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 debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

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

  • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

    Regardless of who starts, we need Darren back soon. Has anyone found out what degree or grade his groin injury is? I think I read a grade 3 has a 6-8 week recovery time. That would be bad.

    Comment


    • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

      Only one thing really distinguishes George Hill and Darren Collison...and that's defense at the point of attack.

      George has a couple inches in height, is much longer and something like 25 pounds heavier. That, by itself, is a huge difference when attempting to defend the position. It's easier to pass over and drive through Collison. Instead of being a bad mismatch where he's back pedaling and being overpowered, George Hill often disrupts the offense and he's able to defend the better point guards pretty well.

      IOW, where Collison is a clear weakness....George Hill is a clear strength...and that's during 50% of the game folks. Stop focusing on their minor differences on offense...

      Comment


      • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

        Originally posted by LazyDaze View Post
        Regardless of who starts, we need Darren back soon. Has anyone found out what degree or grade his groin injury is? I think I read a grade 3 has a 6-8 week recovery time. That would be bad.
        He should be back soon. He will miss tonight's game though. Below is an update from the game on Wedneday:
        http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/78...n-2nd-game-row
        CLEVELAND -- Indiana Pacers starting point guard Darren Collison will miss his second straight game with an injured groin.

        Collison, who is averaging 4.9 assists per game, took part in Wednesday morning's shootaround. Coach Frank Vogel was encouraged and thought Collison might be able to play against the Cavaliers. But Collison was still tender and Vogel ruled him out, not wanting take any chances and risk making the injury worse.

        Vogel expects Collison to return Friday night when the Pacers host Cleveland.

        George Hill will start his second straight game in place of Collison. On Monday, Hill scored 18 points with four assists and didn't have a turnover in a win over Toronto.

        The Pacers have the third-best record in the Eastern Conference.
        I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

        Comment


        • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Only one thing really distinguishes George Hill and Darren Collison...and that's defense at the point of attack.

          George has a couple inches in height, is much longer and something like 25 pounds heavier. That, by itself, is a huge difference when attempting to defend the position. It's easier to pass over and drive through Collison. Instead of being a bad mismatch where he's back pedaling and being overpowered, George Hill often disrupts the offense and he's able to defend the better point guards pretty well.

          IOW, where Collison is a clear weakness....George Hill is a clear strength...and that's during 50% of the game folks. Stop focusing on their minor differences on offense...
          Collison isn't always a weakness on defense though. There are some games that, for whatever reason, he really brings it. He stays in front of his man, he fights through screens...and lately that's been happening more often than not. And a perfect example was the OKC game. All the talk before the game was how we were gonna hide DC from Westbrook. And it turned out, he played so well on defense that our SGs were able to be more disruptive and stop worrying about protecting the point.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Dude, your hair-trigger bitterness is absolutely astounding to me. Who's talking about Sookie? Why is she even part of the conversation? And who's pretending DC is Steve Nash? Where does this stuff even come from?

            Back on topic... How can you say Hill is better in pressure situations after the last game? He was awful under pressure. Couldn't initiate the offense, missed 3 free throws with seconds left in the game.
            Nope I don't have bitterness for anybody here I would just like for people to be fair and judge everybody on the team the same way.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              Collison isn't always a weakness on defense though. There are some games that, for whatever reason, he really brings it. He stays in front of his man, he fights through screens...and lately that's been happening more often than not. And a perfect example was the OKC game. All the talk before the game was how we were gonna hide DC from Westbrook. And it turned out, he played so well on defense that our SGs were able to be more disruptive and stop worrying about protecting the point.
              Collison only played 23 minutes. Hill had 28. IDK if they were hiding him or if DC was injured, but his time on the floor was limited. Yes the dude can score pretty well. I'd love DC as a SG if he were just 5 inches taller.

              Edit: Oh yeh...looking at the box DC had 4 fouls so there was good reason to bench him. Just too small to defend without fouling out...thus his minutes were limited to less than half the game.
              Last edited by BlueNGold; 04-13-2012, 06:17 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                the basic premise of this post is that there is nothing wrong with DC's game that being 3 inches taller wouldn't cure. the things that are wrong with DC as a PG are becaue he lacks size, nothing to do with his skill level.

                DC has a better handle. a much better handle. especially in pressure or pressuring situations.

                DC has a better mid-range game.

                DC sees the floor better. this is a weakness for both players, imo. neither of them seems to see the floor down court. and both have tunnel vision going to the basket. but DC sees more of the floor and, because he has a better handle, seems to be better at getting other guys the ball. playing lots of minutes, GH seems to be a bit of a black hole in the sense tyler is. willing to pass, but just not always able to see the open guy.

