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

Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

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

  • Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/case-hanging-there


    Mark Montieth headshot
    The Case For Hanging In There

    by Mark Montieth | askmontieth@gmail.com

    June 2, 2014




    Frank Vogel and Larry Bird met with the media Monday, and their answers to all the questions were pretty boring. To summarize, they said they want to stay the course, try to keep the core together, tweak the roster and hope maturity brings further improvement.

    That might not be what some knee-jerking fans and media members wanted to hear, but they happen to be the correct early-June answers. Declarations such as “We're trading Hibbert!” or “We're letting Lance walk!” or “We've got to get a new point guard!” would have generated better headlines and social media reaction, but that's not what works in the real world of the NBA.

    “We're gonna hang in there,” doesn't exactly make for a scintillating marketing slogan, but it's what works best most of the time when you have a team capable of contending for a title. Veteran Pacers fans who look back fondly on the playoff runs under Larry Brown and Larry Bird know this, although it's easy to forget. Fans of other teams know it, too, because the kind of improvement needed to get to the NBA Finals doesn't usually occur in a straight line.

    The Pacers had shown steady and obvious improvement each season under Frank Vogel until this past season's All-Star break. Losing to Miami in the conference finals for the second straight season, in six games instead of seven, was an interruption to that trend, but doesn't call for a major shakeup. As boring as it sounds, “hanging in there” has history on its side.

    Think back to 1995. The Pacers had made a stunning run to the Eastern Conference finals the previous season, taking a 3-2 lead on New York before losing the final two games. This time expectations were primed for a trip to the Finals. They took Shaquille O'Neal and Orlando to a 3-3 tie in the conference finals, only to get blasted in Game 7, 105-81.

    It got worse from there. Reggie Miller suffered an eye injury late the following season and the Pacers lost a first-round series with Atlanta. The next season, due largely to injuries to Rik Smits and Derrick McKey, they didn't even make the playoffs.

    The rumblings for change were mounting. Miller, Smits, McKey and Mark Jackson each were past 30, after all. How could they be expected to take another step in their declining years?

    Team president Donnie Walsh stood pat.

    The Pacers returned to the conference finals the following season (1997-98) in Bird's first season as coach and took Chicago to seven games, reigniting hope. They were the consensus favorite to win the championship in the lockout season of 1999, but lost to New York in the conference finals again, in six games.

    This time the rumblings were nearly deafening. The core of the team hadn't gotten any younger. The talk radio shows and newspaper columns were filled with calls for a sledgehammer to the roster that would break up a team that couldn't quite get to the top.

    Donnie Walsh stood pat again.

    The following season, the Pacers reached the NBA Finals for the only time in franchise history. True, they didn't win a championship. But they wouldn't have come nearly as close with an overhauled roster that required years to re-mold into a contender, either.

    In San Antonio, there no doubt were calls for to break up the Spurs after they lost to eighth-seeded Memphis in the first round of the playoffs three years ago. But they kept the core together, and will begin play for their fifth title on Thursday.

    In Oklahoma City, the Thunder face a similar challenge as the Pacers. They reached the Finals in 2012 but lost to the Spurs in the conference finals last season and this one. Do they overhaul or tweak? History would advise them to tweak and hope the Spurs finally grow old.

    It takes courage for a team president or general manager to stand pat in the face of disappointment. They're paid a lot of money to build rosters, and action always seems a better option than inaction. But the landscape is littered with fired executives who over-reacted and over-reached.

    This particular Pacers team isn't yet old. When next season opens, Stephenson and George will be 24, Hibbert 27, Hill 28 and West 34. If the starting lineup is brought back intact, they should be an improved team off experience alone. They've just learned some hard lessons – or should have. George struggled with the distractions that go with becoming a nationally-known sports figure who gets magazine covers and commercial endorsements. Stephenson struggled with becoming an emerging star who nearly made the All-Star team. Hibbert struggled with the reduced offensive role that resulted from the improvement of George and Stephenson and his own sensitive nature. Hill struggled with finding a place to fit into the offense, and his mental block about playing point guard. West no doubt struggled with having to deal with everyone else's struggles.

    If they come back older and wiser next season, many of the “little” problems that led to the late-season stumbles go away. They are challenged by the fact they don't have a classic role player, a Dale Davis type who doesn't care about scoring, so they have to be willing to step back on any given night, depending on the match-ups or flow of the game.

