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 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

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

  • Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

    On a rainy Memorial Day, I submit the second draft analysis breakdown of the year, this time of Duke University wingman Gerald Henderson.

    With his father being a former Celtic teammate of Larry Bird, you can probably be assured that the Pacers front office has done their homework for a long time in evaluating the Duke slashing guard. While a wing position player on first glance would not appear to be the greatest "need" for our roster, closer examination reveals an alarming lack of depth at the position behind Danny Granger and Brandon Rush. Indeed, it appears an incoming wing player will have plenty of floor minutes available to play this season, especially considering the uncertainity of Mike Dunleavy coming off a major injury. Along with that, the likely loss of Marquis Daniels in free agency in reality makes a wing player selection a strong consideration for the Pacers front office.

    While there are many players in the draft who I believe are extremely difficult to evaluate, I do not feel that Henderson was one of them. In fact, I felt like his strengths and weaknesses are somewhat clear.....what will be the question is this: What VALUE does an individual team/coaching staff put on those strengths, and how well does he fit in?

    One thing that makes Henderson in my opinion fairly easy to evaluate was his background. Obviously, Henderson was born into an NBA family, and has spent his life around the game. He no doubt has learned the game from some of the very best in his father (one of my favorite old time Celtics) and his outstanding college experience with Coach K. Henderson fit in very well at Duke within the style of play that the Blue Devils play, and Coach K used him very adroitly I felt like watching Henderson on film.
    Since I really like how Duke plays the game from a fundamental/technique standpoint, this was one of the more enjoyable players I have had to breakdown. The skill in evaluating Henderson is trying to figure out the translation from the Duke system to how he will fit into the somewhat different life in the NBA.

    Offensively, Henderson has clear strongpoints, and a couple of glaring weaknesses.

    His ability to come off screens, read them correctly, and then use his athleticism to drive to the basket is his biggest attribute. Henderson is a superior athlete, with the ability to finish in traffic with authority, and will likely be, early in his career at least, a strong candidate to be one of the better dunkers in the league. He has a great first step and superior balance. His fundamentals on squaring up, turning low and quickly into a triple threat position are among the better I have seen.

    He will be a player who, depending on the matchups, will be able to score in clearout situations. This won't be his strong suit, but it will be something he can do more than most wings in this draft. He will be particularly good at moving without the ball, as he cuts extremely well and has the ability to get open without the benefit of a screen, something a player like Stephon Curry for instance cannot seemingly do. His ability to drive the basket will let him get many free throw attempts, which will make him doubly tough to guard for most defenders.

    He will be a factor in a screen/roll situation with the ball in his hand.....but mainly in order to score himself, not to create a shot for someone else. I do not find Henderson to be selfish in anyway, but I don't think he is a particularly good passer, nor does he have great vision. Perhaps a symptom of having superior athleticism and confidence, Henderson shows a tendency to try and finish the play himself rather than look for others, although in fairness he really didn't have anyone inside to pass to anyway at Duke,

    Henderson's perimeter shot is inconsistent at best. He has the ability to get very hot, and the tendency to get very cold. This is not a symptom of taking bad shots or making bad decisions on whether to shoot or not...its just a lack of shooting skill. He sometimes is a player who will make a great move, beat his man, get into the paint, rise up for a somewhat easy shot then miss it off the front rim. In his formative years, my presumption is that he never needed to shoot that well, as his very athletic nature enabled him to blow by people at will. That won't always be the case in the NBA, so he will need to be able to make some jump shots on a more consistent, night after night basis.

    I know this will somewhat contradict myself, but I can easily see Henderson developing into a good standstill, three point set shooter at some point in his career. He strikes me as someone who will work at the game at the next level, and that will clearly be something he can do to extend his usefullness after his athleticism fades away with time.

    Duke had no decent point guard, so they didn't run as much as you would think, and that limited his transition chances. He obviously can dunk on a break, and he sometimes will just fly over a defender, particularly when he can go off one leg. I did see one somewhat disconcerting habit with him in transition, in that I thought he often took awkward angles in toward the rim. Often I heard television announcers criticize whoever had the ball in the middle of a Duke fastbreak for poor passes or decisions, but quite a few times it was actually Henderson running too "parallel" to the lane line instead of fanning out near half court and running into the rim at a good 45 degree angle.

    I also have one suspected flaw in Henderson that I will not be able to proe or know, but the other NBA teams actually making decisions will: My guess is, from all circumstantial evidence admittedly, is that Henderson has smaller hands than you would suspect a player of his size to have. I think that affects the way way he holds the ball to shoot jumpers, particularly the way he has to gather it up from a dribble to get in shooting position. I also think that contributes to not being as good a free throw shooter as you would expect, and the fact that Henderson misses a dunk every once in a while, more than you would expect. Thats just one thing to keep in mind as more information comes available, if it ever does.

