Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Rush factor/Mike Wells

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

  • #16
    Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

    Seth is just bringing it up to be right. I have been a "Draft Brandon Rush" supporter since before the draft. I love his game and how he is developing.

    I will acknowledge that he needs to work on his finishing, but I think that comes with involvement. He also needs to get better at fighting through early misses. I think those two things can be seemingly attributable to confidence. How much confidence does ANYBODY have on our team right now? Brandon would be a much different player on a better team, with a more recognizable system.

    As for the offense. He is the only player that runs off screens and makes cuts. Granger does some, but not as much as Brandon. He doesn't get the ball in a position to succeed most of the time. There are too many times I see him make a good cut off a baseline screen and is open in the key or as he continues to the perimeter. Whoever has the ball at the top of the key rarely hits him in stride as he is finishing his cut at the perimeter with his defender out of position. His effort offensively by running off of screens is RARELY utilized by the others. He ACTUALLY MAKES THOSE CUTS though.

    Another aspect of his game that is underappreciated is that he is a good passer to the low post. He even prioritizes that pass when Hibbert is posting up on his side. Brandon then has the audacity to actually make a cut to take his defender away to clear space for Hibbert. This gives Hibbert time to work the post and it should create movement by the other players on the floor as well. Unfortunately, you don't see a lot of this movement. There is too much ball domination/lack of movement at the top of the key by Ford and Granger and Murphy. It is really bothersome for someone doing the right things offensively not getting the credit he deserves because his stats are less than overwhelming.

    I have been comparing him from day 1 to Joe Dumars. He has that kind of upside and plays a similar game. I think Brandon is capable of being the best player on this team. I can't wait for 2011 when our team is not being run by an idiot coach and second team players disguised as starters (cough TJ/Troy/Dun cough). 20 more months. Please don't trade away Brandon, who is our only GOOD defensive player, in the mean time. Hibbert is getting good by the way. It would help if he had a power forward to help him out though. Granger is capable of being a solid defender at SF. AT SF!!!!! This team needs size and toughness. I am ranting. Sorry.
    "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


    • #17
      Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

      Originally posted by nerveghost View Post
      What good is it when your "second best scorer" doesn't score?
      Maybe I missed it, did someone call him that?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Remind me... you were one of McKey's biggest detractors, right? You just hated how little he tried on the offensive end, and how much wasted offensive talent he had?
        LOL. No I was Mckey's biggest fan. I think he was the Pacers MVP for the '94 and '95 seasons

        wait are you being sarcastic.

        My post was supposed to reveal that I have become more of a fan of Rush as the season has gone along - not sure I did a good job conveying that
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-10-2010, 02:24 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

          I could easily go back and find tons of great play by Rush. He had one fault - he wasn't hitting the 3.
          if you think the only problem with Rush was him not hitting the three, then I give up. And if you think I really give a flip about Rush's three point shooting % per month, then I really give up

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

            Brandon Rush can not play in this system. He needs a structured system. For two reasons.

            1. It's just not his mentality. He's a "fill in the blank" type of player. He needs structure or he doesn't know how to fill anything in. People have said he tends to play better without Danny. Well, he knows his role without Danny.

            2. Honestly, I think he has a lot of trouble creating his own shot. This hurts him a lot in this type of offense too. For one, he won't take bad shots, but then it's harder for him to get good shots. We've all seen him make a fantastic move only to miss the easy layup. When is the last time we saw Rush take someone off the dribble and shoot a jumper?

            As much as he's completely physically different from Dun, I think many of their skills are similar, and I think they want to play the game the same way.

            (Also, this wasn't a bash JOB post. I'm just saying the player doesn't fit the offense.)

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

              Rush does a lot of things very well. It's one part of his game that everyone seems to focus on, and is willing to dismiss him for --- his offensive aggressiveness. It's like they forget all the rest of his game because he's not "meeting" what everyone envisions for him.

              I am not, and have never been, in that camp. You don't often find guys with his body type, who can stroke the 3, play excellent defense and rebound. Seriously, he had 9 rebounds last night. He's a very good rebounder at that position.