    Vogel is much like his players. He's still a young coach, still in the improvement phase of his career, as opposed to the jaded, burn-out phase. The psychological issues his team faced were mostly beyond his control. To know whether he dealt with them the best way possible would have required bugging his meetings with individual players. Ultimately, though, the Pacers were eliminated by a better team with two certain future Hall of Famers in LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, and probably three, with Chris Bosh.

    Every team's mission in every off-season is the same: find a way to get better. For good teams such as the Pacers, that's difficult. There's no room under the salary cap to sign significant free agents, and high-priced players are difficult to trade for even better players. It's risky to disrupt chemistry, and the Pacers had outstanding chemistry until around the All-Star break. It's safer to try to recapture it – and they seemed to have gone a long way toward doing that by the playoffs – than to make major changes and hope it works out.

    It could happen, though.

    Bird hesitated when asked about Hill, who appears to be the most vulnerable starter. He still doesn't view himself as a point guard and he's the lowest-paid starter other than Stephenson. His salary, if traded, could be applied to re-signing Stephenson if necessary.

    Hibbert regressed in a major way from the previous season after the All-Star break, but would be difficult to trade in a deal that brings an equal or better center. He bears the greatest burden for the shortcomings of the past season, and therefore the greatest responsibility for improvement next season. No team can get away with its starting center, an All-Star at that, disappearing as he did on occasion, although his teammates share the blame for some of his offensive MIA's. There's no coincidence in the fact the Pacers were 1-3 in the playoffs when he went scoreless, and 7-2 when he scored in double figures.

    It's impossible to guess the marketplace for Stephenson, given the conflict between his potential and late-season controversies. As was proven with Hibbert two summers ago, it only takes one team to make an extreme offer that poses a front office dilemma. At some point, the cost of re-signing him would no longer make sense. Time will tell.

    Stephenson, though, has improved and matured significantly since he was plucked out of the second round of the draft, and there's no reason to believe he won't continue to progress. The comparisons to Stephen Jackson and the forward formerly known as Ron Artest are foolish. They're all different people, for one thing. Stephenson's off-court life is far more stable, for another thing. He still lives with his parents, for crying out loud. And, Jackson and Artest have started on championship teams for yet another thing.

    Sure, the Pacers could make major trades involving starters this summer. One never knows what opportunities will arise once conversations between executives begin flowing. History, though, says such moves are unlikely – and probably unnecessary, too.


    2014-15 Season Tickets »
    Get the best pricing and best benefits with Season Tickets

    Note: The contents of this page have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Indiana Pacers. All opinions expressed by Mark Montieth are solely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the Indiana Pacers, their partners, or sponsors.
    What you own is your own kingdom
    What you do is your own glory
    What you love is your own power
    What you live is your own story

  • #2
    Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

    I know I am in the minority here... But let's keep on keeping on... re-work the bench and see how Vogel adjusts his ability to utilize different talents instead of expecting them to fit into slots they don't fit into...
    Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

      Eh, that is all great, but the Pacers had an unprecedented collapse. Literally every analyst said they had never seen anything like this. I tend to think we are in uncharted territory.

      Now does that call for a stick of dynamite to blow everything up? No. Certainly though at least one substantial change needs to be made.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

        It's a good read from Montieth. Keep in mind though, that he's still the mouthpiece of the Pacers. He's not exactly going to say "heads should roll".

        I still think sometimes change can be good, and I think this starting 5 could use a shot in the arm or at least a fresh face or two. We've gone the past two seasons without making any changes, and this year the Heat simply looked better. One could reasonably expect George and Lance (if re-signed) to improve, but to me, I'm not sure our 5 starting pieces gel all that well together anymore regardless.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

          Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
          Eh, that is all great, but the Pacers had an unprecedented collapse. Literally every analyst said they had never seen anything like this. I tend to think we are in uncharted territory.

