PDA

View Full Version : EARL CLARK



pianoman
06-02-2009, 02:25 PM
Do you want to see this guy in a Pacers uni next year? I think he's our guy, and honestly, there's not much of a downside to him.

Coop
06-02-2009, 02:30 PM
Since I live in southern Indiana and talk with Louisville fans pretty frequently, I'm hesitant with Earl. He definitely has the tools to be a great player, but his work ethic has been questioned in the past. You ask a UofL fan what they think of him, and they'll tell you they love him, when he plays hard. There are a lot of times where he will just disappear throughout games making you wonder if he's hurt, or just doesn't have the drive to really excel. If he played his hardest every night, he would have been a top 7-8 pick in this draft IMO.

A guy with his combination of talent, size, and athleticism should have been averaging close to 20 and 10 a game. Instead, he put up a pedestrian 14 and 8. Part of this is because of his work ethic, and another part is because he tries to be someone he's not. Of course this is JMO, but I always felt like he was trying too hard to be a guard by shooting 3's and taking contested outside shots when it was obvious he should be in the low post battling against the big guys.

If someone picks him and can keep him focused while improving his work ethic, they could have a very good player on their hands.

flox
06-02-2009, 02:42 PM
I'm absolutely sold on him as a 3/4 who plays well in small ball.

Placebo
06-02-2009, 02:49 PM
He reminds me of 2 players...
AK-48 (lean, long arms, good defense, suspect shooting, unpolished offense) which is good and Shawne Williams which is... yikes!
That being said, Clark is at least gonna start somewhere on the depth chart (someday).
Remember, many lottery projected guys will never be starters, so I'll take him at 13.

OakMoses
06-02-2009, 02:53 PM
Maybe.

Since86
06-02-2009, 03:05 PM
In a deeper draft, my answer would be no way. The Ps really can't afford a swing and a miss. They need help period.

BUT....anyone in this draft at 13 is going to be a question mark, so why not?

ESutt7
06-02-2009, 03:09 PM
Here's what I wrote to TBird a couple of days ago. I agree, I think he'll be the pick. Here are my reasons:

The Pacers traditionally use smokescreens. We've "needed a PG" in the draft for a few years running (Marcus Williams, Acie Law, DJ Augustin etc etc.) and haven't taken one. Given that everyone once again is convinced we will, I bet we won't. I don't think one that really jumps off the page will fall to us (all bets are off if one does). Here are some of my thoughts:

1. PG as smokescreen to get who we really want.

2. We're desperate to make the playoffs next season. Giving up Jack or Ford for a rookie PG likely won't help that all too much. I could be wrong, but I know being a rookie PG is extremely difficult to learn. The franchise knows it needs to get back in the playoffs to draw fans back in.

3. Given that, if we don't like our current PGs, the best way to improve them would be to get a current NBA PG rather than wait on a rookie who may not pan out due to height (Flynn, Lawson), red flags (Evans), weight (Maynor) or any other reason. So trading for Hinrich or S&T for Felton or Miller or someone would be a better "win now" option.

4. Using the PG as smokescreen theory again, it throws everyone off. Mock drafts all have us taking a PG. Teams will expect us to. That way they won't trade up to get our actual target. Our 2 positions that we don't have "players for the future" are PG and PF. This means we're getting a PF.

5. That PF? Earl Clark. He fits the bill of what we traditionally do. Experienced? Check. Good program? Check. No red flags? Check (as far as I know anyway). Tourney runs? Check. Big performances? Check. Versatility? Check.

Bird loves getting proven, successful college players. He loves length. He risked a lot on Shawne Williams. If he's afraid to take a chance again, maybe he doesn't want Clark. But I think he will do a better background check this time. Clark measured out at 6'10" and can play the 3 and 4. We could ease him in behind Murphy, and he could get spot minutes behind Granger. He would eventually take Murphy's starting job or the majority of the minutes.

He has good form on his shot which should mean he'll figure out the NBA 3. He can handle the ball. He can defend. He can rebound. He has a midrange game. He can post. While he is a perimeter oriented 4, that may actually be a good thing. Look at Orlando. If Clark pans out we could be a more athletic version of them (minus Howard, but maybe Hibbert is improved by then).

We could be a match up nightmare down the road with a true C, and a 2, 3, 4 combo that plays out on the perimeter. Each of whom could shoot or drive or even post and be a threat. This has given the Cavs fits, and a lot of the elite teams struggle vs. the Magic who employ the same style.

The last point is, if you want to win a championship and come out of the East, you better build your team to beat LeBron. We would have at least 3 legitimate guys that we could throw at him. Rush, Granger, and Clark could all take turns guarding him and frustrating him, while the Cavs would struggle on the other end to match up.

All just a theory, and Clark was very up and down. But with our leadership group legitimate hard workers now, not just big talkers, I think the effort would rub off on him. There was a nice comment in a Ford column about Clark asking a scout how he could get better in his workouts. The scout said no player has ever asked that. So that's a positive sign.

I hope to read your review of him, which will largely depend on which games you saw. But he certainly has the tools. He could be what Shawne was supposed to be, minus the red flags. I think Clark is more of a sure thing than Williams was. But who knows? He could be the next Tim Thomas. Potential never fulfilled. Let me know what you think, but that all makes enough sense to me to believe that's what we'll do. Just not enough big PGs in the draft IMO.

TBird pointed out Williams could have been a Walsh pick, not Bird. Who knows though.

CableKC
06-02-2009, 03:14 PM
I'm gonna go with Seth's and UncleReg's assessment of Clark....he's more of a SF then he is a PF. We don't need another SF. He maybe able to "grow" into a PF....but I really prefer to stay away from Tweeners that I pray can become the Low-Post PF defending PF that we need.

idioteque
06-02-2009, 03:26 PM
I'm not a fan of his at all.

He's very raw and unproven AND he apparently does not have a strong work ethic...umm how about a big no thank you from me. Maybe if this guy had a great attitude I could see the Pacers taking a flier on him and just seeing what happens. But based off what I have read I'm going to say no, and also predict that he will bust in the NBA.

I'll be pretty upset if we draft Earl Clark. If we do so, I'd stay away from your Capitol Area Burlington Coat Factory for a few days.

PR07
06-02-2009, 03:27 PM
I think there are some key concerns with his focus and ability to take over games.

Yes, he has the tools to be a special player, but does he have will and want to be a special player? Against Michigan State in the tourney, he shot around 50% and MSU really had no answer for him when he drove to the rim. He didn't do it enough, didn't demand the rock enough, and they lost. He's kind of the college version of Lamar Odom. A guy who's super talented, but often vanishes on the court. I'd be happy if he ended up anything like Lamar Odom, but I'm not sure if he will be that. Seems to me he might just be a guy whose happy to be there (the NBA) and just kind of blend in on a team's roster. That's not a horrible thing, but it's not something I want out of the #13 pick.

One of my buddies is a manager for Louisville. I'll ask him for more info about E-5 next time I see him.

Since86
06-02-2009, 03:29 PM
Here's what I wrote to TBird a couple of days ago. I agree, I think he'll be the pick. Here are my reasons:

The Pacers traditionally use smokescreens. We've "needed a PG" in the draft for a few years running (Marcus Williams, Acie Law, DJ Augustin etc etc.) and haven't taken one. Given that everyone once again is convinced we will, I bet we won't. I don't think one that really jumps off the page will fall to us (all bets are off if one does). Here are some of my thoughts:


All of those players you listed have been gone prior to the Pacers picking, other than Marcus Williams, and with his behavior issues it's easy to see why he wasn't selected.

I think people get caught up too much in "smokescreens." I don't see the draft as a cat and mouse game, that has teams making their selections in order to block other teams. Maybe if a team is going to try and piece together a trade to get a player they know will be gone, but that's about it. (Just like a players trade value. It's not like the stock market that goes up and down depending on the day. GMs talk, they know the player's history and character problems. It's not like they only know what the papers report.)

The Pacers and Trailblazers had their trade worked out days in advance with Bayless. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing. They knew that there was a very definate chance that he would slip, and he did. They had their plans set before the draft ever took place, before the public knew.

The Pacers, just like any team, are going to have their order board ready. As players go, they will get checked off the list. If Clark is the next on the board and is available (assuming they don't have a trade to get more pieces with another team) he will be their selection. If a PG is rated higher than him, and their both left, the PG will be their selection.

