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

Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

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

  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post


    I would hope that TPTB watched how horrible VC was in the 1st half and isn't enamored by his 2nd half performance with Shawne and Marquis guarding him with Granger sitting with his 5 fouls.

    I'm not enamored with Carter either and would rather keep JO than trade him for Carter. However, I could live with that trade if it included a first rounder or two. The one thing Carter would give us is a finisher. Plus he would be a lot easier to trade than JO.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

      Alright, who saw what happened to the UCLA offense once Collison fouled out tonight? I love the three-pass, no-dribble method to get the ball across halfcourt, but that was ... well, they should be glad WKU didn't know how to handle it. A more fundamental team would've made them bring it up every time and run the offense -- and the Bruins wouldn't have been able to do that very well without Collison.

      Moving on ...

      Honestly, if Bird picked a player like Thabeet over Love, it'd be like he turned on basketball. Love is everything you look for in a player except the physical attributes, and even those aren't that bad. I think we need a moratorium on stupid players -- no more Diogu, White, Tinsley, Harrison, etc., type players.

      Why do basically all of us like Dunleavy and Foster? Because they really know how to play the game. They have limitations, both in talent and body, but we want to keep them around because they're smart.

      I want more of those. Eventually, you'll get ones that are athletic, too.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

        Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
        Love: Unathletic but extremely smart and basketball savvy.

        Thabeet: Extremely athletic but unintelligent.

        This is never a perfect way to judge them and its not a pure comparison, but

        Love=Brad Miller

        Thabeet=Theo Ratliffe

        Thing that concerns you is I think Love is shorter than Brad so you wonder how it all computes at the next level. Thabeet has been invisible at times in college, you can tell his teammates don't trust him offensively with the ball, at all, unless its an alley oop dunk. I mean I really don't know, just my 2 cents.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

          I'd take Thabeet. Please forgive me for being skeptical of a short, fat PF.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

            So who do we like in the second round? We get a pretty early second round pick that could do some good. I vote for a guy like Demarcus Nelson from Duke. Or maybe a guy like Shan Foster.
            Last edited by DGPR; 03-28-2008, 08:13 AM.

            "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

              Second round, I like Joey Dorsey, reminds me shades of DD or the other guy who is a great rebounder who grabbed/hit Chris Kaman in the nuts, hard, whose name escapes me right now.

              Dorsey jumped up the draft board though after his big game against Mississippi State where he had 13 pt 12 rebs, 6 blocks, and 5 fouls!!!

              ----
              Edit: Reggie Evans is who I meant.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFcin...ippers+Nuggets[/link
              Last edited by Speed; 03-28-2008, 10:18 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                Speed-

                Dorsey is an interesting kid. When he shows up, he's a beast
                inside. But to call him a head case doesn't do justice to the
                term. His reputation for moodiness both on and off the court
                (he's started at least one brawl in a Memphis nightclub) is
                well established.

                Given recent history, I doubt LB would touch him w/ a 10-foot
                pole.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                  Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                  Speed-

                  Dorsey is an interesting kid. When he shows up, he's a beast
                  inside. But to call him a head case doesn't do justice to the
                  term. His reputation for moodiness both on and off the court
                  (he's started at least one brawl in a Memphis nightclub) is
                  well established.

                  Given recent history, I doubt LB would touch him w/ a 10-foot
                  pole.

                  I had no idea, he's 24, too. I hadn't seen that before either. Thanks for the heads up.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                    Beyond the extra yr that Carter brings, (I think the 2nd is a t/o) & big $, let me ask:
                    What do you do w/ Mike D?
                    He is playing SG now & has shown he can play, & should start. You would have to move Danny to PF, & I think that is a mistake. I think he can play there in spots/ certain matchups & be affective, but not night-in night-out. Not only that, but you likely bury S.Williams even further - or he has to be moved. Personally, I like S.Williams & think he needs to have the presure of being "needed" & having "expectations" placed on him. I think he could surprise n/y if he commits 100% this summer, & accepts all that we place on him.

                    As far as Carter being easier to move? I'm not to sure. What JO has is a huge expiring at a perfect time! JO expires the same summer as L.James, D.Wade, C,Bosh & others. NJ, NY, & more will be drooling over the idea that they might be able to lure away one of these stars.

