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

Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

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

  • Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

    With the last of my individual player analysis draft previews, we take a look at the slinky but talented forward from Kansas, Darrell Arthur.

    Arthur could be drafted almost anywhere in this crazy draft, from about #10 all the way down to the mid 20's. Like many of the big guys in this draft, he has a lot of potential, but it is unclear whether he will realize it in the NBA due to an inconsistent motor and thin frame.

    The Kansas forward is considered somewhat of a player between positions by many, as he lacks a little bit of quickness to play the wing position, but also lacks the idea size and bulk to play the post. Like many of the players I have written about in this draft, where he ends up, which teammates he is surrounded with, and what system he plays in will be a big factor in how successful of an NBA career he may have.

    He has more polish to his game than some of the other comparable bigs in this draft, perhaps somewhat an indication of being on a great team that was well coached at Kansas. He shows pretty good footwork with the ball with his back to the basket, particularly with "finesse" moves such as the turnaround jumper on the low block. He definitely doesnt play a power game inside, instead prefering to fade away from contact occasionally. What is impressive more than most kids in this draft I have watched was his balance I thought, which I feel is a major strength of his inside. Balance, soft touch, with really good hands, those are what I like about him the most.

    I thought he really understood the overall game, his own role, and the Kansas system very well. He played offensively within the confines of what the Jayhawks wanted to do, rarely breaking their system and putting his teammates at a disadvantage by trying to do too much. This may seem like a lottle thing, but he was really good at flashing to the top of key area as a cutter in their scheme, on time and showing a good target. Having a "4" man who can do that is very critical in the Henry Iba based offensive system of the Jayhawks, and Arthur did it well. A thing I love about Arthur on the perimeter is that I think he will be able to get open to recieve a pass without the benefit of a screen, which is a difficult thing to find believe it or not.

    At times, Arthur was the best player on the floor in college, often being the Jayhawks main go to guy for stretches of the game. He obviously was the man they wanted to go to in the low post in big spots. He just didnt bring the effort and desire needed from him to dominate every night, as he sometimes just drifted and disappeared among all the talent on the Kansas roster. "Cool" and "smooth" as words to describe him come to mind.

    Arthur has a nice high post perimeter game. He was a nice post feeder, particularly from the top of the key area, which is something the Kansas system really emphasizes. He held the ball strongly, and seemed to have a pretty good idea of where to feed his post man from this area of the floor. He wasnt a particularly creative passer, but he was effective in getting the ball where it needed to be from this area. He also reversed the ball well from one side to the other, again seemingly understanding the scheme he was playing in. Often, it seemed to me that Arthur made the pass to the guy who made the pass to the guy who made the shot, if that makes any sense. He did have a high turnover rate, and some say he is a poorer passer than what I believe I saw on film. I did see turnovers he created when he tried to freelance or lost concentration, but I think he is a reasonably decent passer in particular situations. He can't improvise well, but he can make the simple pass, and he can feed the post.

    As a perimeter shooter, he isnt spectacular but he is effective. I think he has a somewhat slow trigger on his shot on tape, but I can't tell yet how accurate that statement is. Arthur doesnt seem selfish at all to me, so he rarely will take a hurried shot anyway. He does have pretty decent form, and has range out to around 16-17 feet or so, with the possibility to extend that over time. I think he will project to be a guy who will score facing the basket just as much as he ever will with his back to it.

    It seems like Arthur would be a better rebounder than he really is. I don't think it is a lack of tools or athleticism, I think it is more a lack of mental toughness and concentration that prevented his rebounding numbers from being better than they were. While definitely not a classic "power" player in the paint, I thought he should be better than what his stats indicate. When I watched tape on him to discover why he had lower numbers than I expected I saw that he looked like a player that had a few different rebounding flaws. Many times he failed to either "attack" the rebound or to do the classic "box out" instead he just kind of turned and watched the ball, staying in place. This caused his to be pushed underneath the rim by bigger and tougher players, with the result being the ball bouncing up over his head to players behind him. He also didnt go up strong with two hands to get the ball with authority, and about once or twice a game it would cost him a rebound he should've gotten, often times losing out to a teammate for the board, normally Sasha Kaun. Lastly, whe he was out of position and being blocked out, Arthur would often just concede the ground and head to the other end, instead of using a "swim" technique move or spin move to out fight the player boxing him out.