Mr. Sobchak
06-02-2009, 03:46 PM
If any team uses Earl Clark as their primary power forward, they are in some serious trouble..

Jonathan
06-02-2009, 03:58 PM
I have no clue who will be a better pro b/t Clark and his teammate Terrance Williams.

I do not know why some think we are strong at the 3 postion. Q6 over 7 million dollar option. Dunleavy injuried. Danny Granger needs a backup. I disagree with Clark and believe this team might stretch and land Sam Young.

OakMoses
06-02-2009, 04:08 PM
I do not know why some think we are strong at the 3 postion. Q6 over 7 million dollar option. Dunleavy injuried. Danny Granger needs a backup. I disagree with Clark and believe this team might stretch and land Sam Young.

1. I do think that we're strong at the 3. I think we can reasonably pencil Granger in as playing around 70% of the minutes at the 3 spot for the next 5 years or so.

2. I agree that we need an additional wing player, and that we should be able to grab one via this year's draft if we desire.

3. What I do not want to draft is a player who can only play minutes as a 3. Austin Daye is a perfect example. He's not quick enough to play the 2 and not strong enough to play the 4. The only way we would ever be able to play he and Danny together is to move Danny to the 4, which I think is a poor use of his talent.

If we want to draft a tweener 3/4 (like Clark or James Johnson) I'm fine with that. If we want to draft a tweener 2/3 (like T-Will or Sam Young) I'm fine with that. Even if we want to draft a 2 (like Gerald Henderson) I'm fine with that. Just don't pick a 3 like Daye or, to a lesser extent, Budinger.

Trader Joe
06-02-2009, 04:15 PM
I'm extremely skittish of him because of the Shawne Williams experiment, that being said, I'm interested in what he shows the closer we get to the draft. I could see the Bobcats taking him tho.

d_c
06-02-2009, 04:20 PM
I'm extremely skittish of him because of the Shawne Williams experiment, that being said, I'm interested in what he shows the closer we get to the draft. I could see the Bobcats taking him tho.

I have no idea how Clark is in any way related to Shawne Williams.

OakMoses
06-02-2009, 04:21 PM
I have no idea how Clark is in any way related to Shawne Williams.

Youngish tweener 3/4 with some really nice skills and a questionable motor.

Trophy
06-02-2009, 04:23 PM
I don't care who we take. Just as long as we can trade our pick for Tyreke Evans. Bird might agree with this.

d_c
06-02-2009, 04:25 PM
Youngish tweener 3/4 with some really nice skills and a questionable motor.

Should be noted:

Williams was a one and done freshman at Memphis. Clark was a 3 year college player, never had any off the court issues and Pitino speaks well of him.

Clark is bigger and can legitimately handle big minutes at PF. Williams was really closer to 6'7" and just a wing player.

Trader Joe
06-02-2009, 04:27 PM
Should be noted:

Williams was a one and done freshman at Memphis. Clark was a 3 year college player, never had any off the court issues and Pitino speaks well of him.

Clark is bigger and can legitimately handle big minutes at PF. Williams was really closer to 6'7" and just a wing player.

Believe me, I'm much more comfortable with Clark than Williams, but tweeners scare me for the Pacers right now. O'Brien already likes to screw with his rotations giving him guys he can play at multiple places only encourages that.

Anthem
06-02-2009, 04:28 PM
While he is a perimeter oriented 4, that may actually be a good thing. Look at Orlando. If Clark pans out we could be a more athletic version of them (minus Howard, but maybe Hibbert is improved by then).
I was with you up through here. Saying we'd be like Orlando without Howard would make us almost as good as the Lakers without Kobe and a tiny bit better than the Cavs without LeBron.

d_c
06-02-2009, 04:31 PM
Believe me, I'm much more comfortable with Clark than Williams, but tweeners scare me for the Pacers right now. O'Brien already likes to screw with his rotations giving him guys he can play at multiple places only encourages that.

Should be noted that Bird and Magic were really tweeners. KG and Dirk were tweeners coming into the league as well before they settled in at PF. Lamar Odom has carved out a very successful career as a tweener. If you can play, you can play. This league is about more about players and their talent than it is about coaches, positions or systems.

O'Brien tried to win games with the players he had, and there wasn't a lot on the Pacers bench to choose from. He's far from the only coach in the league who would've kept guys like Rush and McRoberts glued to the bench.

PacerDude
06-02-2009, 04:35 PM
Here's some info from Draft Express: (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Earl-Clark-488/)
One of the more perimeter oriented players in this pool, Clark earns two dubious distinctions. First, he’s the most turnover prone, giving the ball away on 18.7% of his logged possessions. Second, his Points Per Possession of .85 ranks him last on our list. A bit stuck between the three and four position, Clark’s poor PPP stems from the fact that he took 5.3 jump shots per game (1st in our sample) and only managed to get fouled of only 9.3% of his possessions (23rd). Unfortunately, his ability to play the three doesn’t excuse the fact that he falls below the mean FG% in post ups (46% - even), fast breaks (54% - 16% below), pick and rolls (38% - 11% below), isolations (38% - 4% below), and basket cuts (55% - 13% below).

Given Clark’s lack of efficiency across the board, the team that picks him will be banking on him utilizing his athleticism to his advantage to create mismatches and develop the type of consistency he’ll need to be productive. Obviously players who have as many tools as Clark deserve some credit for what they could bring to the table down the road, particularly defensively, but how much remains to be seen.

Clark’s biggest problem is that he seems to be suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis. He’s a power forward at the NCAA level who wants to be a guard, particularly in the way he settles for jump-shots from the perimeter.

The impression you come away with from scouting Clark heavily depends on which day you catch him on. On some nights he looks incredibly active, playing extremely hard, utilizing his athleticism to its fullest, and making very good decisions. On others, he looks completely asleep, disappearing for long stretches and being very passive.

Given that (there's more in the link), I think there's a better player at 13.

Trader Joe
06-02-2009, 04:44 PM
Should be noted that Bird and Magic were really tweeners. KG and Dirk were tweeners coming into the league as well before they settled in at PF. Lamar Odom has carved out a very successful career as a tweener. If you can play, you can play. This league is about more about players and their talent than it is about coaches, positions or systems.

O'Brien tried to win games with the players he had, and there wasn't a lot on the Pacers bench to choose from. He's far from the only coach in the league who would've kept guys like Rush and McRoberts glued to the bench.

Earl Clark MIGHT be able to be Lamar Odom. He's not KG or Dirk.

d_c
06-02-2009, 04:45 PM
Here's some info from Draft Express: (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Earl-Clark-488/)

Given that (there's more in the link), I think there's a better player at 13.

You can't simply use college stats to analyze a guy's pro potential.

Example: John Hollinger said last season that, based on looking at his college stats, Anthony Randoplph was a sure fire bust and he even questioned whether Randolph should've even been drafted at all in the 1st round.


Randolph was drafted largely on his potential -- in other words, he hasn't actually demonstrated he can play, but some folks think he might be able to soon. As you can probably tell, I'm skeptical. At LSU he had a poor shooting percentage and a mammoth turnover rate, and my pro potential ratings based on college stats gave him some of the lowest marks of anyone in the draft.

Then what happened during the year? Just on a per 48 minutes basis, Randolph actually had one of the most statistically impressive rookie years of all time (it's true).

http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digging-deeper-for-a-comparison-to-warriors-rookie-anthony-randolph-yields-a-very-interesting-list/

(Of course stat head Hollinger never went on the acknowledge this)

Tiny Archibald
06-02-2009, 04:48 PM
I'm not gung ho on Clark, but I'd be ok with him. We are talking
the #13 slot. If the kid didn't have the question marks accurately
alluded to in this thread, we'd probably be talking about him going
anywhere from #2 to #5.

d_c
06-02-2009, 04:56 PM
I'm not gung ho on Clark, but I'd be ok with him. We are talking
the #13 slot. If the kid didn't have the question marks accurately
alluded to in this thread, we'd probably be talking about him going
anywhere from #2 to #5.

Totally. You're talking about the #13 pick in what is considered a weak draft. If you get a guy who has a shot of being maybe 75% of a Lamar Odom at this point in a weak draft, that's not a bad pick at all.

