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

(Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

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

  • (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/marks-mail...youth-movement

    Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement



    by Mark Montieth
    Pacers.com Writer
    @MarkMontieth
    Posted: Sep 08, 2015
    FACEBOOK
    GOOGLE PLUS
    TWITTER
    LINK
    Have a question for Mark? Want it to be on Pacers.com? Email him at askmontieth@gmail.com and you could be featured in his next mailbag.


    Q. In comparing rosters between now and the season before last, 2013-2014, (the one where they ended up with a number one seed in the East), the following players are gone, for a total of twelve guys: Copeland, Sloan, E. Turner, Bynum, Butler, Johnson, Scola, Watson, Granger, Hibbert, Stephenson, and West. For a roster limit of 15, that seems like a lot in a short time, from a great team to a potentially great one in less than two years later.


    What does your gut tell you about how rare this amount of (needed) turnover has been the last 20 years for teams ranked in the top four (say) of their conference? Are the Pacers one of just a small handful of teams that had to reload after seeing much recent success?


    — Joe


    A. It's extremely rare, and virtually unprecedented, for a team that wasn't “too old” to continue competing for championships to make as many changes as the Pacers have made. What we have here is a perfect storm of circumstances that led to a sea change of turnover.


    First off, you had seven free agents this year (Rodney Stuckey, Luis Scola, Lavoy Allen, Donald Sloan, Chris Copeland, Shayne Whittington and C.J. Watson), and two others with opt-out clauses (Roy Hibbert and David West). That alone was sure to bring about major turnover.


    West's decision to leave in pursuit of immediate gratification in what could be the final season of his career amplified everything. As team president Larry Bird said, West's surprising move brought about several other changes, as it cost the team its starting power forward and on-court leader. At that point there was no point in trying to maintain the core of the teams that reached the conference finals in consecutive seasons. The mutual desire for Hibbert to move on was another major factor, opening a major hole at center that had been filled for seven seasons.


    Stuckey, Allen and Whittington were re-signed, but the upcoming roster still includes eight new players: Chase Budinger, Toney Douglas, Monta Ellis, Jordan Hill, Glenn Robinson III and rookies Myles Turner, Joe Young and Rakeem Christmas. Douglas' contract is not guaranteed for the season. He has a partial guarantee, so he amounts to an insurance policy in the backcourt.


    You might as well add the return of Paul George to the turnover equation. He played in just six games last season, so is virtually a new player to the current group of players. Bottom line: the Pacers likely will have no more than two returning starters from last season – George Hill and maybe C.J. Miles, who only started 40 games.


    Yes, chemistry likely will be an issue early in the season. You don't bring this many guys together and microwave an in-sync team. The overall talent level seems to be as good as could be expected with the loss of West and Hibbert. Coach Frank Vogel will be challenged to determine a playing rotation. Some good players are going to get left out of the 10-man group, and some likely will be sent to Fort Wayne to play in the Development League.


    Q. Can Myles Turner have the best rookie season since Chuck Person? He sure looks smarter and more mature than his 19 years old and will have plenty of opportunities on the floor.


    — Francisco


    A. You might be onto something here. Of course, the Pacers have mostly had winning teams since Person was voted Rookie of the Year after the 1986-87 season, so late-round draft picks aren't likely to have much of an impact on winning teams. Now comes Turner, the 11th pick, joining a drastically revamped roster.


    He isn't likely to match Person's stats, but he could do better than all those who have followed. Person, the fourth pick in the 1987 draft, averaged 18.8 points and 8.3 rebounds as a rookie, shooting 47 percent from the field and 35.5 percent from the 3-point line. He remains the only Pacer to be voted Rookie of the Year.


    He had the advantage of joining a team that had won just 26 games the previous season, so opportunities were guaranteed. Most nights, he started alongside Vern Fleming, John Long, Herb Williams and Steve Stipanovich. That group desperately needed some firepower, and Person was the perfect one to provide it. He nearly took as many 3-point shots as all of his teammates combined.


    Since then, no Pacers player has come close to having as much impact as a rookie. Reggie Miller averaged 10 points a game off the bench the following season. Then Rik Smits averaged 11.7 after being forced into the starting lineup by Stipanovich's injury. Jamaal Tinsley, an overnight sensation early in his rookie season in 2001-02, averaged 9.4 points and eight assists. Danny Granger averaged 7.5 points in 2005-06. Hibbert averaged 7.1 in 2008-09.


    I expect Turner to average in double figures next season. Playing time should be available to him with the departure of Hibbert, and Bird already has stated he expects Turner and fellow rookie Joe Young to be part of the rotation. Beyond that, Turner's shooting touch isn't going to magically disappear. He hit 60.5 percent of his field goal attempts in Summer League play, averaging 18.7 points. Paul George, George Hill and Monta Ellis likely will dominate the scoring opportunities, but the planned uptempo offense should allow Turner to get up enough shots to have an impact. Turner's rim-protecting talents will help keep him on the floor, too. I wouldn't be surprised if he winds up starting most of the season – perhaps not early, but eventually.


    Q. Did Ian Mahinmi get cut from the 2015 French Eurobasket roster, or did he not try out? The August 17 roster announcement included Tony Parker, Boris Diaw, and other NBA-ers. Do you think he would have made the team had he wanted to?


    — Joe


    A. It's my understanding Mahinmi was not invited to join the team after being on the preliminary roster.


    Q. Have you been given any indication that the reason the Pacers want to play Paul George at 4 is because the injury compromised his quickness and he can no longer be a defensive presence/stopper on a wing?


    — David


    A. I haven't heard that, and don't believe it's the case. All I've heard this summer is that George is on his way to regaining his pre-injury athleticism. We'll know more in October.


