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 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

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

  • Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

    Hello all, and welcome to the “catch all” portion of the 2017 Draft Previews. Here is some information for you about the next few days of writing you’ll get from me:

    In this article, I am going to provide quick blurbs on other possible picks for us at #18. If we end up with any of these players, I’ll provide a full write up Friday or Saturday, but this should at least wet your appetite.

    Also in this article, I am going to highlight potential 2nd round picks for Indiana at pick #47. Again, I’ll provide quick blurbs of info today, then a full write up on these guys if anyone of them happen to come to us Thursday night.

    On Wednesday June 21st, I’ll post my overall draft big board, based on my film study and based only on what it would be if I were running the Pacers. I think fit is crucially important for most players, so where I’d rank players based on our scheme/roster/needs etc is different than what it would be if I were ranking guys for the Hawks or Knicks or whomever. This will be a Pacer-Centric big board.

    On that big board, I will not have 60 players listed, even though there are 60 draft picks. I exclude all players that I haven’t seen extensive tape on, which precludes most of the foreign players from this past season. If we end up picking an international player, I’ll scramble and do my best to eventually break that player down, but I’m not ranking guys I haven’t seen, based on what others tell me or what I read. I also will have players not included that I have eliminated from my thinking due to extensive health red flags, or character concerns. Those guys may be on our real big board or on other big boards throughout the league, but they won’t make mine. So, that will come tomorrow. I’ll have blurbs tomorrow on guys that I consider totally out of our current range in that piece tomorrow. If you want information on someone you are curious about, and it doesn’t appear in this piece, likely I either have him ranked way above our pick, or I have him off my board due to injury or character concerns. Also, obviously if a player appeared in my previous highly detailed full reports, I didn’t include them here.

    Overall, I think this draft is really good at the top, yet, in my opinion, there is not any player in this draft who projects to be good enough to be the best player on a championship team. There are however many top shelf, big time starters and key role players to be had, and more than any draft I can remember, there are a ton of super high quality character guys. That entire big board will come tomorrow, with comments on some of the upper echelon guys.

    Without further ado, here are the “best of the rest” of the possibilities for Indiana at pick #18, as I see it, in no particular order:

    ----Tony Bradley: freshman raw big man from UNC. He is raw, but I like his potential quite a bit. I think he has a chance, at worst, to be a cheap backup 5 for us…..but I think he is skilled and good enough that it is POSSIBLE, not for sure, that he could play minutes next to Turner in big lineups eventually. In a very long list of potentially available centers, I rank him very high among that group. I think he will end up having the skills needed to be a successful modern NBA center, and possibly athletic enough to play beside Myles. Finding a perfect fit next to Myles remains a hard task.

    ----D.J. Wilson: I like Wilson alot, but not for us particularly, even though when you see my big board tomorrow you’ll see I have him ranked pretty aggressively. I think he is really skilled, long, and can shoot and handle it. Over 7’0 wingspan, and I like his frame. He’s really good at everything except rebounding, where he is as soft as charmin. That kills him for us unless you go really big and play him as a “jumbo” 3 man, which I think you can do some of the time but most people don’t. I like the player alot, but he is a pretty bad fit next to Turner unless Turner really changes his game somehow. I think he has alot of Tobias Harris to his game, maybe some LaMar Odom pre-reality TV.

    ----Ivan Rabb: He isn’t as good as Wilson, but he fits better next to Turner in one specific way: on the glass. Very smart kid, uses both hands in every aspect of the game, which I love: he can shoot, pass, and contest shots with both hands. He is a tremendous, high level rebounder, which is why he fits here in some ways, except he is such a bad defender really everywhere that his defensive fit is questionable here. He is really a 4.5, kind of caught in between. I like him as a high post offensive player in specific systems, because I think he is a good passer. He has alot of Greg Monroe to him. If Myles all of a sudden got quicker and able to guard stretch 4’s, this would make more sense…..but I’m not seeing that. Again, I like the player, but not sure he fits here superwell.

    ----Caleb Swanigan: Yet another big man possibility at #18. Love the story obviously. He has offensive skills no question, he can shoot from the perimeter, score inside with his strength, and he is a position, below the rim rebounder who is very productive. But I don’t know who he guards, especially if he is on our team. He is a non rim protecting 5 guy, and that is a big demerit in my book. If you play him as a back up 5 who can score for you in limited minutes, that makes more sense to me, and I do think he can play right away. But he isn’t a starter, or even crunch time player, here for us. You also have to worry about his weight and have a plan to get him on a diet and strength program. I’d pass at #18. He isn’t my type of back up center either. He is Jared Sullinger to me.