Coop
06-02-2009, 05:28 PM
Given that (there's more in the link), I think there's a better player at 13.

Pretty much exactly what I said outside of the first paragraph.

If it wasn't for his great size and natural talent, I would say absolutely not to drafting Clark. My hesitation is only because I'm a sucker for big-time potential. I've seen a lot of Earl and talked to a lot of other people that have watched a lot of his game as well. If there's anyone in the draft that I have a solid grasp on, it's Clark. So take that for what it's worth.

Slick Pinkham
06-02-2009, 05:43 PM
If work ethic is a serious issue, and I have no idea if it is or not with him, then coming into the NBA is not going to be a great thing for him.

"Here guy, here's a boatload of cash, now please start working hard. Your locker is next to Tinsley's, you know, the empty one."

I'd rather gamble on talent that maybe hasn't yet shown a tendency to squander it.

NapTonius Monk
06-02-2009, 06:32 PM
I'm gonna go with Seth's and UncleReg's assessment of Clark....he's more of a SF then he is a PF. We don't need another SF. He maybe able to "grow" into a PF....but I really prefer to stay away from Tweeners that I pray can become the Low-Post PF defending PF that we need.

Who else do we have at the 3?

Young
06-02-2009, 06:49 PM
I like Clark's talent and ability.

What worries me is what people say about his lack of focus and work ethic.

I don't buy into what some are saying that this is a weak draft you the Pacers can afford to gamble. This might be a weak draft but you just don't pick a guy because he has size and skill. If he don't have a good head on his shoulders he will never amount to anything on the court.

I don't expect Clark to be a star. If he did develop into a Lamar Odom type player that would be great but I don't have a lot of confidence in that happening based on what everyone says about Clark.

There should be better options with the Pacers pick.

flox
06-02-2009, 06:57 PM
You can't simply use college stats to analyze a guy's pro potential.

Example: John Hollinger said last season that, based on looking at his college stats, Anthony Randoplph was a sure fire bust and he even questioned whether Randolph should've even been drafted at all in the 1st round.



Then what happened during the year? Just on a per 48 minutes basis, Randolph actually had one of the most statistically impressive rookie years of all time (it's true).

http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digging-deeper-for-a-comparison-to-warriors-rookie-anthony-randolph-yields-a-very-interesting-list/

(Of course stat head Hollinger never went on the acknowledge this)
I wonder who else looks really good on a per 48 basis. Also the data is skewed because of the minutes those other plays played versus the minutes he played (18 vs 36 for the others). I doubt he can really triple is production given that many minutes, plus the team he played on with it's pace also skews the data. If we adjust it for pace I wonder what it looks like.

d_c
06-02-2009, 07:04 PM
I wonder who else looks really good on a per 48 basis. Also the data is skewed because of the minutes those other plays played versus the minutes he played (18 vs 36 for the others). I doubt he can really triple is production given that many minutes, plus the team he played on with it's pace also skews the data. If we adjust it for pace I wonder what it looks like.

Of course I would never evaluate a player soley based on his 48 minute stats. It's really not a good reflection of a player's actual effectiveness.

But I think using a player's college stats as an indicator of his NBA potential can be equally misleading. How the player was used, his position, the pace his team played at, his matchups, his teammates and his role can all be totally different in the NBA.

CableKC
06-02-2009, 07:19 PM
Who else do we have at the 3?
As melli suggested, Granger is and should be handling the majority of our SF minutes for the next 2 seasons.....add in that Dunleavy will probably eat into some of those minutes as well.....you have to wonder what position he will be playing.

I would have no problem if Clark was more of a Tweener Forward that was more of a PF that could ( with experience ) be a backup SF....but from what I have read, Clark is a SF that could ( with experience and a lot of effort ) learn to be a backup PF. I'd prefer to stay away from that. Also....from all of the posts that I have read here.....despite many of it being mere opinion...I'm not getting warm fuzzies about him.

CableKC
06-02-2009, 07:27 PM
Of course I would never evaluate a player soley based on his 48 minute stats. It's really not a good reflection of a player's actual effectiveness.

But I think using a player's college stats as an indicator of his NBA potential can be equally misleading. How the player was used, his position, the pace his team played at, his matchups, his teammates and his role can all be totally different in the NBA.
If you just look at his production in the last 2 months....when he finally played consistent minutes....he averaged 26mpg/23 games/11ppg/8.3rpg/1.6bpg/49% FG%. Not bad for a rookie....especially when Nellie essentially gave him starting minutes in the last 8 games.

But still, in regards to Clark......from what I have read.....I would prefer to draft either Lawson ( assuming that we move Ford ) or a GF ( like Henderson or TWill ) before going after Clark.

ESutt7
06-02-2009, 08:04 PM
I was with you up through here. Saying we'd be like Orlando without Howard would make us almost as good as the Lakers without Kobe and a tiny bit better than the Cavs without LeBron.

Hahaha I only meant similar in style of play. 4 out 1 in, perimeter oriented, but with size causing difficult match ups. Not on their level. At least not for a while. We'd need a stud down low first. Did not mean to imply we'll win 50 games next year.

Anthem
06-02-2009, 08:08 PM
As melli suggested, Granger is and should be handling the majority of our SF minutes for the next 12 seasons.....
Fixed.

UncleReg
06-02-2009, 08:13 PM
My God... It's amazing how a few people can make an unfounded assumption about someone's character based on a few observations, and how those assumptions can spread like wildfire. All this talk about Earl not having any work ethic is RIDICULOUS. I've watched this kid for three years. He gives everything he has and has a good head on his shoulders.

One reason that causes people to take a Carl-Lewis-sized leap of faith and assume he has no work ethic is that he looks like he doesn't care when he is on the court. This is true... It looks like he doesn't care, but that is just his nature. Just because he isnt screaming in his teammates face or pounding his chest after a good play does not mean he doesnt care. Earl is a VERY reserved and quiet person. He doesnt wear his emotion on his sleeve, but that does not mean he doesnt have any emotion.

Take a look at this play, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTvwMyAbp8k. Now that was a huge, momentum-changing play being that U of L was down to a huge conference opponent, at home, and they were making a run to take the game over. Earl has a clear path to really make a highlight-reel play, but he casually puts the ball through the bucket and sort of saunters back for defense. Others would've hung on the rim, yelled at the crowd, and perhaps pumped his fist a few times for effect. Does this mean one has a good work ethic and the other doesnt? In that same clip, look at who's in the huddle with hands on his knees, right in Pitino's face, intently listening for the coach's next instructions. That is a man who knows there is a lot of basketball left to be played and one dunk does not mean his work is done. That's the kind of guy I want in my huddle.

Even after what is probably the biggest posterization in UofL history (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF1EPPgzvBY), especially considering who it was on, Earl shows the most amount of emotion he'll ever show, which is minuscule compared to what you or me wouldve done after that kind of throwdown. I mean, all he does is pose for half a second, clench his fists a little bit, and then runs back on D like on any old play.

And obviously showing a few youtube clips doesnt do justice, at least not the same as watching him for the last three years. Im just providing a little more than simply my word.

I guess another reason it looks like hes not trying is the way he plays. He's such a fluid athlete and doesnt do any exaggerated, unnecessary motions that it just looks like hes not trying. I guess it's his fault for making it look too easy. Maybe if he flapped his arms more, or perhaps if he did a Manu Ginobili-esque flail after being touched by so much as a pinky, it would look like he's giving 110%. Give me a break. I sympathize with that because I play the same way. My idiot coach will tell me to try more when I knew I was giving it my all. I almost had to purposely grunt or maybe exaggerate a bump from a defender to outwardly show my coach I was giving my all.

Also, Earl has a tendency to float on the perimeter and settle for jump shots rather than do what he should be doing, which is attacking the bucket and going inside. This is a knock on his basketball IQ and style of play, NOT his work ethic.

Lastly, using numbers against Earl, saying that just because he didnt put up big enough numbers that match his talent, is the MOST ridiculous thing to say. Earl played in a VERY balanced system that was run to the T the way Pitino wanted it to be run. That meant if you took one bad shot you were coming out. If Earl played for any other team that focuses on one or two offensive threats to do all the heavy-lifting, he wouldve averaged 18+.

