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

Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

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

  • #76
    Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

    Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
    Extending Roy would take money off the following year's available space, when Posey comes off the books. It would be interesting to speculate as to whether DJones picks up his PO that following year or expects more than $2.5 mil on the FA market.
    His salary won't count to cap right away, but we probably have to wait and see how new CBA treats it.
    I mean, if we will have hard cap, it's fair to assume we won't be able to spend all our cap, then resign Hibbert into 'future cap' same summer, and then pick up Collison / George / Hansbrough options next year while being over cap.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
      or a banger and let hibbert play high post.
      I'd rather have my cake and eat it too: a banger who can hit the outside shot.

      We might already have that in Tyler.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

        Originally posted by I Love P View Post
        I would pick it up, ride the bench and be a huge fan. That would be like one of us sitting on the bench every game and getting paid millions to cheer. Sounds like an okay job to me.

        Probably depends on the CBA and whether he and his agent are thinking of setting up the next deal. He had some good use in Denver and think he might command more. We'll see.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

          Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
          I'd rather have my cake and eat it too: a banger who can hit the outside shot.

          We might already have that in Tyler.
          when i say banger i mean i guy that is like nene or kendrick perkins not tyler. I like him a lot but i see him as the backup 4 and i really good backup who can score and be an energy guy.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

            The way that I look at it.....we need to look into addressing 4 positions of need during the 2011-2012 Offseason through FA/Trade and with our 1st and 2nd Round 2011-2012 Draft pick. We need to get the following:

            Starting Quality SG - Unless PG steps up SIGNIFICANTLY and convinces the FO that he's the Starting SG of the future....which I am not convinced of YET despite what some want to believe ( yes, IMHO....I believe that he'll turn out to be more of a SF that can do a decent job of pretending to be a SG ). My best Option to fill this spot is Caron Butler. Most everyone has been focusing on signing a PF....but one area that I think we have a much better chance of upgrading our Starting SG spot at a reasonable cost. I'd look to try to make a run for Caron Butler. He's going to be 31 years old by the time he signs a new contract and I think can fill in as a decent "Robin" to Granger's best impression of "Batman". Short of trying to acquire Iggy...which would be a long shot and likely high cost......given other options like JRich ( who is on the downside of his career ).....I don't think that Caron will command a "Granger-level" Contract and could be had for $8-9+ mil multi-year contract.

            Starting Quality PF - IMHO....I'd like to believe that Hansbrough is going to be betters suited to be a solid 1st Big Man off the bench or 1st PF off the bench...but not Starting material. As for McBob being "that guy".....as we are seeing now...he's much better to play next to or behind Hansbrough ( thinking long-term ) on a Playoff Caliber Team. I'm not entirely sold on David West nor Landry as a good fit next to Hibbert....so I don't know how we can really upgrade that position through FA....as some have suggested....we may need to upgrade through a Trade.

            Backup PG ( either to backup DC or AJ ) - IMHO...AJ can do a solid job as a backup to DC...if TPTB don't think that he's up to the task....then we'd need to get a very solid backup PG. Options for Backup PGs? As this will likely be a 3rd String PG...I have no clue.

            Backup PF/C - As mentioned above...I think that McBob is much better suited to be a rotational PF/C rather then the 1st Big Man off the bench. I'd like to resign McBob and then look for a better Big Man rather and then push McBob down to fill the role that Solo fills now...a 4th/5th rotational PF/C. But another Foster-like Player that I think could be had and could fill the role that McBob is doing now is Nick Collison. I think that he'd do a good job filling the void that Foster is going to vacate and could be a decent PF/C to fill out the rotation BEHIND Hibbert and whatever Starting PF that we look into acquiring.
            Last edited by CableKC; 11-22-2010, 05:05 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              Most everyone has been focusing on signing a PF....but one area that I think we have a much better chance of upgrading our Starting SG spot. I'd look to try to make a run for Caron Butler.

              He's going to be 31 years old by the time he signs a new contract and I think can fill in as a decent "Robin" to Granger's best impression of "Batman". Short of trying to acquire Iggy...which would be a long shot and likely high cost......given other options like JRich ( who is on the downside of his career ).....I don't think that Caron will command a "Granger-level" Contract and could be had for $8-9+ mil multi-year contract.

