Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

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

  • The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

    Jay, rest assured, the Pacers will not get Tyson Chandler. The best the Pacers can hope for is AL Harrington for the 7th pick, and the Pacers will have to take maybe Scottie Pippen back so the salaries match.

    After thinking about it and reading what they are saying out of Chicago, there is no way the Bulls would have ever traded Tyson and the 7th pick for AL, dispite the excitement last night we should all accept the fact that won't happen.


    I do think however if Luke Jackson is available at the 7th pick the Bulls will draft him and trade him to the Pacers for AL, I think that will happen.

    Whether that is a good trade or not, I don't have the slightest idea, for two reasons.

    1) I don't think the Pacers will stop there, more moves will be made.

    2) I have never seen Jackson play so I have no idea. But I will say if the Pacers make this move and Jackson is not the Pacers starting shooting guard by his second season then it was a huge mistake. He also should be able to play 15 minutes per game next season, if he is not ready or good enough to do those two things, then Bird just made his first mistake.

    Because make no mistake about it, this is Bird's trade, yes I know DW has a say so, but I highly doubt Walsh makes this trade if Bird were still in Naples, Florida

  • #2
    Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

    Yeah, but I still don't want to trade Al for an expiring contract and a rookie.

    Surely we can do better.

    Perhaps we're really not in 'win now' mode? Maybe LB thinks he has to re-make the team 'in his image' before they can get over the top?

    It seems everytime we've made a 'win now' type of move, its backfired. That's one of the few 'chinks' in DW's armor, and its what makes a guy like Jerry West so special.

    If we are three years away from contending, then I could live with Al for Jackson and another project like Chandler. You could be right, UB, that he could be very good in a few seasons. But I wouldn't characterise that as a certainty. IMO that trade makes us worse for at least one season if not two.

    Al is our most tradeable asset. If we take a short-term step backwards by moving him, then I don't see how subsequent moves could improve the team enough to offset that.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

      I don't know a flippin' thing about Jackson but I agree with UB. If he can't help immediately, there's no point.

      I'll tell you who the lack of hype has surprised me with is Kris Humphries. It's not every freshman who can leadt the Big Ten in rebounding and Scoring. In a lot of ways his performance was as good as Carmello Anthony's was last year - just his team sucked.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

        In a lot of ways his performance was as good as Carmello Anthony's was last year - just his team sucked.


        Hmm, I seem to remember hearing that one should never trade for a guy with big numbers from a bad team.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment


        • #5
          ESPN radio

          Still reporting Bulls will probably pick Luke Jackson with #7 and make a straight up trade with the Pacers for Al.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler


            if he is not ready or good enough to do those two things, then Bird just made his first mistake.
            I would have to say this is possibly closer to his third mistake (If it does turn out to be a mistake.).

            I would count the first mistake as the drafting of Austin Croshere. It was widely thought that he was Bird's decision.

            Second mistake would be his part in the Brad Miller for Scot Pollard trade.

            Now, I know he was not alone in these decisions. But he should at least share in the blame.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler


              if he is not ready or good enough to do those two things, then Bird just made his first mistake.
              I would have to say this is possibly closer to his third mistake (If it does turn out to be a mistake.).

              I would count the first mistake as the drafting of Austin Croshere. It was widely thought that he was Bird's decision.

              Second mistake would be his part in the Brad Miller for Scot Pollard trade.

              Now, I know he was not alone in these decisions. But he should at least share in the blame.
              Drafting AC wasn't the mistake. Signing him to the monster deal in 2000 was. He'd be a good player if he was making 3 million.

              Sort of like the real mistake with Brad wasn't last summer but the big extensions for Foster & Bender the previous October.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler


                if he is not ready or good enough to do those two things, then Bird just made his first mistake.
                I would have to say this is possibly closer to his third mistake (If it does turn out to be a mistake.).

                I would count the first mistake as the drafting of Austin Croshere. It was widely thought that he was Bird's decision.

                Second mistake would be his part in the Brad Miller for Scot Pollard trade.

                Now, I know he was not alone in these decisions. But he should at least share in the blame.
                Drafting Austin was a solid choice. DW giving him that big contract, in retrospect, was not. Not Bird's fault.
                "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

                  I'm not sold on Luke at all. What's this guy's scouting report?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

                    I'm not sold on Luke at all. What's this guy's scouting report?
                    I heard he was the greatest thing sinced sliced TMac....... ...sorry....
                    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

                      I'm not sold on Luke at all. What's this guy's scouting report?
                      I heard he was the greatest thing sinced sliced TMac....... ...sorry....
                      sliced.....TMac....???

