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

Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

    I thought it was pretty interesting.

    http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/...d-Workout.html

    Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

    by Michael Stephenson

    June 19, 2009 5:13 PM

    One of the defining aspects of this draft is that there are a ton of point guards -- heading into a league that is hungry for good point guards. The Wolves held one of the most important group workouts of draft season today, featuring the vast majority of the top prospects. It was closed, but TrueHoop reader Michael Stephenson -- a season ticket holder -- was among those invited to watch. He wrote up the following report, and sent it over with his blessing to publish it on TrueHoop:

    The group was Jonny Flynn, Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, Jrue Holiday, Tyreke Evans and Jeff Teague out of Wake Forest. I was most looking forward to seeing Jennings as I've been following him closely (on TrueHoop, among others) and was eager to measure his progress in person.

    The first half of the morning was spent on drills -- dribble to this spot, crossover and take a jumper, that type of stuff. Flynn and Lawson proved the most fundamentally sound and were comfortable taking direction from the coaching staff. Nobody looked great initially but it was early and they weren't really being tested.

    Things got exponentially more interesting in the one-on-one competition (taking turns playing D, staying on if you scored, etc). It was here that Evans established himself as the class of the group. Probably somewhat unfair to pit him against smaller, true point guards as he had at least three inches and twenty pounds on everyone, but I suppose those guys are going to have to get used to that type of matchup at the next level.

    Anyway, Tyreke was dominant.

    Refusing to simply muscle his way to the hoop (which he did handily a few times), he scored in a half a dozen different ways. Pull-ups on the wing, runners, balanced fade-aways, and a particularly spectacular jab-step and crossover that sent Flynn (without question the best defender of the group) reeling. His jumper needs work but I wouldn't call it a weakness, and he'll definitely hit enough to force defenders to respect it.

    Lawson and Flynn played about how I expected them to. Controlled the ball well, took high percentage shots and occasionally switched gears to get to the rim. Both appear ready to play significant minutes in the league, but I'm not sure I can see either developing into a star. If forced to choose today I'd take Flynn based on his defense and freakish athleticism (40-inch vertical, as measured at the combine).

    Holiday was the most dissapointing player of the group, by far. He played with low energy, struggled during a lot of the offensive drills and generally appeared unhappy and out of place. I know he's got some talent but I can't figure out why he was ever mentioned in the top five of so many mock drafts. Maybe he was just tired, it is a Friday.

    Teague had the purest stroke and hit his jumper most consistently in the drills and during the scrimmage (which I'll get to in a moment). But it was obvious that he's a level behind and had trouble keeping up with his peers. In an extremely guard heavy draft, I imagine it's going to be tough for him to turn many heads.

    As I mentioned, I went into the day hoping to see brilliance from Brandon Jennings and instead witnessed the type of raw, inconsistent play that many scouts and coaches have been ranting about. First off, the rumors about his foot speed are true. He was easily a full step (maybe half-step over Flynn ...) quicker than anyone in the gym. I'd love to hand him and Derrick Rose each a ball and watch them race up and down the court all day.

    The drills were not kind to young Jennings. He missed a lot of shots and drew scorn from the assistant coaches when he repeatedly ignored direction -- often choosing to make the move he wanted to make as opposed to the one they were asking to see. In one-on-one he improved a bit but was continually over-powered by Lawson and Flynn (Brandon is listed under 170lbs, and his lack of strength was obvious) and gambled far too frequently on defense.

    I was nearly ready to write him off and admit that perhaps his critics had him pegged, a year or two at Arizona would've done him some good ... and then they started scrimmaging. Three on three -- more or less a twenty-minute fast break with those guys.

    Suddenly Jennings remembered who he was and started moving with the type of swagger that I'd read about. On the first possession of the scrimmage he cleanly picked off a pass and beat Flynn in a footrace for an emphatic two-hander. A few possessions later he took an outlet from Holiday and sprinted down the left side. After beating Lawson with a stutter step, he picked up the ball and put it behind his back to avoid Evans' help defense. Then he flicked a no-look over his shoulder to Jrue for the easy dunk.

    Onlookers collectively gasped.

    Two of the next four possessions ended with Jennings freezing his man and hitting 18-footers.

    I'm not comfortable saying Jennings should be the player Minnesota takes sixth, especially if Evans is available (I'm seriously impressed). But I can't think of a player in the draft with more upside than Brandon Jennings.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

    Good read. I appreciate the post. I agree if we can find a PG of the future in this draft, we may have to go for it. As long as we have Jack or Ford to start for a couple years so we bring the future on carefully.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

      I wish we could see a workout video of Jennings.

      Youtube has a lot of videos from the Kings workouts - including an individual workout with Evans. He looks a notch above the rest. Great jumper, slasher, one on one moves, and amazing handles. He's going to be very very good. He's such a smooth/natural offensive player.

