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

Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

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

  • #31
    Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

    Originally posted by DocHolliday View Post
    I think Seth's comparison of TH to Brian Cardinal is no worse than Tbird saying his ceiling is Bill Laimbeer. Nothing about TH reminds me of Bill Laimbeer. Intimidation was his game--TH is just your typical under-sized hustler.
    Typical under-sized hustlers do not lead their teams to NCAA championships, win the player of the year award, hold the all-time UNC and ACC scoring record. TH is known for his hustle, but is much more than a hustle player.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

      I agree that the strengths that TH has that can quickly become productive for the Pacers are his pick and pop 15 footers and his baseline jumper. He is also very active around the boards and gets to the line quite a bit following offensive rebounds.

      Does this not sound like a shorter version of Brad Miller?

      That is who came to mind for me anyway when I thought about a former or current player for comparison.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
        Oh hypothetical debate that won't be resolved for another few years or so, how I love thee.
        True.

        For BOTH sides.


        But in fairness to me I'm presenting valid points. To dismiss the combine draft ranking jump similarities to Alexander last year is wrong. To dismiss the fact that Cardinal was a successful hustle PF that took charges, ran his motor all the time and developed an NBA 3 is wrong.

        And in terms of PPG between the two, Tyler played for the famously high octane offense with no defense Tar Heels while Cardinal played for the defense first Boilers. NC's claim to fame was getting up court, and not only did Hans hustle up but his PG Lawson was notoriously great at north/south speed.

        NC played okay defense but crushed teams the second they took possession. Their scoring was higher than most teams because of this and must be considered a factor.

        I think these are all extremely reasonable points.

        Let me put it another way, no matter who we drafted there would be people on here saying they were going to work out. But the fact is that we just probably saw 15-20 dud first round picks taken, some of them in the top 15.

        If not Tyler then pick the kid you do think is in trouble. DeRozen perhaps. Rubio? Harden? And why them instead, what did their track record or combine or scouting say that makes them MORE LIKELY to struggle than Hans?

        Not everyone can be a winner here, some picks will not make it. The fact that Hans had all this attention, won awards, went 4 years and played with a big time program should tell you that of all the players he was one of the MOST WELL SCOUTED and long before the combine.

        All those people rated him lower, but now suddenly they are all wrong and a bunch of hopeful Pacers fans have correctly identified him as worthy of 10 spots higher than he had been projected.

        See, I'm not calling him a 40th pick, I'm calling him a 20-22nd pick, just like he was ranked month after month during the season. He didn't climb during games like Rush or Love, he jumped in ranking basically when the Pacers said they were drafting him.



        140 character version - "You guys are right, your kid is the smartest/best singer/best player, you are in no way biased."*


        *also the ultra-sarcastic version

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
          I agree that the strengths that TH has that can quickly become productive for the Pacers are his pick and pop 15 footers and his baseline jumper. He is also very active around the boards and gets to the line quite a bit following offensive rebounds.

          Does this not sound like a shorter version of Brad Miller?

          That is who came to mind for me anyway when I thought about a former or current player for comparison.
          Yep, that's sort of what I've been thinking, too. Not the same guy, but some similarities to make.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

            I think this draft is about as bad as the 1997 draft (Croshere was pick 12 that year). Meaning a 13th pick in 2009 is like a 20-25 pick most drafts. Then remember that New Jersey was interested in him, and four teams called us after we made the pick to trade for him. That cannot be dismissed.

            In a draft like this, I can't feel bad about going for the solid guy with the credentials who, while not likely to be special, is also less likely to bust.

            If Hansbrough ends up a great 7th man, this was a win.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

              Great job. Nice to see someone compare a white guy to someone other than another white guy. Actually takes a little insight! I think he could turn out to be like Horace Grant. I was initially dissapointed in the pick, but now I feel that the Pacers didn't feel there was anyone with real star potential and instead took a guy with very little downside and a very good chance of being a sold contributor on a good team. I guy we can keep around for years without paying a max contact to.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                Smart bunch of guys here!

