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

Top Rookie of the Year prospects

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Top Rookie of the Year prospects

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5024072

    Top Rookie of the Year prospects
    Story Tools: Print Email XML

    Mike Kahn / FOXSports.com
    Posted: 5 hours ago

    Byron Scott has seen this before in a point guard — the tenacity and cunning ability to get the ball wherever it has to go to score.

    Yeah, Scott saw Isiah Thomas apply his craft to win two NBA titles for the Detroit Pistons.
    That has everything to do with why Scott fell in love with Chris Paul.
    "Hopefully, he can be as great as Isiah was," Scott said. "Because Isiah, I think is one of the top point guards to have ever played this game. Chris has his same type of temperament, the same kind of craftiness, and he's very competitive like Isiah was." Consequently, Scott, the coach of the New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets, is handing the ball to his rookie from Wake Forest and entrusting him with the future of the team.


    "I put some big responsibility on that young man," Scott said. "But the one thing about Chris is that he's very mature. He has a great head on his shoulders. He's a true leader out there on the basketball court. When he gets a little bit more comfortable in his role, he'll be even more of a leader. I expect Chris Paul to be right up there for Rookie of the Year. I think he's going to have a terrific season."
    And while it will be tough for Paul to win the rookie prize considering the built-in problems the Hornets are dealing with having being displaced from New Orleans to Oklahoma City due to Hurricane Katrina, and challenged with youth and an overall lack of talent surrounding him, he is clearly near the top of the 2005-06 NBA rookie class.
    Paul, Andrew Bogut, Marvin Williams, Deron Williams and Martell Webster all figure to get plenty of playing time and battle it out for the award by the end of the year. And that's not to minimize what could happen in Charlotte with the North Carolina duo of Raymond Felton and Sean May, or to dismiss the quartet in New York of Channing Frye, David Lee, Nate Robinson and Jackie Butler.
    As for a sleeper, well, keep your eye on Indiana Pacers forward Danny Granger, the steal of the first round who has the size and talent to be an exceptional small forward for a long time.
    So let's take a look at the top 10 prospects for winning the 2006 Rookie of the Year award and why.
    1. Andrew Bogut, Milwaukee Bucks, 7-feet, 250


    There's a reason the Bucks made Andrew Bogut the No. 1 pick of the NBA draft. He's got great hands, touch and an uncommon feel for the game. (Morry Gash / Associated Press)

    There's a reason why the center from Utah was the top overall pick. Besides the obvious size factor, he has great hands, touch and a feel for the game that is uncommon. To compare him to Arvydas Sabonis or Bill Walton passing the ball out of the post is a stretch, but the potential is there. The Bucks have a shot at the playoffs, too, which may depend on how quickly he develops the defensive toughness it will require playing inside.
    2. Deron Williams, Utah Jazz, 6-3, 210


    It was interesting that the Jazz preferred the Illinois product to Paul, perhaps because of his size and likeness to Jason Kidd. Coach Jerry Sloan loves the thought of a tough point guard, and they needed someone to hand the ball to and take over the team after going through several point guards in the first season following 19 years of the impeccable John Stockton. Because the Jazz will be so improved, and Williams will play, the 21-year-old should make an impact fast on a young team on the rise.
    3. Chris Paul, New Orleans/Okla. City Hornets, 6-0, 175


    The comparisons of this Wake Forest star to Isiah Thomas are palpable, but there is a long way to go. Like Thomas, his appearance belies his competitive toughness, and while Williams is bigger, Paul is quicker and a better shooter. He shot 47 percent from 3-point range in college, and his nearly 84 percent free throw percentage proves he's exceptional. The problem will be how the players around him perform.
    4. Danny Granger, Indiana Pacers, 6-8, 225