    Basically, Arthur was not as good a rebounder as he could have been every night because of effort and concentration, although he obviously has the athleticism to be better in this area.

    Defensively, he seemed reasonably solid. He seemed to move his feet pretty well side to side, and didnt have the problem on film of crossing them and losing balance, like I described in an earlier article on Joe Alexander. Because of his good quickness and balance, I think Arthur can guard "3" players at the next level, and in my mind projects as a bigger 3 man in time, rather than trying to gain weight and play the post area.

    He has the ability to hedge the pick and roll, and turn the ballhandler back the way he came. He doesnt consistently do it on film, but more than many kids I studied he contests shots with a hand up pretty well. He did a good job of forcing his own man into help, again playing the scheme defensively Kansas was playing.

    One thing that annoyed me a bit is that he didnt really hard deny his man the ball all that often. Instead, like a lot of mediocre defenders, he didnt really concentrate defensively until his man already had the ball. That will be too late in the NBA, the players he will be checking will be too good! Again, this is a matter of effort and concentration, not natural ability.

    I think it is POSSIBLE( I wouldnt say likely, but possible) that Arthur eventually becomes a really good, long armed, big wing defender. I know most scouts and experts see him as more of a scorer now, but projecting ahead I see a potential really good defender with some decent scoring ability thrown in. I particularly see him developing and becoming a "3 man" more than I see him as a low post "4 man". What I mean by that is that I think his lack of rebounding prowess, skinniness, and overall game mean that you will have to play 2 players on the floor with Arthur who are bigger than he is to make his as effective as he can be. Any team with him as a post player will end up being too soft to consistently win, in my opinion. But as a wing player with size, I think you have something there.

    As a wing, he will be able to post up smaller guys, he'll be able to feed the post well for you, he will be able to recieve the first pass in your offense, he will be able to make open shots, and he won't break plays that screw your teams plays up. He'll play good position defense for you, hopefully be able to bother some of the better players in the league with his length, and will play within your team defensive concept. By playing him as a "3" eventually, his lack of rebounding skill on a nightly basis won't kill you.

    I think projecting a few years ahead, if he is asked to play the "4" for you in a conventional system that he will put up better scoring numbers for you, but your team won't really be better. I think he is a bigger 3 man, which I know is different than almost anyone sees him that I have read so far.

    Arthur has a lot to like about his game now and in the future, and all the things I think he will develop into. If I am wrong and he ends up gaining strength and morphs more into a traditional power forward, then that isn't all bad either.......except that I just dont see him in that way. I can't see Arthur developing into Dale Davis or a true post up power forward that you have to double team to stop him (Elton Brand, for example).

    What I do see Arthur becoming is a little bit bigger Teyshaun Prince, or perhaps a Derrick McKey type player. In fact, McKey is the player I think Arthur will most closely resemble 5 years from now, in terms of his effect on games and style of play. He may not be that in year one, and he won't be that if he ends up on the wrong team. Another good comparable I think for Arthur is Louis Orr.....remember him?

    Whether or not the Pacers should select Arthur tomorrow is a tough call for me. I like alot about him, not so much for what he is now but for what I see him becoming, as Derrick McKey was one of the most important Pacer players ever in terms of his importance to winning big games. I think Arthur can be a player who can help you win.

    On the other hand, I have doubts about selecting him based upon our current roster and configuration. I don't think the current system is a great fit for him either, although that isnt a huge concern for me, as JOB won't be here forever anyway. I guess if you could move Shawne Williams out of here for another pick or helpful piece, selecting Arthur makes more sense.