                Makes me wonder if Bird will have any advice for him or maybe show him some moves he could use.

                I cant wait to see what happens..

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  I'm calling him a 20-22nd pick, just like he was ranked month after month during the season. He didn't climb during games like Rush or Love, he jumped in ranking basically when the Pacers said they were drafting him.
                  The same is true of TWill, Nap.

                  He was mocking late teens to mid 20s, but jumped out of nowhere to get drafted before us. I expected that to happen, so I wasn't surprised. But how is that different from Tyler? He was mocking late teens to mid 20s, but climbed on draft day and would almost certainly not have been there for us at 20. Heck, he probably wouldn't have made it past the Bulls at #16. So if his floor is #16, you're not overspending by much to take him at #13. Especially with Blair in medical free-fall.

                  And for the record, Rush and Love didn't climb in games either. After the season we were talking about drafting Love with out #11; he climbed in the combine and in the private workouts. Rush was mocking late teens before climbing; word was he'd have gone at #15 if we hadn't snagged him at #13.

                  I wasn't pleased about Tyler either***, but I think you're using selective memory here. Go back and look at the postseason mocks... both of those guys climbed in the last week, not before.

                  Just like Tyler.







                  ***We have four backup PFs already, I don't see how getting another one really helps the team in any major way. If there's nobody below #13 who you like, then trade out instead of down. We don't need more guys whose career ceiling is "decent backup on a good team." We have lots of those guys. We need starters.
                  Last edited by Anthem; 06-29-2009, 10:32 PM.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    ***We have four backup PFs already, I don't see how getting another one really helps the team in any major way. If there's nobody below #13 who you like, then trade out instead of down. We don't need more guys whose career ceiling is "decent backup on a good team." We have lots of those guys. We need starters.
                    As many have noted before.....Bird and JO'B are aiming for a return to the Playoffs....on top of that, the Team desperately needs an infusion of talent to continue towards that goal. Given our SalaryCap situation....we weren't in a position to acquire that level of talent that would improve this team that much......much less have the option of trading out of this year's draft.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                      Typical under-sized hustlers do not lead their teams to NCAA championships, win the player of the year award, hold the all-time UNC and ACC scoring record. TH is known for his hustle, but is much more than a hustle player.
                      Were you talking about Christian Laettner?

                      But to add a couple of my thoughts to the discussion:

                      1. I too preferred James Johnson due to his athleticism, but I became very cautious when I heard him say that he was a 3.

                      2. I love that bird maintained a philosophy with the pick and therefore I really like the pick. He went with a player that was mature and could be taught. He decided he wanted LESS DOWNSIDE than MORE UPSIDE. He made a concious decision to stay within his perameters of drafting and I love that he has an "approach". AJ Price fits that mold as well. I hope he can really improve the health of his knee and if so, that makes him a steal at 52.

                      3. Tyler is a PF. We went with the best available player at our biggest position of need. I would have been furious if we had taken a PG at 13.

                      4. Tyler reminds me a lot of Carlos Boozer. He could stand to gain some more strength. I don't know that TH has quite the Boozer upside, but I think it has to be close. I love the PJ Brown comparison.

                      5. Naptown, I agree with a lot of your sentiments. I like your counterintuitive direction in assessing TH. Optimism is so overrated. And 31Fan, I am completely in agreement with your statement about the white/black comparisons. I hate them and they make the person that says them look dumber, because I would classify race as the last comparable basketball "skill".

                      I still think that our best bet in free agency is Brandon Bass and NOT Jarrett Jack, although I would absolutely positively love having them both. Jack is the type of PG we need, but we don't have that many options in signing players this summer, so we will take what we can get. And as TBird noted, that we would need a great rebounding player that can play both PF and C to complement Hibbert and Hansborough. He fits that mold perfectly.
                      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                        Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                        4. Tyler reminds me a lot of Carlos Boozer. He could stand to gain some more strength. I don't know that TH has quite the Boozer upside, but I think it has to be close. I love the PJ Brown comparison.
                        I don't think he compares to PJ Brown at all. Brown was a 6'10", 6'11" defensive specialist who wasn't that bad offensively. In his prime, he was consistently one of the best low post defenders in the league. Hansbrough is a different type of player altogether. He not going to succeed by playing the same type of game Brown played. He's simply not tall enough.