    Why the New Mexico star slipped to 17th in the NBA draft is a mystery and a huge bonus to a Pacers team that was already a title contender. He can shoot with range, handle the ball, and most importantly, already defend with toughness. His problem will be getting minutes on this team with Ron Artest back at an All-Star caliber level. However, there will be plenty of times when he can play up front with Artest and Jermaine O'Neal, or Artest and another center. It will be interesting to see how Rick Carlisle fits him into the rotation.
    5. Marvin Williams, Atlanta Hawks, 6-9, 230


    He's struggled with a knee problem in training camp and is waged in a major battle with last year's prep draft choice, Josh Smith, to start at small forward; but the Hawks didn't draft Williams second to sit around. He's got the classic size and inside-out game for the small forward position in the 21st century, and winning a title his freshman year at North Carolina gave him a dose of preparation. But like Carmelo Anthony, who had the same experience, it's still a big jump; so he's got some adjustments to make.
    6. Raymond Felton, Charlotte Bobcats, 6-1, 200


    Having been the point guard on the NCAA championship Tar Heels gives Raymond Felton playmaking credibility. (Kent Smith/NBAE / Getty Images)

    The third of the terrific point guard trio in this draft, Felton is going to have to beat out veteran Brevin Knight for minutes, but it isn't as if he won't get the chance. Not the shooter that Paul is, nor the passer that Deron Williams is, he's still very good at both, strong and tough in the clutch. Plus, being the point guard on the NCAA championship Tar Heels gives him some playmaking credibility. Like Marvin Williams, it's hard to fathom he was drafted this high by a bad team that doesn't plan on playing him big minutes.
    7. Martell Webster, Portland Trail Blazers, 6-7, 210


    This prep star from Seattle is a pure perimeter shooter on a team that can't shoot straight; so new coach Nate McMillan just might have to bite the bullet and let Webster play through his defensive lapses just to get some shooting on the floor. Along with his obvious offensive ability, he's very bright and mature and is precisely the kind of player the Blazers need for the future. Sure, he's exceedingly young, but this is a team filled with players who skipped college. He'll play.
    8. Sean May, Charlotte Bobcats, 6-9, 270


    He's been struggling physically, and considering that Primoz Brezec and Emeka Okafor are young and starting, it's hard to fathom how much time he'll get. But May has an NBA game. He's got the big body, big soft hands and the pedigree from North Carolina and his father Scott. Besides, even if he doesn't start, the rotation between the three big men all but guarantees plenty of minutes for May as he gains comfort with the NBA game.
    9. Channing Frye, New York Knicks, 6-11, 250


    Even though coach Larry Brown prefers not to play young players, having been able to get four young players like he did — Frye, Lee, Robinson and Butler — through a full training camp, chances are one of them will make a move during the season. And it will most likely be Frye at power forward. He has a reputation for being "soft," but along with that rap, he has a very soft shot, great athleticism and a winning attitude having hailed from the University of Arizona.
    10. Francisco Garcia, Sacramento Kings, 6-7, 200


    The great thing about Garcia is that his coach at Louisville, Rick Pitino, went gaga over his work ethic on defense before the draft. That's the first surprise when you consider he went 23rd. Second, in a league filled with so many perimeter-challenged wingmen, how can you pass on a career 37 percent shooter from 3-point range (and an 85 percent shooter from the free-throw line)? Besides, he played three years in college, and he's a mature 23; plus, he's lying in wait should Bonzi Wells resort back to his "problem child" ways.
    Also given consideration:
    Rashad McCants, Minnesota Timberwolves
    Ike Diogu, Golden State Warriors
    Nate Robinson, New York Knicks
    Hakim Warrick, Memphis Grizzlies
    Jarrett Jack, Portland Trail Blazers
    Veteran NBA writer Mike Kahn is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    -- Albert Einstein
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

    Well, I would say 4th makes Granger the underdog. Sick um Danny.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

      If Danny can get Al Harrington minutes, being on a winner might be enough to get him the honor, assuming none of those other guys are bust-out right-away superstars.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

        Where is Charlie Villanueva? Not even on the honorable mention list eh?

