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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
    To me the whole concept of starting is overblown. If a guy gets his minutes then who cares? CJ Miles doesn't have enough clout to be angry about not starting anyways.
    Exactly. I really enjoy guys that are mellow headed. Cj Miles, Stuckey, Watson, Hill, Solo, Lavoy. There's more I'm sure. I just hate players that act like Gerald green and Nick Young.
    Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

    www.jjhughesracing.com

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
      I'm not sure if you were listening during the game, (before the game) they asked Miles why he wasn't starting and he said he really doesn't care where he is, he just wants to play solid minutes. They also talked to Frank and I guess Frank pulled CJ aside asking if he wanted to start or continue off the bench and miles replied, if it ain't broke don't fix it. So, Miles could start if he wanted to but that's the reason miles isn't starting.
      So... you think Miles will be starting over Solo next year when PG is healthy? Or maybe only if he wants to?

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Walker and Big Al aren't making him shoot below 15% for 3. That's regression. Walker and Big Al aren't making him shoot below 50% at the rim, and they aren't making him shoot in the 60's from the FT line.
        Spot on. This is Lance's problem, and nothing else.

        He has the ability to be a great player. In fact, he is very close to it. But unfortunately he has enough talent to not work his @ss off to be a great shooter (like most players must do). He got by with it until this year.

        Lance can still be great; but he's going to have to want it.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Nope. More straw men.

          Ok, maybe you just misunderstood what xIndyFan understood quite well. I'm saying the Pacers, with this cast of characters at SG whether you want to talk CJ, Stuckey or Solo, are not capable of being as good as they would be with a young and improving Lance Stephenson. In fact, the difference is so large we aren't going to contend with this team. With DWest slowing down, this ship isn't going to be right even when Paul returns...which is my point. Paul would not be able to save this team from taking a solid step down. You can point all day to Charlotte but it cannot erase what happened last year.
          I'm not trying to erase last year. I'm trying to get you to explain how Lance looking awful in Char means that Lance Stephenson is the straw that stirred the Pacers drink. If Lance was such a good player, that he's the missing piece for the entire franchise that it all hinged around him, then how in the f-ing world is he so damn awful in Char? It doesn't make one bit of sense.

          You give the "Troy Murphy" criticism of players who can put up bad numbers on a bad team, and yet your lover can't even do that. The only time Lance has been Lance, has been when Paul has been there to hold his hand. You mock Roy, or other players like GHill about their struggles, and then you have every excuse under the sun for Lance. It's awfully funny to watch you squirm now that your standards are being applied to your favorite.
          Last edited by Since86; 01-06-2015, 01:30 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
            Exactly. I really enjoy guys that are mellow headed. Cj Miles, Stuckey, Watson, Hill, Solo, Lavoy. There's more I'm sure. I just hate players that act like Gerald green and Nick Young.
            You and Grimp hopefully never meet up. FWIW I agree with you.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              So... you think Miles will be starting over Solo next year when PG is healthy? Or maybe only if he wants to?
              So, I think I look at solo and think, I could see him being the 6th man. Solo's shooting is what's holding him back in my opinion. He's decent on defense and his offense is..okay. BUT, we need to have a solid defensive guy coming off the bench early to give Paul a break. By the end of the game I see miles sitting and I see Solo playing but it just depends. Look at Manu on the spurs. He comes in as the 6th man but finishes the game in most scenarios. Solo and Paul will switch defenders. If anything I feel quite impressed with how Solo has played this year. Remember this is just his second year. Year 3 and 4 could be amazing if he keeps working on his offense.
              Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

              www.jjhughesracing.com

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                Spot on. This is Lance's problem, and nothing else.

                He has the ability to be a great player. In fact, he is very close to it. But unfortunately he has enough talent to not work his @ss off to be a great shooter (like most players must do). He got by with it until this year.

                Lance can still be great; but he's going to have to want it.
                As much as I love the kid, his "injury break" is starting to smell funny to me. It's starting to feel a little like malingerer to me, as the kid was strong and healthy as an ox while he was here. You couldn't keep the kid down longer than a game or two.

