Tweet
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Is this guy serious? 34 in the first half?
Is this guy serious? 34 in the first half?
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.
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
-
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Ok, he's 8 of 10 from beyond the three-point line, though to be fair, his two misses were from 32 feet and 60 feet - all this at the end of the first half.
10/16 shooting
8/10 3pt
Only 1 assist, but he should have about 4 by now if our players didn't get fouled or made open shots.
34 pointsComment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Bayless is a stud, if we're in position to take him then I wish Russell Westbrook well in his non-Pacer NBA career. Of course he's a top-5 lock, so unless we get lucky, that aint gonna happen. As for taking Westbrook over Augustin or Collison - I've never said that. Of course I've never said take Augustin or Collison over Westbrook, either. We have a long ways to go until the draft. Let's see how the rest of the season plays out, and how pre-draft camps and measurements go. As of right now, I'm leaning towards Westbrook over Augustin and Collison due to his Derrick Rose-like size and athleticism, combined with his promising skill set.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
Westbrook is leading UCLA in assists. Yes, he averages more assists per game than fellow top-20 NBA prospect, Darren Collison. He's leading the team in assists and is just 1.7 points behind second leading scorer Collison, all while playing slightly less minutes per game...sounds like he plays a pretty big part in the offense to me. And if he's this prolific while being such a minuet part of UCLA's offense, as you're implying, than that only makes his production all the more intriguing.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
Fred's high in assists was 3.4 per game as a junior, well short of what Westbrook is producing this season. Did I mention he also averaged a whopping 3 turnovers per game that season? His next season (senior) both his assists (3.2) and TOs (2.3) went down. Both his junior and senior seasons were played with NBA lottery pick Luke Ridnour starting at the point.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
Can you please show me, with links as evidence, what draft experts considered Fred Jones an NBA PG coming out of Oregon? All I ever read was undersized SG, which is why he was projected as a late 1st rounder/early 2nd rounder and which is why we took him with our 1st rounder when we had Jamaal Tinsley coming off a fantastic rookie season.
LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3
LINK 4
LINK 5
That analogy is a ridiculous exaggeration and we both know it, so I'll leave it at that.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
You don't average 5 assists per game without having something going for you in the playmaking department. You can't put it all on simple outlet passes, and fastbreaks, it just doesn't compute. There are people out there that scout for a living, and have for years, and if they're saying Westbrook is an NBA point guard, what reason do I have to doubt them? I respect your opinion, but not over the aforementioned scouts.Last edited by Kofi; 03-01-2008, 05:36 PM.Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Not even close. The guys who run Draft Express originally came from Real GM and the sites have a working relationship together. The NBA Draft forum at Real GM is possibly the best out there. Check it out sometime.Originally posted by croz24 View PostComment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Well that didn't end well...Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Just like the career of Troy Bell, that must have been a huge disappointment.
At least Anthony Mason Jr hit a walk-off three for the Johnnies though. You can take solace in that at least.Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
i've checked it out kofi plenty of times but i still find most of the posters on there to be quite oblivious...and you should see what they have to say about sean singletary...who btw put up 41pts (12-25 fg, 13-14 ft) 9rbs and 3asts...Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Absolutely, I've said that for over a year now. (wait...how long have I been a member here? Nevermind.) The top-5 is the creme de la creme. That's why I don't mind the losing now, as we're just 4 games out of the #5 spot in the draft. I would happily take 26-46 and the #5 pick (and a 29.2% of jumping into the top-3) over 32-50 and the #9 pick.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
Between 94-2003....Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
11 All-Stars drafted between #6-10 - just over 1 per draft, on average.
19 All-Stars drafted #11 and later (not including undrafted Ben Wallace and Brad Miller) - just under 2 per draft, on average.
For picks #6-10, we're talking about a span of just 50 picks. 11 All-Stars out of 50 picks....about one every 4-5 picks, not too bad.
On the other hand, from #11 on, we're talking about a grand total of 474 picks. 19 All-Stars out of 474 picks....one every 25 picks. Ouch.
And that's the point. It's much, much harder to pick out these types of players later in the draft, because their talent isn't as obvious. Anyone who shows signs of being a stud is already grabbed up by by a team selecting in the top-10. It doesn't always work out, but I'd take my chances with a top-10 prospect than guys mid-1st and on.
