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

3-15-2004

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

  • 3-15-2004

    Is Sean Banks the next Carmelo?

    By Chad Ford
    Monday, March 15

    It's March Madness, baby! It's the big stage for some of college basketball's best players to show off their games. NBA scouts and general managers will be out in force over the next few weeks scouting everyone in the Big Dance.

    A great March can really help a player's stock. Last year, Syracuse's Carmelo Anthony, Marquette's Dwyane Wade and Central Michigan's Chris Kaman rode strong tournament performances into the lottery. In 2002, Maryland's Chris Wilcox and Indiana's Jared Jeffries used the tournament to catapult themselves into the lottery. In previous years, Arizona's Richard Jefferson, Florida's Mike Miller, Miami-Ohio's Wally Szczerbiak and Connecticut's Richard Hamilton used strong March performances as springboards into the lottery.

    This year, with such an open draft field, a number of players could take advantage of the national stage to supercharge their draft stock.

    Who will it be this year? ESPN Insider talked to multiple NBA scouts and GMs to give you a look at the Top 5 NBA prospects they'll be watching in each NCAA region.

    Today, Insider will take a look at the South bracket. Tuesday, we'll tackle the East.

    For the inside scoop on every team in the tournament, check out Insider's in-depth Tournament Guide.

    East Region NBA Prospects

    1. Sean Banks, F, Memphis
    The Skinny: 6-foot-8, 215 lbs, Freshman. 18.4 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 45 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: The prototypical NBA small forward. Banks is a big time athlete who's also a fluid, aggressive scorer. He's a scoring threat anywhere on the floor. He can score off the dribble or stick the mid-range jumper. He's also got the skills to be a long range threat. He's a nightmare to defend. He takes bigger players off the dribble or out on the perimeter. He takes smaller, quicker defenders into the paint and posts them up.

    The Bad: Strength is a big issue for him. He needs another 15 to 20 pounds of muscle to compete in the pros. He's a little one dimensional right now. He's just an average rebounder, so-so defender and passer for someone of his abilities. He gets so caught up in his offensive game that he often forgets his teammates. He had some off the court issues in high school that scouts are a little wary about, but he's kept his nose clean at Memphis.

    The Ugly: He's peaking at the right time. Banks is averaging 24.2 ppg over his last seven games. If he can lead Memphis on a Cinderella run through the tournament, the Carmelo Anthony comparisons will start running out of control. Scouts believe Banks would be better off with another year of school to add strength but concede that a strong tournament would push his stock high enough to get him into the lottery.

    2. Devin Harris, PG, Wisconsin
    The Skinny: 6-foot-3, 180 lbs, Junior. 19.4 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 4.4 apg, 45 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Harris appears to be the complete package. He has the size, speed, quickness, explosiveness and sweet shooting stroke that scouts love. He plays the game at a frantic pace. Right now he's more of a scoring point guard, but scouts claim that he has the floor vision to be a point guard at the next level. He shows remarkable control with the ball, averaging just 1.9 turnovers per game. His long arms, lateral quickness and big time hops allow him to guard just about anyone in the back court.

    The Bad: Is he really a point guard? Every guard that leads his team in scoring and assists has to go through this inquiry. Scouts concede that Harris has to carry most of the burden on his back every game. He sometimes overdoes it, but that's probably just a byproduct of the teams he's on. Strength is also an issue. He could stand to gain another 10 to 15 pounds of muscle.

    The Ugly: No point guard has gained more ground this year than Harris. He really wasn't on most scouts' radar screens at the start of the season, but now some of them believe he's the best point guard in college basketball. A strong tournament performance could seal the deal for him. Right now he's a mid-first-round pick right, but he's climbing. Don't be surprised if he passes every point guard on the draft board before the draft hits.

    3. Chris Paul, PG, Wake Forest
    The Skinny: 6-foot-0, 170 lbs, Freshman. 14.2 ppg, 5.8 apg, 49 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Scouts absolutely love him. He is T. J. Ford with a jumper. He's lightening quick, has unbelievable court vision, is a superb decision maker and shoots the lights out from the field and the three point line. He pushes the ball relentlessly on offense and is already one of the be penetrators in the game. His defense is top notch as well, averaging 2.8 steals per game.

    The Bad: There isn't much there. Teams wish Paul was stronger, but given his age they believe that will come. He could use another year of seasoning in college.

    The Ugly: Scouts concede that he's the best point guard prospect in the country -- college, high school or international. They all think he should wait one more year and Paul has given indications that he'll do just that. Still, if he gets Wake on a roll in the tournament, the temptation will be there to declare. If he does, he's a lock for the lottery.