      Jrue Holiday looked decent - it's obvious his strength is in his defense. Decent jumper. Ball handling needs work. He looked somewhat lost out there.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
        Good read. I appreciate the post. I agree if we can find a PG of the future in this draft, we may have to go for it. As long as we have Jack or Ford to start for a couple years so we bring the future on carefully.

        We need a point guard like the Jennings that was described as the end of this article "suddenly Jennings remembered who he was..." but I'm afraid we'll end up with a Marbury or Iverson type of personality...always straining against his coaches and teammates, always mouthing off that the team's losses are someone else's fault, and stirring things up in the locker room. I just don't know...the great teams have great point guards and we don't have one on our team yet. Which one in this draft is the "big timer", the guy who can carry us back to the glory days.......? Lawson, Flynn, Maynor, Evans, Rubio?
        We need to do whatever it takes to get the best one....short of dismantling the core of our team...Granger, Rush, Dunleavy, Hibbert, and Murphy.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

          You can't deny Jennings talent, but everyone is talking about his attitude. Is this just the fact that he is still just a kid or is it something to worry about in an Artestrian way? If it is just a kid being a kid I wouldn't mind seeing us take a chance if he is there.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

            Are we sure any of these PGs are worth treating like potential saviors of the hardwood? Isn't this draft supposed to suck?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

              Reading the comments about Jennings only further cements my reluctance to draft him. He has "higher ceiling but isn't ready to contribute now due to many weaknesses that he has to address" written all over him. I know that he's 19 years old and has time to develop....but I simply don't think that Bird has the time to wait for him to blossum.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Reading the comments about Jennings only further cements my reluctance to draft him. He has "higher ceiling but isn't ready to contribute now due to many weaknesses that he has to address" written all over him. I know that he's 19 years old and has time to develop....but I simply don't think that Bird has the time to wait for him to blossum.
                I sincerely doubt it too. Drafting on flashes of potentially is risky. And the uncoachable comments....I mean if you can't even do what a coach is telling you in a workout setting for a team you're trying to get picked by?... What does that say about how coachable you'll be when you're actually on a team and making money? This is the time to take critique, work on it, and show the coaches that you're willing to WORK to achieve your potential. I think NBA coaches just MIGHT know what they're talking about. Stuff like that is a red flag to me.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                  If Jennings is available, I think the Pacers would HAVE to take him, and either keep him or have a darn good trade haul coming their way. At 13, if you can get a player with that type of talent and upside, you jump on it. If he didn't have the "attitude" issue, there'd be 0 chance he'd fall to us. Could end up being a blessing.

                  Other thoughts: Doesn't surprise me that Evans dominated, if we trade up I think he's the guy we want. Maybe Holiday could fall to us, but I doubt it. Flynn and Lawson appear to be nice PG's, but is "nice" that big of an upgrade over Jack and Ford long-term? I lean towards no.
                  Last edited by PR07; 06-20-2009, 01:42 PM.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                    Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                    I sincerely doubt it too. Drafting on flashes of potentially is risky. And the uncoachable comments....I mean if you can't even do what a coach is telling you in a workout setting for a team you're trying to get picked by?... What does that say about how coachable you'll be when you're actually on a team and making money? This is the time to take critique, work on it, and show the coaches that you're willing to WORK to achieve your potential. I think NBA coaches just MIGHT know what they're talking about. Stuff like that is a red flag to me.
                    I personally wouldn't mind Jennings but you make some good points. This is one of the reasons why I am leaning towards Blair.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                      If Jennings is available, I think the Pacers would HAVE to take him, and either keep him or have a darn good trade haul coming their way. At 13, if you can get a player with that type of talent and upside, you jump on it. If he didn't have the "attitude" issue, there'd be 0 chance he'd fall to us. Could end up being a blessing.
                      I'd only draft him to trade down and get back some additional asset. Teams later in the draft....ie Teams that has more established PGs that have the luxury of allowing him to develop....could be interested in his potential. I agree with EStutt7, sure he has potential but there are enough red flags for me to think that he's not worth keeping GIVEN our current situation and our apparent drive to compete NOW and return to the Playoffs.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        I personally wouldn't mind Jennings but you make some good points. This is one of the reasons why I am leaning towards Blair.
                        I have reservations about Blair as well, but far less then Jennings. Between the 2, I'd go with Blair....at least with him, I know that he's NBA Ready and can immediately contribute.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                          Here's the issue with these guys - various levels of maturity. I do expect Jrue to be the least mature of this group, he's still a kid and I think if UCLA had handled him better he would have stayed. Camping behind Collison, a player NOT being brought into these groups and for good reason, probably killed his faith in the program and his coach.

                          Jennings is clearly the independent type. That doesn't excuse not taking coaching and he's going to need vet leadership above him, but imagine him on a team like LA or Cleveland where there is already a clear boss in the room. Plus I'd guess that the reason he took off in scrimmage is that he was building up a chip during the more mundane drills.


