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

Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

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

  • Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ge=draftgrades


    Indiana Pacers Grade: B-
    Round 1: None

    Round 2: Stanko Barac (39)

    Analysis: Barac has generated a lot of buzz among international scouts. He was productive this year in Serbia (many young European prospects aren't very productive), and he's very skilled. He needs more experience and has to add some weight, but drafting him here was only a mild risk.

    If he develops, they got a steal. If he never works out, they didn't give up much -- just a future second-round pick (Barac was drafted by Miami, then traded to Indiana for a future second-rounder).

  • #2
    Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

    Why did I think his name was spelled B...o....r.....a.....t or something like that?
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

      Can someone post the entire article? Pretty please?
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

        http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...2=stateChanged

        Draft grades: evaluating every team, from A+ to D+
        By Chad Ford
        ESPN Insider
        (Archive)
        Updated: June 29, 2007

        When I'm not covering the draft for ESPN, I grade students for a living as a university professor. So I know that grades can be arbitrary, and in the case of instant draft grades, they are based on incomplete information.

        But they are also a necessary tool for evaluation.

        So how did the 30 NBA teams do in Thursday night's draft?

        Before Thursday, we billed it as the deepest draft in years -- and this year's grades reflect the quality of players available, thanks to Greg Oden, Kevin Durant and a host of others.




        Atlanta Hawks Grade: B
        Round 1: Al Horford (3); Acie Law (11)

        Round 2: None

        Analysis: On talent, the Hawks probably should get an A. They got the best power forward and second-best point guard in the draft, filling two very large needs. The two rookies will make the team respectable. But the Hawks passed on the chance to become a dangerous playoff team -- they had a shot at getting Amare Stoudemire for these two picks and walked away. That's why we docked them.





        Boston Celtics Grade: B+
        Round 1: None

        Round 2: Gabe Pruitt (32), Glen Davis (35)

        Analysis: Celtics fans clamoring for another star to play alongside Paul Pierce got their wish -- sort of. Ray Allen is still a great player, but a combination of him, Pierce and Al Jefferson doesn't necessarily make Boston a contender, even in the East -- which makes the trade of the No. 5 pick questionable.

        Then again, they did dump Wally Szczerbiak's big contract and land two players in the second round who have a real chance of making their roster.

        If Allen (plus whatever pieces Danny Ainge gets later this summer) puts them in the Eastern Conference finals, the trade was worth it. If he doesn't, Ainge might have mortgaged the future just to appease Pierce.






        Charlotte Bobcats Grade: B-
        Round 1: Jared Dudley (22)

        Round 2: Jermareo Davidson (36)

        Analysis: The Bobcats traded the draft rights to Brandan Wright for the chance to overpay Jason Richardson. But Richardson actually is a good fit in Charlotte. The Bobcats needed a veteran, not more young players. And he provides exactly what the Bobcats need -- a potent scoring option in their backcourt.

        His contract will have an impact, but if the Bobcats don't re-sign Gerald Wallace, they still could make a run at Rashard Lewis this summer.

        Dudley and Davidson were good value picks -- especially Dudley, who has a chance to be a Shane Battier-type player in the NBA.






        Chicago Bulls Grade: B+
        Round 1: Joakim Noah (9)

        Round 2: Aaron Gray (49), JamesOn Curry (51)

        Analysis: The Bulls got their guy at No. 9. Noah fits the Bulls' culture of hustle and passion.

        But his offensive game is weak, so how can he play at the same time as Ben Wallace or Tyrus Thomas?

        I'm not sure either second-round pick will stick on the roster.






        Cleveland Cavaliers Grade: Incomplete
        Round 1: None

        Round 2: None

        Analysis: No draft picks.





        Dallas Mavericks Grade: C+
        Round 1: None

        Round 2: Nick Fazekas (34), Reyshawn Terry (44), Renaldas Seibutis (50)

        Analysis: Fazekas' numbers suggest he'll be a good NBA player, but his slow feet say the opposite. He can shoot, but the Mavs have Dirk Nowitzki for that.

        Terry is a good value in the second round. He's a prototypical small forward with a great body and good skills.

        With more experience in Europe, Seibutis could be a good scorer.








        Denver Nuggets Grade: Inc.
        Round 1: None

        Round 2: None

        Analysis: No draft picks.





