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

Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

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

    Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...Rookies-100120

    (David Thorpe)
    Moving or staying up

    DeJuan Blair, Spurs | Rookie card
    Many rookies have been solid contributors on good teams. But how many can say they dominated a game for a playoff-bound team against a likely playoff team? Blair had 28 points on 11-of-17 shooting with 21 rebounds (10 offensive) against Oklahoma City. The last rookie to pull off a 20-20? It wasn't Dwight Howard. Or Chris Bosh. Or Amare Stoudemire. Or Yao Ming. It was Blair's Hall of Fame-bound teammate, Tim Duncan, who did it in March of 1998.

    All season long, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich has been saying he's amazed by what the undersized Blair can accomplish in the paint. You know what I call the ability to produce in spite of circumstances? Talent. And Blair is loaded with it.


    Stephen Curry, Warriors | Rookie card
    Most draft experts considered Curry to be the best shooter in the class, and he's certainly lived up to the hype recently. His 5-for-8 from 3 to help beat the Bulls on Martin Luther King Day pushed his monthly 3-point percentage to 58 percent (18 of 31).

    Almost as impressive is Curry's assist rate (the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist), which hovers around 24 even though he isn't the Warriors' primary ball handler. A month ago, it seemed unlikely that he would make the Rookie Challenge during All-Star Weekend. But now, if he fails to make it, the game will not be as good. He is a very deserving candidate.


    A.J. Price, Pacers | Rookie card
    DeJuan Blair, Omri Casspi, Jonas Jerebko, Taj Gibson, Chase Budinger, Marcus Thornton and Brandon Jennings have all been labeled draft night steals this season. Add Price to the list.

    The second-rounder is one of just six rookies with a player efficiency rating of 15 or better. I watched Price play in person recently and was impressed by how he is balancing his instincts as a scorer with his job of running the team. To wit, he ranks eighth in assist rate among rookies, ahead of similar score-first guards such as Jonny Flynn and Tyreke Evans. Better yet, Price has the lowest turnover rate of any rookie point guard. That combination, plus some solid scoring games, has earned him huge rotations minutes; he's averaging 20-plus minutes per game and 10 points per game in January. This after appearing in just 12 games and averaging just eight minutes per game in 2009.


    Sam Young, Grizzlies | Rookie card
    Young, ironically, was one of the oldest players in the draft at 24 years old, which was seen as a strike against him. But "old" age has its advantages, too. Young's emotional maturity and better perspective have enabled him to make progress despite pedestrian minutes and production in November.

    And he's still at it, providing increased production and efficiency in fewer minutes. Young is scoring 9.8 ppg in January, up from 8.8 points last month, despite playing three fewer minutes per game. Three minutes might seem like a small number, but players keep track of their minutes the way a mother watches her children in a crowded mall -- very carefully. Many rooks who experience a loss in minutes get frustrated, which tends to lead to poor play. But Young's increased efficiency -- and his vital role in Memphis' surge -- has made him one of the best sleeper picks of the 2009 draft.


    Marcus Thornton, Hornets | Rookie card
    Few rookies have had to surf rougher waters than Thornton. Consider that he started the season playing just nine minutes total in the Hornets' first seven games. Then he went on a scoring tear, averaging 12 ppg in November. Then he scored just 6 ppg on 38 percent shooting in December. Now he's back on top with six straight double-figure-scoring games and is shooting an impressive 13-for-30 (43 percent) from 3 in January.

    Thornton is proving to be irrepressible. No matter how tough things get for him, I think he'll find a way into the Hornets' rotation and have a positive impact.


    DeMar DeRozan, Raptors | Rookie card
    Only 20 years old, DeRozan is expected to have a large learning curve. But being patient with his mistakes is easier said than done, especially because the Raptors must win enough games to persuade Chris Bosh to stay in Toronto. However, he has not made the team suffer much lately.

    In the Raptors' past five wins (in an eight-game stretch), DeRozan has made 23 of 39 shots and scored 11 or more points in four of those five games. He's been efficient and smart with his shot selection, allowing Toronto's better players to run the offense. Oh, and he's had just three turnovers in those eight games. Sounds like a veteran's numbers, doesn't it?


    Wayne Ellington, Timberwolves | Rookie card
    Ellington is having a successful month as Minnesota's backup 2-guard. He's shooting the ball much better, having made 11 of his past 20 3-point attempts after hitting just 14 of 53 in November and December. He's looking for his shot, only taking smart ones and averaging more than 10 ppg in January.

    I also like how Ellington is alert and aggressive when chasing rebounds. If he can work his way into Minnesota's starting lineup, it would allow Corey Brewer to move back to his more natural small forward position and the Wolves to become a more athletic team.


