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

Defensive players that are not superstars???

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

  • Defensive players that are not superstars???

    I like the team overall. If we where to make a trade I would hope it would be for some guys that can play some Defense. I know before Tyson Chandler got traded to NO I was really hoping we could deal for him I think He and JO together could have been nasty. I was just wondering if you could aquire a few quality Defensive players who would you want? What do you think of Jerred Jeffries?? I like the run and guy style but I don't see why that means we can not build a team the runs and plays solid Defense.

  • #2
    Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

    Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
    I like the team overall. If we where to make a trade I would hope it would be for some guys that can play some Defense. I know before Tyson Chandler got traded to NO I was really hoping we could deal for him I think He and JO together could have been nasty. I was just wondering if you could aquire a few quality Defensive players who would you want? What do you think of Jerred Jeffries?? I like the run and guy style but I don't see why that means we can not build a team the runs and plays solid Defense.
    You always hear about the players that are very good on the offensive end......but never hear or find out about which players are very good on the defensive end.

    I was looking at the list of Free Agents next season...and the players that I can see that are decent to solid defenders ( some of which are debateable ) are:

    Quinton Ross - UFA
    Mickael Pietrus - UFA
    Chris Duhon - UFA
    Matt Barnes - UFA
    Ira Newble - UFA

    Since I really doubt that we will make any trade this season and will likely wait until the offseason to make a change.... I really hope that we go after one of the above players.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

      Duhon would be a terrific aquisition. But other than J.O., I'm not
      sure the Pacers have anything Da Bulls would be interested in.

      Maybe a Diogu for Duhon swap...?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

        I really had hoped we'd pursure Trevor Ariza. I think he could have fit on this list. He may be having his coming out party with the Lakers now that they've acquired him.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          I really had hoped we'd pursure Trevor Ariza. I think he could have fit on this list. He may be having his coming out party with the Lakers now that they've acquired him.
          I've been singing this guy's praises since he was rotting on Larry Brown's bench in New York. I was really expecting a break-out year for him down in the Magic Kingdom last year, but he never really got consistent minutes. Now, dude looks good in purple and gold. He's an uber-athlete with lockdown potential...And he's cheap. I don't Phil's letting him go now though.
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

            Others who are at least above average defenders and (I believe) may be at least restricted free agents are:

            Tony Allen
            Devean George
            Eduardo Najera
            Chuck Hayes
            Antonie Wright
            Janero Pargo
            Kevin Ollie
            Brian Skinner
            Kurt Thomas
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

              I know that getting a perimeter defender that can also score and/or hit the 3pt shot is optimal....but is it a requirement that any of you have?

              Specifically....would you try to acquire via FA a solid defensive perimeter roleplayer if he wasn't the greatest scorer?

              I think that all we need is a solid lockdown perimeter defender and live with a "4 on 5" offense. I'm hoping that we could lock up a solid perimeter defender SG role-player that is durable for 3 or 4 seasons for about 3-4 mil a year.

              I know that it may seem expensive....but there is a reason why there aren't that many solid perimeter defenders that are available....most of them highly sought and are locked up for 3 to 4 year contracts.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                I know that getting a perimeter defender that can also score and/or hit the 3pt shot is optimal....but is it a requirement that any of you have?

                Specifically....would you try to acquire via FA a solid defensive perimeter roleplayer if he wasn't the greatest scorer?

                I think that all we need is a solid lockdown perimeter defender and live with a "4 on 5" offense. I'm hoping that we could lock up a solid perimeter defender SG role-player that is durable for 3 or 4 seasons for about 3-4 mil a year.

                I know that it may seem expensive....but there is a reason why there aren't that many solid perimeter defenders that are available....most of them highly sought and are locked up for 3 to 4 year contracts.


                Who do you have in mind? I am more worried about a player who can play D and drive to the basket.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

                  I have agreed with anyone who has said that we need a defensive stopper but my question is when will he play? Even if Marquis isn't here, we still have Mike and Danny as the starters most likely.

                  I've always liked Ira Newble but honestly he isn't that great. If we had him i'd want better starters then Mike and Danny because Ira really isn't anything to great. Nice defender. That's it.

                  I've always liked Trenton Hassell since he came into the league with the Bulls. Solid player.

                  Greg Buckner and Adrian Griffin are both nice veterans. I like em both. Either should be fairly easily to attain.

                  I also like Dahntay Jones. He spent a few years in Memphis this signed with Boston but was cut, not for sure why, and then is with the Kings now. I think he can player in the league and is a good defender.