    4. Jameer Nelson, PG, St. Joseph's
    The Skinny: 5-foot-11, 190 lbs, Senior. 20 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 5.4 apg 48 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Nelson is a big time scorer who uses his strength and speed to relentlessly attack the basket. He has an NBA body, strength and is a proven defender averaging an impressive 3 steals per game. His jump shot has improved this season, especially in the mid range game. He's also proven to scouts that he has what it takes to be a real point guard. He's shown a knack for finding his teammates in traffic and is a creative passer. The fact that several scouts are now comparing him to Tim Hardaway certainly doesn't hurt his cause.

    The Bad: Size matters in the NBA and unfortunately for Nelson, he comes up just a bit short. If he were three or four inches taller, he'd be a lock for the lottery. Instead scouts worry that he doesn't have the athleticism or lateral quickness to make up for his small stature. The fact that he averages three turnovers per game also doesn't help his cause much. Several teams that had him in for individual workouts last spring claim they weren't overwhelmingly impressed and hadn't seen anything this year that's changed their opinion. Scouts who are less high on Nelson compare him to Damon Stoudamire.

    The Ugly: All of the euphoria from an unbelievable season at St. Joseph's has really helped Nelson's stock. Last season he was a borderline first-rounder. Without changing his game at all, he's now planted himself firmly in the first round. How high can it go? It's doubtful a good or bad tournament will do much to change anyone's opinion at this point. He's been scouted heavily that past two years and folks seem to have a good handle on him. Nelson's draft range is really in the eye of the beholder, but expect him to fall anywhere between 12 and 24 on draft night.

    5. Delonte West, G, St. Joseph's
    The Skinny: 6-foot-4, 180 lbs, Junior. 18.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.7 apg, 51 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: West is a gritty scorer and defender who hasn't gotten his due. He can take his man off the dribble when he needs to, but prefers to kill you with his outstanding jumper. He'll even post up smaller defenders in the paint. His mid range jumper is top notch, but his three point shot has proven to be just as good this season. He's shooting a stellar 43 percent from behind the arc. He's a great rebounder for his size and he's a proven passer averaging an impressive 4.7 assists per game despite spending almost all of his time at the two.

    The Bad: Once again, the issue is size with West. Scouts feel that he's closer to 6-foot-3 and just aren't fond of smallish two guards. He also needs to put on some muscle. He's much to thin to play in the league right now.

    The Ugly: He's played in the shadow of Nelson his entire career. The plan right now is for him to test the NBA draft waters this year and attempt to convince NBA scouts that he's really a point guard. His excellent floor vision suggests that, like Gilbert Arenas, he's a prime candidate to make the move. If he convinces the scouts, he'll move way up the board. If he doesn't? Another year at school running the point without Nelson will only improve his stock.

    Sleeper: Chris Taft, PF, Pittsburgh
    The Skinny: 6-foot-10, 250 lbs, Freshman. 11.2 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 57 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Taft has the rare combination of size, athleticism, strength and power that NBA scouts covet in a good power forward. And unlike many players who posses those abilities, Taft prefers to score with his back to the basket. His footwork is sound and he's patient in the paint always working for a good shot.

    The Bad: He's young. It always takes big men longer to learn the game and Taft still has a few holes in his. Despite his superior strength and athleticism, he's just an average rebounder and shot blocker. His 54 percent free throw shooting is also a black mark.

    The Ugly: Over the weekend several scouts told Insider that Taft was mulling a jump to the league this season. It's probably a mistake right now. He's got tremendous upside and another year or two of seasoning would land him the lottery. As it stands right now, he'd be in the mid to late first round. However, if he blows up in the tournament (and he's capable) that could change a lot of things. This isn't a great draft for quality big men with size and strength. Taft would be appealing to a lot of teams.

    Others to watch: Tony Allen, SG, Oklahoma; Andre Emmett, SG, Texas Tech; Antonio Burks, PG, Memphis; Anthony Roberson, PG, Florida; David Lee, PF, Florida; Matt Walsh, SG, Florida; Luis Flores, G, Manhattan

    Around the League

    The College Hoops Drought: Every year Insider breaks down the best college basketball has to offer to the NBA at the start of the NCAA tournament as a kick-off to our more detailed coverage of the NBA Draft.

    This year, we were left with a quandry -- should we even bother? NBA GMs and scouts are claiming that, for the first time ever, players who've never played one minute of college basketball will outnumber college players in this year's first round.

