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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    In reality, I think most everyone agrees with this statement. Yet when people talk about a guy starting, I hope you realize that they are also saying that the player should not be a "bench player" and that normally starters will equal finishers. Of course there are exceptions. Most starters also finish...even if not all 5 do it.
    To bad you can't have 6 starters, it would make things a lot more simple. Who should finish though should be decided based on how the players are playing that night. If Paul is having a terrible game while Granger and Lance are lighting it up, I want Paul on the bench while Granger and Lance finish.

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      One factor not mentioned here is that Granger wouldn't be scoring nearly as many points as he did when he was "the man". Not only is this team MUCH better, he will never again be the best player on the team. Not with Paul. Hibbert is clearly more valuable.

      The point is, everyone needs to forget about the seasons Granger got his numbers on bad teams. It happens all the time. A player has inflated stats because his team isn't all that good. Granger was a trooper delivering for the Pacers year after year, but that's exactly what happened. His scoring average, on fairly poor FG%, was very much inflated. At best he would average 17PPG on this team.

      Seriously, the team is so much better now. People need to readjust who Danny Granger really is because even if 100% healthy he may very well be the 4th best player on the team.
      My friend, who gives a **** about the past? Seriously, the past is irrelevant here. Everything has to do with this season. We're all in now and we want to win now!

      What I see in Danny is an elite spot up shooter with size. An elite spot up shooter is an immense help for a post-heavy offense. Opposing defenses won't be able to double our bigs if all of our perimeter players are great shooters because when they do our shooters will make them pay.

      What I see in Danny is a Manu Ginobili / OKC Harden-type of player. An all-around, versatile player that thrives when he has the ball in his hands. Therefore, I want to put the ball in his hands. I realize that this is not very likely to happen with the starting unit and that on top that our bench is lacking in shot creators and thus I consider very reasonable to use Lance a lot in this capacity.

      However, I have also said the following a number of times:

      I'm extremely glad with how things are right now as long as Lance keeps up his excellent perimeter shooting. Frankly, the only thing I want is a 40% 3 point shooter in our starting line-up and someone to create shots alongside the bench unit. I don't care who that shooter or who that creator is. I just want them to exist. Prior to the season I thought that DG was that shooter and Lance was that creator. If Lance ends up being both that shooter and that creator then I'm going to be overjoyed because that would mean that he's an All-Star.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I'm saying that there's no reason whatsoever for the Pacers to screw with a starting lineup that has worked brilliantly for the last year and continues to get better and better.
        You know what is the issue with this statement? Our line-up was brilliant in 11-12 as well. Danny went down and we were forced to "screw up" with that brilliant line-up and we ended up creating an even better line-up with Lance. I really think that our starting line-up is going to be darn awesome no matter who the 5th starter is.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Lance starting to get national press. Here we go:

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...acers/3420315/
          Source: USA Today
          This part shuts the "it has only been 3 games" people.

          he improved those averages to 9.4 points, 7.6 rebounds and 3.3 assists in the playoffs.
          Thanks for posting it.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            In reality, I think most everyone agrees with this statement. Yet when people talk about a guy starting, I hope you realize that they are also saying that the player should not be a "bench player" and that normally starters will equal finishers. Of course there are exceptions. Most starters also finish...even if not all 5 do it.
            This team probably has 7 players that are good enough to be a starter in this league. Having too many good player is NOT a problem.

            I have clarified that I believe that Lance should finish the games most of the time. My arguments revolve around fit. Therefore, who is starting really is irrelevant to me.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              You know what is the issue with this statement? Our line-up was brilliant in 11-12 as well. Danny went down and we were forced to "screw up" with that brilliant line-up and we ended up creating an even better line-up with Lance. I really think that our starting line-up is going to be darn awesome no matter who the 5th starter is.
              That also means that it was great when Darren Collison was the starter considering that he started most of 11-12. But we upgraded the position when we inserted Hill into the starting lineup at the end of the season. Of course the team is still going to be great if Danny starts. Any lineup with Roy Hibbert, David West, Paul George, and George Hill is going to win a ton of games. But Stephenson is exploding and should be considered the better player until Danny comes back and proves it on the court. There's no reason to change it if we don't have to. You don't start Danny Granger just because he's Danny Granger.

