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

Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

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

  • #16
    Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

    2013 Hill > 2012 Hill
    2013 Stephenson << 2012 George
    2013 George = 2012 Granger
    2013 West >> 2012 West
    2013 Hibbert < 2012 Hibbert

    2013 Augustine << 2012 Collison
    2013 OJ = 2012 Barbosa
    2013 Green << 2012 Dhantay
    2013 Hansbrough = 2012 Hansbrough
    2013 Ian >> 2012 Amundson

    Based on individual talent, the 2012 team was better, but just slightly. Our win percentages (64% for 2012 and 63% for 2013) also indicate that last years team was slightly better than this years.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

      Originally posted by D0NT SH0OT ME View Post
      2013 Hill > 2012 Hill
      2013 Stephenson << 2012 George
      2013 George = 2012 Granger
      2013 West >> 2012 West
      2013 Hibbert < 2012 Hibbert

      2013 Augustine << 2012 Collison
      2013 OJ = 2012 Barbosa
      2013 Green << 2012 Dhantay
      2013 Hansbrough = 2012 Hansbrough
      2013 Ian >> 2012 Amundson

      Based on individual talent, the 2012 team was better, but just slightly. Our win percentages (64% for 2012 and 63% for 2013) also indicate that last years team was slightly better than this years.
      Is Stephenson from this year really 2 steps below Paul George?
      There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        We have a worse record, but are somehow much better (and its not close apparently)...make sense.
        Last season's record: 42 - 24

        This season's record: 46 - 27

        If we win in Phoenix we will move up to 47 - 27. 47 - 27 stands for a 63.513% win percentage.

        42 - 24 stands for a 63.636% win percentage.

        So, one can say that last year's team had a better record but it's not by far.

        Here's the thing, though.

        This team started the season horribly. We were 4 - 7 in the first 11 games. We were 10 - 11 in the first 21 games. We were hardly a .500 team back then. We started playing well around mid December.

        At the end of the 2012 calendar year, we were standing at 18 - 13 after our win against Memphis. We are currently standing at 46 - 27. That means that our record in 2013 is 28 - 14.

        28 - 14 stands for a 66.666% win percentage.

        This team has been better in 2013 than it was in 2012. That much is clear to me and this is why I believe that this team is better than the last year one.

        Also, next year's team will probably be better than this year's team as well. Our players will continue to improve and grow as a core so chances are that we will only get better
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

          What's amazing is that our best player from last year is gone, and it's even arguable that we are better. But we really are a little better. Here's a twist in the way you can think about it.

          Paul is better than Danny was last year...mainly because of his superior D.
          Lance is about as good as Paul was last year.
          DWest is a lot better than last year.
          Roy is becoming better than he has ever been right now.
          Ian is a lot better than Lou.
          OJ is better than Barbosa. He can actually defend and I don't think he hurts you in the playoffs like Barbosa.
          Tyler is playing better this year. Less minutes but he's been more effective.

          Backup SF is probably weaker now that Granger is out. One player I miss is DJ. He's a lot better than Gerald Green.

          The PG position is another place we might be slightly weaker. But Lance makes up for that with his play and DJ is actually playing pretty well and reliably hits 3's now. So, even that's close.

          Overall though, I would much prefer taking this team into the playoffs.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

            My answer is yes.

            Better defensively.

            Worse offensively.

            Better set up for grinding it out in the playoffs.

            Not as mature overall to have the mental toughness and discipline the playoffs require.

            Overall, likely very similar results for both regular season and possibly the playoffs, as long as West can physically maintain most of what he has done during the regular season and as long as Paul and Lance let the game come to them a little more than they might when the stage gets bigger in the playoffs without trying to dominate everything offensively and making poor decisions.

            So, yes to all three options.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

              Originally posted by Dece View Post
              We have a worse record, but are somehow much better (and its not close apparently)...make sense.