        Detroit Pistons Grade: A-
        Round 1: Rodney Stuckey (15), Arron Afflalo (27)

        Round 2: Sammy Mejia (57)

        Analysis: At No. 15, the Pistons had a difficult choice between Nick Young and Stuckey. I had Young rated higher, but Stuckey was a better fit for Detroit. The high-scoring combo guard can provide relief to both Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton.

        Afflalo is also a good fit with the Pistons because of his blue-collar work ethic.

        I'm not sure whether Mejia can make it as a third rookie guard on this roster.






        Golden State Warriors Grade: A
        Round 1: Brandan Wright (8), Marco Belinelli (18)

        Round 2: Stephane Lasme (46)

        Analysis: I think the Warriors made several excellent moves here. In exchange for Jason Richardson, they got a player with great upside in Wright, who will be at home in Golden State's up-tempo style. He also fits a need in the frontcourt.

        Belinelli also will thrive with Golden State. He loves to let it fly and Nellie will let him.

        But the biggest addition might have been one of subtraction. By sending Jason Richardson packing, the team created a whopping $10 million trade exception it can use to lure a free agent via sign-and-trade or to help with a trade in the next year.






        Houston Rockets Grade: D+
        Round 1: Aaron Brooks (26)

        Round 2: Carl Landry (31), Brad Newley (54)

        Analysis: New Houston GM Daryl Morey might be the resident Rocket scientist, but I don't get this draft.

        Brooks is an undersized point guard who's really more of a 2-guard in the Earl Boykins mode.

        Landry is tough and physical, which fits a need in Houston, but I don't think he's as good as Glen Davis, who was available.

        Newley has talent, but does he really want to be a role player for the Rockets? If not, he can just stay in Australia and be a star.

        Morey is smart, and he might make me look very stupid in a few years for saying this, but I think the Rockets' draft was one of the worst of the night.






        Indiana Pacers Grade: B-
        Round 1: None

        Round 2: Stanko Barac (39)

        Analysis: Barac has generated a lot of buzz among international scouts. He was productive this year in Serbia (many young European prospects aren't very productive), and he's very skilled. He needs more experience and has to add some weight, but drafting him here was only a mild risk.

        If he develops, they got a steal. If he never works out, they didn't give up much -- just a future second-round pick (Barac was drafted by Miami, then traded to Indiana for a future second-rounder).






        Los Angeles Clippers Grade: A-
        Round 1: Al Thornton (14)

        Round 2: Jared Jordan (45)

        Analysis: The Clippers went bargain hunting and picked up two players who slipped further than they should have.

        Thornton slipped because of his age (24) and questions about his wrist -- but he has an NBA-ready game. His arrival makes it appear that Corey Maggette is back on the trading block.

        Jordan is one of the best pure point guards in this draft class. He's not big or athletic, but he has a sixth sense for seeing the floor that's akin to the way injured Clippers point guard Shaun Livingston does.






        Los Angeles Lakers Grade: B+
        Round 1: Javaris Crittenton (19)

        Round 2: Sun Yue (40), Marc Gasol (48)

        Analysis: Phil Jackson likes big point guards who can shoot, and Crittenton has the talent to make the Lakers very happy -- if they're patient. Crittenton isn't ready now, although he could be soon.

        The Lakers also did a nice job with those second-round picks. Sun can sell tickets in L.A. -- and become an effective understudy for Luke Walton. Gasol doesn't have the talent or athleticism of his brother, but he is a big body who can be a nice role player down the road.






        Memphis Grizzlies Grade: A
        Round 1: Mike Conley (4)

        Round 2: None.

        Analysis: The Grizzlies land the best point guard in the draft -- a guy who can, with seasoning, become a Tony Parker-like leader on the floor. With Conley, Pau Gasol, Mike Miller and Rudy Gay, the Grizzlies could be worth watching again. They probably won't be in the playoffs anytime soon in the crowded West, but they are headed in the right direction again.





        Miami Heat Grade: C+
        Round 1: Daequan Cook (21)

        Round 2: None.

        Analysis: We all love Cook's talent, but he likely will have the same role in Miami that he had at Ohio State -- on the bench. Pat Riley doesn't have much patience for young players who aren't ready. (Just ask Dorell Wright.) It's too bad Cook didn't stay in school another year.