              Rush seems to turn it on when it matters --- during the "playoff" stretch, or during close games. And that's very important. His demeanor is something (like McKey) that he's always going to struggle with, because it "appears" that he's just not "into it", and that he has to be motivated, but I'm guessing that's not the case. Some people are extremely motivated, and just don't show it externally like others do.

              I have always liked Rush's game, was a fan of drafting him, and I still think he could prove to be a key piece of our future.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                LOL. No I was Mckey's biggest fan. I think he was the Pacers MVP for the '94 and '95 seasons
                I would think that you would appreciate Brandon's game more than you seem to. I think the comparisons to McKey with Brandon are significant. But we do have to remember, we have given this kid a bulk of minutes on a bad team and he HAS improved. He is still very young. How often do you find a player as good as he is defensively this early in his career? I just think that Brandon has learned the game for four years from Bill Self, who I respect more as a coach than O'Brien, but granted they are in very different circumstances. I think O'Brien would be a much better coach at the college level. He knows the game, but his philosophy is different than what can be successful in the NBA IMO. I think Self's basketball philosophy is much different than O'Brien's and it would take a couple of years to adapt as a YOUNG player IMO.

                I am not bashing O'Brien. I was remissed when calling him an "idiot" earlier. But I think you look at the important players to the franchise, Granger, Rush and Hibbert, and you cater to their strengths. When your roster is Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy, you cater to their strengths as the roster was constructed in his first year. I know he has changed his game plan, especially defensively. I just want to mention two things in regards to O'Brien:

                1. A coach's mentality is to win now.

                2. He HAS given Brandon a lot of minutes. O'Brien prioritizes the offensive end over the defensive end as a philosophy and that is OK. But he has made the effort to play Brandon because of his strengths on the defensive end. That should not be overlooked either.

                When it comes down to it, O'Brien and I fundamentally disagree on one thing, but he IS the coach getting paid millions to coach this team. I prioritize defense over offense, but we both realize there has to be a solid mix of the two. I don't think I could have been more successful than O'Brien has been up to this point with the roster he had. I would love to have Murphy, Ford, DJones, Foster, and Dunleavy coming off the bench for me. They are great complementary players meant for significant bench minutes. Unfortunately, he has been giving those players starters minutes for the last couple years due to injury and lack of talent. If I could have a more stable PG (Bird and Morway thought would be Watson for a year) and a POWER FORWARD (they were praying Hans would have this effect this year) we would have a much better team. IMO 3 out of 5 dependable starters is not sutiable for success at the NBA level. Since I prioritize defense, I don't appreciate Murphy, Ford, and Dunleavy's offensive gifts as much. I think Foster's injury really hurt us this year, but i would have been starting Foster at PF with Hibbert and bringing Murphy off the bench, which we believe would be the opposite of O'Brien. I also would NOT be giving Ford and Watson 35+ in the same game (that means one of them is playing SG for 22+ minutes per game). Sorry so long.

                Unclebuck. I am with you on a lot of the JOB bashing that occurs recklessly. He has done a decent job with what he has had. I just think he needs to be on board with the future more than the right now, which is tough to ask a coach to do. It makes it even harder for me personally, because I look at basketball from a philosophically different point of view, and I still agree with you on many occassions. I just ask that you don't recklessly defend him either, which I think you have been good about.
                Last edited by pacergod2; 03-10-2010, 02:49 PM.
                "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


                • #23
                  Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                  Originally posted by Blink View Post
                  Maybe I missed it, did someone call him that?
                  I believe O'Brien's plan in the preseason was to make Rush the 2nd option after Granger.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                    During the begining of the season - November and December I was disgusted with Rush's unaggressive play. During January and a good portion of February I just didn't care anymore about hiom and in many ways had just given up on him. .

                    Not sure what to think of him at this point
                    Buck

                    I think he might just be a slow starter, the same thing happened last eyar and at the end he was averaging 18pts a game

                    We all got excited and he started the year in simmilar fashion to last year and we got upset

                    If you look at Obies coaching his teams always finish stronger than they start. This is what worried me. I know a real coach would never "tank" but I have a feeling we will go on a meaningless run before the end of the season and go form a top 5 pick, to number 10-13

                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                      Buck, I'm trying to see if I can remember you saying something like this circa 1994.

