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

Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

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

  • #31
    Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

    Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
    Doesnt hold water huh? Then lets get a 6' center and power forward then. Height and length is important on the court. Nobody on here is arguing that Gordon is not an effective player. He is a catch and shoot guy who needs other players to help him get his shot. He cannot post up anyone nor can he really drive on anyone. Most 6'3 players need other players as well.
    Gordon is good player but no where near a great player. Paul George has the potential to be great because he has the height and length to get his own shot and defend - Gordon doesnt.
    That's exactly what you said. You said he is too small to guard his position effectively, or get his own shot. You were wrong.

    Charles Barkley was one of the greatest players of all time as a 6'4" power forward. Size, and length is important, but to say it is the "end of story" is just stupid.

    Gordon is one of the best two way players in the league. At any position.

    He may be somewhat undersized, but he is able to make up for it with his strength, and athleticism. To be able to say he doesn't have the potential to defend or get his own shot is absolutely ridiculous.

    The Gordon-George comparison just doesn't make a lot of sense. One is an established pro, a borderline elite player. The other is a 2nd year guy who was mostly disappointing in his rookie season, before turning it around a bit in a 5 game playoff series, on one end of the court. He has the potential to become as good as Gordon, but at this point, it isn't even close.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...rgpa01&y2=2011

    It's not about the potential for Gordon to be able to defend or get his own shot. He already does that at an NBA level.

    I agree with you, George does have the potential to be great. He has the size, and athleticism that is necessary. He is already a very, very good on-ball defender. However, at this point in his career, that's all the he does really well. He isn't a very good shooter, but he will improve in that area. He isn't a good ball handler, but I'd hope he will put as much effort into improving that as he does his shooting.

    Gordon is a fantastic shooter. One of the best pure shooters of all the young guys in the league. He is also a very good ball handler and passer. His work as the ball handler in the pick and roll was devastating last year. He's too good of a shooter to go underneath the screen, and if the big helps out too high, he has no problem either going right around him and getting to the rim, or finding the roll man (Blake Griffin) for the easy dunk. He's extremely effective with the ball in his hands. To say he is a catch and shoot guy, is misinformed at best.

    Last year 70% of Gordon's shots were jump shots. 71% of George's shots were jump shots. Why is Gordon a catch and shoot guy, but George is made out to be some all-world slasher who gets to the rim at will? Maybe he will become that, but right now, he isn't even close.

    http://www.82games.com/1011/10LAC6.HTM

    http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND7.HTM

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      That's exactly what you said. You said he is too short to guard his position effectively. You were wrong.

      Charles Barkley was one of the greatest players of all time as a 6'4" power forward. Size, and length is important, but to say it is the "end of story" is just stupid.

      Gordon is one of the best two way players in the league. At any position.

      He may be somewhat undersized, but he is able to make up for it with his strength, and athleticism. To be able to say he doesn't have the potential to defend or get his own shot is absolutely ridiculous.

      The Gordon-George comparison just doesn't make a lot of sense. One is an established pro, a borderline elite player. The other is a 2nd year guy who was mostly disappointing in his rookie season, before turning it around a bit in a 5 game playoff series, on one end of the court. He has the potential to become as good as Gordon, but at this point, it isn't even close.

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...rgpa01&y2=2011

      It's not about the potential for Gordon to be able to defend or get his own shot. He already does that at an NBA level.

      I agree with you, George does have the potential to be great. He has the size, and athleticism that is necessary. He is already a very, very good on-ball defender. However, at this point in his career, that's all the he does really well. He isn't a very good shooter, but he will improve in that area. He isn't a good ball handler, but I'd hope he will put as much effort into improving that as he does his shooting.

      Gordon is a fantastic shooter. One of the best pure shooters of all the young guys in the league. He is also a very good ball handler and passer. His work as the ball handler in the pick and roll was devastating last year. He's too good of a shooter to go underneath the screen, and if the big helps out too high, he has no problem either going right around him and getting to the rim, or finding the roll man (Blake Griffin) for the easy dunk. He's extremely effective with the ball in his hands. To say he is a catch and shoot guy, is misinformed at best.