    Sundiata Gaines, Jazz | Rookie card
    Just getting the call-up from the D-League was a story enough for Gaines. But then he hit a buzzer-beating 3-pointer to knock off Cleveland. It was the first 3 of his career.

    Gaines has provided some energy off the bench beyond that fairy-tale moment, but as we have written throughout the years in this report, the NBA is not all puppy dogs and ice cream. Gaines is getting some love now but could be back in the D-League at any time.

    For the record, I remember watching him play one afternoon when he was at Georgia and thinking he was a very underrated player. Whatever happens going forward, how many rookies can say they made their first 3-pointer to beat King James?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

    My draft night want list:

    Blair, G Henderson, Young, Budinger, TWill, Price...some interest in Holiday but worried about if they could develop him.

    Had the Pacers turned that 13th pick into 2 2nd round picks and got Blair and Young (or Chase) which is something I was saying during the draft, things would look pretty darn sharp.

    Well, other than the fact that Blair and Young would be on their 20th straight DNP.


    One caveat in all this is that Price, Young, Chase, Twill - older players should be better their rookie year because they are mature. Over time we might see the younger kids catch them as they mature (see Thabeet maybe, definitely Holiday).

    This is also something I see as another big worry with Hans as a 24 year old 4 year guy. Gotta be up to full speed out of the block.



    I do think we are seeing good evidence in recent years that college players that get 2-3 years, let alone 4, tend to LEARN their major (basketball) just like any other college age students. People are all about the money and how we are holding kids back, but for a lot of these guys the NCAA situation is just as helpful as it is to any bright student who could technically skip college and start working in a lab, law office, etc.

    There's a lot to be said for learned maturity. Just ask UConn's Stanley Robinson.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-20-2010, 06:24 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

      The lowest amount of turnovers has me warm and fuzzy inside
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        My draft night want list:

        Blair, G Henderson, Young, Budinger, TWill, Price...some interest in Holiday but worried about if they could develop him.

        Had the Pacers turned that 13th pick into 2 2nd round picks and got Blair and Young (or Chase) which is something I was saying during the draft, things would look pretty darn sharp.

        Well, other than the fact that Blair and Young would be on their 20th straight DNP.


        One caveat in all this is that Price, Young, Chase, Twill - older players should be better their rookie year because they are mature. Over time we might see the younger kids catch them as they mature (see Thabeet maybe, definitely Holiday).

        This is also something I see as another big worry with Hans as a 24 year old 4 year guy. Gotta be up to full speed out of the block.



        I do think we are seeing good evidence in recent years that college players that get 2-3 years, let alone 4, tend to LEARN their major (basketball) just like any other college age students. People are all about the money and how we are holding kids back, but for a lot of these guys the NCAA situation is just as helpful as it is to any bright student who could technically skip college and start working in a lab, law office, etc.

        There's a lot to be said for learned maturity. Just ask UConn's Stanley Robinson.
        Thing with A.J. though, despite his age, he hasn't gotten to improve his skills for the past five years, (with exception to three point shooting) he's been playing catch up because of injuries. So despite being a bit older, I think there's room for improvement.

        Mentally, he probably won't improve that much. Maybe just the slowing down of the game, and a little bit better decision making. But he really doesn't have too. There are plenty of young point guards that won't reach Price's level mentally, ever.

        Anyway..about Stanley. I hope..Indiana doesn't do it. Yes, four year senior..probably expected to go around where Indiana's gonna draft..could play the PF..yes..it all fits. But please don't do it. Please Larry, save yourself the grief. He's a nice kid and all..but don't do it. He's the definition of inconsistency.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

          This article made me happy about Price but then it made me haz a sad about passing on Blair.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

            Thanks. I saw his pic on espn and wondered what the art said.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

              Bump, I guess this is the only 2010 Rookie watch thread.

              The two biggest "misses" for me were TWill and Henderson, two of my favorite prospects. With TWill his FG% was always going to be the main issue, could he make NBA jumpers enough to keep him on the court. With Henderson the question was...well, just why isn't Brown even trying to use him.

              Both have had minor upticks lately. Henderson is finally getting back into the rotation in Charlotte for minor minutes. Hard to say much about his game so far, but at least he's getting to play. Odd how this came about just after the trade deadline rumor. Showcasing? Making sure before summer so they don't trade someone good?


              TWill has played some really outstanding ball lately. I saw a little of his play the other night, just incredible passes. And he's made buckets.

              4-5 vs WSH, 8-16 vs CLE, 4-9 vs ORL, 6-11 vs MEM. His one "dud" was 1-4 vs the Knicks. After starting the year with tons of 26 mpg nights, the Nets cut him way back. They gave him a little 4-5 game bump to end JAN, backed off again, and now have used him 26+ minutes in every March game.

              His assists per game in March so far? SIX. 6.0 apg. And 6.5 rebounds per, and 13 ppg. That's the TWill I scouted, and those March games are against 3 winning teams and the Knicks (who they beat), it's not just loading up against dogs.