In summary, Earl is a great kid who will do all he can to put himself in a position to succeed. That being said, I am wary of drafting him because of the high risk in his reaching his potential, but NOT because of anything to do with his attitude or work ethic.

ESutt7
06-02-2009, 08:13 PM
I agree, if it's clear he doesn't have the desire to be great, he won't be taken. That's part of the background check I talked about. To hear Clark explain it, Pitino doesn't have a go to guy, so scoring was relatively balanced. And his lack of "fire" on the court is mistaken for a lack of desire. He's just calm and collected. That's not a bad thing, not everyone is KG. But given who is there on the board, I think he has a lot of upside, while also being proven to be successful in college. Just seems like a pretty good pick at 13, assuming he interviews with the Pacers well. But if they really believe they can get a sure fire PG of the future, then they should do it by all means. I just don't think Lawson will be that good, and it really depends on who else is there. If we're looking to get another pick, maybe we can take Maynor or some other PG that slips. Or maybe Clark slips to the late pick. That's the fun of the draft. But anyone at 13 is going to have some kind of flaws, I agree.

People were concerned about Rush's lack of "fire" and his inability to take over despite his athletic abilities. Seems to be a similar situation to me. Rush has the work ethic. Clark would have to do the same.

ESutt7
06-02-2009, 08:20 PM
Well said UncleReg.

Placebo
06-02-2009, 09:08 PM
@UncleReg

I've heard that Clark has been openly criticized in the media by Rick Pitino (His lack of focus being the reason). I've also heard that he has small hands and that's one of the reasons he isn't great around the rim. Are these true at all?

UncleReg
06-02-2009, 09:29 PM
@UncleReg

I've heard that Clark has been openly criticized in the media by Rick Pitino (His lack of focus being the reason). I've also heard that he has small hands and that's one of the reasons he isn't great around the rim. Are these true at all?

Lack of focus? Yes. Weak work ethic? No. Earl is high maintenance in that he needs to constantly be told where to be, what to do. He's trying his best out there, and he's always working to be the best he can be. He just needs much guidance on the court. Maybe in a more free-flowing open-court offense he will thrive. But at times he struggled in Pitino's extremely disciplined offensive system.


He does have small hands, which is why he tends to lose the ball when driving. This will most likely continue to be a problem for him as there is no getting around that.

PacerDude
06-02-2009, 09:40 PM
You can't simply use college stats to analyze a guy's pro potential.I wasn't.

I was paying more attention to his 'passive' play and other criticisms of his game.

Naptown_Seth
06-03-2009, 01:39 PM
Reminds me mostly of guys like Bynum - talented enough, could be a nice mismatch for you, but ultimately isn't smart enough as a player to make good on it.

Clark was supposed to be the superstar at Louisville. He wasn't overshadowed by greater talent, he was overshadowed by better players. Not just TWill, but both freshman centers too. Heck, even guys like Sosa had more impact at times.

Earl Clark should have NEVER been outplayed by Sosa at any point in any game. And TWill shouldn't have been the go to guy the team leaned on. And Clark shouldn't have been a weaker inside player than TWill.

I became a TWill fan while scouting Clark. I will say this though, I like Clark more now than I did last season. He's lanky and smooth, almost Odom-like in his skill set. But he's not a game controller, he just doesn't show the smarts for it. Unless that makes a huge turnaround it's going to limit him to 8th man status in the league.

Anthem
06-03-2009, 01:59 PM
Take a look at this play, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTvwMyAbp8k. Now that was a huge, momentum-changing play being that U of L was down to a huge conference opponent, at home, and they were making a run to take the game over. Earl has a clear path to really make a highlight-reel play, but he casually puts the ball through the bucket and sort of saunters back for defense.
Of course, the impressive thing in that clip is the amazing pass by Twill. Very few NBA players at any position could make that pass.

count55
06-03-2009, 02:10 PM
It's striking that he keeps saying...


That's how I live my life...Let's move on.

OakMoses
06-03-2009, 02:18 PM
Of course, the impressive thing in that clip is the amazing pass by Twill. Very few NBA players at any position could make that pass.

It is a heck of a pass.

CableKC
06-03-2009, 02:21 PM
Of course, the impressive thing in that clip is the amazing pass by Twill. Very few NBA players at any position could make that pass.
Damn....that was a really good pass. :-o

PacerGuy
06-03-2009, 03:49 PM
W/O a chance at Griffen, & behind only Evans, Holiday & maybe Curry I'm not sure there is a player I think could help us more, or that I would want more in this draft.
I too worry about him reaching his potential, but @ #13 he likely has the most potential of anyone we could hope for. I don't see him being a "bust" w/ that body & skill set, and the upside is awful tempting to think about.

billbradley
06-03-2009, 03:55 PM
SLAMonline Mock Draft: Earl Clark, No. 13

Indiana needs this tough guy who does it all.

by DeMarco Williams

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2009/06/slamonline-mock-draft-no-13/

With the 13th pick in the 2009 SLAMonline Mock Draft, the Indiana Pacers select…

Earl Clark. Drafting players is a lot like meeting a girl on Match.com. Sure, you’ve peeped 10 great pictures of the mystery lady online repeatedly, but until you see her standing at the Cheesecake Factory hostess desk for the first time, you’re not really sure what to expect. Earl Clark, the ridiculously-athletic forward who did Louisville’s dirty work while Terrence Williams was getting the ESPN highlights, is, well, the Pacers’ date for next season.

Indiana finished 36-46 a year ago. In one conference, that record would have been cause for panic. In the other, it’s just another way of saying your team was only one player away from a 6th seed in the playoffs. Thankfully for the Pacers, they play in the latter conference.

Danny Granger, the NBA’s most improved player, was the main reason Indiana came thiiiis close to making the postseason. The two-headed PG of TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack kept things in motion. Troy Murphy manned the middle respectably. And when they weren’t at the doctor’s office, the MDs, Mike Dunleavy Jr. and Marquis Daniels, were a headache for the opposition.

The Pacers have potential at every position. Unfortunately for hoops fans in the Hoosier State, they rarely showed it consistently. A do-it-all like Clark would be a heaven send. At 6-10, Clark is long enough to mix it up inside with Murph and Roy Hibbert on occasions, but he’s more than ball hungry enough to help Grange and Dunleavy during any offensive lulls. Lest we forget, Clark led the loaded Louisville Cardinals in scoring last season.The kid simply adores the hoop.

Of course, Indiana’s problem isn’t really with putting the ball in the hole. It’s actually with preventing others from having their way with the scoreboard. Squads averaged 106 ppg versus the Pacers. That’s 5th worst in the League. They gave up 115 or more 21 times. While Clark would be the first –Wait, actually Cardinals coach Rick Pitino might be first- to tell you he needs some work with his defensive fundamentals, things like a growing physique (228 pounds and expanding), a crazy wingspan, sound footwork and a knack for the big block and rebound only make learning that much easier.

Still, the essential point with the Pacers is that they aren’t missing much. Somebody like Clark, a genuinely decent kid with more upside than Facebook in ‘07, can come in, learn his role (hustle, tussle and bust on you) and thrive for Coach Jim O’Brien. There are some who say Wake Forest’s James Johnson could have done the same things. Maybe so. But this whole draft thing is like meeting a virtual crush in person for the first time. Might as well go with the one who appeared the most promising in the pictures.

pianoman
06-03-2009, 04:08 PM
SLAMonline Mock Draft: Earl Clark, No. 13

Indiana needs this tough guy who does it all.

by DeMarco Williams

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2009/06/slamonline-mock-draft-no-13/

With the 13th pick in the 2009 SLAMonline Mock Draft, the Indiana Pacers select…

Earl Clark. Drafting players is a lot like meeting a girl on Match.com. Sure, you’ve peeped 10 great pictures of the mystery lady online repeatedly, but until you see her standing at the Cheesecake Factory hostess desk for the first time, you’re not really sure what to expect. Earl Clark, the ridiculously-athletic forward who did Louisville’s dirty work while Terrence Williams was getting the ESPN highlights, is, well, the Pacers’ date for next season.

Indiana finished 36-46 a year ago. In one conference, that record would have been cause for panic. In the other, it’s just another way of saying your team was only one player away from a 6th seed in the playoffs. Thankfully for the Pacers, they play in the latter conference.

