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

Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

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

  • #31
    Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    actually getting a ear infection from swimming is quite possible, especially if its cold outside and you don't use a q-tip to dry out your ears.
    hmm.. I have read that you NEVER want to use a q-tip after having water in your ear.. Because , although yes it will dry the outer part of your ear canal, it actually pushes the water down further into your ear by the eardrum, and WILL in fact possibly cause an ear infection...

    I was warned of this after I got a minor ear infection... by my dr. because I used to clean my ears after I would take a shower/bath..
    I was told doing that was a BIG NO-NO ....
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

      Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
      If Tyler is out for the year, what role does this play in the Pacers potentially dealing Murphy? It looks like Jeff is probably out for the year leaving us with Roy, Murph, Solo, Josh and I guess Danny in the front court. I'm assume we might want a 4 or a 5 that we would keep so that we can play out the rest of the season. Otherwise, the Pacers may dip into free agency?
      I think it has a significant role in the Pacers decision to trade or not trade Murphy. I can see this as a major factor in holding out for more.....which IMHO is not a good thing. I'd be cool with Z+Powe+1st for Murphy+Diener....I just hope the Cavs are too.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
        I'll be shocked if Murphy gets traded after this announcement. I'm not a fan of playing Granger at the PF full-time.
        Yeah......it's not like JO'B has any other options to play in the frontcourt ( que Seth ).

        That's one of the problem that I have with JO'B rotations....I can recognize that having Granger as a backup PF is beneficial and may be a better situational PF AT TIMES....but not as a regular lineup where Granger plays significant minutes at the PF spot. I just don't think that McRoberts and Solo are so bad that they only warrant garbage time on the floor or when he has absolutely no choice to play them ( such as when Hibbert gets into foul trouble early or when Murphy needs some rest ). McRoberts and Solo may not be good enough to be a 3rd Big Man option....but they are good enough to fill time as 4th/5th Big Men off the bench on an "as needed" basis.

        If it's becoming likely that Hansbrough is going to miss signifcant parts of this season.....I hope that JO'B simply uses them more in the PF/C rotation and Granger less. Like it or not......JO'B may not have any choice.......a PF/C rotation where Granger/Murphy/Hibbert play the vast majority of time at rotation isn't a good long-term solution.
        Last edited by CableKC; 02-07-2010, 01:46 AM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

          Sinus Infections can turn into Ear Infections.. Its my guess.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

            Originally posted by Doug View Post
            No we don't. I don't care if we have to play Diener at the 4 this year. (And I'd be OK with the Solo/McRoberts combo there anyway.)

            How a trade affects our team this year really shouldn't matter. We aren't winning anything this season. Any trade we make should be geared toward making us better next season, or the one after.
            Yes, it does matter. IMHO, Solo and McRoberts are not the future at the PF. We take back a PF, so we don't have to draft one this year. Plain and simple. Hickson should be the prime target, because he's young (21) with potential. Powe would be the second target, because he can play the "Garbage PF" role.

            I'm not in that whole "Give away barn" camp just because we're not making the playoffs. If we're going to make a trade, then we SHOULD get back something of value instead of a complete salary dump.
            Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 02-07-2010, 09:55 AM.


            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              30 teams passed on the guy, we need to stop this argument, is not like he was(Blair) pick after we got Tyler.
              No, 30 teams didn't. The Spurs took him with the first pick they had.

              Also not all 30 teams had a DESPERATE need for a POWER REBOUNDER. In fact there was probably no team that needed what Blair offered more than the Pacers did.

              This is why they reached for Tyler.

              All the non-draft followers have talked themselves into other teams fighting to get to him, but that is total Pacers PR BS. The Bulls DID NOT TRADE UP to get him, they let the Pacers take him and settled for SF/PF Johnson. The Bulls wanted to trade up for HENDERSON.

              He tracked at 20-22 for 3 years, then suddenly on draft night he was a 13th pick? Come on.


              So the Pacers needed a PF so bad that they reached 7-10 picks too soon because they were afraid he'd be gone, passed over MANY PGs and not just ones I liked but guys like Lawson who Bird wanted the year prior, and a year before one of the most PF loaded drafts ever....but they didn't need Blair?

              The Sixers skipped Blair because they WANTED Holiday. Nugs didn't need Blair, the wanted a PG. They traded for Lawson and drafted a Spanish PG in round 2.

              Lots of teams wanted one of the PGs in the draft.

              Sure the Bulls and Pistons went for "PFs", both of whom tracked as PFs that played more like SFs, but then their choices lately haven't been working out so well anyway. Chicago also took Taj Gibson instead of Blair, though Gibson hasn't been too shabby.