                  Marcus Banks is probably not the point guard we want offensively but this kid can defend. I'm sure we could get him too. Phoenix hasn't had much use for him but i'm sure if we offered up Marquis for Banks + ? they would have some interest. Not for sure what else we would get though. Maybe a pick.

                  I think that Jason Hard is a nice backup point guard. Won't blow you away but solid.

                  Keyon Dooling might be alright. I wouldn't call him a defensive stopper. I like DeShawn Stevenson too. He doesn't get a lot of hype but he is decent.

                  Should be able to upgrade our defensive talent. But we will see.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

                    Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                    Who do you have in mind? I am more worried about a player who can play D and drive to the basket.
                    Assuming that Foster and Harrison are still here next season.....I'm not as worried as much about defending the paint. I thought the defense was based off of forcing the opposing team to beat us from the perimeter.

                    I'm hoping that we can make the highest offer that we can afford for Chris Duhon. We need a solid PG that can pressure the opposing PG. But worse comes to worse....make an offer to Quinton Ross, Ira Newble or Barnes. The main offseason goal that I wish TPTB fix is to lockup a solid perimeter defender at the Guard spot.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      You always hear about the players that are very good on the offensive end......but never hear or find out about which players are very good on the defensive end.

                      I was looking at the list of Free Agents next season...and the players that I can see that are decent to solid defenders ( some of which are debateable ) are:

                      Quinton Ross - UFA
                      Mickael Pietrus - UFA
                      Chris Duhon - UFA
                      Matt Barnes - UFA
                      Ira Newble - UFA

                      Since I really doubt that we will make any trade this season and will likely wait until the offseason to make a change.... I really hope that we go after one of the above players.

                      I love Quinton Ross....he (or someone similar) is exactly what we need. Lack of perimeter defense is still by far our biggest weakness, especially in the 4th quarter of games when the game is on the line.

                      Ross is a premier wing defender.....someone to guard the Rip Hamilton's, Ray Allen's, LeBron James's, and other elite scorers who routinely kill us. His presence would free up Danny Granger to focus mostly on scoring, and not be forced to guard players who are significantly better than he is.

                      I also would prefer we get a strong defending point guard to come off the bench and split time with Tinsley....someone to play the role Travis Best used to for us defensively.

                      If you had a theretical lineup of this:
                      PG Strong defending point guard
                      Wings: Ross and Granger
                      Post: JO and Foster (or Williams perhaps)

                      All of a sudden you could go from a bad defensive team to a team with 4 plus defenders on the floor, and that singlehandledly is the cheapest and most efficient way we could get better.

                      If you can obtain these 2 critical spots (defending point guard, elite wing defender like Ross), it easily makes a guy like Daniels expendable.

                      I know everyone raves about the "team" defensive concepts and all, but currently our defense can be broken down like this:

                      PG Tinsley starts, and guards someone faster and better than him most of the time.

                      Wings: Granger guards the best player on the opponent, and can't do it well.....Dunleavy is forced to guard someone significantly quicker also.

                      Posts: JO has to guard a stronger player and has to help way too often, Murphy is a swinging gate, Ike is undersized, Foster is slightly above average but isn't a shotblocker or physical presence.

                      Lack of defense is a major concern, and it isnt going to get much better with the individuals on our roster currently....which makes us a .500 team.

                      Tbird

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

                        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                        I love Quinton Ross....he (or someone similar) is exactly what we need. Lack of perimeter defense is still by far our biggest weakness, especially in the 4th quarter of games when the game is on the line.

                        Ross is a premier wing defender.....someone to guard the Rip Hamilton's, Ray Allen's, LeBron James's, and other elite scorers who routinely kill us. His presence would free up Danny Granger to focus mostly on scoring, and not be forced to guard players who are significantly better than he is.

                        I also would prefer we get a strong defending point guard to come off the bench and split time with Tinsley....someone to play the role Travis Best used to for us defensively.

                        If you had a theretical lineup of this:
                        PG Strong defending point guard
                        Wings: Ross and Granger
                        Post: JO and Foster (or Williams perhaps)

                        All of a sudden you could go from a bad defensive team to a team with 4 plus defenders on the floor, and that singlehandledly is the cheapest and most efficient way we could get better.

                        If you can obtain these 2 critical spots (defending point guard, elite wing defender like Ross), it easily makes a guy like Daniels expendable.