                          Look, I know I'm down on Lawson and I was down on him last year too. I still feel strongly this way. But consider who he and Flynn played for and then rethink how impressive it is that they run drills well. I don't consider that some big upside. Mature guys from good organized programs SHOULD be those types of guys.

                          The real answers to me were that Evans is a true combo and much more talented, and that Jennings is definitely from the Jax/Tins mold in all ways. Let's not forget the more brash Knicks' version of Jax, or even his Clippers days. He became a leader, but he was also a guy that did the shimmy and clearly enjoyed having the keys handed to him by Bird (Brown dumped him lest we forget).

                          The concerns on Jennings are legit in this area, will he conform enough to work with the team and this or any system. But the flipside is this - IS THERE A SYSTEM??? I suggest there isn't and that the team badly needs a true creator for others, a TJ Ford but with the desire and ability to make lots of great passes instead of calling his own shot.

                          Jennings will get guys great looks and will enjoy doing it. He's also going to throw some souviners around the first few rows. But the offense will get a lot more productive and lively rather than being the middle-of-the-road offense it was disguised by a high pace and a multitude of possessions (for both teams).

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                            Ouch....I think the most discouraging comment made in that article about Jennings was how he rubbed the coaches the wrong way with his disdain for what they wanted from him. I can deal with his raw game as he is only 19 but not being coachable could be a problem......Im torn though with a draft percieved this weak I almost think its worth the risk to take him I mean honestly the guy has the tools to be a top 3 PG in the league in the future.......He seemed to have matured a lot just from his 1 year stint oer seas maybe its a sign of progress to come......hard decision

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Minnesota's Massive Point Guard Workout

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Here's the issue with these guys - various levels of maturity. I do expect Jrue to be the least mature of this group, he's still a kid and I think if UCLA had handled him better he would have stayed. Camping behind Collison, a player NOT being brought into these groups and for good reason, probably killed his faith in the program and his coach.

                              Jennings is clearly the independent type. That doesn't excuse not taking coaching and he's going to need vet leadership above him, but imagine him on a team like LA or Cleveland where there is already a clear boss in the room. Plus I'd guess that the reason he took off in scrimmage is that he was building up a chip during the more mundane drills.


                              Look, I know I'm down on Lawson and I was down on him last year too. I still feel strongly this way. But consider who he and Flynn played for and then rethink how impressive it is that they run drills well. I don't consider that some big upside. Mature guys from good organized programs SHOULD be those types of guys.

                              The real answers to me were that Evans is a true combo and much more talented, and that Jennings is definitely from the Jax/Tins mold in all ways. Let's not forget the more brash Knicks' version of Jax, or even his Clippers days. He became a leader, but he was also a guy that did the shimmy and clearly enjoyed having the keys handed to him by Bird (Brown dumped him lest we forget).

                              The concerns on Jennings are legit in this area, will he conform enough to work with the team and this or any system. But the flipside is this - IS THERE A SYSTEM??? I suggest there isn't and that the team badly needs a true creator for others, a TJ Ford but with the desire and ability to make lots of great passes instead of calling his own shot.

                              Jennings will get guys great looks and will enjoy doing it. He's also going to throw some souviners around the first few rows. But the offense will get a lot more productive and lively rather than being the middle-of-the-road offense it was disguised by a high pace and a multitude of possessions (for both teams).
                              See, your version of what we need and mine would be the same. I just think Lawson is a more polished, "sure thing" if you will. Jennings has more upside. I just don't think he'll get there. I hope he does because he's fun as hell to watch. But I wouldn't trust him running my team. He wants to be the highlight too much, where a guy like Lawson (IMO) is more conditioned to "make the right play." Lawson seems less concerned with his scoring than Jennings IMO.

                              And while Lawson doesn't have a GREAT jumper by any means, it's significantly better than Jennings. Jennings has awful form, fading away, kicking his legs out, not holding the follow through etc. Now that is fixable. But fundamentals don't look as cool. I'd be concerned about how he'd fit in, and whether he'd sacrifice style for substance. It's possible. Lots of jumpers get fixed, and he's been working on it. But I guess I see a Jason Williams type of player. Fantastic or awful when he's allowed to do his thing, but average when reined in. To me Lawson seems to be more of a quarterback/leader than Jennings ever would be.

                              And as we've seen, you don't need a flashy PG, but a solid, smart, fundamental leader. Lawson's history backs up that he is more than capable of this. I want a guy that's smart, maximizes possessions, and gets DG and Brandon, Roy, Troy etc. good shots in their "spots." I think Lawson would be willing to do this, while Jennings would rather force something that could make top 10 plays.

                              I know that is jumping to conclusions about what a 19 year old will be like etc., but I'd trust a more proven guy with my pick. And Bird tends to do the same IMO. I don't think Jennings is someone we'd take unless it's for a trade. There's a reason he's sliding and Lawson is climbing. Hype is wearing off, substance is becoming more important. JMO.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X