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

Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

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

  • Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

    I found this old article while looking for something else and thought it interesting. It was probably posted on here but I don't remember reading it.

    http://www.nba.com/draft2005/guide_050606.html

    The NBA Draft is far from an exact science
    Measure For Measure
    By Rob Reheuser


    Tradition has it Sir Isaac Newton was resting beneath an apple tree when an apple fell on his head, urging him to ponder the Universal Law of Gravitation.
    Donnie Walsh doesn’t recall any trees inside Churchland High School, site of the Portsmouth Invitational Tournament, though a similar brush with the principles of modern physics and gravity remains etched in his mind when contemplating the NBA Draft.

    Foster caught the eye of Indiana's Donnie Walsh at the PIT in 1999.
    Allen Einstein/NBAE/Getty Images
    As the story goes, Walsh was at the PIT in 1999, catching up on scouting time lost while presiding over Indiana’s 56-win season and eventual trip to the NBA Finals. Never truly comfortable making a selection without having seen the player in person, Indiana’s President and CEO was taking in the action, when an apple, in the form of Jeff Foster, came falling from the sky.

    “Somebody shot the ball and it took a long bounce into the corner, and he got out there and got it, and when he got it, I kind of thought he was going to hold it and throw it out to one of the other players,” Walsh said. “He then turned and just took the ball to the goal and dunked on everybody. And it wasn’t so much that he did that, because he was big, but it was how quick he was. It just happened like lightning.”

    Foster was later selected by Golden State with the 21st overall pick, forcing Walsh to engineer a trade -- surrendering a future first round pick and the draft rights to Vonteego Cummings (No. 26) -- to secure the “apple” of his eye. Foster has since developed into one of the league’s top rebounders and a reliable frontcourt presence.

    “That play was the one that really caught my eye,” Walsh added. “I didn’t think he was going to take the ball and try to throw down on the whole team. It showed me aggressiveness that you really want with a big guy.”

    The NBA Draft is far from an exact science. Its subtleties and intricacies are best explained through anecdotes told by some of the league’s most influential and experienced draft experts, who venture through each step of the process, hoping to arrive at logical conclusions in the form of shrewd selections. The following are some examples, spread out among the different stages of evaluation.

    The College Season

    Walsh’s expertise wasn’t limited to random moments of clarity, much to the dismay of his colleagues. It’s been well documented how in 1987 he ignored the cries of the Hoosier faithful and drafted Reggie Miller instead of Steve Alford. He wasn’t the only potential suitor at the dance.

    “I remember watching Reggie in the Pac-10 Tournament, I believe, and just falling in love with him,” said John Nash, who was General Manager of the Sixers back then and occupies that same post now with Portland. “He was playing at home and had a monster 39-point performance, but unfortunately my colleague Donnie Walsh took him at No. 11, and I wasn’t picking until 16.”

    Several years later as GM of Washington in 1992, Nash’s love for a particular player didn’t go unrequited. An early season scouting trip led him to North Carolina State, where he became enamored with Tom Gugliotta, who was still on the board when Washington was picking sixth.

    “I went to see him and I went away saying to myself, this guy is going to be a long-term solid player, because he did a little of everything,” said Nash. “Injuries have taken their toll later in his career, but at his peak, Tom was pretty much what I thought he would become in the league.”

    Miller, on the other hand, showed amazing durability throughout his 18-year career, thanks in large part to having solid protection. Dale Davis, who Walsh took with the 13th pick in 1991, was one of Miller’s trusted body guards.

    “He was the top rebounder in the ACC for three years, and yet, if you see Dale in a camp situation, he’s not going to stand out, because he’s not a scorer,” said Walsh. “In the pre-draft camp settings, the guards tend to dominate the ball and the big guys don’t get a real chance. But, I’d seen enough of Dale to know that he could provide the toughness, rebounding and defense that would really help us.”

    The Pre-Draft Camps

    No discussion of the league’s pre-draft camp history is complete without mentioning Scottie Pippen’s performance at the PIT in 1987; Dan Majerle in 1988; and Tim Hardaway in 1989. Jamal Crawford took the Chicago camp by storm in 2000, going in as a potential second-round pick and eventually becoming the eighth overall selection.

    These days, with many of the top prospects electing to bypass the pre-draft camp circuit, these venues have become more about a player securing a spot in round two, or making a monumental leap into the latter part of round one.

    General Managers still see them as a valuable tool in identifying players that may have slipped through the cracks.

    “The more avenues you can see players in, the more information you gather,” said Hawks GM Billy Knight. “We’re in the information business when it comes to evaluating players, and the more info you have, the better off you’ll be when making a decision. I enjoy the PIT. I think it’s been valuable.”

    In 2004, Royal Ivey of Texas came to Portsmouth hoping to generate some interest. His performance didn’t yield a subsequent invite to Chicago, but it was some of the little things that caught Knight’s eye, which led him to spend the 37th pick on Ivey.