    Moving George to “4” is simply part of a plan to play a smaller, faster and more mobile offense. It's not as if the Pacers will go with that kind of lineup all the time. I think too much is made of it, really. It's not a factor on offense, where a bigger team will have to contend with George's quickness on the perimeter. It's only an issue defensively, and that's easily solved. Don't play George if he would have to defend a stronger, low-post player such as Nene or David West.


    Again, when a team spreads the floor and moves the ball, the traditional 1-2-3-4-5 positioning evaporates. For the Pacers, whoever you want to designate a “4” won't likely resemble Dale Davis or David West. And that's fine, as long as they execute the offense well enough to get open shots.


    Q. The “youth movement” the Pacers have apparently taken this summer obviously hinged on both West and Hibbert no longer being here. A youthful team? But consider that this deep roster has eight guys with six years or more of NBA experience. And that's not counting Paul George (with five years).


    The old man of the group, Ellis, is only 29 (an October birthday though), and there's four others who are or will be 29 by early November (Mahinmi, G. Hill, Stuckey, and Douglas). Even though the team consists of two rookies with outstanding potential, Turner and Young, these nine long-time veterans seem to make this an ideal type of re-building year, with these very experienced players (not counting Solomon Hill, who logged more minutes than anyone last year).


    Do you agree that the Pacers did not choose to “go with the youth movement” given their successful 2015 draft picks, and that this approach is rather unusual, but ideal?


    — Joe


    A. True, the Pacers have never called their transformation a youth movement. Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh have proven over the years they avoid a total rebuild at all costs. They try to put the best team on the court each season.


    That's not to say they haven't gone through periods of regeneration, such as the Pacers are doing now. That's the nature of the NBA. But they have refused to “tank” and go for the complete overhaul, building around the high draft picks that come with horrible records. That usually takes at least a few years to pull off, and there's hardly any guarantee the players taken with those elite picks turn out to be elite players.


    The performances of Turner and Young in Summer League further the cause of remaining in a win-now mode. Young is 23 years old, a five-year college player, so he's not your typical modern-day rookie. He doesn't need a few years to be ready to contribute. Turner is only 19, but shows physical and emotional maturity beyond his years, so I believe he can contribute immediately as well.


    Have a question for Mark? Want it to be on Pacers.com? Email him at askmontieth@gmail.com and you could be featured in his next mailbag.


    Note: The contents of this page have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Indiana Pacers. All opinions expressed by Mark Montieth are solely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the Indiana Pacers, their partners, or sponsors.
    I just thought this was worth a new thread.
    Last edited by spazzxb; 09-08-2015, 05:11 PM.

  • #2
    Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

    Seems bitter about David West. Immediate gratification. Seriously?

    High praise for Turner and (to me) it seems like he went out of his way to avoid commenting on Ian Mahinmi. I've been thinking Ian was going to have a good year, maybe the Pacers don't agree.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
      Seems bitter about David West. Immediate gratification. Seriously?

      High praise for Turner and (to me) it seems like he went out of his way to avoid commenting on Ian Mahinmi. I've been thinking Ian was going to have a good year, maybe the Pacers don't agree.
      Ian would have a "good year" if he could go 1/2 from the line all season.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

        I like Ian but a lot of people on this board highly over value him, He is a good backup center and will never be more.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

          It's a very tow the line type of article which is what we usually get. Nothing at all on Mr. Invisible Rakeem Christmas when he talks about the rookies.
          Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

          Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
            Seems bitter about David West. Immediate gratification. Seriously?
            Isn't that true? He left to avoid a rebuild. He went to San Antonio to win now - instant gratification.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
              It's a very tow the line type of article which is what we usually get. Nothing at all on Mr. Invisible Rakeem Christmas when he talks about the rookies.
              Why Mr. Invisible?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                Originally posted by NapTonius Monk View Post
                Isn't that true? He left to avoid a rebuild. He went to San Antonio to win now - instant gratification.
                He's getting to the age where "instant gratification" and "rest of his career" mean about the same thing.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                  I do not blame David, if Bird had not unloaded on Hibbert in that press conference I believe he would still be a Pacer. I suppose its for the best though since we wont be winning anything this year anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                    He's getting to the age where "instant gratification" and "rest of his career" mean about the same thing.
                    I think what's funny is that how when West came here, he talked about how he thought it would be his chance at winning due to the Pacers youth and talent level. You mean a guy who wants to win at the end of his career wasn't on board with trying to win with a rookie center?

                    And yes, I'm fully aware West didn't know who was going to replace Roy but considering the market for him, it's not all that surprising that it ended up a rookie. We beat the "who else is realistically out there?" horse to death when discussing whether or not Bird would move Roy. It's not surprising at all, especially when you read about how Bird's public comments pissed West off.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                      Interesting that Montieth is expecting Turner to average double figures in scoring. Looks like I'm not the only crazy person.......
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        Interesting that Montieth is expecting Turner to average double figures in scoring. Looks like I'm not the only crazy person.......
                        You don't even have to be crazy to be wrong. You both may be right, but I still don't think he'll be that good that fast.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                          You don't even have to be crazy to be wrong. You both may be right, but I still don't think he'll be that good that fast.
                          I think there is a good possibility that he will be a very special player but I agree that it will probably not be right away. Every rookie has an adjustment period and we will see how long it takes Miles to get past his. Let's hope Pacersgeek is right though, wouldn't that be great?


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                            I didn't realize Smits averaged close to 12 and 6 as a rookie.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                              Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                              I like Ian but a lot of people on this board highly over value him, He is a good backup center and will never be more.
                              Who has ever said he would be anything more? I thought that was something most around here agreed on--he's a good backup center and that's it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X