              My biggest miss right now is thinking that Collison wouldn't share the ball enough. He has had a lot of nights where his FGAs dwarfed his assists, but he's also put up some monster assists numbers on other nights. Home cooking with the scorers? He did have an 18 assist night on the road, but his other more recent huge nights have all been at home.

              And as I said, his game log is loaded with 18+ FGA nights...really nearly every night. So maybe I shouldn't kick myself just yet, that's a lot of FGAs from your PG if he's truly running the point for others. His 3 big assist nights did have his FGAs down in the 12 range, so maybe he's adjusting and becoming a better true PG.

              Regardless he's played really well for New Orleans, far better than he did at UCLA.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

                I posted this in the other thread, but figured I'd post it here too.

                Price is apparently one of five rookies this year to score over 18 points in a quarter.

                So glad we aren't playing him.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Bump, I guess this is the only 2010 Rookie watch thread.

                  The two biggest "misses" for me were TWill and Henderson, two of my favorite prospects. With TWill his FG% was always going to be the main issue, could he make NBA jumpers enough to keep him on the court. With Henderson the question was...well, just why isn't Brown even trying to use him.

                  Both have had minor upticks lately. Henderson is finally getting back into the rotation in Charlotte for minor minutes. Hard to say much about his game so far, but at least he's getting to play. Odd how this came about just after the trade deadline rumor. Showcasing? Making sure before summer so they don't trade someone good?


                  TWill has played some really outstanding ball lately. I saw a little of his play the other night, just incredible passes. And he's made buckets.

                  4-5 vs WSH, 8-16 vs CLE, 4-9 vs ORL, 6-11 vs MEM. His one "dud" was 1-4 vs the Knicks. After starting the year with tons of 26 mpg nights, the Nets cut him way back. They gave him a little 4-5 game bump to end JAN, backed off again, and now have used him 26+ minutes in every March game.

                  His assists per game in March so far? SIX. 6.0 apg. And 6.5 rebounds per, and 13 ppg. That's the TWill I scouted, and those March games are against 3 winning teams and the Knicks (who they beat), it's not just loading up against dogs.


                  My biggest miss right now is thinking that Collison wouldn't share the ball enough. He has had a lot of nights where his FGAs dwarfed his assists, but he's also put up some monster assists numbers on other nights. Home cooking with the scorers? He did have an 18 assist night on the road, but his other more recent huge nights have all been at home.

                  And as I said, his game log is loaded with 18+ FGA nights...really nearly every night. So maybe I shouldn't kick myself just yet, that's a lot of FGAs from your PG if he's truly running the point for others. His 3 big assist nights did have his FGAs down in the 12 range, so maybe he's adjusting and becoming a better true PG.

                  Regardless he's played really well for New Orleans, far better than he did at UCLA.

                  Don't give up on T'Will. I still feel he can be a good player. He was one of the players I wanted at 13 along with James Johnson who hasn't done jack this year. Johnson came out too early, but I'm not quitting on him. Gibson has just been great, and Johnson's play hasn't made anyone do sommersaults, cartwheels, or handstands with his play.

                  I wanted Bird to get a 2nd 1st who I had penciled in Maynor and Budinger. I'm looking forward to seeing how they progress next year.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Rookie Watch: Sinking or swimming?

                    My issue with Maynor remains the same, he doesn't have many moves. He's got an NBA teardrop just past the FT line, or he leaps in the air and 2 hand passes to one of the corners. That's a majority of his game. He does those things well, but I need to see more variety to think he can stick.

                    Still I wouldn't have minded him as a pick later on, but to be honestly I preferred AJ Price anyway.



                    I just mentioned Collison and he has what has become his prototypical game. He goes an awful 3-14 from the field, but has 9 assists. So you like the passing, but all those shots show that he is still ball dominating which is what I didn't like about him. Is he racking up assists with great passes, or just always being the last guy to touch the ball before someone else shoots?

                    I hate to nitpick the stat, but the FGAs are hard to ignore. Huge shooting volume.


                    My boy TWill might really be onto something. He had his first "best guy out there" night for the Nets. 7 of 12 for 18 points, 13 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 stl, 1 blk, 1 TO.                     Not bad against the Mavs.

                    Speaking of Mavs, Beaubois has really been tearing up as the new version of Barbosa. Obviously I didn't scout him since he was a Euro, but he looks like a pretty nice steal even in a PG heavy class.


                    Sam Young continues to be a mainstay of the Griz rotation, and that's in quality wins, not just scrap time. He and Chase were two that I really wanted but thought might slip, which they obviously did. Young has one of the longest, hardest upfakes you'll ever see, really gets bites on it.
                    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-11-2010, 04:24 PM.

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X