                GH is a better 3 pt shooter, but not by much. both seem capable, but neither of them is a reggie miller type shooter.

                DC runs the offense better. he seems more willing/able to make the pass and cut. GH seems to hold on to the ball more, thus getting caught with the ball at the end of the shot clock. the pairing of GH and leandro minimizes this some, imo. the pairing of two combo/semi-PG's works.

                GH is better at the PnR. DC has trouble running his man into the pick. now either the pick is bad or DC can't force the guy into the pick. i think this is an area where DC's lack of size really hurts him. bigger guys can bull their way to the picker. but DC just isn't big enough to do that.

                GH is a better defender. a much better defender. better size and strength and those long long arms help him guard guys that DC just cannot. especially in the post.

                DC is faster with and without the ball. if the pacer bigs were better at rebounding and getting the ball out, DC's speed would be more of an asset. GH is fast, real fast, but DC is faster. especially with the ball.

                this is not a definitive list, just some observations to help discussion. probably too much seeing what i want to see, but that is the way of things.
                Nice post. I agree with a lot of what you said, but there are a few things I disagree on.

                I don't think DC has the better vision at all. I think he is more experienced at getting too far into the lane and having to try to rescue himself once he is in trouble. In this case I think he is pretty good, but we are dealing with NBA players and that is a difficult proposition. Just ask Danny circa 2011. (Danny's done a MUCH better job of that this year). That said, I think Collison is way more explosive to the rim, he just doesn't convert like Hill when he gets there. I think playing with our starters keeps the defense from collapsing on Collison as much, which helps his offensive game.

                Hill is more controlled, IMO. I prefer this with our starters since we play a slower tempo with our starters for the most part. I think that Hill is more used to initiating the post entry from the wing as opposed to the top of the key, which I think is an adjustment with our bigs that he hasn't gotten as comfortable with. I have seen him do it many times with Duncan in SA. Just a matter of getting more time together. I also think that our PG is asked to initiate that cross screen to open up the passing lanes a little more to get into our sets and that is designed specifically for Collison to take advantage of. Hill does pretty well with it, but it is not suited towards him.

                Overall, I think we need our PGs to move more without the ball. They both do a good job of rebounding for PGs, which I think is a testament to our bigs taking up bodies. I also think our PGs do a good job of minimizing turnovers for the most part. I'd like to see fewer turnovers, but we also need them to create at times and that is going to happen.

                My opinion is that Hill is better suited to a slower more post-oriented offense/defense lineup. Collison is electric fast, and he and Barbosa would by ridiculously dynamic with Jones, Amundson, and Tyler. It has nothing to do with me thinking that Hill is better than Collison. They just have different strengths and weaknesses. The biggest thing on the coaching front that I would have to be a little dismayed with would be that we didn't see more of GHill with the four other starters this year. We saw him playing SG with Collison a ton, because they are both really good ball players. I just wish we would have been more comfortable offensively this year with both PGs. I think a big reason behind that is we didn't have a backup SG for most of the year. Again, I wish we didn't trade Brandon because he would have been fantastic with this team. But Amundson is a player I love to root for. It was hard not to root for him in Phoenix (he wasn't a factor in GS due to injury).
                "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


                • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Nope I don't have bitterness for anybody here I would just like for people to be fair and judge everybody on the team the same way.
                  Well that's reasonable. So if you crucify one player for, say, missing key free throws late in the game, we can expect a similar critique if another player does the same in the next game?
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Well that's reasonable. So if you crucify one player for, say, missing key free throws late in the game, we can expect a similar critique if another player does the same in the next game?
                    I agree with this and I do it all the time, but I still think that you need to see the circumstances to judge first, that game was Hill's second game as an starter, why are we jumping to the conclusion that he can't play the point while the same people that are critizing him are the same people that protect DC and "his not enough experience card" in his 3 years in the NBA?


                    Another thing is that it looks to me like some people forgot about DC and his crappy play not long ago, not only people forget but they also make comments like "DC is a better PG than Hill" really? better passer? The funniest one was the one comment where the poster said that "he doesn't like Hill because he looks to score too much reason why he prefers DC" funny stuff let me tell you.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      I agree with this and I do it all the time, but I still think that you need to see the circumstances to judge first, that game was Hill's second game as an starter, why are we jumping to the conclusion that he can't play the point while the same people that are critizing him are the same people that protect DC and "his not enough experience card" in his 3 years in the NBA?