    At the end of the day, I personally like Marresse Speights just a little better, as he has better size and strength, and I think he projects to be a harder to find true low post big man who can be a good enough scorer to command doubleteams. I think Speights can be your second biggest player on the floor, and occasionally can even be the biggest for you eventually. I dont think Arthur can help you win playing as the second biggest guy, so that means he automatically based on our current roster is a back up behind our 2 best players. Speights might bust, but Arthur could bust too...although I think he is safer. Tough call I guess, I'd go with Speights over him but reasonable minds can disagree.

    I dont think it is clear cut, but I think I'd ponder taking Roy Hibbert over Arthur also. I think Roy Hibbert can play as your BIGGEST player on the floor, and that is a tough thing to find, so I might be tempted to reach and select him over Arthur too..........maybe. I think Arthur is a better overall player, but Hibbert is more rare.........tough call. Fortunately, it wont come down to that anyway, at least not at pick #11.

    Regardless of what I may prefer, Arthur is a winning player with a pedigree and a game that says he will be a "glue" guy, and a player who will be a part of a team that plays the right way and is successful. I certainly won't be disappointed if the Pacers end up with him Thursday night. I think he will be a good pro for a long time. Not a superstar, but a winning player.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-24-2008, 09:49 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

    Well done Tbird. As always, I've learned much more from your write-up than I could have scouring the internet for hours and watching highlights on my own. I just hope that if we don't take a point on Thursday that we take an Arthur or Jordan before picking up a major project like Randolph or a knucklehead like Speights (seems overly cocky as well).
    A: "I've got to wait until it gets dark to finish filming. We have one scene shot at night."

    J: (Drunk) "Come film in my pants man, it's already dark there."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

      Originally posted by laft View Post
      Well done Tbird. As always, I've learned much more from your write-up than I could have scouring the internet for hours and watching highlights on my own. I just hope that if we don't take a point on Thursday that we take an Arthur or Jordan before picking up a major project like Randolph or a knucklehead like Speights (seems overly cocky as well).
      You don't think Jordan is a major project?

      I would love it if the Pacers could get Speights or Arthur or maybe even possibly Hibbert (though I'd much rather have the forst two) with a second first round pick. I think I'm setting myself up for disappointment assuming the Pacers are going to get a second first rounder. I really hope they do get one.
      Last edited by Merz; 06-24-2008, 10:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

        Originally posted by laft View Post
        Well done Tbird. As always, I've learned much more from your write-up than I could have scouring the internet for hours and watching highlights on my own. I just hope that if we don't take a point on Thursday that we take an Arthur or Jordan before picking up a major project like Randolph or a knucklehead like Speights (seems overly cocky as well).

        Thank you for the compliment. However, if you read all 14 of these threads, you know by now that I disagree with you on DeAndre Jordan, who I dont like at all.

        After writing my summary of Speights, further research has led me to believe that he is considered to not be the "sharpest knife in the drawer." My guess is that he isnt interviewing well, although that is information we will never be privy to. However, one of my favorite Pacer players was Dale Davis, and he wasnt exactly a brain surgeon either I don't think.

        Unless somebody falls to us unexpectedly at the guard position (Gordon maybe, Bayless maybe, Westbrook maybe), I'd take Speights at #11. If one of the combo guards is picked by us at #11, I'd try and acquire a later pick to acquire Speights. If we take Speights at #11, I'd try and trade back into the first round and get Chalmers I think.

        Arthur would be my second pick among the bigs, ahead of Jordan and way way ahead of Koufos, only behind Speights among guys likely to be there at #11. If I took one of the combo guards at #11 and couldnt get Speights with the later pick for whatever reason, I'd go to Arthur at that point.

        Many other scenarios and trade options can change all of what I just wrote before Thursday however.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

          If Arthur is more of a 3 than we should definatly pass.