              We're pretty well the same, give or take. Bit different strengths and weaknesses, but an overall wash.
              A few reasons why comparing the records may not tell the whole story:

              1) Point differential. Last year's was 3.3, this year's is 5.2. Point differential isn't always predictive, but it's a good indicator of talent.
              2) Schedule. Both years the Pacers have had some luck with the way the schedule fell, but last year's was especially so. Because of the shortened season, 72.7% of their games were against the East, compared to a normal year where it's 63.4%. And the three West teams they got twice last year were Minnesota, Golden State, and New Orleans, all of which had under a 40% winning percentage last year.
              3) Injuries. Not a big difference either way, but this year's team has had slightly more even when throwing out the loss of Granger. And of course the loss of Granger did cause a tougher transition than integrating West did for last year's team.

              On the flip side, the biggest argument I could make for last year is that the Pacers were so conservative with minutes during the regular season. Last year the Pacers had only 1 player in the top 70 in minutes (Granger at 41). This year the Pacers have 3 in the top 50, including George at 13th. It certainly could be argued that the Pacers could have been more dominant last year if they had been willing to push their starters a little harder.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                We have a worse record, but are somehow much better (and its not close apparently)...make sense.

                We're pretty well the same, give or take. Bit different strengths and weaknesses, but an overall wash.
                I too am surprised by the overwhelming "better" votes. I appreciate the optimism, but this team is awfully similar overall. And that's a good thing. We were very good last year, too.

                Generally in sports, especially sports of a long season, you are what your record is.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                  I say better, but disagree in saying that OJ is the same as Barbosa was. OJ looks to be a more fluid player and is pretty smart, but Barbosa is quick, VERY quick. You could say Lance replaced that void but we also lost Collison, so we're still slower.
                  But overall I think our beefing up down low has benefitted the team more than the weakening out top has hurt us. The size down low makes it tough for anyone to defend for 48 minutes. In any game, either of Hibbert and West could go for 25, and any of Mahinmi, Hansbrough, and Pendergraph could go for 15. Same with the guards. As long as one or two guys get hot, we can beat anyone, IMO.
                  Forever struggling to convince myself "In Larry we trust"
                  Writer at NoseBleedSectionSports.com

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                    I think we're better this year. We've lost Granger, but George, Lance, and West are better than they were last year at this time. Hibbs is better defensively, and while his offense has struggled for a good chunk of the year, it looks like it's coming back.

                    As for the bench, Mahinmi is better than anything we had at center last season, and even though Collison and Barbosa were better than what we have currently, I think the center upgrade is more meaningful as Augustin and OJ bring other dimensions to our team that those two didn't (3 pt shooting-DJ, defense-OJ).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                      Honestly, I'd pick last year's team. This year's team has a huge lack of efficient scorers, lack of shooters that stretch the floor, and lack of guys that can do something on their own (This year we have Lance, but last year we had Collison and Barbosa that could at least break defenses with their quickness). I mean, even with all that, last year's team had an extremely predictable offense. This year's team is even worse on that aspect, and I think it'll show when the playoffs start. Sure, the defense is probably better, but in the playoffs everybody play good defense anyway and you need good offensive plans to get somewhere, and I think that's a big issue for us this year
                      Originally posted by Piston Prince
                      Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                      "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                        Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                        Sure, the defense is probably better, but in the playoffs everybody play good defense anyway
                        There is a big difference between playing ok defense and playing kickass defense
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Overall though, I would much prefer taking this team into the playoffs.

                          What you said. So all the voters for last years team would rather take last years team into the playoffs this year.
                          I would much prefer to take this years team than last years. I think the bench is better especially if Tyler can play with Roy
                          or Paul.
                          {o,o}
                          |)__)
                          -"-"-