    “Royal is physical, he’s tough and he competes all the time. He loves to play. He has heart. A lot of times those things don’t show up,” said Knight. “Whether it’s hustling back on a play, or sticking his nose in there on a defensive set, or getting back and taking a charge. He’s just a tough, hard-nosed guy who competes. That will always give a guy a chance, and Royal has a chance to be an NBA player.”

    The Individual Workouts

    Billy Knight knew Al Harrington was ready for the NBA.
    Ron Turenne/NBAE/Getty Images
    Knight spent 13 seasons working under Walsh with the Pacers, and there are two workouts that stand out in his mind – Reggie Miller and Al Harrington.

    Not surprisingly, Miller scored big points in a shooting drill.

    “When Reggie came in he was making shots practically from halfcourt, and releasing those shots with ease. You knew that he was going to be someone who could shoot the ball comfortably,” said Knight. “When the drill was finished, Reggie still wanted to stay out there and shoot. He didn’t feel he made as many as he would like.”

    In Harrington’s case, it was the sheer physicality of his workout that led the Pacers brass to believe he would eventually become a valuable NBA player.

    “We brought Al in for a workout and he literally moved people out of the way with his body,” said Knight. “He was just so big and strong you knew that his body was going to be such that he’d be able to handle the punishment of the NBA and dish it out.”

    Nash distinctly remembered two workouts – Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant.

    In 1995, Garnett conducted a private workout in Chicago for approximately 100 people representing teams in the lottery. And he didn’t disappoint.

    “It was a special workout. Here was a young man when it wasn’t yet fashionable to draft high school players, who was so impressive that he went five. He just put on a phenomenal performance,” said Nash. “Having said that, I opted to pass on him. I had the fourth pick and I chose Rasheed Wallace, because he had two years of seasoning in college. That was obviously an opportunity that Kevin McHale seized.”

    In Bryant’s case, Nash was working for the Nets who had the eighth pick in 1996 and wanted to select Bryant.

    “In our workouts in New Jersey with Bryant, you could tell he was special. We were very close to drafting him. The story’s been chronicled many times,” Nash said. “The long and the short of it is, we didn’t get him.”

    The Interview

    In many cases, it’s the last hurdle in the process and can carry just as much weight as a dynamic on-the-court showing.

    “It’s like anything else. When a guy shows up for an interview in jeans and a sweatshirt, you know his heart’s not in it,” said Nash.

    In 2003, Walsh was intrigued with James Jones’ potential, having scouted him at Miami and watching him perform during the pre-draft camps. Getting a feel for the type of person he is made grabbing him in the second round (49th overall) a slam dunk.

    “I can remember I thought he had great potential because of his shooting ability, athleticism and length,” Walsh said. “And then, getting to know him, meeting him. This guy’s a four-year college graduate and it’s a completely different experience in dealing with him, because he’s a man. He’s very serious and does every single thing you ask him to do. Very serious about improving his game. There’s no doubt in my mind that he’ll be in the NBA for 10-plus years.”

    Miscellaneous

    As with anything in life, the draft is filled with unexpected twists and turns, and in the case of Stanley Roberts in 1991, unexpected fluctuations.

    “Stanley played overseas just before his draft year, Nash said. “I went over to watch him play and he played very effectively. From the time the European season ended, through June when we were conducting workouts, he gained a significant amount weight and was terribly out of shape when he went through the workouts. His stock dropped tremendously and he was drafted 23rd when some people thought he was a top-10 talent.

    “Unfortunately, that was a characteristic of his career, in that, nobody would argue that Stanley Roberts had the talent to be a long-term NBA player, but he didn’t have the determination, and as a result, he was often out of shape and often unable to compete.”

    A hand injury in 2002 kept Oregon’s Fred Jones from going full-tilt in Chicago. That didn’t stop Isiah Thomas from taking an interest and passing his feelings onto Walsh, who made Jones the 14th pick, when most had him pegged for the late first round.

    “Isiah brought him to my attention and I could never figure out why, because the guy was hurt,” said Walsh. “Because Isiah seemed really interested, I went back and watched a lot of Freddie’s games on film and what I saw was that he was a great athlete and in his senior year he really delivered in the clutch.

    “He had two great teammates (Luke Jackson and Luke Ridnour), and what I saw was that when the game got close, they looked at him and he made all the big shots. I kind of looked at him as a Vinnie Johnson type of guy but more athletic.”

    In 2003, before Nash was hired as General Manager, Portland had zeroed in on Viktor Khryapa of CSKA Moscow. Khryapa eventually withdrew his name from the draft, but the Blazers remained interested and continued to scout him and view tapes of his games. During that process, the team became interested in Khryapa’s teammate with CSKA Moscow, Sergei Monia.

    “Our international scout was very high on Monia,” said Nash. “And so, because we had an extra pick that we had purchased from New Jersey, we made the decision to take Khryapa and even though we knew Monia didn’t have a buyout, we were prepared to draft him just on potential. We also liked the fact that he was going to go back and play another year. We expect he’ll join us this year.”