                    Another point on JO (& L.Bird) I listed in my newby "intro", but I will also sum up here is:
                    -W/ JO & Bird both having 2 yrs left on contracts after t/y, JO's fate (sucess/ trade value) will dictate Birds fate - given their "relationship", that's kinda ironic don't yo u think? In other words: This "Larry Bird Experiment" is now a 2 yr. venture!!! After that, we will know how Bird uses JO's value, & what that gives us. If things are not better by then, Bird is gone, & the team is 1 yr from having true cap flexibility (barring a Bird F-up w/ JO). This may likely be our best chance to "rebuild", if Bird can live w/ JO just 1 more yr (yr & 1/2). 2010 - That is when it will all come together, or it will explode entirely.
                    What does "explode" mean? It means, after 2 yrs, we should have a better cap situation, w/ JO up/ gone, & all the long term contracts (Dun/Murph/Tin) w/ only 1 yr left, the Pacers would be attractive to a new GM to step into if Bird doesn't work out (or for the Simon's, a good time to sell w/ no big payroll on the books!).

                    That is why I do not see us making ANY deals where we take back a player that expired past 2011! Again, Carter expires in 2013 (but again, I think 2013 is a t/o). Besides, does anyone here - realilistically - think JO will bring back 2 1'st rd. picks? I would throw in Ike if they would, but I think that's highly unlikely.
                    "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                    (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                      Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                      Beyond the extra yr that Carter brings, (I think the 2nd is a t/o) & big $, let me ask:
                      What do you do w/ Mike D?
                      He is playing SG now & has shown he can play, & should start. You would have to move Danny to PF, & I think that is a mistake. I think he can play there in spots/ certain matchups & be affective, but not night-in night-out. Not only that, but you likely bury S.Williams even further - or he has to be moved. Personally, I like S.Williams & think he needs to have the presure of being "needed" & having "expectations" placed on him. I think he could surprise n/y if he commits 100% this summer, & accepts all that we place on him.

                      As far as Carter being easier to move? I'm not to sure. What JO has is a huge expiring at a perfect time! JO expires the same summer as L.James, D.Wade, C,Bosh & others. NJ, NY, & more will be drooling over the idea that they might be able to lure away one of these stars.

                      Another point on JO (& L.Bird) I listed in my newby "intro", but I will also sum up here is:
                      -W/ JO & Bird both having 2 yrs left on contracts after t/y, JO's fate (sucess/ trade value) will dictate Birds fate - given their "relationship", that's kinda ironic don't yo u think? In other words: This "Larry Bird Experiment" is now a 2 yr. venture!!! After that, we will know how Bird uses JO's value, & what that gives us. If things are not better by then, Bird is gone, & the team is 1 yr from having true cap flexibility (barring a Bird F-up w/ JO). This may likely be our best chance to "rebuild", if Bird can live w/ JO just 1 more yr (yr & 1/2). 2010 - That is when it will all come together, or it will explode entirely.
                      What does "explode" mean? It means, after 2 yrs, we should have a better cap situation, w/ JO up/ gone, & all the long term contracts (Dun/Murph/Tin) w/ only 1 yr left, the Pacers would be attractive to a new GM to step into if Bird doesn't work out (or for the Simon's, a good time to sell w/ no big payroll on the books!).

                      That is why I do not see us making ANY deals where we take back a player that expired past 2011! Again, Carter expires in 2013 (but again, I think 2013 is a t/o). Besides, does anyone here - realilistically - think JO will bring back 2 1'st rd. picks? I would throw in Ike if they would, but I think that's highly unlikely.
                      Great point!!! I think that Bird has a thinner line to walk on. I believe if the team is at this point next year, then Bird could be on the chopping block.


                      LOVE WAS THE REASON WHY UCLA HELD OFF WESTERN K!!!. The dude has the it factor.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                        Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                        Seth... I might have missed it but how do you feel about Augustine. Did you read the espn article about him & his mom posted earlier. I am growing more fond of him every day. Maybe it is because I am watching to much Chris Paul and want my own version.
                        He's been one of my main targets since the start of the season, before I'd even heard of Love.

                        PG (IMO) - Rose, Bayless, Augustin...Mayo is a swing that could play PG, EJ is pure SG and way behind the others with handles

                        But I think Augustin is a notch below those other 2. He doesn't work the ball like Paul, doesn't have Deron's power either. I just brought up BJ Armstrong in another thread, and that's actually kinda the caliber guy I think he'll be.

                        That certainly helps, but don't expect the 1 hand cross-over between the legs that Paul just dropped on the Pacers.


                        Then Collison is the one other PG that I'd consider a "solution", another notch under Augustin because he likes his own dribble way too much. He'll make it, he might fix that and even be great, but for now you can't count on those "ifs".