              Sacto made a great choice of Casspi, but did pass on Blair for Pendergraph.


              Minny just drafted Kevin Love AND had Al Jefferson, so they took 2 PGs and later took a SG. They didn't "pass" on Blair.

              Memphis took Thabeet as their big and then took the also overlooked Sam Young at SG, and Young has been ANOTHER one of the steals. They didn't pass on Blair, they took the options they wanted regardless of Blair's ACL situation.

              In fact not that many teams actually did have "a shot" at Blair.

              The Clippers took BLAKE GRIFFIN. Oh no, what idiots to pass on Blair. They didn't pick again before Blair was gone and had to settle for the clear #1 prospect who happened to be a PF.

              Utah didn't pass on Blair, they are already overloaded at PF.

              OKC may have passed on Blair when they chased the French PG on a possible flier, too soon to know if that was a smart choice or not.

              NY already took Jordan Hill, so they went for a PG the next pick.

              Cleveland chased a risky pick. I think they blew it passing on Blair.

              Lakers, no pick before Blair was gone.


              Here's the list of teams that might have chased something instead of going for Blair when they would have if the ACL thing didn't happen:

              Pacers
              Bulls
              Pistons
              Cavs (Evenga, Congo SF at 30th)
              Wizards (took Taylor with their first pick, 32rd)
              Blazers (took Cunningham with 33rd pick)
              Sacto (Pendergraph with 31st pick)

              Every other team either didn't have a pick, had a BETTER pick, had PF clearly filled with a star or recent high pick, or took a higher need position with a prospect ranked fairly well themselves.

              The only passes are by teams that would have taken him had the ACL thing not come up. Teams set up strategies for their needs and can't chase slightly higher talent at a position they didn't scout or plan for.

              If Blair was a bit better than Holiday, which it's not clear yet that he is because Jrue was by everyone's account about 2-3 years out from being NBA ready, he wasn't so much better than you just pass on your PG need to take "best available".

              The Pacers, Bulls and Pistons were the teams that wanted to fill the PF spot, and the Bulls had Noah and Ty Thomas already.




              I mean Blair is playing well, but not so well that Sacto is going "oh, we shouldn't have taken Evans". The Bulls look at Johnson and the Pistons look at Daye and can think "we blew it". Most of the other teams aren't saying that at this point.


              AND the irony is that by altering your draft choice to avoid injury issues, you actually drafted right into injury issues. Only the Pacers can add that to the mix too. The Clips lost their PF, but they didn't pass on Blair because of injury, they took the top guy.



              BTW, NBA TV did their rookie report card. They had Hans ranked about the same as Thabeet in terms of first half production. That's not a compliment, and wasn't about the injury but the on-court play.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                BTW, the shin splints were a known issue PRIOR to the draft. He missed games to start his senior year.

                If the normal regime for training with splints is to swim, and swimming during the winter brings out the risk of season ending ear infections, then the team blatently walked right into this one.

                Personally I don't buy the "bound to happen due to swimming" angle. Indy is hardly the only cold weather team, it's winter, and lots of guys have to use the pool during leg injury rehab or even normal cross-training. How many vertigo ear-infections have taken guys out for half-seasons?



                Cable, it's cue or queue. I'm backing off the McBob thing because I've totally lost hope there. It's not going to happen and I just don't care enough anymore to sweat it.

                The draft angle - well I boo'd very loudly at the draft party. No fan was more PO'd than me at the time. I did NOT boo Tyler, I boo'd picking him there with Blair on the board.


                PS - Blair is on a rookie deal. Year 2 his knees go out. WHO GIVES A S***. Rookie deal ends and you are done with him. Tyler was not projected to be a major factor, 1 year in or 10. He was bench fodder.

                I said this pre-draft, take Blair, get your 2-3 years of strong inside rebounding and force and then his career ends when the knees go. That's still the better choice, and that's worst case scenario.

                Gotta think full picture on these things. It was very low-risk at 13th in that draft, at least if you were going to take a PF no matter what. There were no other big time PF prospects, as in starter possible.

                Now if they had taken Jrue or Lawson or Maynor then I wouldn't be ripping them, even if the PG was only at Price's level right now. That's passing due to NEED and you have this draft for your PF need. That's trading Blair then for Favors or Patterson now, which is fine.

                Then again TPTB have apparently said they would have passed on Jennings at 13th, so it could have been worse.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                  BTW, side benefit to all of Pacers Digest if Murphy is traded and McBob plays

                  1) McBeard is great, we all enjoy it, long term back PF is settled.