Danny Granger, the NBA’s most improved player, was the main reason Indiana came thiiiis close to making the postseason. The two-headed PG of TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack kept things in motion. Troy Murphy manned the middle respectably. And when they weren’t at the doctor’s office, the MDs, Mike Dunleavy Jr. and Marquis Daniels, were a headache for the opposition.

The Pacers have potential at every position. Unfortunately for hoops fans in the Hoosier State, they rarely showed it consistently. A do-it-all like Clark would be a heaven send. At 6-10, Clark is long enough to mix it up inside with Murph and Roy Hibbert on occasions, but he’s more than ball hungry enough to help Grange and Dunleavy during any offensive lulls. Lest we forget, Clark led the loaded Louisville Cardinals in scoring last season.The kid simply adores the hoop.

Of course, Indiana’s problem isn’t really with putting the ball in the hole. It’s actually with preventing others from having their way with the scoreboard. Squads averaged 106 ppg versus the Pacers. That’s 5th worst in the League. They gave up 115 or more 21 times. While Clark would be the first –Wait, actually Cardinals coach Rick Pitino might be first- to tell you he needs some work with his defensive fundamentals, things like a growing physique (228 pounds and expanding), a crazy wingspan, sound footwork and a knack for the big block and rebound only make learning that much easier.

Still, the essential point with the Pacers is that they aren’t missing much. Somebody like Clark, a genuinely decent kid with more upside than Facebook in ‘07, can come in, learn his role (hustle, tussle and bust on you) and thrive for Coach Jim O’Brien. There are some who say Wake Forest’s James Johnson could have done the same things. Maybe so. But this whole draft thing is like meeting a virtual crush in person for the first time. Might as well go with the one who appeared the most promising in the pictures.



I honestly think this kid's our guy.:happydanc:happydanc

Trader Joe
06-03-2009, 06:23 PM
Here's the thing we have one side saying, "Clark has issues maintaining focus and motivation." then we have another saying "These accusations are not based in reality."

Part of me, due to the fact that we heard the same two sided debate after the Williams pick, says where there is smoke there is fire, and that we should stay away. The other part of me says that you're gonna kick yourself if you miss out on a good talent because of that fear. Tough choice to make. If Clark is there at 13 and we are KEEPING the pick, I think it could be likely that he is our guy.

CableKC
06-03-2009, 07:31 PM
Here's the thing we have one side saying, "Clark has issues maintaining focus and motivation." then we have another saying "These accusations are not based in reality."

Part of me, due to the fact that we heard the same two sided debate after the Williams pick, says where there is smoke there is fire, and that we should stay away. The other part of me says that you're gonna kick yourself if you miss out on a good talent because of that fear. Tough choice to make. If Clark is there at 13 and we are KEEPING the pick, I think it could be likely that he is our guy.
I can completely ignore the "motivation" questions and ask a more important question:

Is Clark going to be a good fit for us given what we know he is already capable of ( not what he can "potentially" become )?

From what I have read about him....he has the skillset to be a SF in the NBA with the cavaet that he could POTENTIALLY BECOME ( and that's the key ) a PF/Frontcourt Player.

Because I'm a pessimist and thinks that we must draft/aquire NBA Ready Players that are not only ready to contribute and ( hopefully ) fills a need....I'd prefer not to draft a Tweener that is more of a SF then he is a PF ( as opposed to one that is more of a PF then he is a SF ).

Unless it appears that he doesn't have too much work on to transition his offensive/defensive skills into becoming the Low-Post Scorer/Defender on the NBA Level ( which doesn't appear to be the case ) that we are looking for.....based off of what we have seen from what he has done in College, he doesn't appear to be a consistent Low-Post scorer/threat ( given his preference to take jumpshots ).

This doesn't mean that I think that he is not capable of developing and/or model his offensive/defensive game into a PF ....I'm just saying that I am entirely convinced that he can become the type of PF that we are looking for ( given time that we do not have ) based off of what he did in College ( given his preference to take jumpshots ). That amount of "uncertainty" is enough for me to pass on Clark....assuming that players like Henderson, TWill or Lawson ( while moving Ford ) are available.

MyFavMartin
06-03-2009, 08:39 PM
1. Is Earl Clark like Rashard Lewis?

2. If so, does he need to be next to a Dwight Howard?

3. Is Roy our Dwight?

PacerGuy
06-03-2009, 11:10 PM
I can completely ignore the "motivation" questions and ask a more important question:

Is Clark going to be a good fit for us given what we know he is already capable of ( not what he can "potentially" become )?

From what I have read about him....he has the skillset to be a SF in the NBA with the cavaet that he could POTENTIALLY BECOME ( and that's the key ) a PF/Frontcourt Player.

Because I'm a pessimist and thinks that we must draft/aquire NBA Ready Players that are not only ready to contribute and ( hopefully ) fills a need....I'd prefer not to draft a Tweener that is more of a SF then he is a PF ( as opposed to one that is more of a PF then he is a SF ).

Unless it appears that he doesn't have too much work on to transition his offensive/defensive skills into becoming the Low-Post Scorer/Defender on the NBA Level ( which doesn't appear to be the case ) that we are looking for.....based off of what we have seen from what he has done in College, he doesn't appear to be a consistent Low-Post scorer/threat ( given his preference to take jumpshots ).

This doesn't mean that I think that he is not capable of developing and/or model his offensive/defensive game into a PF ....I'm just saying that I am entirely convinced that he can become the type of PF that we are looking for ( given time that we do not have ) based off of what he did in College ( given his preference to take jumpshots ). That amount of "uncertainty" is enough for me to pass on Clark....assuming that players like Henderson, TWill or Lawson ( while moving Ford ) are available.

I get this, but let me counter:
At 6'10" & 225#, & a frame to add weight, I think he can be a PF. We play a style that will use his skills to do different things then a proto-typical PF might in other systems. He will never be a Dale Davis type, but I think the Lamar Odom comparison is quite accurate. While many will argue that LO has never lived up to his potential, if we could get what Odom is @ 13, in a weak draft, I'll take it.
Also, being a "tweener" is not always so bad. Lamar Odom himself is a "tweener". I would put him in a "Good-Tweener" catagory. While maybe not night-in/ night-out the most ideal player/ fit at his position, his ability to move, guard multible positions & streatch defenses creates more positive mis-matches then he gives back. Other players, like a Austin Croshere, was a "Bad-Tweener". AC's skill set is more of a SG, but body & speed was a 3 or a 4. While he was a nice player in spots, he was never a player who could hold down/ start at any position consistently. Any advantage he gave at one position, he gave right back on the other. I do not see Clark having that problem as a 3 or a 4.
With Murph peeking, & only having 2 yrs left on his deal, this would be a great time to add the "next" PF to this team. Again, I am not saying Clark is/ should be "Our Guy", but I think we could do far worse.

Anthem
06-03-2009, 11:33 PM
I don't get the "tweener" thing, honestly. The issue is that he's got the skills of a SF and the body of a PF? Because 6'10" doesn't sounds "tweener" to me. Sure, he's light, but he'll add weight as he adds years. 20 pounds doesn't sound unreasonable, which would make him 6'10", 245. That's plenty.

PacerGuy
06-03-2009, 11:40 PM
I don't get the "tweener" thing, honestly. The issue is that he's got the skills of a SF and the body of a PF? Because 6'10" doesn't sounds "tweener" to me. Sure, he's light, but he'll add weight as he adds years. 20 pounds doesn't sound unreasonable, which would make him 6'10", 245. That's plenty.
BINGO!
That was the figure I was gonna use, but left off my post.
I think 20# is reasonable (& probable), & with his shot blocking & quickness, he could be scarry!

Anthem
06-03-2009, 11:53 PM
I think 20# is reasonable (& probable), & with his shot blocking & quickness, he could be scary!
Well in fairness, adding 20 pounds most likely means he loses some quickness. And right now it doesn't look like he has "big man skills" i.e., a post game, footwork, post defense, etc. Somebody who saw more of him could probably comment on that. So you maybe worry that he doesn't have the skills to play the 4 in the NBA.

But it's hard to see him not having the body.

PacerGuy
06-04-2009, 12:09 AM
Well in fairness, adding 20 pounds most likely means he loses some quickness. And right now it doesn't look like he has "big man skills" i.e., a post game, footwork, post defense, etc. Somebody who saw more of him could probably comment on that. So you maybe worry that he doesn't have the skills to play the 4 in the NBA.