  • #2
    Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

    Billy Knight should never, under any circumstances, get to talk about the draft.

    In other news, I'd rather have James Jones as our backup SF than Shawne Williams.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

      Originally posted by Anthem
      In other news, I'd rather have James Jones as our backup SF than Shawne Williams.
      Did you watch Phoenix much in the playoffs? I watched all three of their series and JJ's effectiveness diminished with each one. And I never realized before how one-dimensional his game is.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

        Originally posted by bulletproof
        Did you watch Phoenix much in the playoffs? I watched all three of their series and JJ's effectiveness diminished with each one. And I never realized before how one-dimensional his game is.
        lol It took you 2 years to find out JJ is one dimensional, took me 6 games after the brawl. But you know people on PD, if you can score 7 a game and be nice to people you are better then every NBA player.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

          Originally posted by bulletproof
          Did you watch Phoenix much in the playoffs? I watched all three of their series and JJ's effectiveness diminished with each one. And I never realized before how one-dimensional his game is.
          Did you watch Shawne Williams in the summer league?

          JJ's a solid backup right now, and his one dimension is a dimension we need. Shawne will probably become a good NBA player, but he needs get a lot stronger. That's not going to happen by training camp.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

            Originally posted by bulletproof
            Did you watch Phoenix much in the playoffs? I watched all three of their series and JJ's effectiveness diminished with each one. And I never realized before how one-dimensional his game is.



            One dimensional? I just don't see that at all.

            On offense he may not be as varied as some would like & I don't think he will ever make anybody forget Scottie Pippen, but he is a good rebounder & a good shot blocker. His defense is solid as well but not spectacular.

            But if you are saying he is one dimensional on offense then I see what you are saying, but I just can't see that from his overall game.

            BTW, if I had my choice I'd love to have JJ backing up Dannie.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

              When has James Jones blocked a shot? Come on now, Phoenix's offense would have made Derrick McKey score 20ppg. Let's not overrate the guy now. JJ had no spot on this team.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

                Originally posted by Ev_eezy
                When has James Jones blocked a shot? Come on now, Phoenix's offense would have made Derrick McKey score 20ppg. Let's not overrate the guy now. JJ had no spot on this team.

                Jones is a good shot blocker and he's getting better at it. He averaged .65 last year. For comparison, only JO and Dan had better averages per game on the Pacers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Interesting read about the draft. Lots of Pacers stuff.

                  A comment by Walsh that stood out to me, speaking about FOSTER...
                  “He then turned and just took the ball to the goal and dunked on everybody. And it wasn’t so much that he did that, because he was big, but it was how quick he was. It just happened like lightning.”
                  Until the hip and back problems I always called Foster the BEST DUNKER on the team. Sure his vert isn't high, but it was crazy quick. Jeff could throw it down before teams knew he caught the pass. It sucks to see the slower version because the regular version was super quick. Heck, I saw him catch a transition pass about 1/2 step in front of the bucket and he STILL threw it down. You're watching thinking "he'll never have time to get that back up, he's too close" and then BAM!

                  He was a steal for sure, even with his weakpoints (and there are several).



                  JJ does 3 things at high NBA caliber for an SF - he shoots a strong 3 ball, very sweet touch, he is not far off the Reggie/Rip area on catch and shoots off of curls, and he can block a shot.

                  Saying he isn't a shot blocker tells me you didn't watch much of the 04-05 season. He did it all the time. Add to this that he played tons of late game minutes, including hitting the go ahead long 2 vs NJ in the playoff stretch and then sealing it with 2 FTs (game in which Reggie made 6-7 points in about 45 seconds to get the Pacers back in it).


                  JJ's problem was that he was LOST most of the time. I saw a pass hit his back once, I saw Tinsley screaming at him to get his attention so he would move to the right floor position. JJ has tons of talent, he was just super-raw in Indy and even still has plenty of room to grow in the mental parts of the game.


                  Come on now, Phoenix's offense would have made Derrick McKey score 20ppg. Let's not overrate the guy now. JJ had no spot on this team.
                  You know what is so weak about this, JJ's 3pt% was HIGHER in Indy. So people aren't overrating him from PHX, they are talking about what he did in Indy, which is drop it around 40% - better than Reggie in 7 seasons, and virtually equal (within 1 pct. point) in 5 other season. So JJ just did in Indiana at least what Reggie did 66% of the seasons he played. And it wasn't from lack of shooting. He put up a 3 every 8 minutes, Reggie put up a 3 every 7 in the same season.

                  Now Reggie, good or bad 3pt shooter?


                  And JJ just put up 1.67 blocks per game in the WCF, ie crunch time. He didn't shoot much in the WCF or 2nd round, but he still got lots of playing time and the blocks show you that he was able to impact the games in some manner at least - ie not 1 dimensional.


                  No one suggests JJ is anything but a role player. He just happens to play a role that the team is severely lacking right now, a 15mpg 3pt specialist.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X