        Aside from that, I think putting Granger at the 4th spot is more than generous considering he's not going to get as much playing time as a lot of the other guys on that list.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

          I'm leaning towards Deron Williams, being on the Jazz, he really doesn't have to share the light with anybody, if the team dramatically improves, he will be praised, if it doesn't and he still plays phenomenally he'll probably still get it.

          Though, if we really are true champion contenders, Danny will have more exposure.
          Life without water is tough, life without air is hard,life with one leg only is wobbly, Life without Reggie Miller, is impossible.

          Do Not Trade Austin

          Originally posted by Conrad Brunner
          Veteran Austin Croshere, the longest-tenured Pacers player on the roster, has proven reliable when called upon, invariably ready to step in regardless of the circumstance.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

            I find it funny that just about every rookie has out produced Bogut so far. I mean we have 2. Toronto has 2.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

              Saras will be a legit contender for that title as well - he is, afterall, a rookie.
              "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                Originally posted by Kaufman
                Saras will be a legit contender for that title as well - he is, afterall, a rookie.
                Yep just what I thought, with what he has shown so far, he really deserves to be on this list. Especially when guys as Webster and Garcia are on the list.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                  Originally posted by Kaufman
                  Saras will be a legit contender for that title as well - he is, afterall, a rookie.
                  They probably just forgot to put him on there because of his age, etc. He should have a shot since he has so much experience. It's just a matter of him getting used to the NBA style of play.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                    Originally posted by Pacers#1Fan
                    Well, I would say 4th makes Granger the underdog. Sick um Danny.
                    ding ding ding we have our champ...DANNY GRANGER!!!

                    Yeah Runi would have good chance at that. I'm just happy that we have about 2 candidates for each award. MVP, MIP, ROY, 6th man although I'm not sure about DPOY, I think Ron owns that .

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                      Originally posted by rcarey
                      Where is Charlie Villanueva? Not even on the honorable mention list eh?
                      I'd give Graham an edge over him - no laziness rep and his position's easier for a rookie to come in and excel at.

                      I still like Bogut for ROY though - very fundamentally sound, plays with a very strong base, versatile and will get a lot of minutes at a position the NBA isn't particularly strong at. He just has to learn to defend without fouling so much. Teams will have to concentrate on Redd, Simmons & Mason and if any of those guys know how to pass he should be able to get a lot of easy scores.

                      And I've always like Williams - PG's the single toughest position for a rookie though.

                      As for Granger, Gordon averaged what - 24 mpg last year? And if he hadn't gotten 6th man IMO he very likely gets ROY. So I think Danny's definitely in the mix.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                        I think it will be Fran Vazquez in Orlando......Oh wait.....He'd have to actually play for the team that drafted him wouldn't he?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                          Ah, another list by one of the "experts."

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                            Displaced,

                            I think you'll be disappointed with Bogut... I'm not totally sure why, but I think the word soft comes to mind. David Harrison shut him COMPLETELY like I mean COMPLETELY down during the offseason Rookie/Free Agent League. DH ain't too far off being a rookie. I could be wrong - but I think Bogut will soon bring up memories of the likes of Shawn Bradley, Greg Dreiling, Big Country, and others.
                            "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Top Rookie of the Year prospects

                              Originally posted by Kaufman
                              Displaced,

                              I think you'll be disappointed with Bogut... I'm not totally sure why, but I think the word soft comes to mind. David Harrison shut him COMPLETELY like I mean COMPLETELY down during the offseason Rookie/Free Agent League. DH ain't too far off being a rookie. I could be wrong - but I think Bogut will soon bring up memories of the likes of Shawn Bradley, Greg Dreiling, Big Country, and others.
                              I agree. I saw Bogus (our term of endearment for him) play college for two years and he showed no outstanding skills except being 7 ft. tall. He is very inconsistent. Danny outplayed him in the two games against Utah that Danny played in. Danny stepped it up in the MWC championship game. That's the game that showed Danny was a better team player and clutch player than Bogus. Bogus had big numbers playing mostly against 6-9 centers.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X