                        Carlos Boozer, interestingly enough, got better in the pros be slimming down and becoming more mobile, yet he was still strong. (Wouldn't surprise me if he also got some chemical help, in this regard).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                          If Tyler maxes out at 18 ppg/ 9 rpg like Laettner I think most of us would be fairly happy, though hopefully he would stay at his peak longer than Laettner did and contribute more "dirty work" and less perimeter scoring. Laettner had about 8 solid years as a starter (one lost to injury) in his 13-year career.

                          Both led their teams to national titles, but I'd have to say that the 1991-1992 supporting cast of Bobby Hurley (1992 tournament MVP), Grant Hill (best talent), Thomas Hill, Brian Davis etc. was better than Tyler had. Personally I think a healthy Christian Laettner with a mean streak would be a bargain at pick #13. The Brian Cardinal comparisons are a little silly given that the comparison would be between a guy who shot 46% in college and scored 12 ppg vs. a guy averaging 20 ppg on 54% shooting (way different playing styles I know).

                          The Basketball-statistics web site has a player predictions feature that is likely worthless but their algorithm projects Tyler at 18.6 ppg/ 7.0 rpg per 36 minutes.

                          http://basketball-statistics.com/pla...ansbrough.html

                          other player projections are here: http://basketball-statistics.com/200...ojections.html
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-30-2009, 01:48 PM.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                            Two things.

                            One, it should be noted that Hoopshype's draft board actually has Hands Bro's (thanks Pig) high/low as "Luis Scola/Brian Cardinal".

                            Second, an aside about "working hard is a skill". In NBA TV's post-draft shows, they had a big debate about this in regards to our pick. Eric Snow was absolutely adament that working hard was not a skill, everyone in the NBA works hard, or else they wouldn't be in the league. DA and Ronny Thompson disargeed, but I've never seen Snow so worked up. Granted, I don't have NBA TV so this is the first I've seen him on there, but I've followed him since his freshman year at State. He was not budging an inch, he was insulted by the notion.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                              [quote=pacergod2;904007]



                              4. Tyler reminds me a lot of Carlos Boozer. He could stand to gain some more strength. I don't know that TH has quite the Boozer upside, but I think it has to be close. I love the PJ Brown comparison.

                              quote]

                              It's interesting that you mentioned Carlos Boozer because some of the things I heard about Boozer when he was coming out I'm hearing about Tyler. Is he a legit 6'9? Can he score against bigger more athletic players? is he a good enough athlete?Can he finish in the paint? All the draft gurus said no.Yet these same draft gurus decided guys like Gooden,Wilcox and Ely would be better pro players.

                              I look at the Tyler and i see him as taller,longer and a better athlete then Boozer was coming out of college and none of those shortcummings affected him.i think Tyler will be alright.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                                Second, an aside about "working hard is a skill". In NBA TV's post-draft shows, they had a big debate about this in regards to our pick. Eric Snow was absolutely adament that working hard was not a skill, everyone in the NBA works hard, or else they wouldn't be in the league. DA and Ronny Thompson disargeed, but I've never seen Snow so worked up. Granted, I don't have NBA TV so this is the first I've seen him on there, but I've followed him since his freshman year at State. He was not budging an inch, he was insulted by the notion.
                                I would tend to agree with Snow, as he was an actual NBA player who's worked out with actual NBA players.

                                Every now and then you get a guy who misses practice or has a spat with the coach and it makes the headlines, so everyone thinks the NBA is full of lazy crybabies. But when players show up to practice on time and get along with the coach just fine (and this is the vast majority of the league), it's not news that gets reported.

                                There's going to be about 300 players who are going to show up to training camp in excellent physical condition after working on their game all summer, and they won't get praised for it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X