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

"Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

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

  • #31
    Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

    Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
    Its amazing to me how bad our fast-break fundamentals are. Don't these guys know how to fill a lane and when to come down the court as the "trailer".

    I don't know if its poor coaching, dumb players, or what.
    I think its a combination of both.

    Dumb coaching staff for not recognizing what you.....a fan is able to recognize by watching game-tape on your TIVO for an entire weekend....and therefore not taking steps to rectify and fix the problem.

    Dumb players for not doing what they should be doing.....following the player with the ball as the "trailer"...instead of settling for the more exciting 3pt shot.

    Based off what I have read so far in this thread...it sounds like being able to properly run a fast-break is really key in running an up-tempo offense ( something that we do not excel at ). In turn...we get back to the same old question...do we have the players and coach to truly run an up-tempo game?
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I thought his "security blanket" is now in Dallas?
      Depends on your definition of "security blanket", I guess.

      He's actually got a number of them, past and present.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

        Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
        Agreed. We did not do enough last summer. We changed *some* players, but left too many starters. We changed some of the assistant coaches.

        From the current roster, I'd keep:

        Granger,
        Daniels,
        Darrell Armstrong
        Powell

        That's about it. Everybody else can be had for the right price.

        Now I'd put reasonably high prices on Harrison (my weakness), JO and Tinsley, so its likely they'd remain.

        SJax would be moved, Foster would be moved while he still have value, Saras would be moved.

        I'm indifferent on Harrington, Marshall, Baston, O. Greene, and Williams.

        Too much continuity (or, comfort zone) remains.

        Maybe I'll nickname Rick to be "Linus" for his use of a security blanket. Whaddya think?
        So basically TPTB set Rick up for failure.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

          Maybe. I think its more like, "they're only about 40-50% done but they appear to have stopped once they picked up Al Harrington."

          Maybe we should be talking about their "effort."
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

            'Uptempo' doesn't mean much to me if it's to give people run and gun (or run and fun)... But seeing a team run an offense more like we did in 2000 would be nice. Of course we need the right players for that...

            But wasn't Carlisle credited with our offense in those days?

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

              I think Linus fits, but it's not really a security blanket. It's a tried and proven style of play for this team. I think the Pacers have overachieved for the past 4 seasons, with everything running through JO.

              I hate that type of offense, but it's the only constant thing that actually produces wins.

              And I agree with your players on who we should keep, but I'd tweak it by adding Williams and getting rid of DA. Why? Because DA isn't going to play but two more years max, so why not get something out of him while you can?

              Also, Williams has shown that he is a good scorer from the outside, and has shown flashes that he can guard the SF position. I think Danny is more than capable of playing the 2, and a combo of Danny and Shawne on the wings has the potential to be something really good, especially on the defensive end.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                Maybe. I think its more like, "they're only about 40-50% done but they appear to have stopped once they picked up Al Harrington."

                Maybe we should be talking about their "effort."
                Well, I have not put forth much effort () this season when it comes to watch the Pacers, but from the games I have seen I would agree with you.

                I was furious last offseason when more changes were not made, and while I am holding out hope that a big move will be made at the ASB, I am not going to hold my breath.

                Do we have the wrong coach? I dont think so, but I wont fault any of you who think we do.

                I do think TPTB put a band-aid on a problem in the off-season that really needed major surgery.

                I fear that getting Al was way to much of a PR move and one we may end up regretting in the long haul.

                I realize you are kidding about the effort comment (I still havent had a chance to read through that whole thread) but maybe you are correct. If they are only 40-50% done, my question is what the hell are they waiting for. If we are finding out about these "problems" then surely TPTB know about them. I mean, they do talk to the player and coaches...right? right?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                  I must admit that most of William's playing time came when I was out of town, so I've only seen him play in very short snippets.

                  I'm still 99% unconvinced that Granger can be as good at SG as he can at SF.

                  I don't mind iso-ball, but I know many of the rest of you hate it.

                  What I want is for the team to seize the opportunity to score as many easy baskets as possible before they settle for playing iso ball. I don't think Rick agrees, since they don't really try to get offensive rebounds and he wants to call plays in the half-court.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                    Originally posted by beast23
                    So how is it that after nearly half a season of games, we still don't know how to efficiently run a break when we are at a numbers advantage?
                    Beast, you ask about ..."after nearly half a season." But does the learning curve over the past half a season matter? These guys have years of basketball experience. Even the rookie with one year of college has been playing since he was 9 or 10.

                    Does anyone really believe that any player on the Pacers doesn't know how to run a fast break? I mean, is it possible that they reach this level without having decent instincts about such a fundamental aspect of a team sport?

                    It is fustrating as heck to believe they know how to run and just aren't doing it, but it boggles the mind to say they don't know how.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                      There is no depth. You can't run without it. You have to have guys with experience who can play defense, make quick decisions. The Pacers have guys on the bench with little experience.

                      Look at these 10 players subjectively. They are the Pacers bench.