    The closest we've ever come to such a phenomenon was last year when eight international players and four high school players went in the first round of the 2003 draft.

    This year, if things go according to plan, as many as 10 international players and up to eight high school stars could hear their names called by David Stern in the first round on draft night. With 29 draft spots up for grab, that means that as few as 11 college players might slip into the first round.

    If you've been following Insider's draft coverage so far, that shouldn't come as a big surprise. For the past few years the trend has been moving away from college basketball as the NBA's preferred farm system. But the standard has always been that high school players and international prospects supplement the collegiate draft -- not supplant it.

    But with one of the weakest college basketball draft classes on record, an influx of 6-10 or taller 18-year-olds from the high school and international ranks, and improved scouting by NBA teams, the standard is on the verge of changing. Trends go away. The young high school and international phenoms just keep coming and coming.

    What's interesting is that, to a large extent, the trend seems to really bother people both in and outside the league. Obviously college basketball proponents (along with college basketball analysts who once made a side income from prognosticating about the draft) are outraged. Who can blame them? They suddenly become less relevant in the game of playing gatekeeper for the pros.

    But NBA GMs can also be sticks in the mud. Pat Riley and the Hornet's Bob Bass have publicly scoffed at the international trend in recent weeks claiming that they're proud to have the majority of their draft picks wear a "Born in America" button on draft night.

    "Where we usually draft [in the mid-first round], taking a foreign player is a big risk," Bass said recently. "If the talent is the same, I'd just as soon draft an American -- you don't have the problems of language and other things. Or maybe I'm just a patriotic guy."

    Riley was more blunt. ''There are 70 international players in the NBA, and 20 are impact players,'' he said last week as he slogged his way through Europe. "The best players still come from our country.''

    That may be true. But how will that dynamic look three years from now? As more young American kids decide to skip college ball and more international 7-footers think about defecting, the composition of the league is going to continue to change.

    Fans aren't happy either. If David Stern polled Insider readers, I think he'd find them running about 70 to 30 for an age limit. There's something about kids skipping college that still makes fans uncomfortable despite the fact that they've embraced so many kids like LeBron and Kevin Garnett who have done just that.

    Our readers appear to be even more uncomfortable with the international invasion. After Friday's draft rumors column detailing the flood of young international big men set to declare for the draft, I got a plethora of reader mail protesting the deluge.

    Some of it was xenophobic. A little of it was racist. More of it was from the school of, if I didn't see them on T.V. this year they don't (or shouldn't) exist. Others wondered aloud whether Insider was pushing a larger agenda by publicizing so many high school and international players at such a young age.

    I'm not sure what I can do about the xenophobia (do we really care whether a great player comes from South Africa or South Bend, Indiana), the racism (why the obsession with the corn rows, tattoos, Escalades, accents or unpronouncable last names? If the kid can play . . .) or the T.V. complaint (so far my pleas to televise a few Euroleague games on ESPN2 has fallen on deaf ears).

    The agenda one I can address easily. My draft commentary is based on what I hear from the numerous scouts and GMs I talk to every day. I'm also telling you what I see when we bother to take a trip or two to a high school tournament or to a game overseas.

    What I hear are scouts gushing over potential, especially when it comes in the form of an athletic kid taller than 6-foot-10. What I see are a copious consortium of scouts and GMs packed in the bleachers of high schools and foreign gyms taking notes on some pretty talented kids who just so happen to play something other than college ball.

    Insider isn't alone. While the influx may be more prominently documented in Insider than anywhere else, I'm not the only one who's noticed. Veteran NBA columnist Mark Heisler from the L.A. Times has been doing an annual mock draft around the start of the NCAA tournament since 1978. Heisler is conservative, careful and as well connected as any NBA writer in the business. He consults six general managers, personnel directors and scouts to put together his list. On Sunday he released this year's top 29. It contained ten international players and five high school players ... and Heisler left out three sure fire first rounders in LaMarcus Aldridge, Marvin Williams and Sasha Vujacic.

    The flood gates are open. Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki may have kick started the trend, but LeBron James and Yao Ming have blown the door off the hinges. Now GMs believe that there are high school kids who can make immediate impacts on their team. They now also believe that great talent (especially big talent) can be found anywhere in the world.

    When scouts can't stop talking about drafting 5-11 high school point guards in the lottery (see Sebastian Telfair) and drafting 16 year-olds from Serbia and China in the top three picks in the draft (see Nemanja Aleksandrov and Yi Jianlian) the old days are gone -- totally gone.