                      Um...do you ...eat it??
                      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

                        Any chance of us trading Al for the 7th and Pippen, then trading down from 7 for the 10th and DaJuan Wagner or something like that?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

                          http://www.draftcity.com/lukejackson.htm

                          Strengths A very skilled and versatile player, Jackson is one of the better overall offensive talents in the country. Possessing a deadeye shot (which has improved greatly since he first entered college) from mid-range and three-point territory (shooting 51% from the field and 47% from beyond the arc so for the season), his jumper is difficult to defend when combining both his height and quick release. When he spots an opening in the defense Luke is not at all hesitant to take the ball to the basket and usually finishes when he does so or ends up at the line where he rarely misfires (or both). He has a quick first step to go along with an ability to hit tough shots in the lane, where he is not intimidated by bigger opponents. What sets Jackson apart from many scorers of his size are his guard-like ballhandling and passing skills. He sees the court exceptionally well and can almost always find open teammates any where on the court. He can crash the boards fairly well and does a good job following his own shots inside. Although his athleticism is not widely considered a strongpoint of his, he can get up significantly and at times surprisingly well and goes hard to the rim when he has the open path.

                          WeaknessesSkill-wise, there is not very much that Jackson lacks on the offensive end. The nature of his game is very unselfish, sometimes to his own detriment, and he has frequently been knocked for not being assertive enough. He will have to adjust to not being able to use his height as much to his advantage in the Pro’s, when he can seemingly see the entire court or shoot over many opponents with relative ease at the college level. His on the ball defense will have to improve as well if he expects to defend quicker guards and forwards while he does not possess great lateral quickness either.

                          CommentsCoupled with his excellent work ethic and intelligent feel for the game, he has the intangibles to be a successful player at the next level. While his height isn’t outstanding for the NBA level he has a good body capable of playing the SF position. He also could very well see time at the 2 with his perimeter skills.

                          Jackson will be a solid and ready contributor entering the upcoming draft, and should pay dividends for the team that drafts him if he falls to the late-first and early-second rounds.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

                            I'm not sold on Luke at all. What's this guy's scouting report?
                            Luke Jackson
                            Height: 6-7
                            Weight: 210
                            Position: Guard
                            Home Town: Creswell, OR
                            Team: Oregon Ducks

                            03-04 Season
                            GP MIN/G PTS/G REB/G AST/G FG %
                            25--34.5---21.6---7.3-----4.5----.491
                            ------------------------------------------------

                            Here's a few draft reports, lot's of varying opinions if he's a SG or SF. I didn't write them, just copy and pasted, don't shoot the messenger.
                            ------------------------------------------------

                            NBA Comparison: Brent Barry

                            Strengths: Luke is a very good all around player. He is an excellent shooter all the way out to NBA range and has a good mid-range game as well. He also passes the ball very efficiently. He is a difficult match-up because of his height (6'7) and his guard skills. Needs very little space to get his jumper off and has a pretty quick release. Generally plays under control even in the transition game. He has a small forwards body but could play some 2 at the next level. Has a deceptive first step and does a great job of getting into the lane and challenging the defense. He is a very unselfish player with a solid all-around game. He's ot afraid to mix it up and hit the boards.

                            Weaknesses: Not the greatest defender on earth and will definitely struggle to guard perimeter players at the next level. His lateral foot speed is not a strength. Not the most athletic SF either but he is adequate in that area. Lacks great size at the SF position, and is not a tremendous rebounder, but decent. He also wont blow you away with his athleticism, but has decent quickness and leaping ability.

                            Notes: The only player in Oregon history to record 2 career triple doubles, and joins only Jason Kidd and Loren Woods as the only three to ever have multiple career triple doubles in Pac 10 history. Was also a baseball pitcher and out-fielder in high school and actually struck out 16 batters in one game.

                            Draft Outlook: He is the type of shooter that lots of teams would love to have suit up for them. If he can show improved defense and have some good workouts he could sneak into the 15-20 range. Most likely a late first rounder to early second round pick.
                            -------------------------------------------


                            Oregon forward Luke Jackson is a rarity in this year’s draft. The experienced Oregon senior stayed in school for four years and finds himself as one of the few four-year veterans surrounded by high schoolers, Europeans, and college underclassmen. In an age where staying four years almost lowers a player’s draft prospects, Jackson is hoping his versatile game will propel him into the upper tier of the 1st Round of the Draft.



