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

Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

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

  • #91
    Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

    Is the person that we are not supposed to quote really just insensate that it is the Granger Fans fault that Danny got hurt in the preseason because they wanted him to play too much?!?

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      If I thought Danny would play at the level he was a few years ago, I think I might have a bit different opinion.
      But we don't need Danny to play at the level he played 2 years ago.

      Look, I honestly believe that we have 6 starters at the moment. Both Lance and Danny are worthy of a starting spot.

      I mentioned our offensive options in my first post for a simple reason. I believe that no matter which one of Lance or Danny starts, they will be the 5th option. That's how I think that our offensive options will look like:

      PG will be the #1 option. One of Hibbert or West will be our #2 option (the one who has the easiest match-up or the one who has the hot hand). Hill and our other big will alternate between the #3 and #4 option. We need Hill to be aggressive since he is better when he's aggressive and our bigs will keep getting their touches regardless of match-ups due to our power post philosophy.

      That simply means that the 5th starter will be the 5th option, no matter who he is. If Danny is that player then he will simply work his way around screens and get open jumpers. If Lance is that player then will attempt back-cuts and get lay-ups or simply score on the fast break.

      The point is that neither Lance nor Granger will have the ball in their hands if they are the 5th starter. That is not a big problem for Danny since he is a good off the ball player but that is an issue with Lance since he is so much better with the ball in his hands.

      In general, I'm undecided on the subject. Both of them can give you an advantage as a starter and both of them can give you an advantage off the bench. Heck, I have even entertained the idea of a token starter in order to bring both Lance and Danny off the bench and ensure a continuous flow of offensive production.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        C'mon man, that's just weak. I notice it's the same folks who never believed in Lance in the first place that keep saying he wasn't an integral part of our team last year. IMO Paul was able to spread his wings BECAUASE of the Lance/Granger swap. What makes you think Paul becomes the player he has if Granger's still in the line-up taking up a quarter of the posessions?
        You are correct that the improvement made by George was far more apparent because Granger was not in the starting lineup. However, the improvement made by George had nothing to do with Lance being in the lineup. Not trying to be a smart-arse or taking anything away from what Lance accomplished last year, but we could have had OJ or DJ in the starting lineup instead of Lance, and George still would have emerged. His better performance came about through a greater reliance upon him for scoring and a much greater utilization.

        I've also been of the opinion that players on their rookie contracts seem to show their greatest jump in improvement/performance in their third season. By that time, they have learned the ropes, adjusted to NBA life and have earned a shot at much more playing time. Last year, with Granger's injury, you could say the stars aligned perfectly for the emergence of George. And voila! A star in the making.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          You think? Have you not seen some of the sweet entry passes Lance has made to West, for example? Lance is just 22 and is going to get even better. Danny's already peaked and will never again play that well. These are the facts. In 12 months, Danny Granger will have a different mailing address.
          That last part is interesting. I think we all know that we won't be able to afford both players. In fact we may struggle to afford either player but it all depends on how well Danny and Lance play this year as to what their value will be next summer. It's safe to say that we'll end up with the least expensive player since we may have less then 5 mil to spend. If you're so sure Lance is the better player wouldn't you think he'd be the one with the greater value and thus the one with a different mailing address next year?
          I'm pretty sure Danny will net the bigger contract and most likely be the player we lose but he'll have greater value to other teams because he's the better player. He helps our staring lineup more then Lance and should both start and finish in most games.
          Of course you could be right and Lance could break out this year in which case he's gone.
          If we lose both players over the 7 mil we have tied up in Copeland and Ian that will be a crime.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Both will help us. The question is whether you want a consistent starting lineup with a potentially great backup who will end up playing big minutes...or you want to roll the dice with your starting lineup.

            Edit: What happens if it's March and Granger has issues with scar tissue again? That would make a fine mess.
            I agree that both will help us. As I said earlier, I'm undecided on which player I prefer. The only thing that I'm sure about is that no matter if it is Danny or Lance they're going to be the 5th option. And I don't want Lance to be the 5th option. I want him to have the ball in his hands.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              But we don't need Danny to play at the level he played 2 years ago.

              Look, I honestly believe that we have 6 starters at the moment. Both Lance and Danny are worthy of a starting spot.

              I mentioned our offensive options in my first post for a simple reason. I believe that no matter which one of Lance or Danny starts, they will be the 5th option. That's how I think that our offensive options will look like:

              PG will be the #1 option. One of Hibbert or West will be our #2 option (the one who has the easiest match-up or the one who has the hot hand). Hill and our other big will alternate between the #3 and #4 option. We need Hill to be aggressive since he is better when he's aggressive and our bigs will keep getting their touches regardless of match-ups due to our power post philosophy.

              That simply means that the 5th starter will be the 5th option, no matter who he is. If Danny is that player then he will simply work his way around screens and get open jumpers. If Lance is that player then will attempt back-cuts and get lay-ups or simply score on the fast break.

              The point is that neither Lance nor Granger will have the ball in their hands if they are the 5th starter. That is not a big problem for Danny since he is a good off the ball player but that is an issue with Lance since he is so much better with the ball in his hands.