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                            The only reason our record isn't better this year is because of our terrible start to the season, which everyone here could see that it was completely unexpected and out of the ordinary for this team. They got in a funk. They got it together. Since then, all it takes is basic observation to realize that our level of play is a lot higher htan last year on both sides of the ball. Our bench last year was terrible. It's why we had to address it this off-season. I don't know how anyone says our bench this year is worse than last years. Mahinmi is a fantastic back-up --- the man could be a starter out there somewhere. Hansbrough, too. Our bench front-court is extremely good. Augustin got off to a rocky start, but he's been better since. Orlando is becoming something special off the bench. For a rookie to be doing what he's doing on the offensive end is outstanding. Collison was sink or swim, but most of the time --- sink. He would frustrate the crap out of me for 5 games, and then explode in the 6th. He was a defensive liability. Collison was a shoot-first PG, and he usually did. I can't believe we got Mahinmi for him. We absolutely owned that trade. Our offense is a lot more dimensional than last year's offense. Someone above said this year's Lance is way worse than last year's PG ---- wayyyyy incorrect. PG was an extremely limited offensive player last year, once anyone focused on him... he got most of his 3-pt looks when defenses collapses on the others. Lance has an aspect to his game that we've missed --- a bulldog in the open court, an attacker at the rim. Hill is slightly better this year than last year. Lance is better offensively than PG was last year. PG is WAY better this year than he was last year, especially in realizing his potential, making contested shots, his handle is way improved, and he now has a few go-to moves. West is better than he was last year. Hibbert for the first half of the season was terrible, but his defensive presence went up several notches, and now his offensive game is starting to return to form. The starting unit is better offensively and defensively from last year. Our second unit has some ballers on it, as opposed to the train wreck it was last year. It may not be a world-beating bench, but it's better than last year. As a team, our offensive system has rounded into something stronger and less predictable than last year, and tougher to stop. We have a plethora of go-to plays now, with PG's step-back, or West's iso plays, Hill's pick and rolls, Lance's cuts and drives. There's a lot more straws stirring the drink this year. On our second unit, Mahinmi is really really impressive, on both sides of the ball. Hansbrough is returning to 2010 form and I've always loved his game. Augustin is starting to figure out what he needs to do. Orlando is becoming one heckuva offensive player, especially ISO plays and he's not bad defensively, either. Last year we absolutely could not score the ball in the playoffs... we may not be a juggernaut this year, but we'll at least score more points than last year, and our defense is something just short of spectacular this year. Our authority on the boards this year is also something to behold. We're better across the board, imo.. but it took us about 15 games to get to that point, and that's why our record doesn't show it. Anyone going off a base record comparison, to me, is only showing that haven't really been watching.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-30-2013, 03:34 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


                            • #29
                              Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              What's amazing is that our best player from last year is gone, and it's even arguable that we are better. But we really are a little better. Here's a twist in the way you can think about it.

                              Paul is better than Danny was last year...mainly because of his superior D.
                              Lance is about as good as Paul was last year.
                              DWest is a lot better than last year.
                              Roy is becoming better than he has ever been right now.
                              Ian is a lot better than Lou.
                              OJ is better than Barbosa. He can actually defend and I don't think he hurts you in the playoffs like Barbosa.
                              Tyler is playing better this year. Less minutes but he's been more effective.

                              Backup SF is probably weaker now that Granger is out. One player I miss is DJ. He's a lot better than Gerald Green.

                              The PG position is another place we might be slightly weaker. But Lance makes up for that with his play and DJ is actually playing pretty well and reliably hits 3's now. So, even that's close.

                              Overall though, I would much prefer taking this team into the playoffs.
                              PG has more tools than Danny. He makes a big difference defensively, rebounding, and he has not hit his prime. Tyler has maintained the PF position when West went down. Losing West could have put the team on a losing streak but that didn't happen. West is healthier than last year. Lance showed that he could play as did OJ. I'm not too big on Mahinmi but he is an improvement over Lou.

                              While Hill may not be a prototypical PG he is getting the job done and so is Roy. Is this team better? We can beat anyone on any given night. I didn't feel that last season. Barbosa was so good last year we didn't even bring him back and it wasn't because he was going to ask for much money.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Is the 2013 team better, worse, or the same as the 2012 team?

                                Last years offense was garbage. All it was was throw the ball in the post to Roy or West, and everybody else would stand around. Our offense has diversity this season. Paul George this year is better than Danny Granger last year. Paul seems to have more ways to score. Also, last years team didn't feature Lance Stephenson, who can be a game changer when on. Lance Stephenson this year is better than Paul George last year. I cannot remember many games last season where Paul George ignited his team, and carried us to victory. Throw in our superior defense this year, and its not really even close on which team is better
                                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X