        Milwaukee Bucks Grade: Inc.
        Round 1: Yi Jianlian (6)

        Round 2: Ramon Sessions (56)

        Analysis: From a talent perspective, the Bucks made the right choice. But will Yi ever play in Milwaukee?

        The Bucks knew they were taking a risk because they knew Yi's camp didn't want him in Milwaukee. And now that the pick is made, Yi's camp probably will push for a trade.

        If the Bucks have their way, they'll be rewarded with a player with tremendous potential.






        Minnesota Timberwolves Grade: B
        Round 1: Corey Brewer (7)

        Round 2: Chris Richard (41)

        Analysis: The Wolves tried hard to complete a Kevin Garnett trade that would net them more picks -- even on Thursday, Minnesota was talking with Golden State and Charlotte but couldn't seal the deal.

        So the Wolves add Brewer, a versatile defender with an emerging offensive game, and Richard, a bruising big man who never got a chance to show his stuff in college.

        Even if Minnesota keeps KG, the additions won't be enough to put the Wolves back in the playoffs.

        If they trade KG, Brewer and Randy Foye, their '06 first-round pick, become the new backbone of the team.








        New Jersey Nets Grade: A-
        Round 1: Sean Williams (17)

        Round 2: None.

        Analysis: I like risk takers, so I applaud the Nets for taking a chance at No. 17. Williams has the talent of a lottery pick, but he slipped because of off-court issues.

        Maybe the temptations the NBA provides will torpedo Williams' career. But in the right environment, he could become the athletic shot-blocker the Nets have sought for years.








        New Orleans Hornets Grade: B+
        Round 1: Julian Wright (13)

        Round 2: Adam Haluska (43)

        Analysis: Although Nick Young might have been the better fit, Wright is the better player. He's not a great shooter, but he does everything else really well and will be a great fit alongside Chris Paul in the open court -- and he has plenty of upside.

        Haluska, on the other hand, seems like a huge stretch.








        New York Knicks Grade: B-
        Round 1: Wilson Chandler (23)

        Round 2: Demetris Nichols (53)

        Analysis: Chandler has the athletic ability to be a very good NBA player -- but does he have the heart and head of an NBA player?

        The Zach Randolph acquisition had nothing to do with the draft, but it was the real story on draft day for New York. Although New York easily won the trade from a talent perspective, it was a reminder that Knicks president Isiah Thomas doesn't seem to understand chemistry. The Stephon Marbury-Steve Francis combo never worked, and likewise we have to wonder how a pairing of Randolph with Eddy Curry will work.






        Orlando Magic Grade: Inc.
        Round 1: None

        Round 2: Milovan Rakovic (60)



        Analysis: I doubt we'll ever hear from Rakovic again.

        But the real story here is that the Magic traded their first-round pick to acquire Darko Milicic. So far, the trade looks as though it's paying off for Orlando -- but Darko is a restricted free agent this summer, and Orlando is going to have to decide how much he's worth.








        Philadelphia 76ers Grade: A-
        Round 1: Thaddeus Young (12), Jason Smith (20)

        Round 2: Derrick Byars (42), Herbert Hill (55)

        Analysis: I'm a big fan of the Sixers' draft. Young has as much upside as any small forward in the draft, and Smith has great potential as well -- really, the difference between him and Yi Jianlian isn't huge. Both are athletic 7-footers who can shoot the ball and run the floor.

        Byars and Hill are value picks who could make the team.






        Phoenix Suns Grade: C
        Round 1: Alando Tucker (29)

        Round 2: D. J. Strawberry (59)

        Analysis: For the fourth straight year, the Suns sold or traded a first-round pick. This year, it was Rudy Fernandez to the Blazers. Last year, it was Sergio Rodriguez to the Blazers. The year before, it was Nate Robinson to the Knicks. And in 2004, it was Luol Deng to the Bulls. The Suns probably should have kept all those picks.

        Tucker was a bit of a surprise at No. 29. He's a fantastic athlete and scorer, but he can't shoot -- a big problem in Mike D'Antoni's system.

        Strawberry gives the team versatility in the backcourt and a defensive presence. But he can't shoot, either.






        Portland Trail Blazers Grade: A+
        Round 1: Greg Oden (1), Rudy Fernandez (24), Petteri Koponen (30)

        Round 2: Josh McRoberts (37), Taurean Green (52)

        Analysis: For the second straight year, the Blazers walk away with the best grade in the draft.