    Henderson has one other huge offensive weakness: He has a real preference for driving to his right, more so than almost any other player I've broken down in a while. Many teams at the college level played him at a severe overplay and had success, Virginia Tech being one team that did so more and more each time they played. Forcing him left often forced Henderson to drive, beat his man slightly, but then have to rise and take a jumpshot, which again looked like a good shot but he more often than not missed in that situation. Again, I didn't think it was so much the dribbling left, but I thought he looked uncomfortable in gathering the ball upward going that direction, which left his hand position slightly off when going that way....which caused misses.

    Henderson shoots a little flat anyway, so when his rhythm and hand position is off slightly he pushes the ball and it becomes a line drive almost. His fundamentals tend to come and go while shooting, my guess as to why is the small hand theory, but it might be that he simply just isnt that good.....every player has weaknesses, that might just be his!

    Where Henderson is a joy to watch for me was on the defensive end of the floor. Henderson applied EXTREME pressure on his man in Duke's high pressure defensive system. Henderson did almost everything you'd want a defender to do well....he denied wing passes and forced his man out further than he wanted to catch the ball, he pressured the ball and DICTATED where the ball was dribbled, instead of just being reactionary. Henderson shows active hands, making it tough for his man to pass easily.

    Henderson is a very good defender on the ball, so much so that I believe at the next level he can defend smaller point guards when asked to do so. He gets in a low defensive stance and really gets in people's grill, taking pride in being a good on ball defender. I think Henderson can be a defensive stopper on the quicker scoring oriented smaller players in the league, like Monta Ellis, Gilbert Arenas, Allen Iverson types, and he would be a very tough defender on smaller 2 guards, such as our own Jarrett Jack or the Bulls Ben Gordon. Henderson's relentless nature and intelligence running around screens would make him a good defensive matchup for a player who moves without the ball well, like Richard Hamilton or Ray Allen. Only a slight lack of height will keep Henderson from being an all world defender, as some bigger players will simply shoot over him.

    His lack of height is somewhat of an issue, I shouldn't sugarcoat this fact. You will lack a little flexibility when pairing him with your other wings...with us, this means that Rush or Granger when paired with Henderson will always need to defend the bigger wing, no matter who that is. In some cases that will be a problem. It also will hurt him in closing out on perimeter shooters, and defending guys who just launch jumpers over him. I will say this however: Henderson can jump, and he knows to contest shots with his hands high. Ilook forward to watching elite shooters try that pull up jumper on him, just to see if he can stop on a dime, leap up with them and bother the shot. Only elite defenders can do that....I look forward to watching to see if Henderson can.

    Away from the ball, Henderson is good as well. He is smart and plays into the system. He can block shots a little, but usually its the more difficult block guarding his own man. Away from the ball he is more likely to play conservatively and just force players to take tougher shots, or slide in front of them and take charges. Henderson has been taught very well defensively, again no surprise considering his background.

    So, where do we stand?

    Q. Is Henderson good enough offensively to run plays for?

    Probably not on a consistent basis, but there will be nights that he will be. Likely projects as a streaky scorer, explosive some nights and totally off on others.

    Q. Can Henderson ever swing over and play the point?

    On offense absolutely not, he is clearly a wing only offensively, due to his lack of passing instincts, vision, lack of a left hand, etc etc.

    Q. Can Henderson play the point defensively?

    Absolutely....ideal pairing for Henderson would be to play with a bigger point guard who needed some help defending quickness.

    Q. Can Henderson play defense well enough to be an elite defensive stopper?

    Yes, especially if he is allowed to pressure the ball like he is capable, and deny people passes, etc etc. He will struggle guarding players bigger than he is I think, but against smaller scorers Henderson projects to be a defensive weapon I think.

    Q. How would Henderson fit in with the Pacers, both immediately and into the future?

    He clearly fits a need, as we need a wing who can play defense and bring energy behind Granger and Rush. There are about 30 minutes a night off the bench for a wing to play for us I think....Henderson would be a nice fit there I think.

    The pros would be that we know he is intelligent, comes from a winning background, and can respond to coaching. We know he will be well known to our fan base, popular with kids and old folks alike. We know that he improves our defense immediately, if he is allowed to play the way he can play in terms of applying pressure out on the floor. We know his motion offense background fits him here, as Henderson can get open on his own and drive to the lane maybe better than anyone we have.