          Its seems like Bird is targeting Hibbert with a possible second first round pick. Do you think Hibbert and Speights would make a good center-power forward combo? The idea of bringing in Hibbert has grown on me a little, he does have a lot of skills. I don't know how well he could fit in a more uptempo game though...
          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

          - ilive4sports

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
            If Arthur is more of a 3 than we should definatly pass.

            Its seems like Bird is targeting Hibbert with a possible second first round pick. Do you think Hibbert and Speights would make a good center-power forward combo? The idea of bringing in Hibbert has grown on me a little, he does have a lot of skills. I don't know how well he could fit in a more uptempo game though...

            I haven't really thought about the idea of Hibbert and Speights together, so I'll have to study about that a little bit and get back to you. My first reaction is that while I really like Speights and sort of like Hibbert, that I am not crazy about the combination of both of them playing together. I do think Speights will need a bigger player alongside him most of the time though......I don't know.

            I'll have to think about that possibility. I'm just not sure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

              both have good offensive skills, taking pressure off one another. Hibbert can be a defensive presence, Speights can block shots on the weakside. Of course this is all based on what I have read, not really from watching them play. Seems like it could work. Speights can also play on the perimeter a bit the way JOB uses murphy.

              Hibbert's mobility seems to be a big question, although supposedly he has slimmed down and has immpressed in workouts. I wonder if he could be a guy who can start a fast break with an outlet pass, because he obviously is not gonna be flying down the court.
              "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

              - ilive4sports

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                I haven't really thought about the idea of Hibbert and Speights together, so I'll have to study about that a little bit and get back to you. My first reaction is that while I really like Speights and sort of like Hibbert, that I am not crazy about the combination of both of them playing together. I do think Speights will need a bigger player alongside him most of the time though......I don't know.

                I'll have to think about that possibility. I'm just not sure.

                Ok, Ive thought about it.

                I think Hibbert is a nice player, I like his polish and defensive nature more than most analysts do. I like his size, I like his maturity, intelligence, and passing ability. He isnt the most athletic and he doesnt have the biggest "upside", but I think he will be a solid defensive center who knows how to play.....a borderline starter, quality sub kind of guy.

                I really like Speights and his productivity. I like his back to the basket scoring game, and I think he is a guy who can score when you get him the ball with his back to the basket. I think he projects to be good enough to be a guy who commands a double team.

                Paired together, Hibbert can defende the opponents best post player, Speights can play in the lane guarding the opponents non scoring big man in most cases.

                I don't think they are the best pairing of players, but I think it works well enough that if you really like both of them, picking one of them at #11 wouldn't keep you from selecting the other one at #17.....the aren't exactly duplicate talents.

                Thats my best guess working from my office, without the benefit of watching them workout alone or together.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

                  Hibbert has a nice skill-set offensively with really good hand-eye
                  coordination (and the passing acumen that comes with it), a variety
                  of shots in the post and the ability to feed cutters, etc. from the
                  high post and shoot it from 12-15'. What he doesn't do very well
                  is elevate and finish well at the rim.

                  Defensively, as TBird said, he can defend the post (as evidenced by his
                  performance vs Oden in the F-4 last year). But he'll get eaten alive
                  trying to hedge/defend the pick and pop/roll at the NBA level.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

                    Is Hibbert slower that Rik Smits? I seem to remember Smits going on the perimeter to
                    help defend.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Darrell Arthur

                      Owl-

                      He's pretty similar in that respect. Actually, I read a transcript of the
                      interview LB did yesterday and he specifically mentioned a fear that
                      Hibbert would have problems with it. But he said they put him thru
                      the paces and he was able to recover. Wether defending an elite
                      PG-big combo can be simulated in a workout as questionable.

                      As for Smits, teh NBA was a different league then. The inability of
                      PG's to phyisically 'contain' the other PG makes it tougher for a big
                      guy to do his thing.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X