      Last year 70% of Gordon's shots were jump shots. 71% of George's shots were jump shots. Why is Gordon a catch and shoot guy, but George is made out to be some all-world slasher who gets to the rim at will? Maybe he will become that, but right now, he isn't even close.

      http://www.82games.com/1011/10LAC6.HTM

      http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND7.HTM
      George was in a catch and shoot system. He was not the first or even second option. With a gunner like Granger on the team everyone is pretty much reduced to a catch and shoot guy.
      If the Pacers drafted a 6"3 shooting guard this entire board would blow up calling for Bird to be fired. But, if the guy in from Indy, then all is well.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
        No one is denying Gordons skill. But if he was from anywhere else he wouldn't receive a tenth of the attention he gets here.
        Yes, because we've never talked about other SGs coming here, like Mayo, Crawford, Monta Ellis, etc. /sarcasm
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Yes, because we've never talked about other SGs coming here, like Mayo, Crawford, Monta Ellis, etc. /sarcasm
          We talk about other guards obviously. But what we dont do talk about other sg's (not named Eric Gordon) on the same level as Jordan or Kobe.
          Gordon is enormously overvalued on this board because he is from Indy. If he was from Florida or California, he would be looked at for what he is: A good but not great sg who has not proven he is big or strong enough to handle the physicality of the NBA - he is always hurt!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

            Yeah, the center piece in a trade for CP3 that was accepted over two different offers centered by Bynum and Gasol is very overvalued on this board......

            Take the time to stop and actually watch the kid play, and maybe you'll realize that the ENTIRE league is pretty high on EJ, and it's not just a PD thing.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
              That's exactly what you said. You said he is too small to guard his position effectively, or get his own shot. You were wrong.

              Charles Barkley was one of the greatest players of all time as a 6'4" power forward. Size, and length is important, but to say it is the "end of story" is just stupid.
              Fact Check:

              Sir Charles was 6'6'' and 255 pounds. He played a position and in a time when tenacity was greater than the sum of all parts. Not to mention, at 255 pounds Sir Charles was a load. Some of the greatest power forwards were, "small" by today's standard. Players like Karl Malone are the reason I believe the Tyler Hansbrough can be great despite his lack-of-length.

              With that being said, how many "great" shooting guards were undersized? I can think of a few, including Allen Iverson. Just as the undersized power forwards all posses uncommon strength, so to undersized shooting guards all posses uncommon speed

              There is no reason to say that Eric Gordon is too small. However, it cannot be denied that this is an obstacle. The greatest obstacles are: [1] the average height of an NBA shooting guard is 6'6'', but size no longer correlates to speed. The modern NBA hosts hundreds of players who posses elite height and speed. Therefore, to be effective as an undersized shooting guard, one must be in the top 25% in terms of speed of the position(IMO). [2] Longevity. A tall player will always be a tall player, but a fast player will not always be a fast player. There are few, undersized players who have maintained effectiveness as they grow older. Why? It is simply because they lost that all-equalizing first step that leveled their playing field.

              Eric Gordon has the skill and the traits to be a good shooting guard, but not an elite shooting guard. On the other hand, I believe the Pacers posses something or someone who is unique in Paul George. Paul George is the tallest shooting guard in the NBA, and he is athletic. As Paul matures, I believe I can surpass Eric Gordon and become a rare talent in the NBA.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                Originally posted by 1984 View Post
                Fact Check:

                Sir Charles was 6'6'' and 255 pounds. He played a position and in a time when tenacity was greater than the sum of all parts. Not to mention, at 255 pounds Sir Charles was a load. Some of the greatest power forwards were, "small" by today's standard. Players like Karl Malone are the reason I believe the Tyler Hansbrough can be great despite his lack-of-length.

                With that being said, how many "great" shooting guards were undersized? I can think of a few, including Allen Iverson. Just as the undersized power forwards all posses uncommon strength, so to undersized shooting guards all posses uncommon speed

                There is no reason to say that Eric Gordon is too small. However, it cannot be denied that this is an obstacle. The greatest obstacles are: [1] the average height of an NBA shooting guard is 6'6'', but size no longer correlates to speed. The modern NBA hosts hundreds of players who posses elite height and speed. Therefore, to be effective as an undersized shooting guard, one must be in the top 25% in terms of speed of the position(IMO). [2] Longevity. A tall player will always be a tall player, but a fast player will not always be a fast player. There are few, undersized players who have maintained effectiveness as they grow older. Why? It is simply because they lost that all-equalizing first step that leveled their playing field.

                Eric Gordon has the skill and the traits to be a good shooting guard, but not an elite shooting guard. On the other hand, I believe the Pacers posses something or someone who is unique in Paul George. Paul George is the tallest shooting guard in the NBA, and he is athletic. As Paul matures, I believe I can surpass Eric Gordon and become a rare talent in the NBA.
                Good post. Bringing some facts to this debate is kind of dangerous though.
                I was simply stating that Gordon's height is an obstacle and he will never be a "great" sg. He is a good one and nobody should be questioning his talent.
                He is injury prone. No matter how good some on here believe him to be, he holds "0" value when sitting behind the bench in a suit. Which he does about half the time.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Yeah, the center piece in a trade for CP3 that was accepted over two different offers centered by Bynum and Gasol is very overvalued on this board......