          Now does that call for a stick of dynamite to blow everything up? No. Certainly though at least one substantial change needs to be made.
          Yet we took Miami to 6 games and made the Eastern Conference finals. The other side of the coin is how much of this "unprecedented" collapse is media hype? We didn't have nearly the media coverage and stupid sports talk shows on TV today even 8 years ago, so naturally it's going to enhance the perceived severity of the situation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

            Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
            I know I am in the minority here... But let's keep on keeping on... re-work the bench and see how Vogel adjusts his ability to utilize different talents instead of expecting them to fit into slots they don't fit into...
            I'm with you. I do expect to replace one starter, whether that is Lance, Hill, West or Hibbert. Wouldn't be upset if the starting 5 all returned though.
            "man, PG has been really good."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

              He left out that Jordan retired in 1999, leaving the door open for the Pacers the next year. We aren't getting by Lebron by standing pat with the same starting line-up.
              I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                I'm with you. I do expect to replace one starter, whether that is Lance, Hill, West or Hibbert. Wouldn't be upset if the starting 5 all returned though.
                Although I am leaning towards just "tweaking the bench"....I honestly would be fine if ( one of ) Lance, GH or Hibbert was traded for a comparable Player. A total re-haul of the entire roster maybe going to far.......tweaking of the bench is the least damaging but positive changes that can be made....but moving one of Lance, GH or Hibbert could be enough to make some minor improvement to the overall team.

                I just hope that Bird is seeing what trade value that Lance, GH or Hibbert has on the Trading Block. If we could get a Quality Starting PG in a S&T of Lance or outright trade of GH....sure, I'd consider it. If the Pacers could get a Starting quality Center that can defend, rebound, block shots and not fall over as much in a trade for Hibbert....I'd strongly consider it.

                But if none of those can be had....I will be fine with just tweaking the Backup Players.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                  Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                  Eh, that is all great, but the Pacers had an unprecedented collapse. Literally every analyst said they had never seen anything like this. I tend to think we are in uncharted territory.

                  Now does that call for a stick of dynamite to blow everything up? No. Certainly though at least one substantial change needs to be made.
                  Yup. Wish I could thank this more.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                    Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                    Yet we took Miami to 6 games and made the Eastern Conference finals. The other side of the coin is how much of this "unprecedented" collapse is media hype? We didn't have nearly the media coverage and stupid sports talk shows on TV today even 8 years ago, so naturally it's going to enhance the perceived severity of the situation.

                    The Pacers came a frog hair of having the biggest collapse in history of sports, and it has nothing to do with the media. All the players have to do is look in the mirror, and they'll find the answer.

                    The media reports what's going on, and the players allowed the media to have something negative to report. Same as they gave the media something positive to report with their great 1st half start.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                      Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                      Yet we took Miami to 6 games and made the Eastern Conference finals. The other side of the coin is how much of this "unprecedented" collapse is media hype? We didn't have nearly the media coverage and stupid sports talk shows on TV today even 8 years ago, so naturally it's going to enhance the perceived severity of the situation.
                      I don't think this is media hype at all. How many teams that have started as well as we did finished this poorly despite no significant injuries? I literally can not think of one.

                      Yeah we beat Washington and Atlanta in the playoffs. I am not going to let this mask the fact that we went into the tank big time and pretty well got drilled by a team much better than us.

                      We have some nice pieces to build around, but some retooling does need to be made. Standing pat with this lineup in tact is a path toward a 45 win season and 2nd round playoff exit IMO.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                        Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                        We have some nice pieces to build around, but some retooling does need to be made. Standing pat with this lineup in tact is a path toward a 45 win season and 2nd round playoff exit IMO.
                        Who jumps us in the East? Why are we automatically getting worse? Has PG peaked? Assuming Lance comes back, has he peaked? Is it possible that this team learned from that 2nd half collapse and the near embarrassment at the hands of the Hawks in the first round?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                          Of all those teams that "stood pat" how many won a championship? Likely none. Even championship teams made changes to their starting units as well as the bench. Even Magic's Lakers, Larry's Celtics and Isiah's Pistons made changes. With the Spurs, Manu went to the bench. None of them stood pat.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                            Of all those teams that "stood pat" how many won a championship? Likely none. Even championship teams made changes to their starting units as well as the bench. Even Magic's Lakers, Larry's Celtics and Isiah's Pistons made changes. With the Spurs, Manu went to the bench. None of them stood pat.
                            I don't think you will see anyone here beating the drum to bring back the entire team. If upgrades can be made, make them. The problem I see isn't with the starting five (although there are certainly some issues there). It's where it has been this entire time during this run: the ******* bench.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Decent Read -- P's staying put perhaps...

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              I don't think you will see anyone here beating the drum to bring back the entire team. If upgrades can be made, make them. The problem I see isn't with the starting five (although there are certainly some issues there). It's where it has been this entire time during this run: the ******* bench.
                              Well, we'll just disagree about whether the starting unit needs upgraded, but I think if it isn't we will be looking at the same results (or worse) each year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X