I've done hours and hours of research on the draft. Believe me, I understand there will be busts, and many of them. However just because someone isn't a star doesn't necessarily make them a bust. Just because he doesn't turn out to be the next Dikembe Mutombo doesn't mean Thabeet couldn't end up the next Samuel Dalembert, a 12/10/3 block type of guy. Would you consider that a bust in the 7-10 range? I wouldn't. Even guys like Danny Fortson were productive NBA players for many years. Fortson, at his peak, was probably a top-3 rebounder in the NBA and a decent scorer as well. No superstar, but very serviceable player. And that's another thing - top-10 picks not only have much higher chances of turning into stars, they have much higher chances of turning into at least serviceable players. The majority of players drafted #15 or later aren't even in the league 4 years after being drafted.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View PostComment
-
Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
sign me up for the Westbrook bandwagon. could be the perfect 6th man for us. god knows our bench is terrible
honestly i hope we're in a position to draft Bayless and then grab Kyle Weaver somehow. i think that'd be a perfect match in our backcourt
a guy i like in teh 2nd round is Nikola Pekovic
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/...-Pekovic-1047/
i think we need to focus on guys who are mentally tough, winners, and guys who committ to defense. all these things most of the current roster lacksComment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Remember that next time you state that "Gordon has bust written all over him" homie.Originally posted by Kofi View PostRoy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
Arizona vs UCLA tomorrow. Westbrook, Collison, Love, Bayless, Budinger....
Anthony Randolph is interesting. He looks anorexic, but he has a ton of talent. I've seen him compared to Chris Bosh and LaMarcus Aldridge. Word is, if he comes out this year he'll go in the second half of the top 10, but another season at LSU and he could go top-3 in 2009. If we're looking to draft J.O.'s replacement, this guy would be an interesting choice.
How about we trade J.O. to New York for Marbury and #5, take Bayless after he slips to us at 5, then take Randolph with our own 1st. We then build around Granger, Bayless, Randolph, Dunleavy, and hopefully Shawne. Our 2009 1st goes lottery, and we can take a matured DeAndre Jordan to complete our front court and build our own version of the Trail Blazers.
O.k. I'll stop dreaming now.Last edited by Kofi; 03-01-2008, 10:23 PM.Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
I said I wouldn't but...
please find a way to get Brandon Rush. Really. Okay, now I'm really done.
Pretty interesting day for some prospects. How about the Mayo dropping 7-10 from deep?
Beasley gets 2 fouls in the first 2 minutes, doesn't get another foul the rest of the way and scores 39. It's insane. And that atmosphere was intense too.
I've been off and on with Arthur (KS), wondering if its the system or him, but I'm coming around. I still have concerns on him having a limited list of post go-to moves, but the ones he shows now are pretty smooth.
Thabeet, 18 minutes TWO rebounds, 3 blocks. Yes, more blocks than rebounds. I love the physical talent, but really has he shown any NBA caliber ability besides shot blocking? The rest of it is fingers crossed and hope he learns.
Augustin went off vs TxTech but it was in a loss and mostly he called his own number. That's one thing that concerns me with his game.
Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
I think both the Kansas kids could have really solid NBA careers. Not franchise-changing, but franchise-stabilizing. Rush is plain smooth ... he seems like he's running at 70 percent all the time. I'd really like to see him deep into the tournament to see what fifth gear looks like.
I just wish Darrell Arthur would keep his switch in the on position. When he's good, he's everything you want in a power forward. Shoots a high percentage, rebounds the ball, changes shots with his length. He's not gonna be Karl Malone with the offensive game, but I could see a 14/10 guy for 10 years if he keeps his athleticism.
If those guys are in the right situation, with the right coach ... man ... I wish that was here.Comment
-
Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
When you said "both Kansas kids" I thought you meant Chalmers and Rush, not Arthur.
With Chalmers/Rush the question remains on them declaring or not.
One thing about the deeper picks. Yes the list isn't a lot of stars. Yes the raw numbers tell you that guys just can't all make it, not unless you add 100 teams. But when you parse the past drafts you see a lot of decent role players that lasted a few years and were helpful in their own way.
So I don't discount that early 2nd round kid just because he won't be an all-star. I'd take another Harrison without the attitude that far down and be thrilled.
So I look at some of these picks, like Price, with the expectations of just being a touch of help ala Diener. If he turns into Parker or Josh Howard then that's just bonus.
I stand by the prediction that barring a lottery MIRACLE the Pacers aren't drafting top 5. We need to be prepared to accept just a solid role player and a deep bench guy as the two draft pickups this season.
In other words, not enough to really change things. That's going to take years.Comment
Comment