    Negatives would be that we would be drafting a backup wing instead of a starter somewhere else, and that wings are the easiest position to fill on a basketball team. It's also unclear to me that the defensive accolades I gave Henderson for denying wing entry passes and pressuring the ball would be appreciated by the conservative, sagging overhelping system employed by Jim O'Brien.

    In fact, although we as fans will likely never know this, my guess is that Larry Bird will love Henderson's game, while Jim O'Brien won't. If true, wouldn't THOSE conversations be fun to listen to in the Pacers draft war room?

    If available at #13, I believe that Gerald Henderson has a strong likelihood of being taken by Indiana, under the following conditions:

    1. The Pacers either plan to bring both Jarrett Jack and TJ Ford back next season, or have a plan to obtain a later pick in the first round somehow to get a point guard later to replace whichever one of those two they dont bring back.

    2. The Pacers have some plan to somehow obtain another inside player thru a trade or free agency.

    3. The Pacers think they can play Granger limited minutes at the 4 spot, enabling us to play Rush, Granger, and Henderson spot minutes all together at the same time.

    I think Henderson being available when we select on draft night will be one of the most interesting possibilities of the entire night to talk about.

    I also think an extraordinarily fascinating decision will be Charlotte's selection. Henderson would fit Larry Brown and his system perfectly defensively, but I also suspect Brown will be looking for someone to run plays for off screens to shoot jump shots, and Henderson isnt that guy....quite frankly Wayne Ellington probably is the closest to that type in this draft.

    Ultimately, I think the Bobcats end up signing Allen Iverson to fill that scoring role, so I think Henderson gets picked ahead of us by Charlotte and we never are able to pick Henderson. Time will tell if I am right.

    Who does Henderson compare to?

    Defensively, he is closer to Raja Bell in size, ability, and toughness, but he will be slightly better than that as a scorer.

    I will go ahead and call him a smaller, much better teammate and attitude version of Stephen Jackson.

    Going into the near past, I would compare Henderson to a poor man's Latrell Spreewell, with a much better attitude of course.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

    I LOVE these posts! Keep 'em comin', Thundie . I learn stuff about these players everytime I read one of your reports .

    I agree that how "we", meaning management, decide on what course to go with our PG's is going to be a very important if not crucial factor with regards to what we do with the draft.

    Henderson is going to be an interesting option if he's still around when we pick, no doubt.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

      Henderson sounds like Fred Jones. If he's available and Curry, Evans, and Blair are gone, then it make sense.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

        Originally posted by eldubious View Post
        Henderson sounds like Fred Jones. If he's available and Curry, Evans, and Blair are gone, then it make sense.

        Henderson will be substantially better than Fred Jones I think, mainly because his defensive ability and willingness to improve his game. He is also a couple of inches taller than Jones, and a better overall player I think.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
          Henderson will be substantially better than Fred Jones I think, mainly because his defensive ability and willingness to improve his game. He is also a couple of inches taller than Jones, and a better overall player I think.
          Well, a 6'5" Fred Jones would have been considerably more successful than the 6'2" Fred Jones.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

            TBird, thx ( as always for the analysis ). I'm not sure if you answered this.....but is Henderson considered "NBA Ready"?

            Also....I'd be interested in your take on Terrence Williams.....someone that has been discussed ( heavily ) here on PD.

            If we take a GF in this draft....which I am in favor of....I'm hoping it's Terrence Williams but wouldn't be disappointed if we ended up with Henderson ( mainly cuz of his defense ). I think that defense of the smaller and quicker Guards ( PG/SG ) is something that is really important. I don't get the sense that we have the "answer" to effectively guarding and ( what I refer to as ) "hounding" of those types of Guards on our roster. I know that we need depth at the GF spot and that there is the option of resigning Graham....but if Henderson ( or TWill ) is the best player available later in the draft.....I would much rather spend the $$$ on making an attempt at acquiring an additional draft pick.
            Last edited by CableKC; 05-25-2009, 05:14 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

              Originally posted by eldubious View Post
              Henderson sounds like Fred Jones. If he's available and Curry, Evans, and Blair are gone, then it make sense.
              You took the words right out of my mouth. I was thinking the exact same thing while reading Tbird's review. (great read and thorough as always. Tbird is the Mel Kiper of round ball) I loved Fred Jones' game offensively and agree that his height and soft D is why he fizzled. I would be very happy to have a quality player like Henderson wearing blue and gold.
              Turn out the lights, this party's over!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                I thought Freddie went to one of his hands too much... can't remember which hand it was, but it annoyed me. There were times he was great offensively, but there were also (a lot of) times I wanted to pull my hair out because of Freddie.

                IF Henderson is better at learning and adapting and isn't COMPLETELY "singlehanded" then I wouldn't mind it if we were to draft him, depending on who else is still on the board and what route Pacers management is going to take with the rest of the team structure.