But it's hard to see him not having the body.

Fair enough, I get that, but also get that unlike a big who might have to try & develope his agility & skills, EC will bring those physical tools with him already. It is much easier to take a smaller guy, add weight, & teach technique then it is to take a big & try & develope the skill set. Kinda like it is easier to take a corner in football, add weight, to become a safety, then it is to take a linebacker, lose weight & try & teach coverage & add speed. I will admit that the body must be one that can be transformed in either case, & I think we both agree that Clark has the frame to be either/ both.

Taterhead
06-04-2009, 02:02 AM
What weakness in this team does Earl Clark improve? People talk about him needing to be told what to do all the time like it's endearing or something? The kid is obviously a tweener with a low basketball IQ who vanishes for long stretches with a questionable work ethic. Sounds like Shawne Williams part deux to me. No thanks. This team needs to get tougher, rather have TWill personally.

Taterhead
06-04-2009, 02:23 AM
I don't get the "tweener" thing, honestly. The issue is that he's got the skills of a SF and the body of a PF? Because 6'10" doesn't sounds "tweener" to me. Sure, he's light, but he'll add weight as he adds years. 20 pounds doesn't sound unreasonable, which would make him 6'10", 245. That's plenty.

Doesn't anybody else remember JO's body going down the tubes as he "bulked up"? When you add 20 lbs to your frame in basketball it adds tremendous amount of torque on your joints. Basketball is murder on your knees as it is. Now imagine carrying around a couple sacks of potatoes while your playing. Noone can predict how someones body can handle that. We've seen it with countless players throughout time, and we're seeing it with Greg Oden right now, JMO. If a guy adds weight it should be natural weight as his body matures.

It's not his size that makes me doubt his ability to play PF anyway, it's his game that makes me doubt his ability to improve our teams weaknesses. And truth is we don't have Dwight Howard in the paint to compensate. We need someone to help Hibbert down low. And not by spreading the floor on offense.

Anthem
06-04-2009, 09:48 AM
Doesn't anybody else remember JO's body going down the tubes as he "bulked up"? When you add 20 lbs to your frame in basketball it adds tremendous amount of torque on your joints.
Actually Jermaine started out in the 220s and bulked up to the 270s. He added 50 pounds, not 20.

If Jermaine had stayed in the 240s, I believe he'd be a different player today.

Trader Joe
06-04-2009, 10:03 AM
There are plenty of 6'10" guys in the NBA right now that have NO business playing PF.

OakMoses
06-04-2009, 10:15 AM
Damn....that was a really good pass. :-o

I'm not sure any current Pacer could make that pass successfully on a consistent basis.

PacerGuy
06-04-2009, 10:19 AM
Actually Jermaine started out in the 220s and bulked up to the 270s. He added 50 pounds, not 20.

If Jermaine had stayed in the 240s, I believe he'd be a different player today.
Just the point I tried to make in a reply, but got a d*** error message & lost it!!! :mad:
Anyway, I tried to say how it was not the 1st 20# that hurt JO - in fact that got him off the bench - but the later 20#+ that hurt him. I also mentioned Karl Malone & Dwight Howard as two others that have/had the frame & added much more then 20# & it helped them, not hurt them.
As a young man matures, & a college player grows into an NBA body, 10-20# is natural, it is beyond that where I think you need to be careful.

Tiny Archibald
06-04-2009, 10:58 AM
You know, a point that may be worth making is that everyone is
viewing our need at PF and the req'd skill-set with the assumption
that whomever fills that slot needs to complement Hibbert as ideally
as possible.

Who says that Hibbert is definitely our C of the future and a guy who
will man that spot for the next 8-10 years ? I like what I've seen from
the kid so far too both on and off the court. But we are talking about
a kid with some limitations on a team that won 35 games. How do we
know that an opportunity to upgrade 'that' spot won't present itself
in the next 2-3 years ? Or, if for whatever reason Bird and O'Brien
are history a couple years from now, how do we know that a new
regime won't want a different skill-set in that spot ?

The bottom line is that we don't. The Pacers are still in a rebuilding
phase and are a long way from where they want and need to go.

Wether it's Clark or whomever else at PF or any spot other than SF,
it's premature to be locking guys into positions on paper for the
long haul.

Noodle
06-04-2009, 10:59 AM
There are plenty of 6'10" guys in the NBA right now that have NO business playing PF.

Earl Clark is a shot blocker. He will be able to guard most PF's in the NBA. Dude has the best wingspan in the draft(height to standing length ratio).

Here's all the PF's I can think of that are worth remembering:

KG, Elton Brand, David West, Amare, Bosh, Gasol, Boozer, Artest, Dirk, Marion, Aldrige, Lewis, Camby, Jamison, Mcdyess, Maxiell, Lee , Gooden, Bass, B Wallace, Scola, MIlsap, Najera, Randolph, Joe Smith, Kmart, and Collison.

With exception to guys like Brand, Randolph, Gasol, Boozer. Big guys with offense. Many BIG guys in the NBA can't score, so why couldn't Clark guard PF? Especially of the bench. In two more years and 20 lbs later, he could guard all fo the above. All Clark needs is some coaching.

Beautiful bonus. He can also play SF defensively. With some coaching, I could see this guy posting up smaller guys and creating match up problems. As a PF he could bring other bigs of the block with his mid-range shot. He has solid handles for PF. Some of the turnover problems could decrease with slower guys guarding him. We as a team need interior defense and Clark is the best thing we can get. I hope and pray TPTB understand what I am talking about.

Also, I have friends at work who have nothing but good things to say about him. The love the way he approaches the game. The way he runs the floor. He's a awesome shot blocker and has great hands. His focus on defense. Even after a dunk or a three pointer he'll just run back down the floor to play defense. They do say, however, he disappeares offensively, but they also say that Pitino's offense was bad for him and made him stagnant when his shot wasn't falling. Was too structured for him. They think he should have played in the post more, and claimed that when he did post good things happened. I like this guy and feel bad I didn't get to chime in earlier. Sorry Indy, this was more than a reply.

Taterhead
06-04-2009, 11:03 AM
Actually Jermaine started out in the 220s and bulked up to the 270s. He added 50 pounds, not 20.

If Jermaine had stayed in the 240s, I believe he'd be a different player today.

Jermaine entered the NBA as a freshly turned 18 year old at 220 lbs. Clark is already what 20-21? He has probably already added 20 lbs since high school. And I don't remember Jermaine ever weighing as much as 270 lbs, 260 maybe. Clark definitely has the frame to add weight, but to me not only are you diminishing his strengths by doing so, you are putting his knees at risk.

I agree Jermaine would've never had those knee problems if he had stayed at a more natural weight. That's my point. Lets not try to make someone something they are not.

Taterhead
06-04-2009, 11:09 AM
You know, a point that may be worth making is that everyone is
viewing our need at PF and the req'd skill-set with the assumption
that whomever fills that slot needs to complement Hibbert as ideally
as possible.

Who says that Hibbert is definitely our C of the future and a guy who
will man that spot for the next 8-10 years ? I like what I've seen from
the kid so far too both on and off the court. But we are talking about
a kid with some limitations on a team that won 35 games. How do we
know that an opportunity to upgrade 'that' spot won't present itself
in the next 2-3 years ? Or, if for whatever reason Bird and O'Brien
are history a couple years from now, how do we know that a new
regime won't want a different skill-set in that spot ?

The bottom line is that we don't. The Pacers are still in a rebuilding
phase and are a long way from where they want and need to go.

Wether it's Clark or whomever else at PF or any spot other than SF,
it's premature to be locking guys into positions on paper for the
long haul.

Because a descent center is probably the hardest thing to find. And we found one, IMO. Barring injury problems I can't see the Pacers in a position to find a better young prospect than Hibbert. When you rebuild you don't look to replace your few true assets, you add to them.

Jonathan
06-04-2009, 11:22 AM
The player the Pacers draft is not going to get them into the playoffs next year or even get a lot of minutes out of the gate even if we trade up in this years draft. JOB is our head coach rookies earn their minutes. Our potential draftee must have good work ethic & attitude.