  • #2
    Re: 3-15-2004

    The LA Times Mark Heisler article that Ford references:
    ___

    Mark Heisler:
    The NBA

    Old-School Thinking On The Way Out

    In what used to be my annual salute to the NCAA tournament, here's a mock draft of the top 29 prospects.

    I did my first one in Philadelphia in 1978, when the late, great Jack McMahon gave me thumbnail descriptions of about eight players. Since I always liked knowing what the pros thought of college players in other sports, I revived it here.

    However, college players are now only one source of prospects and this spring, for the first time, one general manager predicts they'll become a minority in the first round, with an assortment of high school stars and young international big men coming on line.

    According to the NBA perspective, this draft tilts heavily toward size and potential. Thus, such fine players as Arizona State's Ike Diogu and North Carolina's Sean May, who play inside and look as if they're really 6-7, don't even get a call.

    You can safely take an inch off everyone's listed height. Also, just because someone is a Scottie Pippen "type" doesn't mean he's Scottie Pippen.

    Thanks, as usual, to the six general managers, personnel directors and scouts who helped me.

    1. Dwight Howard, 6 feet 11, 225 pounds, Southwest Atlanta Christian Academy — Big, athletic, skilled and, most important, appears to have his head screwed on right.

    2. Emeka Okafor, 6-9, 252, junior, Connecticut — May go first because he's ready. Great shot blocker but probably an NBA power forward. Back troubles will scare pros.

    3. Yi Jianlian, 7-0, 230, Guangdong Tigers (China) — Yao Ming isn't the only Chinese player who's turning heads. Yi won't be 17 until October and won't be in this draft but has already popped up on all the radar screens. Says a scout, "He's the best pro prospect I saw this year."

    4. Nemanja Aleksandrov, 6-11, 210, Partizan Belgrade (Serbia and Montenegro) — Serbian version of Yi. He's 17 in April and also won't be in this draft but is Europe's best prospect.

    5. Martynas Andriuskevicius, 7-3, 220, Zalgiris Kaunas (Lithuania) — Huge but reedy. Let's hope he changes his name.

    6. Andris Biedrins, 6-11, 240, Skonto Riga (Latvia) — Big power forward, good athlete. "Lots of chatter about him," says a scout.

    7. Josh Smith, 6-9, 220, Mouth of Wilson (Va.) Oak Hill Academy — Exciting athlete. Indiana signee but the Hoosiers had better not hold their breath.

    8. Pavel Podkolzine, 7-5, 303, Varese (Italy) — A Russian giant who was slated to go in the top 10 last spring. Scouts say he's more a project than a Yao.

    9. Luol Deng, 6-8, 220, freshman, Duke — Already the best Blue Devil on a roster full of McDonald's All-Americans. Mike Krzyzewski started him from the get-go, which means a lot. Not expected to come out.

    10. Kosta Perovic, 7-3, 240, Partizan Belgarde (Serbia and Montenegro) — The biggest, most physical and oldest of Partizan's blue-chippers, having just turned 19.

    11. Shaun Livingston, 6-7, 175, Peoria (Ill.) Central High — Gifted but frail point guard who can't shoot. Signed with Duke and insists he's going.

    12. Sebastian Telfair, 6-0, 170, Brooklyn (N.Y.) Lincoln High — He's been hyped since he was a sophomore. Not quite the second coming of LeBron James but still a dynamic point guard. Signed with Louisville but thought to be NBA-bound.

    13. Rudy Fernandez, 6-5 190, Joventut Badalona (Spain) — At 18, he's supposed to be the Spanish Manu Ginobili.

    14. Predrag Samardziski, 7-0, 240, Partizan Belgrade (Serbia and Montenegro) — Second youngest of their big guys with second-best upside. Is eligible for the draft but isn't considered ready.

    15. Ben Gordon, 6-2, 195, junior, Connecticut — Big-time sharpshooter who pros think can play the point.

    16. Devin Harris, 6-3, 185, junior, Wisconsin — Athletic shooting guard who pros think can play the point.

    17. Hakim Warrick, 6-8, 205, junior, Syracuse. Fine athlete with super length who plays inside. Pros think he can do things he doesn't do here, such as handle the ball and shoot from range.

    18. Kris Humphries, 6-9, 240, freshman, Minnesota — He averages 22 points, 10 rebounds and 35% on three-pointers, big numbers for a freshman. Lifeguard body and small-forward skills.