              As for PF....I'm not entirely sold on David West nor Landry....so I don't know how we can really upgrade that position through FA....as some have suggested....we may need to upgrade through a Trade.

              Caron Butler is a Danny sized forward.

              I think upgrades are more likely though trades. Our first shot at that will come around the trade deadline since we have expirings, and young players with potential. It will depend on who gets shopped, because we have a patient front office.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                Originally posted by ballism View Post
                Personally, I love how Zach Randolph plays. I think he'd be great on this team - or on almost any team for that matter. His strength based game would match with Hibbert perfectly. Saying he has 'offcourt issues' is nothing new of course, in fact, it's sort of outdated. His behavior and locker room presense have been stellar for 1.5 years now. People do mature. There's always a risk, but I think he's just the best option available for this team this off season.
                I've seen you mention this a few times now. At first I scoffed at the idea. Randolph has a murky history with chemistry issues and off the court nonsense that wouldn't fit into the culture our front office is trying to create. For that reason, I don't think he is a terribly realistic option. Off the court issues aside, he would be a great addition to our team. He can score and rebound and bang down low. He fills a huge need at the 4 and on paper a Hibbert-Randolph-Granger-whoever-Collison lineup looks intriging. I'm not a cap expert and am too lazy to look it up, but do we have the money to pull off a midseason trade for Iguodala with our expirings/George as the centerpieces and sign Randolph to a reasonably similar deal he has now in the offseason? Because that would be a really fun lineup on paper.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  As for small ball I don't think we would always be at a disadvantage when a team went small against us. Sometimes going small would get the other team killed, it would depend on matchups.

                  It might not be feasible, I don't know enough to even guess if it would work, but if it did work it would give other teams big problems. I know Roy is not very fast laterally, but I have no idea about Perk. My thinking is if they are both good enough to start then they could probably play some together, especially in a high/low post setup.
                  Having a size advantage is not enough to create a mismatch in your favour. You need the offensive skills to take advantage of the difference in size.

                  In my view, Hibbert + Perkins wouldn't work offensively because Perkins is very limited there. He's a guy who can finish stuff at the rim. He can't create his own shot. His jumper is shaky. He's a decent passer but he doesn't have great hands. But he can't create his shot at a high enough level in the low block, not even if he has a size advantage.

                  If I'm coaching the other team, I'd just put 2 quick PFs on the floor. I'd kill that combo in transition, I'd take advantage of them on pick'n'pops and with a face-up/off-ball game for my bigs (defensively it'd be a disaster, too much slowness). Defensively... Hibbert on the high post can be defended by a PF - it's actually better to have a more mobile player there, to stop his drives and his jumpers. If Hibbert moves to the low post, I can simply double him with Perkins' man because if Perkins is 7ft out of the basket, I'm not guarding him anyway; if he's staying on the low block, it's really easy to double and recover. In the meanwhile, I don't have to worry about dribble penetration because the lane is clogged with those two guys and I don't have to worry about having my guards sinking inside to double.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    I've seen you mention this a few times now. At first I scoffed at the idea. Randolph has a murky history with chemistry issues and off the court nonsense that wouldn't fit into the culture our front office is trying to create. For that reason, I don't think he is a terribly realistic option. Off the court issues aside, he would be a great addition to our team. He can score and rebound and bang down low. He fills a huge need at the 4 and on paper a Hibbert-Randolph-Granger-whoever-Collison lineup looks intriging. I'm not a cap expert and am too lazy to look it up, but do we have the money to pull off a midseason trade for Iguodala with our expirings/George as the centerpieces and sign Randolph to a reasonably similar deal he has now in the offseason? Because that would be a really fun lineup on paper.
                    There is a chance, but it's highly unlikely. Depends on the cap under the new CBA.
                    Iguodala's salary is 13.5 mil next year. So if the cap stayed the same, we would have under 10 mil cap space for a free agent. That's usually a bit too low for a Zach Randolph or David West type of player. As for Randolph's current deal, it was 6 years 84 mil - started at around 11 mil.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                      I couldn't care less about Randolph's off-court activities, but he's a high maintenance scorer who isn't very efficient for a big man and a very lousy defender. Plus, you just got rid of that awful Hibbert+Murphy combo... why double down on it? Another slow footed big man?