    ----Johnathon Motley: Very long, skinny but strong modern NBA 4 man. I think he’d be a good fit with Turner as long as we develop him correctly. He needs NBA range, which he doesn’t have now but I think he can get it. I love his length. I think he can switch on smaller guys, which Swanigan and Rabb can’t do. Plus he is older and ready to play. Not really high upside here, but at some point we have to find a 4 man who can play with Myles, rebound well, and yet guard small ball 4 guys. Motley isn’t a great player, especially on offense, and in the Baylor zone it’s hard to tell how well his defense will translate either. It seems like he should’ve been more productive than he was, but I still think he plays in the league a long time. He should be in consideration for Indiana, either at #18 or in an extra pick scenario between 20-30.

    ----Kyle Kuzma: Getting some late publicity, but as far as we know didn’t work out with us. He LOOKS like a really good pick when you see him warm up. Prototypical NBA 3 or small 4 man body, long and lean. Aggravating player, if you take him it’s totally on potential. Played for an NBA guy at Utah. His shot looks really good some of the time, but he doesn’t consistently make them…..and that’s kind of important. He can face up, he is long, he runs the floor, and sometimes he looks damn good….just not all the time. I wanted to like him….but I don’t really. Lots of sizzle, not much steak yet. But I can see why someone will pick him, fix his shot, add some weight, and all of a sudden it all comes together and you have a steal. Pretty high potential to bust though as I see it. He looks like Jared Jeffries to me. Might be worth a shot around pick 31-40 if you obtain an extra pick though somehow, he is kind of a “scratch off ticket” player. Might make it to 47 anyway.

    ----Zach Collins: Yes, I have Collins ranked lower than most, and I am including him here even though he will likely be gone by #18 anyway. He is foul prone, but rebounds hard and has some skill. I can even see him developing into an eventual starting center, maybe even a top 10 or 15 one someday far in the future. But he didn’t start in college, and he didn’t even start in high school. How can he be a lottery guy based on that? Even if he does pan out, I still think Turner is probably better, and you can’t play them together I don’t think, so you’d be drafting a back up center only despite the hype. Of course, he is used to that I guess. Like the player well enough, but I think he is a bad fit.

    ----Justin Patton: Big center with some skill, pretty long way off I think, but he will eventually be pretty good I think, or at least potentially he could be. Kind of an old fashioned big, still pretty raw. Again, bigs are becoming very plentiful even though the game is downsizing, and I don’t value them as highly as most. No way he and Turner could play together.

    ---- Jarrett Allen: yet another big, slow center. I realize the hype, and maybe he will end up being good someday. But every time I watched him, he got his *** kicked. Long way away, and the game is kind of passing him by. I don’t see it, but somebody will I am sure. Not a real modern day NBA center in my judgment.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ok, here are potential targets for pick #47. Full reviews will come this weekend on whomever we pick, whether I have included them or not, as long as it is someone I have video on.

    Jordan Bell: Defensive player of year in Pac 12, had some games where he absolutely looked great, like the Kansas game in the elite 8. He plays hard. Hangs in the air somehow longer that most guys. Tries to dunk everything. He can switch onto smaller guys in ball screens. Thirsty rebounder, chases everything, but absolutely never blocks out….he just runs for the ball. Good rim runner, big catch radius. As a ballscreener he can short roll and be a 4 on 3 playmaker if they double the ball. Absolutely zero back to the basket game. Jump shot is pitiful, elbow sticks way out, misses shots left and right. Not very long relatively speaking, struggles against other guys his size or bigger. He absolutely choked in the last minute vs UNC in the title game, as his failure to blockout on a free throw 2 different times let North Carolina hang on. I’d like him at 47 despite his limitations...he has some Bobby Portis to his game, and Portis went significantly higher.

    Monte Morris: bigger point guard, I don’t think he can play in the league but I am in the minority. Pass first guy with size, just not quick or athletic enough for me.

    Davon Reed: Now we are talking! Pacers should move up to get him. I have him rated higher than most. Indiana likes him too, as they brought him in twice. High quality 3/D prospect, very long arms, shoots it simply and well. Very smart IQ player, even if he is limited skill wise. Tough kid. Very well coached by Jim Larranaga at Miami. Fear the Celtics getting him first, as Larranaga’s son Jay is Brad Stevens top assistant in Boston. Reed can guard positions 2-4 I think in switches, and make 38%-42% of his threes. Already has shown NBA distance. 7’0 wingspan. I think is he is a rotation wing who plays 10 years in the league. I’d move up to get him, buy a pick if need be.

    Jawun Evans: small point guard who specializes in the ballscreen game. Played a pick/roll heavy offense at Oklahoma State under Coach Brad Underwood, who now is at Illinois. Fits current NBA offensive schemes. Very small and light though, which I have an admitted scouting bias against. I don’t see who he guards among NBA starters, so you better have a plan to hide him. He won’t get to 47, and might go in round 1. I’d take him if he fell to me I guess, but he is a backup point guard all day, no starter potential to me. Not my kind of point guard.

    Nigel Williams-Goss: He’d be ok as your 15th guy, 3rd point guard type. Not really explosive enough to play, but high character guy. He’ll make a team I think.

    Sindarius Thornwell: Good but not great at anything….needs to be a 3/D guy, but not sure he is good enough. Being older player helped him overachieve. I think he is a 14th guy/G league type maybe ends up in Europe making money.

