it doesn't seem like Iverson was manning Miller up on D, or taking Miller off the dribble unless it was a defensive switch gone wrong. I could have forgotten I spose, someone correct me.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-07-2012, 03:39 PM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                              I could make an addendum to my prevous list and add Gervin above Reggie. He's the one shooting guard I really have zero familiarity with, as he played before my time and I've not seen a lot of footage of him. But by all accounts he was tremendous.
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Where does Reggie Miller rank in your opinion on the all time shooting guard list?

                                I found this article from 4 years ago. They included most of the guys were talking about as SGs... Iverson, West:

                                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...me-GreatestSGs

                                Few comments below it though saying they may not have Iverson ranked so high still.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-07-2012, 03:52 PM.
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X