Gamble1
06-04-2009, 11:37 AM
Because a descent center is probably the hardest thing to find. And we found one, IMO. Barring injury problems I can't see the Pacers in a position to find a better young prospect than Hibbert. When you rebuild you don't look to replace your few true assets, you add to them.

I agree with this statement. It is very hard to get a Center to actually play back to the basket basketball anymore. You see more and more centers that play like PF and PF that play like SF.

I think in most offensive systems you need one dominate post player and the second big on team being a PF or C should be able to play further away. In the pacers case we have the center but not the future PF.

I should mention that I would prefer a PF that is able to atleast stay in front of man. IF Clark is that guy in the future then great.

ESutt7
06-04-2009, 12:17 PM
For those talking about Clark adding weight, he said in a DX interview that he was looking to add 5-10 lbs. That may be enough. He weighs 228 now (for reference Rashard Lewis and Lamar Odom stand 6'10" and weigh 230).

I think a key part of the debate here is just what kind of PF you like. Some want the traditional back to the basket PF. Others want the versatile perimeter oriented PF. And that's why there seems to be mixed opinions on Clark. In today's NBA the more versatile PF is preferable IMO. The NBA doesn't let you play as physical now as they did in the 90s, and the game is becoming more oriented on drive and kick offenses, motions, and fluid guard-like players. Post players aren't allowed to "bang" as much as they used to. But having someone with good size that can play some in the post and have a good mid-range game like Odom and Lewis is an advantage because they can shoot, drive past big guys or post up small guys. In time, Clark has the potential to develop into this more than anyone we could get at 13 IMO. So, if we are looking to go for a 4, he'd be our best choice. But I'm skeptical about some of these PGs so that is why I'm liking Clark right now.

JaimeKoeppe
06-04-2009, 12:57 PM
He has the potential of being a Tayshaun Prince for us, but its going to depend on how committed he is to Defense. He just has times of inconsistency.

Jonathan
06-04-2009, 01:02 PM
I really believe a very promosing player will slip to the Pacers @ 13 and my guess right now (3 weeks till the draft day) is Brandon Jennings will be available @ 13.

Naptown_Seth
06-04-2009, 01:53 PM
I don't get the "tweener" thing, honestly. The issue is that he's got the skills of a SF and the body of a PF? Because 6'10" doesn't sounds "tweener" to me. Sure, he's light, but he'll add weight as he adds years. 20 pounds doesn't sound unreasonable, which would make him 6'10", 245. That's plenty.
ZERO PF SKILLS. None. Not any, not a post game, not a quality rebounding game. So a heavier, tall pure SF that earlier in the year was even out at SG for Pitino.

Awesome.

Size is not the issue, motivation is not the issue. Between the ears is the issue. I simply think he is going to be really lost on most plays and it's going to drag down the rest of the team on both ends, and I don't just mean in his rookie year.

Look, you watch the games off ball and this is what you see - TWill and he go to opposite wings on zone defense. TWill then has to constantly yell over to Clark to keep him in position and aware of zone overloads, backcuts, etc. TWill is running his floor spot AND Clark's.

This happens EVERY GAME, not just sometimes. Clark is not a freshman at this point either, nor is Pitino new or is this early in the year.

On top of this you also see him burned by these same cuts and overloads.


At the other end he was great at being a one on one guy, the person you cleared out for. At his size he could pull up (silky) or drive for lane runners pretty well. He wasn't really Mr. Post though and at his size that's odd.

Again these are all the factors that drew me to TWill so much, he does all of those things except shoot the consistant jumper. I do think NBA guys need to be able to hit a jump shot and Clark having that is a good first step. My concern is that he won't add to this once he gets to the NBA.

He didn't make big strides in college so I don't see reason to expect that to suddenly change. Again counter with TWill who drastically improved his mental game. So the opportunity was there, he just failed to get it. I don't question his work ethic or desire one bit however. He never played lazy, just lost.


All Clark needs is some coaching. Yes, if only he'd played for a coach that knew something about the game or had any history of winning. I mean being at USC with Tim Floyd really held him back....errr, wait a sec...




Jennings falling to 13. Good luck on that. I'd be thrilled. Pass happy PG with about 30 different passes in his bag of tricks and a lump of humility from his Euro attempt. Sounds good to me.

Naptown_Seth
06-04-2009, 02:04 PM
Of course, the impressive thing in that clip is the amazing pass by Twill. Very few NBA players at any position could make that pass.
Seriously. I know I'm on his jock. Passes and plays like that are why. He made some of the craftiest, clever passes I've seen in a college player ever. He tore people up on bouncers. He'd be on baseline in-bounding and bounce pass to a guy at the rim for a layup. Think about it, 2 defenders (his and cutter's) and the baseline all to thread and he pulls a bouncer right to a guy in stride for an easy 2. Sick. That's why to me he's a playmaker. He reads the floor like nobody.

Even when he got burned he was the only one that read it. I saw a team lob in deep over him on a hard press successfully, but he was starting to get back by reading the floor before he saw his man gone. Not great, but the rest of the team had no idea what was happening till it was long over. He at least gives himself a chance even on screwups.

count55
06-04-2009, 02:10 PM
Seriously. I know I'm on his jock. Passes and plays like that are why. He made some of the craftiest, clever passes I've seen in a college player ever. He tore people up on bouncers. He'd be on baseline in-bounding and bounce pass to a guy at the rim for a layup. Think about it, 2 defenders (his and cutter's) and the baseline all to thread and he pulls a bouncer right to a guy in stride for an easy 2. Sick. That's why to me he's a playmaker. He reads the floor like nobody.

Even when he got burned he was the only one that read it. I saw a team lob in deep over him on a hard press successfully, but he was starting to get back by reading the floor before he saw his man gone. Not great, but the rest of the team had no idea what was happening till it was long over. He at least gives himself a chance even on screwups.

Well...DX still has us drafting him...and I'm 99 and 44/100ths percent sure that he'll be available when we send the card up to the podium.

I'd be OK with T-Will.

I'd be OK with Clark...Maynor...one of the guys above falling...It's going to be an easy draft to not be disappointed, but it' s going to be a hard draft to be get excited.

Trader Joe
06-04-2009, 02:23 PM
Jennings falling to 13. Good luck on that. I'd be thrilled. Pass happy PG with about 30 different passes in his bag of tricks and a lump of humility from his Euro attempt. Sounds good to me.

Apparently, you don't follow his twitter or what he said the day of the lottery. I don't think he's been humbled at all.

OakMoses
06-04-2009, 02:45 PM
Apparently, you don't follow his twitter or what he said the day of the lottery. I don't think he's been humbled at all.

Fill us in.

Anthem
06-04-2009, 02:49 PM
I'm not sure any current Pacer could make that pass successfully on a consistent basis.
Tinsley could. :devil:

count55
06-04-2009, 03:00 PM
Fill us in.

:twss:



(Thank You....I'm here all week. Tip your admins.)

OakMoses
06-04-2009, 03:00 PM
Tinsley could. :devil:

Why do you feel the need to remind me that he's still a Pacer? I'm pretty good at ignoring that fact.

Trader Joe
06-04-2009, 03:46 PM
I believe Jennings said something along the lines of you need to play well during your first contract and then get a big, fat deal and just coast.

ESutt7
06-04-2009, 04:00 PM
As talented as Jennings is I have a hard time seeing the Pacers brass drafting him because of his personality...I think they'd rather take a more proven, less arrogant player that the fans will like on and off the court.

duke dynamite
06-04-2009, 04:03 PM
WHO IS EARL CLARK?

flox
06-04-2009, 04:49 PM
I believe Jennings said something along the lines of you need to play well during your first contract and then get a big, fat deal and just coast.

could you be kind enough to provide us with some proof?

Trader Joe
06-04-2009, 04:54 PM
could you be kind enough to provide us with some proof?

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showpost.php?p=885913&postcount=63

Placebo
06-04-2009, 05:05 PM
Interestingly his stock started to fall right after those twitter updates. Honestly I don't think it's THAT big of a deal. It shows immaturity which is true for the majority of the prospects. No big news.

To me, there are more serious red flags in his GAME more so than the twitter updates. But still, would I be happy with him at 13? Possibly.

CableKC
06-04-2009, 05:11 PM
ZERO PF SKILLS. None. Not any, not a post game, not a quality rebounding game. So a heavier, tall pure SF that earlier in the year was even out at SG for Pitino.