        Landing Oden alone gets them an A. But GM Kevin Pritchard didn't rest there. He also acquired two late first-rounders, including Fernandez, who is quickly becoming a star at the highest levels of the Euroleague. Both he and Koponen likely will play in Europe for one more season before heading to Portland.

        In the second round, McRoberts, a close friend of Oden's, was also a steal. But I'm not sure Green can make the team.

        Although they gave up a ton of talent in trading Zach Randolph, the Blazers saved roughly $30 million in long-term salaries, improved the locker-room atmosphere and landed Channing Frye, who was virtually untouchable just a year ago.






        Sacramento Kings Grade: C+
        Round 1: Spencer Hawes (10)

        Round 2: None

        Analysis: The Kings continue their tradition of big, unathletic centers in the middle. Hawes is a skilled player around the basket, and like Brad Miller, he's an amazing passer.

        But his lack of athleticism probably will keep him from being a star. I think Al Thornton or Julian Wright might have been a better pick here.






        San Antonio Spurs Grade: A
        Round 1: Tiago Splitter (28)

        Round 2: Marcus Williams (33)

        Analysis: The Spurs continue to amaze with their ability to find gems late in the draft. Splitter would've gone 10 to 15 spots higher if he had been able to get out of his contract and come to the NBA next season. But next summer, he can exercise a buyout and join the Spurs. When he comes, he'll be 23, battle-tested in the Euroleague and ready to supplant Fabricio Oberto in the middle.

        As a pure small forward, Williams also seems like a great fit, as long as he can get with coach Gregg Popovich's team-oriented game plan.






        Seattle SuperSonics Grade: A-
        Round 1: Kevin Durant (2), Jeff Green (5)

        Round 2: None

        Analysis: Durant guarantees a high grade, but we have to consider the Sonics' other big move, as well.

        The price for Green was high. Although moving Ray Allen and his contract was smart, I'm not sure the same can be said for taking on Wally Szczerbiak's contract.

        As for Green himself, he's a great prospect and a good complement to Durant. But I'm a little surprised they didn't go for Yi Jianlian at No. 5. Given the Sonics' potential move, shouldn't the potential ability of a Yi-Durant combo to keep basketball in Seattle for a long time have gotten greater consideration?






        Toronto Raptors Grade: Inc.
        Round 1: None

        Round 2: Giorgos Printezis (58)

        Analysis: Printezis is a young, athletic forward who will continue to play in Greece for a while.





        Utah Jazz Grade: B+
        Round 1: Morris Almond (25)

        Round 2: Kyrylo Fesenko (38)

        Analysis: The Jazz wanted a shooter to stretch the defense, and they got one in Almond, possibly the best shooter in the draft. Almond is also a crafty scorer, but he needs to work on his athleticism.

        Fesenko is a physical low-post presence who could be a nice complement to Mehmet Okur in the paint someday. Considering where they were picking, the Jazz drafted well.






        Washington Wizards Grade: B+
        Round 1: Nick Young (16)

        Round 2: Dominic McGuire (47)

        Analysis: Landing Young here was a steal. Young and Gilbert Arenas will make a potent scoring duo in the backcourt.

        McGuire is intriguing as an Andrei Kirilenko-type forward.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

          Awesome, thanks.
          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
          RSS Feed
          Subscribe via iTunes

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

            Soo....we get a B- for drafting a player that maybe a prospect...or may turn out to be nothing......Chad Ford must be grading on a curve.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              Chad Ford must be grading on a curve.
              I was thinking he was grading on Jack Daniels.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                I was thinking he was grading on Jack Daniels.
                I'm not sure Jack or Marquis really would appreciate that...
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

                  Chad must have Stanko fever!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

                    Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                    I'm not sure Jack or Marquis really would appreciate that...
                    Schucks....I didn't even realize Jack/Daniels was an option. That combo coulda come in handy in the Head for Cook thread.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Chad Ford grades Pacers' draft

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Schucks....I didn't even realize Jack/Daniels was an option. That combo coulda come in handy in the Head for Cook thread.
                      Yes, I think everyone would agree that Jack/Daniels would be a welcome respite to distract from one's inability to get Head.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X