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

The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

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

  • #16
    Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

    Waiting for Stern to approach the podium to say "there's been a trade...."

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

      I hope this draft moves a little faster...
      at this rate we'll finish on draft day o.O
      Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

        Yeah come on guys, even though some of us don't get to pick, at least I just love to know what everybody thinks and see if they can create a funny or realistic story
        Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

          New York would like the #9 back from Utah, as we are claiming "permanent insanity" defense on behalf of Zeke. (I think we have a strong case!)
          Is that OK w/ you Speed?
          The paperwork is filed (along w/ LeBron's FA contract w/ NY), both ready to be signed off on by Stern & are sitting on his desk in his NY office as we speak. I figure, out of respect of the other PD posters, there is no use holding up this mock waiting on Lil' Napoleon to sign.... Deal?
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Waiting for Stern to approach the podium to say "there's been a trade...."
            If we're allowed to do that I have to send a PM to count55. As the GM for the Magic, the Starting Center for the Magic can't hit a 3pt shot and I want to make sure that we have a 3pt threat at all the positions. We may need to swap the Starting Center for the Magic for a certain 3pt Shooting Big Man that use to play for Notre Dame .
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

              With the number 3 pick, the Brooklyn...err...New Jersey Nets select Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech.

              The Nets feel that Derrick will go perfectly alongside LeBron as soon as Jay-Z convinces him to come here. Since our strategy of blatant tanking only resulted in the third pick, we'd also like to take this opportunity to say eff you David Stern and the horse you rode to your effed up lottery.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                New York would like the #9 back from Utah, as we are claiming "permanent insanity" defense on behalf of Zeke. (I think we have a strong case!)
                Is that OK w/ you Speed?
                The paperwork is filed (along w/ LeBron's FA contract w/ NY), both ready to be signed off on by Stern & are sitting on his desk in his NY office as we speak. I figure, out of respect of the other PD posters, there is no use holding up this mock waiting on Lil' Napoleon to sign.... Deal?
                We here in Utah love you big city folks, but I'll have to politely decline. We do however fully endorse Zeke for any GM position for any of the other 29 teams.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  We here in Utah love you big city folks, but I'll have to politely decline. We do however fully endorse Zeke for any GM position for any of the other 29 teams.
                  Greedy A$$ Morman's.

                  1st you need more then 1 wife, now this.

                  We City folk hope a random fungus rotts your entire spud harvest!
                  "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                  (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                    I might be preempting things here a bit, but I'm guessing I can cross Paul George off my list of possible picks for the Grizzlies at #12. I've heard the new Clippers GM really likes him.

                    I see you are falling for my intricate and well conceived smokescreen.....

                    Tbird

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                      The Minnesota Timberwolves are terrible. This draft is imperative for us if we want the chance to be a playoff competitive team in the next 3 years. Our cupboard is decidedly bare. We do have some young talent but we are nowhere close to getting out of the lottery in the immediate future. With 3 picks in the first round and 2 more in the second we've got a chance to make not just a step in the right direction, but a hop, skip, and a jump towards a productive future. Before making a hasty selection it is important to examine just what we do have to work with before draft night.

                      PG:


                      Our two lottery picks a season ago netted us Jonny Flynn, a quick and athletic point guard, and the rights to Spanish point guard sensation Ricky Rubio. Flynn was an effective rookie point. A rookie who can come in and play 29 minutes a game for 81 games while averaging 14 pts and 4 ast as to be considered a success. It remains to be seen whether or not we can ever convince Rubio to don the navy and green but what is certain is that it will not be this season. In addition to the rookie from Syracuse, Ramon Sessions can provide welcome minutes off the bench. PG is likely our strongest position but it is far from being locked up.

                      Wings:

                      Corey Brewer is our most effective wing. His offense is improving and his defense is well above average. While he is a decent player, and could perhaps even be 5th starter on a good team, that is scary. Ryan Gomes can be a decent scorer off the bench but he's got an unguaranteed contract, and thus is far from assured of being around for training camp. Wayne Ellington was our late 1st rounder out of North Carolina a year ago. He showed flashes of being a decent shooter but is far from reliable. Those three are all we have. Obviously this is a position that will need to be addressed, and likely more than once in the 2010 draft.

                      Bigs:

                      Al Jefferson is our best player. At 24 years old he's already got some of the best post moves of any player in the league. He also rebounds at a high level. Unfortunately, his defense isn't close to equal his offense at this point in his career. Kevin Love could be our best prospect. In his second season out of UCLA, the 21 year old averaged a double double with 14 pts and 11 reb. The problem is that he isn't an impact player on the defensive end either and Jefferson and Love have struggled to coexist on the floor together. Ryan Hollins is the best big on the bench. He's extremely long and athletic defender though something of an offensive liability. Nathan Jawai is a restricted free agent and it remains to be seen if he'll be back, but frankly, it doesn't matter.

                      Overview:

                      This roster sucks. They need lots of help in lots of places. If I'm David Kahn, I'm on the phone with Philadelphia all day, every day offering the 4, 16, and 56 for 2 and the chance to take Evan Turner. But I'm not. So, with the 4th pick in the 2010 NBA Draft, the Minnesota Timberwolves select...