                  2) McBeard struggles, shows no real promise and with enough minutes under his belt to prove him out I STFU about him for good.

                  It's win-win.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    Yes, it does matter. IMHO, Solo and McRoberts are not the future at the PF. We take back a PF, so we don't have to draft one this year. Plain and simple. Hickson should be the prime target, because he's young (21) with potential. Powe would be the second target, because he can play the "Garbage PF" role.

                    I'm not in that whole "Give away barn" camp just because we're not making the playoffs. If we're going to make a trade, then we SHOULD get back something of value instead of a complete salary dump.
                    I don't think we are going to get back our PF of the future with this trade. Hickson is young and potential, true. I'd like him back, too. But that should not in any way be a deal breaker.

                    My point is you can't solve all of our problems with one trade - so leaving us weaker at one position short term should not factor in. Wins and losses this year should not factor in. Making us weaker short term, but stronger long term is perfectly fine.

                    And, I don't have any problem at all with the McRoberts / Solo combination at the 4 this year. None what so ever.
                    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                    - Jimmy Buffett

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                      Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                      I agree. It is just as likely he got it from listening to O'Brien.


                      Then he must be one of the few that hasn't tuned out Jimmy this season!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                        Only time would tell that Tyler was a better pick than Blair and at this moment I still like the pick, Blair is just ok to me, and yes 30 teams passed on the guy Seth you are going to tell me that if teams knew that the guy was going to be the next "Dale Davis"(according to you) are going to pass on him because they either pick or have a pf in place? really? Blair is good I give you that but to pretend that he is "the next coming" is ridiculous.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Only time would tell that Tyler was a better pick than Blair and at this moment I still like the pick, Blair is just ok to me, and yes 30 teams passed on the guy Seth you are going to tell me that if teams knew that the guy was going to be the next "Dale Davis"(according to you) are going to pass on him because they either pick or have a pf in place? really? Blair is good I give you that but to pretend that he is "the next coming" is ridiculous.
                          To be fair....I don't think that Seth is saying that he's "the next coming"...he just thinks that Blair is a better fit for this Team then Hansbrough.

                          But on the other side of the coin....it's really difficult to judge Hansbrough when he hasn't really played that many games.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            To be fair....I don't think that Seth is saying that he's "the next coming"...he just thinks that Blair is a better fit for this Team then Hansbrough.

                            But on the other side of the coin....it's really difficult to judge Hansbrough when he hasn't really played that many games.
                            Exactly.

                            I think picking Blair would have been short sighted as well.

                            He doesn't have ACL's. He's not going to have a very long career. Indy's a rebuilding team, they want a player who will have a pretty long lasting career. There was no way to know Tyler was going to have a freaking ear infection...but I still say he has a longer lasting career than Blair.

                            For the most Part, a lot of teams were impressed by Hans, so I think he goes higher than "20th" in the draft if Indy doesn't pick him, anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                              Exactly.

                              I think picking Blair would have been short sighted as well.

                              He doesn't have ACL's. He's not going to have a very long career. Indy's a rebuilding team, they want a player who will have a pretty long lasting career. There was no way to know Tyler was going to have a freaking ear infection...but I still say he has a longer lasting career than Blair.

                              For the most Part, a lot of teams were impressed by Hans, so I think he goes higher than "20th" in the draft if Indy doesn't pick him, anyway.
                              This is correct. Seth's revisionist history has fully entered into absurdity.

                              His draft status and injury history have already been rehashed a dozen times by now, although I did enjoy the clairvoyant play by play of draft night.

                              Rexnom (I think) already slapped down the idea that Seth really wanted Blair with his own post history.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Rookie Hansbrough's health problem worsens

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                Exactly.

                                I think picking Blair would have been short sighted as well.

                                He doesn't have ACL's. He's not going to have a very long career. Indy's a rebuilding team, they want a player who will have a pretty long lasting career. There was no way to know Tyler was going to have a freaking ear infection...but I still say he has a longer lasting career than Blair.

                                For the most Part, a lot of teams were impressed by Hans, so I think he goes higher than "20th" in the draft if Indy doesn't pick him, anyway.
                                The way Blair is playing, ACLs appear to be overrated
                                He sure looks quite nimble on the court.

                                So say Blair's career is cut short by knee issues, we have already lost a whole year of Hansbrough. So Blair already has a 1 year advantage in the logevity category over Hans.

                                There is another aspect to this comparison as well, that being Blair appears to be a much better NBA player and just what this team needed to compete.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X