    Dwayne Bacon: Just imagine the T-shirts and meme’s the marketing people could have if we take Bacon in round 2! I think Bacon can play. I love his swagger, even though he doesn’t have the game to match it yet. He’ll compete, and he has a scorer’s mentality. I wouldn’t mind taking him at 47, sticking him in the G league, and letting him develop for a couple of years. The 2 guard position is weak in general in the league, maybe he could develop into a cheap solution.

    Dillon Brooks: Pac 12 star at Oregon, put up big numbers for a winning team. I don’t like his game translating to the league though, couldn’t really guard anyone, relied on isolations to score, which he won’t get now. Tough minded kid though, plays with fire. Probably a better overseas prospect than in the NBA though.

    Sterling Brown: Definitely draftable, 3/D type out of SMU. Just a solid guy all the way around. Has strength and quickness to play in the league, but not super outstanding at anything. I like Devon Reed better, but they are cut from the same cloth.

    Taylor Dorsey: A smallish 2 guard who is an absolute assassin as a catch and shoot 3 point specialist. I think his stroke is elite from deep, and I think that ability gets him drafted somewhere around our pick if not sooner. He might be an Eddie House type as a shooter, I compared him to Dell Curry or Craig Hodges. Can’t really do anything super well besides shoot from deep, but that is a heck of a skill. I like him, and I think that position in the league is weak anyway….I’d strongly consider him, might even move up slightly or buy a pick to get him.

    Josh Hart: He is a high character guy who can be your 5th wing...a good guy to have in your locker room or team plane. I don’t think he can contribute much, but maybe I am wrong. Big numbers on a championship team, really good college career.

    Frank Mason: Same as Hart, except a small point guard. I think he is a 3rd point guard, 15th man type. I wouldn’t mind having him though, as he is a big time clutch guy who played in big games. Big 12 player of the year, just small and older.

    Wesley Iwundu: He needs to be a 3/D guy, but I don’t think he is talented enough. Played well in motion offense at Kansas State, smart kid, just don’t think he sticks.

    Tyler Lydon: Others like him more than me, but he will stick in the league as a shooter, stretch big type. Steve Novak played forever, so did Brian Scalabrini, so Lydon can I guess. Not my type of guy, but he may even go in round 1, who knows? I thought Syracuse zone hid his weaknesses, but other evaluators might think it limited what he could have shown them. Workouts are big for Lydon.

    James Blackmon: He can’t play. Great shooter who looks good in workouts I bet though. Can’t guard his own shadow, small for a 2 guard. Won’t make the league.

    Thomas Bryant: Stretch 5 with some skill. Plays hard, but not very smart. Very unathletic and clumsy, but maybe he grows out of it. High enthusiasm player, would look good waving a towel on the end of someone’s bench. A very very very bad college defender, NBA teams will run him off the floor if he plays at all. He will get drafted I think and play in G League, and see if he can mature into something.

    Ok, there you have it. Big board comes tomorrow, with blurbs on the very best players in the draft and where I have everyone ranked, based on PACERS needs and current situation. Fasten your seat belts…..then next few days might get a little bumpy.

    Tbird


  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

    Cam Oliver?

    I want Cam Oliver in a Pacer uni!
    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

      T Bird shredded the IU guys lol. "Waving a towel at the end of the bench" is a trait I have never seen on a scouting report before.
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
        T Bird shredded the IU guys lol. "Waving a towel at the end of the bench" is a trait I have never seen on a scouting report before.
        Agree with him on TB and JBJ. Hell JBJ isn't worth a Mad Ants contract.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

          Man, I REALLY like DJ Wilson even if he and Turner together will be soft. Dude is big, athletic, can shoot and defend. Is there anyone else in our range that has all that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
            Fasten your seat belts…..the next few seasons might get a little bumpy.

            Tbird

            Fixed

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

              Originally posted by Goyle View Post
              Man, I REALLY like DJ Wilson even if he and Turner together will be soft. Dude is big, athletic, can shoot and defend. Is there anyone else in our range that has all that.
              Me too. He's definitely on my radar. Really like his upside.
              It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

                If you want information on someone you are curious about, and it doesn’t appear in this piece, likely I either have him ranked way above our pick, or I have him off my board due to injury or character concerns. Also, obviously if a player appeared in my previous highly detailed full reports, I didn’t include them here.
                I'm guessing this is why you haven't talked about Harry Giles, though he is currently slotted right in our range.

                There's a lot to like there if one is willing to risk it.
                "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


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

                  Still waiting for the Harry Giles analysis
                  Pacers fan since April 9th 2004 - New Jersey 80 Indiana 90.
                  Been to 42 Pacers games since November 2017.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2017 NBA Draft Analysis #11: Best of the rest, and 2nd round potential targets

                    Originally posted by Eamer View Post
                    Still waiting for the Harry Giles analysis
                    And Cam Oliver.
                    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X