                        I know everyone raves about the "team" defensive concepts and all, but currently our defense can be broken down like this:

                        PG Tinsley starts, and guards someone faster and better than him most of the time.

                        Wings: Granger guards the best player on the opponent, and can't do it well.....Dunleavy is forced to guard someone significantly quicker also.

                        Posts: JO has to guard a stronger player and has to help way too often, Murphy is a swinging gate, Ike is undersized, Foster is slightly above average but isn't a shotblocker or physical presence.

                        Lack of defense is a major concern, and it isnt going to get much better with the individuals on our roster currently....which makes us a .500 team.

                        Tbird
                        TBird, I completely agree with you on this. Ross currently is owed $826K in his last year of his current contract. If TPTB spent some money on him...we could get him. I honestly wouldn't mind slightly overpaying him because I know that this is such a huge weakness that we have to address that it maybe worth it.

                        The only problem would be that we would have likely let Rush go to FA next season then resign him in order to get some minutes for him. But if TPTB are smart....which IMHO is debateable....I would think that they should spend whatever $$$ that they intend to spend next offseason on getting a player that can defend...instead of one that can shoot.

                        Seriously....you would hope that we aren't the only ones on this planet that recognize that we need better perimeter defenders instead of shooters.

                        Also, I am guessing that you actually pay enough attention to the NBA to know which players are considered solid perimeter defenders. Other then Ross, who else do you think is out there that we can possibly go after?
                        Last edited by CableKC; 12-30-2007, 01:37 AM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

                          Originally posted by rommie View Post
                          I have agreed with anyone who has said that we need a defensive stopper but my question is when will he play? Even if Marquis isn't here, we still have Mike and Danny as the starters most likely.
                          I completely agree with you here and that's why I really hope that TPTB addresses our SG/SF rotation during the offseason. If we are able to acquire a defensive minded player ( most notably a SG that is quick enough ) during the offseason....I wouldn't mind not resigning Rush to give some minutes to that perimeter defender.

                          Originally posted by rommie View Post
                          I've always liked Ira Newble but honestly he isn't that great. If we had him i'd want better starters then Mike and Danny because Ira really isn't anything to great. Nice defender. That's it.

                          I've always liked Trenton Hassell since he came into the league with the Bulls. Solid player.

                          Greg Buckner and Adrian Griffin are both nice veterans. I like em both. Either should be fairly easily to attain.

                          I also like Dahntay Jones. He spent a few years in Memphis this signed with Boston but was cut, not for sure why, and then is with the Kings now. I think he can player in the league and is a good defender.
                          I wouldn't mind making a run for Buckner, Newble, Griffin, Jones or Hassell ( in that order ). The only problem with Buckner and Griffin is that we don't have anything that would entice the Grizzlies or the Bulls to give them up.

                          Originally posted by rommie View Post
                          Marcus Banks is probably not the point guard we want offensively but this kid can defend. I'm sure we could get him too. Phoenix hasn't had much use for him but i'm sure if we offered up Marquis for Banks + ? they would have some interest. Not for sure what else we would get though. Maybe a pick.

                          I think that Jason Hard is a nice backup point guard. Won't blow you away but solid.

                          Keyon Dooling might be alright. I wouldn't call him a defensive stopper. I like DeShawn Stevenson too. He doesn't get a lot of hype but he is decent.

                          Should be able to upgrade our defensive talent. But we will see.
                          Marcus Banks has a contract that extends until the 2010-2011 season and if the Suns really wanted to get rid of him....I think if TPTB tried, they could probably get Banks.

                          Since the Suns are looking for players that have shorter contracts then Banks....the only problem we would have is that the only logical player that we have that the Suns would take would be Marquis. Marquis has a Team Option in the 2009-2010 season. I'm not so sure that I would want to trade Marquis ( or more specifically, the closest thing we have to an Expiring Contract in the 2008-2009 season ) for Banks since we would have to take on an additional $6 mil in $$$ owed.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Defensive players that are not superstars???

                            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                            All of a sudden you could go from a bad defensive team to a team with 4 plus defenders on the floor, and that singlehandledly is the cheapest and most efficient way we could get better.

                            Lack of defense is a major concern, and it isnt going to get much better with the individuals on our roster currently....which makes us a .500 team.

                            Tbird
                            Good points here. If we play well defensively, then we'll improve drastically. Yes, we probably need a go-to scorer at some point but if we have stifling defense, there's no reason for us not to be a great team - even with this bunch.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X