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                So a player that has been out for almost 2 years shouldn't lose his starting spot lol I can't wait for somebody else to come up with another great excuse

                I'm glad JO is not here anymore or Nuntius would be telling us about how JO should be the starter because he never lost his starting spot lol
                1) Danny has been out for 1 year. Not 2 years. Your math is off.

                2) I never said that Danny shouldn't lose his starting spot. I just want people to admit that Danny lost that spot due to his injury.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Lance starting to get national press. Here we go:

                  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...acers/3420315/
                  Source: USA Today
                  ARTICLE:

                  Lance Stephenson has been used as an example of what can go wrong when a player is hyped too much too soon.

                  The funny thing is that now, after being written off more times than a zombie in a 1950s horror movie, Stephenson is showing there was something to the buzz.

                  Ironically, for a player dubbed "Born Ready" in high school, Stephenson has, three seasons into his NBA career, slowly and steadily, made himself into a player.

                  New York City basketball scout Tom Konchalski remembers hearing about how good Stephenson was when the player was in grade school in the Coney Island section of Brooklyn.

                  "He's had to carry the burden of celebrity since he was in the fourth grade because of the players who came before him from Coney Island, from Stephon Marbury to Sebastian Telfair," Konchalski said. "You shouldn't have to live up to that level of pressure."

                  For a while, he did. As an eighth-grader, Stephenson outplayed O.J. Mayo, then considered the top high school player, at a summer camp. At Lincoln High in Brooklyn, he broke the state high school career scoring record set by Telfair, while leading the Railsplitters to four consecutive Public School Athletic League titles. He even appeared in his own internet reality TV show, Born Ready, that followed him through his sophomore and junior seasons.

                  However, though he averaged 28.9 points and 10.2 points his senior year, people were beginning to doubt Stephenson. The summer before his senior year, the 6-5 guard was cut from USA Basketball's Under-18 team. Because of legal woes and recruiting questions, he went from being recruited by Kansas to signing with Cincinnati. The NCAA didn't clear him to play for the Bearcats until a little over a week before their first game.

                  In the 2009-10 season, he was the Big East's Freshman of the Year, averaging 12.3 points and 5.4 rebounds, but he wasn't drafted until the second round by the Pacers, the 40th player chosen overall in the 2010 draft.

                  His first two seasons with the Pacers, he averaged 10 minutes and 2.8 points a game and started only one game. His minutes were limited by often questionable shot selection, as he made only 35.4% of his attempts from the floor.

                  As he struggled, he talked regularly with Larry Bird, even after Bird stepped down as the Pacers' president in the summer of 2012 and again, when Bird returned to the Pacers' front office this summer.

                  When Pacers forward Danny Granger went down with a knee injury last season, Stephenson stepped up. He improved his three-point shooting, which in turn opened things up for him to go to the basket. He worked on his rebounding and prided himself in his defense, even asking to guard LeBron James in the playoffs. After averaging 8.8 points and 3.9 rebounds and 2.9 assists a game in the regular season, he improved those averages to 9.4 points, 7.6 rebounds and 3.3 assists in the playoffs.

                  "The older I get, the game slows down for me," Stephenson said. "I think I've learned a lot. I know when I can penetrate and when I can shoot. Before, I didn't realize when I was rushing, but I learned, watching other players. Indiana has made me a better player. Everybody on the team is mature. There are no bad role models."

                  When Stephenson was in high school, his father, Lance, Sr., was criticized for allowing the Born Ready project and for being too involved in his son's recruitment. But surrounded by his father, mother, brother, cousin and two young daughters in Indianapolis, that same sense of family helps to to stabilize Stephenson's life.

                  "When you have kids, you have to be more mature," Stephenson said. "They're looking up to you. They're just like me. They like to joke around all the time."