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      During the beginning of the season - November and December I was disgusted with McKey's unaggressive play. During January and a good portion of February I just didn't care anymore about him and in many ways had just given up on him. Then the almost trade and I think since then he's played better (still inconsistent though) and once again he seems to be coming on strong at the end of the season maybe he plays better when the games are less meaningful.

                      I said before the season that McKey was the x-factor this season - he has the talent to be the second best player (easily) on this team and he is needed to be the second best player. I still wonder if he'll ever be a consistently aggressive enough player, whether he can overcome his laid back personality.

                      Not sure what to think of him at this point
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Buck - I'll simply say that per usual I couldn't disagree more.
                        I was wanting to respong back to UncleBuck but you said everything I wanted to say. Good post.

                        As for Uncle Buck, I'm starting to think JOB has hacked his account...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                          I think this line is being lost in the shuffle a bit and it's important, because it's evidence in favor of the idea that Rush does better offensively when he knows what to expect to some degree, i.e., when there is more offensive structure for him:

                          "Rush took a team-high 20 shots because a lot of the plays are meant for the small forward, which is where he started at in place of the suspended Danny Granger."
                          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                            If Rush comes on strong the last 25% of this season, as last year, then the Pacers have a problem, b/c 75% of the season Rush isn't playing like the last 25% of the season. He's being counted upon playing the 1st 75% of the season as the last 25% of the season. How many companies can afford to keep an employee that meets the company goal only 1 in every 4 work days? The phrase "constantly inconsistant" best describes Rush, and seems to be the reason why he was included in the deal with Charlotte.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                              I wrote this in a thread (whose title was "Is Brandon Rush a shooter?") here in late December:

                              Yeah, I'm surprised he isn't shooting the ball better from distance and is so streaky; I agree he "should" be a better shooter and I'm not sure why he isn't.

                              I have a feeling he's better shooting off the catch on the move than in other type of shots, but this season his only good shot is the corner 3, which is mostly a spot up shot. It'd be nice to check his Sinergy file. And why is he so bad finishing at the rim and with the mid-range game?

                              I don't know, maybe there's something off in his shot nobody has noticed because the upper-body form looks so good. Has anyone noticed if he aligns his feet with the basket consistently? Perhaps he has vision problems. I have no idea. He rarely takes contested shots, his usage rate is fairly low, so it's not like he's forcing the issue. Maybe he's just streaky and is going through a slump.
                              I think I have the answer to my questions now, he was going through a slump. If he can finish the season bordering a 40% accuracy that's an excellent number. He now needs to fix his shooting closer to the rim, he's shooting better from behind the line than from anywhere else on the floor.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post

                                As much as he's completely physically different from Dun, I think many of their skills are similar, and I think they want to play the game the same way.
                                Not to throw stones, but didn't you start coming around after we drafted Price?

                                If so, you missed the first of the JO'B years. When Dunleavy was healthy, he was an absolute perfect fit for this offense. In many respects, he was a better offensive player than Granger during that first season. That being said, Dunleavy made his name in a motion offense at Duke. He struggled in the NBA until he got into one here. Rush succeeded in a very structured system at Kansas and has struggled in the Motion offense.

                                The difference between Dunleavy and Brandon is that Dunleavy is a very cerebral player and Rush is a very instinctive player. When Dun is on, he's able to process lots of information very quickly and use it to make good decisions. Rush seems to do better when he does not have to process much information during play. He can then let his significant physical gifts and instincts take over.

                                The quote from the article that was interesting said that most of plays are run for the small forward. If you're running plays for Brandon, he doesn't have to be constantly thinking and reading and reacting. He knows where he needs to be, where he needs to go, and how to get there. Consequently, he looks more aggressive and is more successful.

                                I love Brandon as a player, but I do get frustrated with him. In my opinion he's easily the 2nd best defender on the team (behind Foster).

                                I think the McKey comparisons are apt. What frustrates so many people about Brandon is that it's impossible to watch him and not see exactly how much potential he has. If you're judging solely on physical ability, he's got just as much as Granger.
                                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                                - Salman Rushdie

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X