              In general, I'm undecided on the subject. Both of them can give you an advantage as a starter and both of them can give you an advantage off the bench. Heck, I have even entertained the idea of a token starter in order to bring both Lance and Danny off the bench and ensure a continuous flow of offensive production.
              If Lance starts then I agree he is the 5th. starter. If Danny starts he's the 2cd. starter as far as scoring options go.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                Is the person that we are not supposed to quote really just insensate that it is the Granger Fans fault that Danny got hurt in the preseason because they wanted him to play too much?!?
                Is the person that is afraid of quoting somebody on an NBA forum making s*** up? I think so.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  If Lance starts then I agree he is the 5th. starter. If Danny starts he's the 2cd. starter as far as scoring options go.
                  And if Danny is the 2nd option that means that the Pacers are just not that good.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                    C'mon man, that's just weak. I notice it's the same folks who never believed in Lance in the first place that keep saying he wasn't an integral part of our team last year. IMO Paul was able to spread his wings BECAUASE of the Lance/Granger swap. What makes you think Paul becomes the player he has if Granger's still in the line-up taking up a quarter of the posessions?
                    Lance certainly was an integral part of our team last year. But that doesn't mean that Danny is suddenly a leper.

                    There is some validity in the thought that Paul wouldn't spread his wings if Granger never got injured. Paul was forced into the role of the main perimeter scorer and he flourished under it. At the start of the season it looked like he was about to crash and burn under the pressure but he turned it around and made the leap. But a big reason why Paul was forced to become our perimeter scorer was simply that Danny's replacement (Gerald Green for the first few games, Lance for the rest) weren't as good scorers as Danny was.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I think we all like Danny and Lance.
                      Not really.

                      All people like Lance now but that wasn't the case back in 2011. One of the first things that I learned about Stephenson when I started following the Pacers was the he pushed his girlfriend off the stairs. I wasn't really a fan of him back then.

                      Thankfully, Lance has matured and he is now well-liked.

                      As for Danny. Well.. We all know that certain people in this forum do not like him.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        If Lance starts then I agree he is the 5th. starter. If Danny starts he's the 2cd. starter as far as scoring options go.
                        I've agreed with most of Nuntius's thoughts throughout the debate. However, I agree with you that Lance would be a fifth scoring option, whereas Granger would be no lower than probably a third option.

                        With Granger in the starting lineup, we would not need, and probably wouldn't look for GHill to score as much. But, with Granger in the lineup, I think that GHill's opportunities to score would be increased because of the opponent's greater awareness of Granger (over Lance) on the court. Thus, I think GHill's scoring might actually increase, even though we actually wouldn't be looking for more out of him. Kind of warped thinking, I know. But that is he way I see it.

                        I really believe that Granger starting could create a greater balance between interior vs perimeter scoring and interior vs perimeter utilization. It also could encourage GHill to take that next step in his progression from SG to combo-guard to finally being a PG. If he can't walk, talk and perform like a PG with four capable scorers on the floor with him, then it's fair to say he will never become a full-fledged PG.

                        I don't know what he final solution will be, but it should be based on total team performance and not just the performance of the starting lineup. The starters might score better with Granger on the floor, but some believe that they will also give up more points, too. Similarly, maybe the bench doesn't score as much with Lance, but they do a much better job defensively. Or maybe the combination of Scola and Granger really makes the bench an offensive juggernaut.

                        There are so many things to consider and investigate. I think Vogel will still be investigating combinations even in January and February. But the important thing is that by the end of the season he gets it right and is able to field the lineups that provides the greatest overall team performance. Whether that is Lance or Danny in the starting lineup who knows? Or, maybe Nuntius is right and Vogel surprises us all by bringing both Lance and Danny off the bench (but I doubt it )

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                          Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                          If Lance starts then I agree he is the 5th. starter. If Danny starts he's the 2cd. starter as far as scoring options go.
                          I don't think that this would be the right move.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            And if Danny is the 2nd option that means that the Pacers are just not that good.
                            Or it just means that he had, on average, the 2nd best offensive night on our team. That's how Vogel tries to run our offense. You look for the open man, specifically the one with the hot hand. And when you look at the scoring output of our top scorers the past two years, you may be surprised at how similar they are.

                            6.2/14.9 FG(41.9%), 2.2/5.9 threes(36.2%), 2.8/3.5 FT (80.7%), 17.4 PPG
                            6.3/15.2 FG(41.6%), 2.0/5.2 threes(38.1%), 4.1/4.7 FT (87.1%), 18.7 PPG

                            Granger shot more FG because Paul passes more, and I think you can attribute Paul's extra .7 3PT FGA to playing a few more minutes a night.

                            I'm not saying I think Granger will match the numbers that are an eerie match to George's last season or that I don't think George's will increase. But to say Granger isn't capable of being the second best scorer on a good team when we were very good last season with an inefficient first option...there's clearly bias involved.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                              With Granger in the starting lineup, we would not need, and probably wouldn't look for GHill to score as much.
                              I think that there is a need for Hill to score no matter who the starter is. And I will explain why.

                              George Hill is a more aggressive player when he is looking to score. When Hill is more aggressive he becomes a much better player. That's why I think that we need him to score. It doesn't have to do with a lack of perimeter scoring. I just feel that he is a better player when he is looking to score and that's why I want him to be higher than our #5 option.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                I don't think that this would be the right move.
                                Making Danny the 5th option isn't taking advantage of his skills. Danny is the most diverse scorer on this team, until Paul proves otherwise. To relegate him to the corner is not taking advantage of him as a player. If he is on the court, on most teams, he is no worse than your second best scorer. On this team though I am of the opinion that you spread it evenly, and go with the hot hands. Unless Paul George turns into Lebron/MJ/Durant or Hibbert turns into Kareem/Wilt no one on our team is significantly better scorer to relegate 1st through 5th option until after the game has started. Really, depending on how much Paul has improved it may be Danny is still the best scorer on the team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X