                Methinks he's unhappy which isn't a good look for a well paid starter.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
                  Exactly. I really enjoy guys that are mellow headed. Cj Miles, Stuckey, Watson, Hill, Solo, Lavoy. There's more I'm sure. I just hate players that act like Gerald green and Nick Young.
                  What's wrong with having a little fire in your belly? I like Swaggy more than I do Gerald. Swaggy is a pure scorer and pure shooter and can work off the dribble. Gerald is not that good off the dribble although he is a freak athletically. I don't mind having either player here. I think Lance was toxic to the team, I wouldn't want him back. GG I think had a rough time here in his first year and the front office wanted to just dump him. He's gotten better in Phoenix, as for Swaggy he's just confident. To a fault? Maybe but he's harmless. Neither of these guys are having serious off the court issues or taking shots detrimental to the team like Josh Smith was. So I think they'd fit here.

                  I think Frank didn't know how to use Green that well, and maybe that's because he hadn't evolved as an offensive coach yet. I think Swaggy would fit here nicely. Both guys listen to their coaches, they just have pilts in their game. No one is perfect though, and both are more talented than Lance. Green is far more athletic and Swaggy is a far better shooter/scorer. Like it or not, Green and Nick will play out their careers in the NBA while it looks like Lance could be close to being out of the league at this rate.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                    No one is perfect though, and both are more talented than Lance. Green is far more athletic and Swaggy is a far better shooter/scorer. Like it or not, Green and Nick will play out their careers in the NBA while it looks like Lance could be close to being out of the league at this rate.
                    I know that it's a matter of opinion.....simply cuz you highly value athleticism and streaky shooting/scoring above play making and court vision.....but I don't think that Young or Green is more talented than Lance is.

                    Lance can be a better overall Player ( key word being "can be" ) that has a higher ceiling than both Green and Young combined.....the problem is that we don't know if Lance will ever reach that potential. Even I don't think that Lance's career will be over any time soon.....he simply put himself in the worst situation to improve/develop himself. At worst, beyond his days in Charlotte..... I would suspect that Lance would mature a little...sign with a better fitting Team and then level off while having a similar type of career as Green and Young.......Journeymen that go from Team to Team filling whatever role that that they are best served to fill.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      I know that it's a matter of opinion.....simply cuz you highly value athleticism and streaky shooting/scoring above play making and court vision.....but I don't think that Young or Green is more talented than Lance is.

                      Lance can be a better overall Player ( key word being "can be" ) that has a higher ceiling than both Green and Young combined.....the problem is that we don't know if Lance will ever reach that potential. Even I don't think that Lance's career will be over any time soon.....he simply put himself in the worst situation to improve/develop himself. At worst, beyond his days in Charlotte..... I would suspect that Lance would mature a little...sign with a better fitting Team and then level off while having a similar type of career as Green and Young.......Journeymen that go from Team to Team filling whatever role that that they are best served to fill.

                      Lance is a better attacker off the dribble than both players true. Physically Lance is also bigger and stronger, able to bounce off people in the lane and post up guys like Wade. I agree from that aspect he's better, but until he learns how to consistently shoot the ball? He will never have a ton of value. And also until he learns how to dribble the ball in an effort to go somewhere with it. Not dribble the clock down. Swaggy goes places when he takes his man off the dribble, Lance seems more set on embarrassing the defender and earning a highlight.

                      But in the end, I think trading Green for Scola was business. Lance seems to have really rubbed some of his teammates the wrong way. Even Paul gave pause when asked if he wanted Lance back.... a laid back guy like Paul even paused for a second. Green never pissed off his mates, seems Vogel didn't know how to use him, Larry wanted Scola, so the deal made sense. I think that trade actually was even.

                      Although Green looked good in Phoenix for awhile there are still games where he vanishes on the offensive end in Phoenix. And Plumlee, who looked good his first season in Phoenix has now been replaced by Len. Plumlee has never evolved in his game. Now, he's not blocking as many shots and rebounding as much as he used to. While his brother Mason seems like the far superior player.