                  Stephenson is 23, with more growing up to do, but he's come a long way from Lincoln.

                  "To get on the floor with the Pacers, he's had to totally reinvent himself," Konchalski said. "In high school, he was just a scorer. What got him on the floor in Indianapolis was his ability to do other things. He could defend multiple positions. He's one of the best rebounding guards in the league. He's a good passer."

                  What Stephenson hasn't left behind is the New York swagger that got him noticed in the first place. In the Pacers' first two games this season, Stephenson is averaging 17.5 points, 7.5 rebounds and 4.5 assists. With Granger again out with a calf injury, Stephenson is leading the team, averaging 38.5 minutes a game.

                  "I love the pressure," he said. "I love when all the eyes are on me. It shows that you can never be slacking. I like all the challenges. I like how people looked down on me and said I couldn't make it. Once I got the opportunity, I knew I could be a successful player in the NBA."

                  ----------------------

                  Love the bolder parts. He stepped up big time in the playoffs, the rebounding is awesome. Having no bad role models is obviously great. I didn't know his whole family was here, but that's pretty cool. Glad they're all around to support him. Definitely like that he still has all the confidence. He's kept that while maturing, and it could be dangerous for everyone else.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Any lineup with Roy Hibbert, David West, Paul George, and George Hill is going to win a ton of games.
                    Exactly.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    But Stephenson is exploding and should be considered the better player until Danny comes back and proves it on the court.
                    I agree that Lance should be considered the better player until Danny proves otherwise on the court. Once again, my arguments revolve around fit and not player value.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    You don't start Danny Granger just because he's Danny Granger.
                    I don't want to start Danny Granger because he's Danny Granger. I have said it times and times again. The only thing I want is our 5th starter to be a kick-*** spot up shooter. I don't give a **** if that shooter is named Granger, Stephenson or Harry the Martian.

                    I shouldn't be forced to say the same damn thing over and over again.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      Well, if you were on this board at all in 11-12 and prior, you'd know I wanted Granger dealt to maximize on his "perceived" value. At this point, I believe it's actually more beneficial to have Granger and his expiring remain on the team as part of our bench, as oppose to dealing him, unless of course the perfect trade comes along that nets us an elite point guard.
                      Yeah, I remember your trade ideas.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Unless Lance regresses then this issue is settled. The new question is whether we can even find a role for Granger or if there is a deal we can get for him that doesn't hurt next year's cap...
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

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

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Now I fully expect Granger to either take the back seat and a pay cut...or be gone. Lance Stephenson is the future people. Don't fight it.
                          No one is fighting it. Lance will certainly be re-signed.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            No one is fighting it. Lance will certainly be re-signed.
                            If healthy, Granger will be unaffordable and signed with another team.

                            If not healthy, he is done.

                            Why fool around thinking Granger will be anything more than a 1 year rental off the bench?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              If healthy, Granger will be unaffordable and signed with another team.

                              If not healthy, he is done.

                              Why fool around thinking Granger will be anything more than a 1 year rental off the bench?
                              And how is this relevant to what I was saying?
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Is this about doing what's best for the team, or is it about trying to come up with any possible way to get Danny back into the starting lineup? It's fair to wonder.
                                I want to do what's best for the team....and what I think is best for the team is for Lance's skills to be used primarily with the 2nd unit to improve the offense.

                                I don't have any agenda when it comes to getting Granger into the lineup because that is what I want...I just want Lance to be put in the best position to help the Team. Lance will still finish the game ( when needed ) and he will still get some burn with the Starters....I just think that he'd be best utilizing his talents to help both the 1st and ( primarily ) the 2nd unit.

                                You are right....it's fair to wonder. But to be clear, if having Lance primarily play with the 2nd Unit means that it would push him over to be the 1st Man off the bench and push Granger into a "spot up shooter and scorer" that is a 4th/5th scoring option in the Starting Lineup....so be it.
                                Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013, 10:36 PM.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X