                      I'd pass on Dalembert for more or less the same reasons I wouldn't even consider Perkins.

                      That kind of player is good if you're thinking about moving Hibbert. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense, they won't play well together.

                      -------


                      Landry isn't good enough to be a reliable starter, IMO. BBJ, there's a correlation between Landry's rebounding and the minutes he played and games he started. The more minutes he plays and the more minutes he plays against starters, the less his rebounding rate is. He's a miserable rebounder for a big man + an average defender who suffers from his lack of size. You acquire Landry for a scoring threat off the bench as an undersized PF or a spot starter.

                      Btw, Hansbrough hasn't played basketball in a year, he missed his first off-season as a pro due to injury too. Won't he be at least as good as Landry in a year? I think he'll be a similar level of player quite soon. Right now the game is still too fast for him - normal when he played/practised so little basketball for such a long period - but once he gets in game shape and puts a Summer of work, he should be a decent role-player with good scoring ability, the kind of player Landry is.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

                        He was quoted earlier this year as saying he still wants to play for a couple more years, and he's also said he likes it here and doesn't want to leave.

                        If Josh or Tyler don't take ownership of the power forward position, I look for a PF to be brought in. In that case one of them will probably get traded.

                        As is, I think a couple of young guys that are looked at as core pieces right now will get traded within the next two years. Right now I'd guess the most likely core pieces to be traded are Lance, Rush, and Josh, but perceptions can change over night.


                        The last time Foster made a similar comment Bird gave him 12 plus mil. After last season of not playing at 6 mil, Foster ought to give the Pacers a freebie year to make it up. Like that would ever happen.

                        That's what I want now. A PF to be brought in with Hans being the b/u.

                        I can see all 3 being traded.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                          Originally posted by ballism View Post
                          I think we need a banger with some sort of offense. We've already seen this year what happens to Roy when PFs can't hit a jumper. He just gets double teamed and pushed out.

                          That said, I like Varejao, he does have offense even if very limited. But he's no McRob, like people seem to think.

                          Personally, I love how Zach Randolph plays. I think he'd be great on this team - or on almost any team for that matter. His strength based game would match with Hibbert perfectly. Saying he has 'offcourt issues' is nothing new of course, in fact, it's sort of outdated. His behavior and locker room presense have been stellar for 1.5 years now. People do mature. There's always a risk, but I think he's just the best option available for this team this off season.

                          His biggest knock, other than off court tripe, has been he doesn't play "D". Him playing with Hibby wouldn't be a strength. Hibby needs a PF that can play "D."

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                            Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
                            I'd rather have my cake and eat it too: a banger who can hit the outside shot.

                            We might already have that in Tyler.

                            McBob just doesn't meet the criteria of a banger, nor one that can hit an outside shot.

                            My be you are joking, right.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                              I couldn't care less about Randolph's off-court activities, but he's a high maintenance scorer who isn't very efficient for a big man and a very lousy defender. Plus, you just got rid of that awful Hibbert+Murphy combo... why double down on it? Another slow footed big man?
                              The Grizzlies are just fine with their 'slow footed Murphy-Hibbert combo' in Gasol and Randolph btw.
                              I'd understand 'no-hops' or 'bad athlete', but 'slow footed' and Randolph? Come on. That man lives from his footwork. There's only a few big men in this league who can match him in that department. Or do you mean something else.
                              I also don't quite get the 'not efficient' part. How many PFs have really been more efficient than Randolph in Grizzlies?

                              Personally, I think the comparison between Zach and Troy offensively is quite poor. What I agree on is his defense, he has no chance of defending anyone with a midrange jumper. Nowitzki, or LaMarcus Aldridge of the Blazers come to mind. What he can do is bang with his man near the rim - and he does it better than anyone on this current Pacers team.

                              Is he a perfect fit? No, I'd prefer at least 5 other guys PFs whom we'll never get. Zach is just a good consolation prize.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Who are some "Hidden gems" in 2011 free agency?

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                McBob just doesn't meet the criteria of a banger, nor one that can hit an outside shot.

                                My be you are joking, right.
                                McBob is proving to be a defensive liability and very foul prone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X