                      Scola adds more to this team than just scoring, he's also a good locker room guy. While losing Green's athleticism and shooting for an aging vet in Scola hurts somewhat? I really think Plumlee has flamed out as a player and will never be anything other than a garbage guy who can bring some energy off the bench, block a few shots, and grab some boards. But offensively he has NO game and never will. Plus he has bad hands, not as bad as Ian but pretty close when it comes to around the rim game.

                      So that trade doesn't look so bad now.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        Honestly Grimp, at this point in Lance's career, I consider Lance equal to Nick Young and Gerald Green in their production and their cocky/over confident stupid shooting/pouty personalities. All three players can be good players but in their own right they can all be horrible too.
                        Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

                        www.jjhughesracing.com

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
                          Honestly Grimp, at this point in Lance's career, I consider Lance equal to Nick Young and Gerald Green in their production and their cocky/over confident stupid shooting/pouty personalities. All three players can be good players but in their own right they can all be horrible too.
                          I think GG is playing with a chip of his shoulder a bit, due to the trade. Swaggy I think has rounded his game a bit more into some consistency. Lance pouts at times but he always looks angry. Swaggy seems to really enjoy the game of basketball. Lance seems to be more angry at times than pouty. Not sure if he feels he has a lot to prove but Lance seems pissed more often than not.

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
                            Honestly Grimp, at this point in Lance's career, I consider Lance equal to Nick Young and Gerald Green in their production and their cocky/over confident stupid shooting/pouty personalities. All three players can be good players but in their own right they can all be horrible too.
                            The difference is that Young and Green have hit their ceiling....whereas Lance hasn't hit his ceiling yet. Now, its entirely possible that Lance won't ever reach his potentiall and what we see of Lance now is what we will see of him.....but I think that he will still improve given the right situation, what he himself does to improve his game ( such as improve his outside shooting ).

                            In other words, Lance is still considered an unfinished product....whereas with Young/Green, what we see of them now is what we will see of them for the rest of their careers.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              The difference is that Young and Green have hit their ceiling....whereas Lance hasn't hit his ceiling yet. Now, its entirely possible that Lance won't ever reach his potentiall and what we see of Lance now is what we will see of him.....but I think that he will still improve given the right situation, what he himself does to improve his game ( such as improve his outside shooting ).

                              In other words, Lance is still considered an unfinished product....whereas with Young/Green, what we see of them now is what we will see of them for the rest of their careers.

                              True, but when Nick and Gerald got to their new teams there was never this strong dislike between them and the coach. Lance landed in Charlotte a few months ago and right out of the gate it was a disaster. I mean that's such a rare thing.
                              Last edited by Grimp; 01-06-2015, 07:26 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I'm not trying to erase last year. I'm trying to get you to explain how Lance looking awful in Char means that Lance Stephenson is the straw that stirred the Pacers drink. If Lance was such a good player, that he's the missing piece for the entire franchise that it all hinged around him, then how in the f-ing world is he so damn awful in Char? It doesn't make one bit of sense.

                                You give the "Troy Murphy" criticism of players who can put up bad numbers on a bad team, and yet your lover can't even do that. The only time Lance has been Lance, has been when Paul has been there to hold his hand. You mock Roy, or other players like GHill about their struggles, and then you have every excuse under the sun for Lance. It's awfully funny to watch you squirm now that your standards are being applied to your favorite.
                                The King of Straw Men. I never said that it all hinged around him or that he was the straw that stirred the Pacers drink....or much else you attribute to me.

                                Also, nobody is saying he isn't stinking in Charlotte. Where did I use his failure in Charlotte to prop him up?

                                As for Charlotte, it is irrelevant to whether or not Lance is a talented ball player. You know what Bird thinks yet you deny it. Mark Boyle is on record stating that the two most talented players on the team, at a time Granger was in Indy, were Lance and Paul George. Stuff that one up your straw man's nose dude! The fact is, it is a failed situation and there are explanations for that but you just don't want to believe it because:




                                What I have said many times is that without Lance (or an adequate replacement at SG), we are not contending. So far, I see several pretenders and they do not impress.

                                As for your talk about Charlotte you can keep on ...but it will never change the fact he played very well on the Pacers last year and was key to them being competitive. It was not just Paul George. It was the combination that made this team great last year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X