                  Take the time to stop and actually watch the kid play, and maybe you'll realize that the ENTIRE league is pretty high on EJ, and it's not just a PD thing.
                  He was traded for a player the Hornets were going to lose for nothing. If Paul was locked up (which he will be in LA), there is no way the Hornets would have traded him for Paul. Even if 2-3 first round picks were added. The Hornets got screwed in that deal but made out ok only because they were going to lose Paul for nothing. So really your argument should be = Gordon is better than nothing.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                    Besides Eric Gordon, here's the list of players who have averaged 20+ before they turned 23 in the last 5 years:

                    Lebron James (4 times) - 8 Time All-Star / 2 Time MVP
                    Carmelo Anthony (4 times) - 4 Time All-Star
                    Kevin Durant (4 times) - 2 Time All-Star
                    Chris Bosh (2 times) - 6 Time All-Star
                    Derrick Rose (2 times) - 2 Time All-Star
                    Dwight Howard - 5 Time All-Star
                    Chris Paul - 4 Time All-Star
                    Blake Griffin - All-Star
                    Russell Westbrook - All-Star
                    Kevin Love - All-Star
                    Monta Ellis
                    Rudy Gay
                    Brook Lopez

                    But I wouldn't want any of those guys because they didn't play in college at IU for a single season.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      Besides Eric Gordon, here's the list of players who have averaged 20+ before they turned 23 in the last 5 years:

                      Lebron James (4 times) - 8 Time All-Star / 2 Time MVP
                      Carmelo Anthony (4 times) - 4 Time All-Star
                      Kevin Durant (4 times) - 2 Time All-Star
                      Chris Bosh (2 times) - 6 Time All-Star
                      Derrick Rose (2 times) - 2 Time All-Star
                      Dwight Howard - 5 Time All-Star
                      Chris Paul - 4 Time All-Star
                      Blake Griffin - All-Star
                      Russell Westbrook - All-Star
                      Kevin Love - All-Star
                      Monta Ellis
                      Rudy Gay
                      Brook Lopez

                      But I wouldn't want any of those guys because they didn't play in college at IU for a single season.
                      Basketball is more than offense, there is a thing called defense.

                      No one on your list has won a championship.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                        Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                        He was traded for a player the Hornets were going to lose for nothing. If Paul was locked up (which he will be in LA), there is no way the Hornets would have traded him for Paul. Even if 2-3 first round picks were added. The Hornets got screwed in that deal but made out ok only because they were going to lose Paul for nothing. So really your argument should be = Gordon is better than nothing.

                        The Hornets turned down both Gasol and Bynum and accepted Eric. And everyone, other than you apparently, knows that the LAC deal was much much much better for the Hornets for a number of different reasons.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                          Besides Eric Gordon, here's the list of players who have averaged 20+ before they turned 23 in the last 5 years:

                          Lebron James (4 times) - 8 Time All-Star / 2 Time MVP
                          Carmelo Anthony (4 times) - 4 Time All-Star
                          Kevin Durant (4 times) - 2 Time All-Star
                          Chris Bosh (2 times) - 6 Time All-Star
                          Derrick Rose (2 times) - 2 Time All-Star
                          Dwight Howard - 5 Time All-Star
                          Chris Paul - 4 Time All-Star
                          Blake Griffin - All-Star
                          Russell Westbrook - All-Star
                          Kevin Love - All-Star
                          Monta Ellis
                          Rudy Gay
                          Brook Lopez

                          But I wouldn't want any of those guys because they didn't play in college at IU for a single season.
                          How many of those guys are undersized for their position? Ellis is it and few on here wanted him because of his size.
                          How many of those guys will miss half of nearly every season because they arent big or strong enough to handle the physicality of the NBA? Go ahead, you can say it, we already know the answer = 0

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            The Hornets turned down both Gasol and Bynum and accepted Eric. And everyone, other than you apparently, knows that the LAC deal was much much much better for the Hornets for a number of different reasons.
                            Oh yea, EVERYONE is picking the Hornets to be relevant. Brilliant.
                            And NOBODY thinks the Clippers are Western contenders now. I see.
                            Since this trade hurt the Clippers so much they will be worse than they were last year and can no longer contend, I surrender (sarcasm).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                              Yeah, just ignore the fact that Griffin missed an entire year and required microfracture knee surgery.

                              And just ignore the fact that Rudy Gay missed the playoffs last year due to injury.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Hoosier Hysteria | a historic problem?

                                Originally posted by 1984 View Post
                                Basketball is more than offense, there is a thing called defense.
                                Which makes Gordon even more enticing. Despite his height, he's universally regarding (by people that watch him at least) as among the best defenders at the 2 position in the league.

                                Originally posted by 1984 View Post
                                No one on your list has won a championship.
                                Because they are all young. But I feel pretty comfortable saying that two of them will this year.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X