                      DeMarcus Cousins, C from the University of Kentucky

                      Most mock drafts have had us taking Wesley Johnson, SF from Syracuse. This makes sense to some degree since we have an obvious need at the wing and the fact that Jefferson and Love are already in Minnesota. However, Cousins is too good a talent to pass up. If it weren't for some potential character concerns there is a very real possibility that he'd be the first overall pick. We have to come out of this draft with both wings and bigs and I feel it will be easier to add a quality wing at 16 or 23 (possibly 16 and 23) than it will to add a quality big. I would rather have Cousins and Paul George, Gordon Hayward, Xavier Henry, or Luke Babbit than Wesley Johnson and Hassan Whiteside or Daniel Orton. If Cousins keeps in shape and avoids overindulging at the buffet line he'll make a GM drafting in the top 3 regret their choice. And for a team with a roster as poor as ours the best player available must be the choice. That player is Cousins.
                      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                      -Lance Stephenson

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                        The Kings are in a very similar situation as the Pacers. Both were prominent NBA franchises that have descended into the oblivion of obscurity. However, it's obvious Sac-Town is on the rise. We have been in rebuilding mode for some time, and our recent roster moves have reflected that. Indiana? Not so much.

                        We couldn't feel any happier with how our first round pick turned out last year. Reigning NBA Rookie of the Year, Tyreke Evans, played better than just about anyone could have imagined. He is a guy we feel comfortable building around, however, his position is a bit of a question mark. He played point guard and handled the ball last season, but I'm not convinced he isn't a true shooting guard. Beno Udrih backs him up at the point, and is solid. As of now, PG is the only position we feel good about for the present and future.

                        The best scenario would have been to win the lottery and the John Wall sweepstakes. The Wall/Evans back court would have made a perfect foundation for a contending team for the next decade. Unfortunately, we have the 5th pick. In a 4 player draft. TERRIFIC!!!

                        We have a decent crop of young front court players, but no stars. Jason Thompson, Carl Landry, Spencer Hawes, Dominic McGuire, and Jon Brockman all have a chance to be solid contributors, but PF and C are still positions of need.

                        Our wings consist of Andres Nocioni, Francisco Garcia, Omri Casspi, and Donte Greene. Casspi and Greene show a lot of promise, while Nocioni and Garcia provide valuable veteran cover while they learn the game. Like the front court, while we have strength in numbers, the quality of our wings leaves much to be desired.

                        We were hoping that the rash of character issues and questions facing Cousins, would drop him to our slot. He would have clearly been the most talented player available. Unfortunately, Minnesota thwarted those plans, when they took the risk we were hoping to take.

                        We think he is on another level altogether, compared to the top 4 players taken, but we are stuck taking the guy we feel is best player available. We value length and athleticism to get out and run with our lead guard, Evans.

                        With the 5th pick in the 2010 draft, the Sacramento Kings select...

                        Wesley Johnson. Small Forward. Syracuse.
                        Last edited by Rupert Stilinski; 06-11-2010, 08:32 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                          Well poo, says I the Warriors GM.

                          I was hoping character issues would have had Cousins drop to me, we have no problem drafting players with character.

                          7 Kelenna Azubuike F 6-5 220 12/16/1983 Kentucky 3
                          15 Andris Biedrins - C C 6-11 240 04/02/1986 Riga, Latvia 5
                          30 Stephen Curry G 6-3 185 03/14/1988 Davidson R
                          8 Monta Ellis - C G 6-3 180 10/26/1985 Lanier HS (Jackson, MS)
                          19 Devean George F 6-8 235 08/29/1977 Augsburg 10
                          31 Chris Hunter C-F 6-11 240 07/07/1984 Michigan R
                          50 Corey Maggette F 6-6 225 11/12/1979 Duke 10
                          22 Anthony Morrow F-G 6-5 210 09/27/1985 Georgia Tech 1
                          77 Vladimir Radmanovic F 6-10 235 11/19/1980 Belgrade, Serbia
                          4 Anthony Randolph F-C 6-10 210 07/15/1989 Louisiana State 1
                          44 Anthony Tolliver F 6-9 243 06/01/1985 Creighton 1
                          21 Ronny Turiaf - C C-F 6-10 250 01/13/1983 Gonzaga 4
                          23 C.J. Watson G 6-2 175 04/17/1984 Tennessee 2
                          55 Reggie Williams F 6-6 210 09/14/1986 Virginia Military Inst. R
                          32 Brandan Wright F 6-10 210 10/05/1987 North Carolina 2

                          On paper, we have a lot of talent. If only it fit together or stayed healthy.

                          Here's our lineup as I see it:

                          Curry/CJ Watson
                          Ellis/Morrow
                          Azubuike/Maggete/Wright
                          Randolph/VladRad
                          Biedrins/Turiaf

                          We could use more length in the backcourt and more stability in the frontcourt. TBird seems to think Paul George could be a good SG and Xavier Henry seems to fit that bill as well but I think they're reaches here at six. I think the correct pick here is one the Warriors won't make, but I think he's actually a good fit here next to Randolph and they could look to move oft-injured Biedrins or keep him and have my pick come in in a few years.

                          My pick is Greg Monroe, Center, Georgetown.
                          Play Mafia!
                          Twitter

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                            Sorry Count, denied!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                              Originally posted by Speed View Post
                              Sorry Count, denied!
                              I knew once Monroe measured a legit 5 , he'd be gone well before 10.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                                Trying to put colors to every team makes you realize that nearly all of them are blue.

                                Everything's gone according to form so far. If he picks Aminu, it will stay that way until the Clippers go off the reservation and pick some WAC player.
                                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                                - Salman Rushdie

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X