                      Another thing is that it looks to me like some people forgot about DC and his crappy play not long ago, not only people forget but they also make comments like "DC is a better PG than Hill" really? better passer? The funniest one was the one comment where the poster said that "he doesn't like Hill because he looks to score too much reason why he prefers DC" funny stuff let me tell you.
                      the thing is--- you are not the coach and there is no reason to think your opinion is better then anyone elses like your tone always indicates. the way you phrase your arguments (like the bolded above) I would say that your opinon actually means less!!
                      some of us watch a lot of the pacers game and still disagree with you. you pretty much are an annoying troll because you come off so arrogant in every post. idk your age but just because its internet doesn't mean trolling is okay, . maybe if you are trolling just let me know so I can leave you in peace, but gesh.
                      Last edited by Pacer.; 04-13-2012, 09:21 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                        If you really want vnz81 we can ante up and make a bet whether george hill or darren collison (i got collison) on who deserves to be the starter up to this point.

                        We can set up interviews with frank vogel, ask him about their individuals strengths and weaknesses and team chemistry and performance in practice up til this point. Ask some of the pacer teamates their thoughts. This can actually all be done, it just wont be cheap or easy. We can then make reports and have them judged before a selected agreed upon jury of our peers.

                        You escrow $20,000 and I will too. We will type up a report and the person whose argument is strongest will be declared the victor and get the cash. If we are all floating in such a sea of wrong why don't you take the offer. If you dont have $20,000 ask your friends (oops forgot you probably dont have many) or mom (still live with her right?) because you certainly think its a lock.

                        Since I doubt this will happen (if you really want to, im 100% down to make this bet), my overall point is you are not the expert that you think you are. No one likes a know it all, be humble dude! I know I came across as really confrontational here but I am really actually trying to help you here. thank me later.
                        Last edited by Pacer.; 04-13-2012, 09:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I agree with this and I do it all the time, but I still think that you need to see the circumstances to judge first, that game was Hill's second game as an starter, why are we jumping to the conclusion that he can't play the point while the same people that are critizing him are the same people that protect DC and "his not enough experience card" in his 3 years in the NBA?
                          Dude, what are you talking about? I've never said DC doesn't have enough experience. And I'm still not certain why a player's starting role has anything to do with whether they can hit free throws in the clutch.

                          Regardless, I'm thrilled with George Hill's play in tonight's win. One thing I will say he excels at: feeding the post. You wouldn't think an extra three inches would be that big a deal twss but it's really noticeable.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                            Originally posted by Pacer. View Post
                            If you really want vnz81 we can ante up and make a bet whether george hill or darren collison (i got collison) on who deserves to be the starter up to this point.

                            We can set up interviews with frank vogel, ask him about their individuals strengths and weaknesses and team chemistry and performance in practice up til this point. Ask some of the pacer teamates their thoughts. This can actually all be done, it just wont be cheap or easy. We can then make reports and have them judged before a selected agreed upon jury of our peers.

                            You escrow $20,000 and I will too. We will type up a report and the person whose argument is strongest will be declared the victor and get the cash. If we are all floating in such a sea of wrong why don't you take the offer. If you dont have $20,000 ask your friends (oops forgot you probably dont have many) or mom (still live with her right?) because you certainly think its a lock.

                            Since I doubt this will happen (if you really want to, im 100% down to make this bet), my overall point is you are not the expert that you think you are. No one likes a know it all, be humble dude! I know I came across as really confrontational here but I am really actually trying to help you here. thank me later.
                            Originally posted by Pacer. View Post
                            the thing is--- you are not the coach and there is no reason to think your opinion is better then anyone elses like your tone always indicates. the way you phrase your arguments (like the bolded above) I would say that your opinon actually means less!!
                            some of us watch a lot of the pacers game and still disagree with you. you pretty much are an annoying troll because you come off so arrogant in every post. idk your age but just because its internet doesn't mean trolling is okay, . maybe if you are trolling just let me know so I can leave you in peace, but gesh.
                            I'm normally one who disagrees with vnzla81, but if anybody is a troll here, it's you...
                            Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                              davisbrothers, let it rest. there was a lot of pent up aggression in those posts, i assure you i am not a troll, but just someone who strongly dislikes vnz81 as a poster and as a human who shares the planet with such a person. i will bow out peacefully, my 2c have been offered.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                I don't understand why so many people are saying Hill had bad games.
                                He had good games scoring-wise and defense-wise. He had some assists tonight but he was mostly sub-par in running the offense.

                                Now, our offense does not require something extreme to be run so it's ok. Hill made some good reads tonight.

                                As I said my point is not to trash Hill. My point is for people to understand that we need DC and that the same things that apply to Hill in regards to our offense apply to DC as well.

                                I just don't think that it's fair to consistently bash DC like some guys do (not you of course) as we can all see how valuable he is for our team.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X