                        Weaver I like ONLY as a defensive specialist PG. He can pass and score, he should make a team, but he doesn't have the consistant offensive ability that those other guys do. I don't like Lawson at all. Westbrook isn't even remotely like a PG. Price showed too many problems the final month and is mid-2nd round to me.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                          I like Lester Hudson

                          We should be able to trade IKE for a late first round draft choice and this guy will be immediately help for our DEFENSE.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                            Originally posted by DanGrangerPwrRanger View Post
                            So who do we like in the second round? We get a pretty early second round pick that could do some good. I vote for a guy like Demarcus Nelson from Duke. Or maybe a guy like Shan Foster.
                            I would love to snag Courtney Lee

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                              The games, haven't watched L'ville/TN yet, its on Tivo.

                              NC vs Wash St
                              T'Hans is fine, but something of a static player by NBA standards. By NCAA standards the entire team is athletic but to me they all seem like classic "great college, meh pros". Clearly they were better athletes than every WSU player other than Weaver.

                              Weaver - he showed you his game. He can be an impact offensive player, but he also fades or makes mistakes. He doesn't flop on offense, but it's not what puts him in the NBA and why he isn't a starter.

                              But on defense you saw on play 1 what he brings. T'Hans gets the offensive rebound on the quick tip win, and Weaver is the one who ties him up for a jump ball and gives it to WSU. He also fights for rebounds like a madman by PG standards. He blocks shots, he steals, he gets after it.

                              It makes me sick thinking a team like Detroit might add him as just the kind of tweek they could use. He'll never make it to round 2.

                              W KY vs UCLA
                              Love - it's all been said. Smartest player on the court, hit 2 different outlets (off a made shot no less) to guys at the OTHER 3pt line. 2 hands, dead on the money. I mean the count of those passes he's made this year has to be 50+. Every game, seriously.

                              He is INSTANT FASTBREAK and he doesn't even have to leave the baseline to do it.

                              Collison - good to see an example where he wasn't scoring at will. This was a better picture of his game. Solid defender, decent PG but not great, quick but not strong, meh court vision. At 15-18 I like him as a pick. I just take Love before him.


                              Westbrook vs Lee. Lee has made an impact on me seeing them head to head. I love Westbrook as a possible pro but to me Lee was clearly superior as an NBA prospect.

                              I had viewed Lee like Rush, but he is better than Rush. Maybe not smarter, but not enough to matter anyway. Of those 3 I take Lee happily right now. If he's your double dip with Love/Augustin/Lopez/etc then you have to trade into that chance.

                              He's slasher smooth, comes off curls well, goes very smoothly off dribble into his jumper, and shows a solid defensive game.

                              I realize that in the end Lee didn't have a great FG% evening, but a big part of that was the team behind him.

                              3 blocks, 8 boards, and Westbrook ended up 3-15, I'd say Lee made a strong point. And for Westbrook you like the rebounds but as I've said all along, that's what he does. He's energy, jumping, making plays when it gets scrappy. You like that, but it does describe the Fred Jones game. If Westbrook if Fred then to me Lee looks like Jalen Rose. So I take Lee.

                              I had slept on Lee most of the year even though he'd been projected to the Pacers early on. That was a mistake.
                              I would love to snag Courtney Lee
                              Obviously I agree.

                              Reason 109 why Westbrook is not a PG - his horrible post feed to Love where he tried to go soft over the top of the fronting defender, which the defender easily reached for the steal. Running point is not his thing, passing to Shipp on a turnover break is his thing (which is great, just not PG material).

                              Brazelton vs Collison - this is a reason I also worry about Collison, he gambles and can be lit up like this. And his size doesn't discourage outside jumpers. I recall a few times Braz just stopped and rose up on him.


                              Xavier vs West VA
                              Only interest was Alexander since I hadn't really watched him. No doubt he's got a few quick moves to him, not half bad, but right now he still looks like 2nd round fodder to me. He should stay another year and raise his stock, which I think he could. Right now as a 6'8" guy he looks quick at PF, but not quick enough for an NBA SF.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                                Naptime, what are your impressions of Boston College's own Tyrese Rice?
                                Didn't really watch him. I've heard you or others mention him a bit.

                                Contrary to all my posting (which is standard for me), I certainly don't have a line on every guy. I'm in here for the same reason you are, to find out about guys and get pointed in the right direction. I'll take this question as "hey, maybe get your head out of your rear and go YouTube him".

                                Too late to see them live now. Maybe ESPN has a game or two still available? I'll have to see.



                                BTW, teams still in play besides Final Fours: NIT has FLA, Ohio St, U Miss and U Mass. CBI has: Bradley vs Tulsa, 3 game champ series.

                                Anyone to really look at in that mix?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X