                Regards,

                Mourning
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                  Originally posted by 2minutes twowa View Post
                  You took the words right out of my mouth. I was thinking the exact same thing while reading Tbird's review. (great read and thorough as always. Tbird is the Mel Kiper of round ball) I loved Fred Jones' game offensively and agree that his height and soft D is why he fizzled. I would be very happy to have a quality player like Henderson wearing blue and gold.

                  Not to mention he couldn't drive left, and he constantly jumped in the air to pass. I don't want another 3" taller version of Fred Jones... one was enough.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                    Tbird,

                    Swell post, I have a couple of thoughts and questions.

                    I like that you peg Henderson as a guy who can chase Rip Hamilton and Ray Allen around through a series of screens. This is a defensive weakness for both Brandon and Danny. In fact O'Brien was using Ford to guard both these guys at the end of the season. Henderson's ability to do this would be a very nice addition.

                    Do you see Henderson and Rush as a valid 2/3 combination?

                    When you mention a PG who has difficulties with quickness, do you envision Jarret Jack?

                    Is driving to the left something that Henderson will be able to do eventually?

                    A few of your comments make me wonder about Henderson's basketball IQ. You say that he plays well off the ball both offensively and defensively which is great. I also read that he has poor court vision and often takes poor angles on breaks. That worries me. Overall, would you say that he's a smart player?
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                      I watched him about 6 times and he is nothing like Fred Jones. He has a better mid-range and shows promise of a better 3 point shot.

                      His defense is much better than Fred's. He moves better laterally and closes out more aggressively.

                      He is not a taller Fred Jones, and quite frankly people said Russell Westbrook was a Fred Jones type player.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                        Spot on write up. Like last year I find Tbird echoing my feelings on a lot of players to a tee.

                        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                        Henderson will be substantially better than Fred Jones I think, mainly because his defensive ability and willingness to improve his game. He is also a couple of inches taller than Jones, and a better overall player I think.
                        I agree. The "goes right" rings a bell but otherwise he's not really similar. Don't overplay where Tbird brings up the dunking.

                        Henderson makes his athleticism work for him, rather than trying to force the game to fit into the one thing he wants to do (Fred - drive right and dunk).

                        Henderson seems to be a smarter player than Fred as well and just a lot better in traffic.


                        My debate goes back and forth between Henderson and TWill. I think TWill is smarter and therefore a better team defender, as well as being a smarter/better rebounder. But Henderson is the superior scorer while also being above average on defense himself. TWill's smarts also come into play in his passing game, the one area that it's just not close between these two players.


                        Really tough call. It's slightly like do you replace Jack or Quis when you pick between Henderson and TWill, at least if you view Jack as a SG rather than a combo. My issue remains that I think TWill is a better passer than either Jack or Quis, let alone Henderson. So much depends on what other changes you make to the roster, or plan to make by/into next summer.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          I watched him about 6 times and he is nothing like Fred Jones. He has a better mid-range and shows promise of a better 3 point shot.

                          His defense is much better than Fred's. He moves better laterally and closes out more aggressively.

                          He is not a taller Fred Jones, and quite frankly people said Russell Westbrook was a Fred Jones type player.
                          I said he was a Fred Jones type POINT GUARD. I also said he was similar in overall distribution of talent to Fred Jones, but with just more of everything and a much better player. I loved Westbrook. He and Love grabbed my attention when I tuned in to scout Collison.

                          My only issue with W'brook was drafting him as your PG solution. That's not him. He works with OKC's situation partly because Durant is such a factor on offense and partly because they just aren't winning games. Ultimately you move RW to the 2, Durant to 3, Green to small 4 or bench 2-3 and you bring in a PG to run the show for all 3 of them.


                          So to me Westbrook is like Fred Jones if Fred was just a whole lot better in all areas. Henderson just isn't anything like Fred, doesn't make you think of him for one second when you watch him. His hops just aren't like Westbrook's or Fred's despite the fact than he can get up.

                          He's more like Grant Hill going up than Fred Jones. Still a good thing, just a different flavor of it.





                          BTW, my concern on Henderson is that he slumped later on after a great start. Pair that with Tbird talking about team's getting a book on him going right and you have to be concerned. Reps like that will kill your NBA game in a hurry.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                            Seth I know you meant that in regard to PG ability. I was seeing if you were paying attention.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #2: Gerald Henderson

                              I watched henderson play and I like Henderson a lot. He reminds me a lot of Dantay Jones with his athleticsm but seems to have more of an offensive game. I think he will be there at 13 but I am not sure if the Pacers pull the trigger on him.
                              JOB is a silly man

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X