Awesome.

Size is not the issue, motivation is not the issue. Between the ears is the issue. I simply think he is going to be really lost on most plays and it's going to drag down the rest of the team on both ends, and I don't just mean in his rookie year.

Look, you watch the games off ball and this is what you see - TWill and he go to opposite wings on zone defense. TWill then has to constantly yell over to Clark to keep him in position and aware of zone overloads, backcuts, etc. TWill is running his floor spot AND Clark's.

This happens EVERY GAME, not just sometimes. Clark is not a freshman at this point either, nor is Pitino new or is this early in the year.

On top of this you also see him burned by these same cuts and overloads.


At the other end he was great at being a one on one guy, the person you cleared out for. At his size he could pull up (silky) or drive for lane runners pretty well. He wasn't really Mr. Post though and at his size that's odd.

Again these are all the factors that drew me to TWill so much, he does all of those things except shoot the consistant jumper. I do think NBA guys need to be able to hit a jump shot and Clark having that is a good first step. My concern is that he won't add to this once he gets to the NBA.

He didn't make big strides in college so I don't see reason to expect that to suddenly change. Again counter with TWill who drastically improved his mental game. So the opportunity was there, he just failed to get it. I don't question his work ethic or desire one bit however. He never played lazy, just lost.
I admit that I'm a total "read what others think of Players to form my own opinion" type of guy when it comes to figuring out who to draft ( only because I do not have the Basketball Knowledge to catch the little details that count ), but so far, Seth has done the best job of convincing me ( this dating back to his introduction of TWill way back when ) why I would prefer to stay away from Clark at the 13th pick. Although it's a plus that he has the "potential" to be a better player (as I mentioned before ), the simple hope that he could ( with the proper guidance ) become the PF that we all pray he can be is not good enough for me.

It would totally be different if Clark had the "prerequisite" PF skills that we are looking for that we can "grow" into a SF....but it's not....it's the opposite when it comes to Clark.

To me, Clark does fill that need for becoming way more athletic then we are now and does have the big "P" attached to him....but other then that...I'd rather not gamble on him. Proverbially, I'm okay with trying to "hit a single or double" as opposed to "swinging for the fences" ( aka the whole "Bayless Vs. BRush" debate ) since we are in a position where we must infuse some talent that not only can contribute immediately but fit a need for us. I would much rather go for someone like Lawson ( assuming that we trade Ford and resign Jack ) or Henderson/TWill at the 13th pick and then try to fill our PF needs with an additional pick with someone like Pendergraph or ( even ) Hansborough or through some trade.

Gamble1
06-04-2009, 05:40 PM
Apparently, you don't follow his twitter or what he said the day of the lottery. I don't think he's been humbled at all.
I am not saying your wrong about his character but others have seen a different side of him.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD itxtvisited="1">Jonathan Givony - President</TD></TR><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD itxtvisited="1">May 13, 2009</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Draftexpress
Gone is the brash, arrogant teenager with the Kid ’N Play style flat-top who dominated the ball in absolute fashion and looked first and foremost for his own shot, his stats and the ultimate high-light play. In his place is a much more mature, respectful young man, always cheering on his teammates, showing great body language and painstakingly trying to do what his coaches ask of him, almost to a fault at times.
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Brandon-Jennings-Biding-his-Time-in-Rome-3212/

ESutt7
06-04-2009, 06:30 PM
WHO IS EARL CLARK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hb2k_6T4qw

I'm of the opinion that he would be able to step in and contribute early on, especially compared to some of the other prospects hovering around 13. That's one of the reasons I think he would pique our interest.

Trader Joe
06-04-2009, 08:03 PM
Hey, at 13 I'd take Jennings and walk away with a big grin on my face, I'm just saying I do think he's gonna need to be kept in line and forced to buy into the system.

Anthem
06-05-2009, 12:18 AM
I believe Jennings said something along the lines of you need to play well during your first contract and then get a big, fat deal and just coast.
Nothing there about coasting after the first contract.

What he's saying is that landing in the lotto isn't as important as landing on a team that's a good fit. If you fall into a good situation, then you're set up to succeed financially with the second contract.

I don't mind players getting paid as long as they keep producing.

SoupIsGood
06-05-2009, 01:54 AM
Nothing there about coasting after the first contract.

What he's saying is that landing in the lotto isn't as important as landing on a team that's a good fit. If you fall into a good situation, then you're set up to succeed financially with the second contract.

I don't mind players getting paid as long as they keep producing.

Agreed. He doesn't mention a thing about coasting, and we'd be deluding ourselves if we thought that 95% of the picks in this draft weren't already thinking about what they can do to land that huge 2nd contract.

Trader Joe
06-05-2009, 08:15 AM
I dunno, I see a red flag when I read between the lines there. Like I said not enough to chase me away at 13, but something to keep an eye on.

OakMoses
06-05-2009, 10:17 AM
I dunno, I see a red flag when I read between the lines there. Like I said not enough to chase me away at 13, but something to keep an eye on.

Reading the quotes does get my dander up a bit, but I'm also willing to admit that he may just be a bit more honest and less well-groomed than your average 19-year-old basketball phenom. What it seems like to me is that he doesn't have a very good agent. He misses the NBA draft combine, then skips the Eurocamp where every NBA team would have had a chance to see him. Then there's the Twitter stuff, which a good agent would tell him not to post. He's either ignoring whatever good advice he's getting or he's just not getting good advice.

On the Twitter comments, they remind me a bit of Edgerrin James. He was always very up front about how important money was for him, but we never had any reason to question his desire or work ethic.

Anthem
06-05-2009, 03:32 PM
Reading the quotes does get my dander up a bit, but I'm also willing to admit that he may just be a bit more honest and less well-groomed than your average 19-year-old basketball phenom.
Dude, it's Twitter, not a press release.

Check the whole feed. Sounds like your average 19-year old. Nothing there scares me.

http://twitter.com/BJennings3

Naptown_Seth
06-06-2009, 11:32 AM
Cable - the thing with Clark is that he does have the talent. And it's not flukey. Scouting him last year and this and then noticing TWill and grabbing a lot more L'ville games to double check on him, I just ended up watching Clark a lot.

The prospect thread is tough to reread, but I think I was complaining early on that he was out at the 2 spot. Later he was down in the corner as a wing instead as things were adjusted, but the bottom line is a good coach will tell you quite a bit about a player. What Pitino was saying about Clark is that he is a gifted FACE UP ONLY scorer with no ability to lead the team and not that strong at making others better.

But the scoring was nice. Not just NCAA nice either. He's going to get that drive to the lane, lift and rip the nets jumper quite often it would seem. It's a pro like move to me.

OTOH so was Shawne Williams shot. I was a huge Williams fan and someone that still stands behind saying he was physically further along than Danny at one point. He was better at going to the rim and had a better shot (quicker, smoother).

As we know now there is more to it than talent. Luckily I don't think the off-court issues that appear to have ruined Shawne are there, but regardless of that do the Pacers need a mind-right Shawne Williams right now? I don't know. I wouldn't hate watching those talents in action, but the mental breakdowns are going to be frustrating.

But then when TWill misses jumper number 8 of 10 that will be frustrating too.


I've come to like some prospects deeper in this draft, but like was already said this is a tough draft to get excited about. The hype machine is building up so once again we have a big crop of talent and every single one is going to be praised for his potential at the next level, just like every year including the years where only 2-3 guys end up really making an impact.

Last year spoiled us. Having the Granger lucky break hasn't helped either. It's going to be tough to improve this year in the draft. Possible, but tough.

Naptown_Seth
06-06-2009, 11:39 AM
Tinsley could. :devil:
Definitely. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Dude could ball. If anything that's why we are so PO'd with him and his attitude. He and Ron as players could have led the Pacers to a title, moreso than JO could have even.

Damn shame and waste of talent. Worse to know that had they had their minds right you had both of them locked up long term too. The Pacers easily could have had a run similar to what the Pistons just ended.

Jax was a better passer than Tinsley, but in the last 25 years Tins is 2nd in my memory. Personally I think those types of passes are the best plays in the NBA. Not even the fancy stuff, just that needle threading to the right man in the right place. That's when basketball is at it's best as a sport and why Magic and Bird are so loved. It's also why I'm not a big Jordan fan.