                      Danny Granger
                      Marquis Daniels
                      Sarunus Jasikevicius
                      Darrell Armstrong
                      Maceo Baston
                      Rawle Marshall
                      David Harrison
                      Shawne Williams
                      Josh Powell
                      Orien Greene

                      2006 NBA Champs bench players included

                      Antoine Walker
                      Gary Payton
                      Alonzo Mourning
                      Shandon Anderson
                      Derek Anderson
                      Michael Doleac

                      The top 5 current power rankings on NBA.com

                      Suns bench players include

                      Leandro Barbosa
                      Kurt Thomas
                      Jalen Rose
                      Marcus Banks
                      James Jones

                      Mavs Bench players include

                      Jerry Stackhouse
                      Devean George
                      Greg Buckner
                      Anthony Johnson
                      Austin Croshere
                      DeSagana Diop

                      Jazz Bench players include

                      Matt Harpring
                      Gordon Giricek
                      Paul Milsap
                      Ronnie Brewer
                      Jarron Collins

                      Pistons Bench players include

                      Flip Murray
                      Antonio Mcdyess
                      Lindsay Hunter
                      Dale Davis
                      Jason Maxiell
                      Carlos Delfino

                      Spurs bench players include

                      Brent Barry
                      Robert Horry
                      Michael Finley
                      Fransico Elson
                      Eric Williams
                      Jacque Vaughn


                      Look at the depth those teams have. There's a ton of experience on those benches. Sure there are a couple of guys here and there who are young but the majority of them have been around the block a few times. Alot of those guys might actually start on the Pacers. How many Pacers bench players could you say that about......1? With the exception of Granger's talent & Armstrong's experience the Pacers bench players belong nowhere near that list. I know all of those teams don't run but they're certainly more equipped to than the current bench in Indiana.
                      I'm in these bands
                      The Humans
                      Dr. Goldfoot
                      The Bar Brawlers
                      ME

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        Looking at the top 5 teams winning teams in the East and West:

                        East:
                        1 ) Detroit
                        2 ) Cleveland
                        3 ) Chicago
                        4 ) Orlando
                        5 ) Washington
                        6 ) Indy


                        West:
                        1 ) Dallas
                        2 ) Phoenix
                        3 ) San Antonio
                        4 ) Utah
                        5 ) LALakers

                        Which top teams are truly Up-Tempo and are winning consistently?

                        By name, I can only truly identify Phoenix....probably Dallas....maybe Washington, Cleveland and the LALakers. I could be wrong ( cuz I don't truly pay attention to how the other team's offense is run ), but the rest don't appear to be "up tempo" teams...and yet...they still win. In fact, I view those teams that are not considered up-tempo....but as teams that are more defensive minded and run whatever type of offense that best fits the coach/team.
                        Suns are a fastbreak team, but their halfcourt offense is also fantastic. The Mavs run a fast offense, but they do a lot of one-on-one, but more than anything they are extremely aggressive on bioth ends. Washington runs quite a bit, they also have horrible shot selection.

                        Cavs and lakers run less than the Pacers. Magic play a very deliberate style.

                        The bottom line on all this running stuff is something I've been saying for years now, it is way overrated - way way overrated. I don't really care if the Pacers are a running team - sure off a steal or a block shot I'd like to see the pacers be able to run a fastbreak. But more important to me is for the point guard to get the ball up in a hurry so they have 22 seconds to run a halfcourt offense with crisp execution and purpose with a lot of force. Like the Mavs do. Pacers aren't ever going to be like the Suns - I don't care how much we try we don't have their players.

                        Personally I think all this talk about a fastbreak offense is a waste of time I'm much more concerned with the pacers defense. But that is just me

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                          I agree that "running" itself is overrated but aggressively pursuing easy baskets is not.

                          For years, I've felt the Pacers (and most NBA teams) would rather take a bad shot at the end of the shot clock than take a good shot with more than ten seconds on the shot clock.

                          So for fear of someone "shooting the ball too early", coaches have their PGs wait until less than fourteen (or less than ten) seconds on the shotclock to initiate the offense.

                          Then the scores went down, and a whole bunch of people decided that it was because NBA teams were playing better defense.

                          I don't want them to run if it ain't there. And if running means that Stephen Jackson is handeling the ball in traffic, I'd rather watch a JO-iso. (Hell, I'd rather have my eyes poked out.) But I do want the offense to be aggressive.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                            Outside of JO, who do you want to be more aggressive?

                            I can only think of a two players that I feel comfortable doing that, and both are actually bench players.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Outside of JO, who do you want to be more aggressive?

                              I can only think of a two players that I feel comfortable doing that, and both are actually bench players.
                              What do you mean by more aggressive?

                              If by more agressive you mean "drive to the hole more and pass up jumshots" I could name Tinsley, Jackson, Granger, and Harrington off the top of my head.

                              I think I may have misunderstood your question, though.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: "Houston; We have a problem" (today's Star 3-1-07)

                                Not individuals, but collectively.

                                I want Granger and Daniels in the starting lineup, though.

                                I want Al to be more aggressive, he's settling for too many jumpers.

                                I want Tinsley to have permission to start the offense immediately but for God's sake somebody has to get into a passing seam when he gets to the rim. I know he's not looking to pass, and its a chicken-and-egg thing so like with JO, because these guys just stand around and wait for the ball to come to them.

                                Eventually is not JO's fault there isn't anyone to pass to when he's in the post getting triple-teamed, and its not Tinsley's fault there isn't anyone to pass to when he drives to the basket and three defenders collapse on him. Its either the coach not commanding off-the-ball movement or the other three players that have their feet stuck in concrete. Or both. Again.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X