                            The 6’7” small forward had a monster senior season, finishing as the Pac 10’s only player in the top 10 in scoring, rebounding, and assists. For the season he averaged 21.2 points, 7.2 rebounds, and 4.5 assists. Some might want to compare “Cool Hand Luke” to another former Pac 10 star of similar race and build in former UCLA star Jason Kapono, but that assumption would be inaccurate. Although both are tall, white swingmen, Jackson isn’t a one-dimensional three-point assassin like Kapono. His deadly behind the arc stroke (44 percent 3-point percentage) is but one weapon of his diverse game. His unselfish arsenal of skills includes the court vision of guards much smaller than he and the rebounding prowess of much larger players. Throughout his collegiate career, Jackson has always been the player throwing the extra pass to garner a nice assist, sacrificing his body for dirty work, or taking a game over with his scoring. His two career triple-doubles are evidence of this,as are his All-Pac 10 and All-American honors. If there is a weakness to his game it is his lack of athleticism that prevents him from being a lock down defender or a pogo stick slasher. He might struggle early matching up to the NBA’s quicker swingmen.

                            The two-time Oregon High school Player of the Year could’ve left school early like his teammate point guard Luke Ridnour. Instead he stayed to enjoy a tremendous individual season that has him poised to be one of few senior first round locks in the coming draft along with St. Joseph’s guard Jameer Nelson and BYU center Rafael Araujo. CHN’s latest mock draft has him going 22nd overall. Like Nelson and Araujo, his fourth year investment is looking like it will pay dividends.
                            --------------------------------------

                            Career Highlights: One of only two players (Sean Elliott) in Pac-10 history to finish career with 1,900 points, 700 rebounds and 400 assists. Only player in Oregon history to rank in the top 10 in nine categories: second in scoring, first in free throws made, third in steals and free throw percentage, fourth in assists and field goals made, sixth in three-point field goals and seventh in rebounding and three-point field goal percentage. Only player in school history with two career triple-doubles.
                            Senior (2003-04): One of only six players in the nation to lead his team in scoring (21. 2 ppg), rebounding (7.2 rpg) and assists (4.5 apg). Earned First Team All-America honors from The Sporting News, Basketball Times, Espn.com and CBS Sportsline.com. Named Second Team All-America by AP and Sports Illustrated. Finalist for the Wooden and Naismith Player of the Year Awards. Named All-Pac-10 First Team and All-Tournament team. Scored a career-high 42 points to go with 10 rebounds against Arizona.

                            Junior (2002-03): Earned All-Pac-10 honors after being the only player in the league to rank in the top 10 in scoring (16.0, eighth), rebounding (6.9, sixth), assists (3.6, ninth) and steals (1.7, fifth). Registered his second career triple-double with 14 points, 11 rebounds and 12 assists against Florida A&M. In Pac-10 history, only California’s Jason Kidd and Arizona’s Loren Woods have multiple triple-doubles.
                            --------------------------------------------

                            Immediate Impact: He could've been drafted last year, but Luke Jackson returned for an almost Graduate-level season at Oregon where he strengthened nearly every facet of his game. Jackson is the most polished player of this Draft class with his skill, four-year college experience and decent physical stature. He'll step in as a rookie and give some team a great lift at the backup swingman position a la Mike Miller.
                            ---------------------------------------------

                            Strengths:
                            Has great perimeter skills and can play down low… He is very versatile and because of that, can play the shooting guard, small forward, and power forward with his post skills and shooting skills… Also has a very quick first step… Does a great job of getting to the basket… Great foul shooter… Can create his shot very well… A pure shooter and can hit from three-point range and mid-range consistently… A great inside-outside player… Has a nose for the ball, knows how to box out bigger and taller players… Can handle the ball like a guard… Has a very complete offensive game, almost a flawless player offensively…

                            Weaknesses:
                            On offense, the only thing he needs to work on is his one-on-one moves… Needs to improve his feet on defense… Often gets beat to the basket… Will have a hard time playing anything but small forward in the NBA because he doesn’t have the speed of guards and the size or strength of big men…
                            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Bulls might trade the 7th pick for Al Harrington, but not Chandler

                              Thanks you two.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X