    19. Jameer Nelson, 5-11, 193, senior, Saint Joseph's — Try 5-10. A little tank who gets inside and takes over games, whose shooting (39% on threes) is improving. Pros are split on him so the tournament will be important.

    20. Josh Childress, 6-8, 205, junior, Stanford — The Mayfair High grad is already a good shooter (43% on threes, 81% at the line).

    21. Ronny Turiaf, 6-10, 240, junior, Gonzaga — Born in Paris, good athlete. Has a chance to move up in the tournament.

    22. Al Jefferson, 6-8, 260 Prentiss (Miss.) High — Wide body with enough skills to make up for what he lacks in height.

    23. Chris Taft, 6-10, 250, freshman, Pittsburgh — Coming on as a young guy playing with older teammates on a top team.

    24. Andre Iguodala, 6-6, 207, sophomore, Arizona — Does it all, except shoot, but unless he improves, he can't be a star at the next level. His 8.8 rebounds are high on the team.

    25. Sergey Monya, 6-9, 220, CSKA Moscow (Russia) — Big, skilled small forward.

    26. Hassan Adams, 6-4, 201, sophomore, Arizona — The Westchester High grad is bigger than teammate Salim Stoudamire and his shooting is coming faster than Iguodala's, having gone from 21% on threes as a freshman to 39%. Explosion is no problem. He gets 1.6 blocked shots a game to Channing Frye's 2.0.

    27. Wayne Simien, 6-9, 250, junior, Kansas — Not as tall as you'd like, but he's a tiger with skills. Not expected to come out and could be a 2005 mid-first-round pick.

    28. Charlie Villanueva, 6-11, 230, freshman, Connecticut — Compared to Derrick Coleman because he's big, athletic and left-handed.

    29. Rashad McCants, 6-4, 207, sophomore, North Carolina — Not quite in the line of Michael Jordan, Jerry Stackhouse and Vince Carter, but he's shooting 42% on three-pointers. He had a head-case rep but has blossomed under Roy Williams.

    In the Mix

    Luke Jackson, 6-7, 215, senior, Oregon — Averaged 21 points, 7.4 rebounds and 4.6 assists, shooting 45% on three-pointers.

    Andrew Bogut, 6-10, 233, freshman, Utah — Scouts were bug-eyed when he got triple-doubles in his first two games, but he finished averaging 12 points. Not athletic, but skilled.

    Sasha Vujacic, 6-7, 193, Snaidero Udine (Italy) — Big Slovenian point guard.

    Anderson Varejão, 6-10, 230, FC Barcelona (Spain) — Active young, but raw, Brazilian power forward.

    Uros Slokar, 6-10, 230, Benetton Treviso (Italy) — A Slovenian who's the best-shooting big man in the draft, but he's skinny and not a great athlete.

    Channing Frye, 6-11, 248, junior, Arizona — Not huge but keeps improving.

    J.J. Redick, 6-4, 195, sophomore, Duke — I put him in last season's first round because of his rare shooting ability: 42% on three-pointers, an incredible 97% on free throws. The rest of his game is supposedly better, but he's still just a great spot-up guy.

    Rickey Paulding, 6-5, 218, senior, Missouri — Reminiscent of former teammate Kareem Rush. Fine athlete who blossomed early, then drifted. Of course, Rush became a bargain pick.

    Ivan Chiriaev, 7-1, 235, Oakville (Canada) St. Thomas Aquinas High — A Russian who once was on everyone's list. The more scouts saw and heard, however, the further away they thought he was.

    LaMarcus Aldridge, 6-11, 225, Dallas Seagoville High — Slender but talented.

    Paul Davis, 6-11, 255, sophomore, Michigan State — He was awful early this season but came around. Not a great athlete but not Frankenstein's monster, either.

    Anthony Roberson, 6-1, 180, sophomore, Florida — Keeps talking about his pro prospects, although you don't hear as much about him from pros. Still, he makes 40% of his three-pointers.

    David Lee, 6-9, 240, junior, Florida — Not huge but athletic. Role player as opposed to star.

    Matt Walsh, 6-6, 205, sophomore, Florida — Not as athletic as you'd like but has a game and can shoot.

    Chris Duhon, 6-1, 185, senior, Duke — Played better as a senior but still isn't much of a shooter.

    Ray Felton, 6-1, 194, sophomore, North Carolina — Athletic point guard but a marginal shooter.

    David Harrison, 7-0, 250, junior, Colorado — Big, athletic and lethargic.

    Robert Swift, 7-0, 245, Bakersfield High — Pros say he'd be way better off at USC.
    Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

    Comment

    Working...
    X