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...

    Kofi is right about the mocks. As I said before in this thread even, just look at how nuts it gets after the first 4-5 picks, you have guys all over the place from mock to mock. Heck, they don't even agree on which guys will come out and which will stay.

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    Hmmmm..., it looks like you have thought this out already....but who do you have in your top 15 mock draft?
    Well there's mock and there's best guys for Indy. I haven't thought much about the exact needs of other teams, just who I think is looking like an NBA player and getting noticed.

    I have nothing for the two Euros, haven't seen them that I recall (WBCs?) But apparently those are 2 of the players in the 15. And then you have to wonder if Bird wouldn't chase one since he went after Saras, Baston and Stanko.


    Anyway, Beasley, Rose, Bayless, EJ, Arthur, Love, Augustin, Rush, Mayo, Westbrook, Bill Walker (avoid, Jackson part 2), Collison and Chalmers to a lesser extent, Weaver as a specialist, Thabeet as a project. That's 15 that I think could find a place in the NBA. That won't be the first 15 taken though, not even close.

    Budinger too but to me he's Dun part 2. Hibbert...maybe late first because of size and character, but he's going off the board earlier than that and it's a mistake.

    DJ White, also because of character and because he plays smart. He reminds me of how Brad Miller was low profile but when you watched him you could see a solid fundamentals big with zero flash that would help your team. Of course White is playing his way up with heart while Brad's (apparent) lack of heart hurt him at the draft.

    Some maybes with guys like Taj Gibson, Dove, Tyler Smith. Dime a dozen SFs in the NBA I think. Good kids but save that for the 2nd round.

    Douglas-Roberts, Doresy, I'm not totally sold on the Memphis guys. Shipp at UCLA has really cooled. AJ Price has as well. All impressed me at times but they are wildly inconsistent and could just be solid NCAA kids without NBA caliber ability.

    Jordon is just so young. He's got size but compared to Arthur it's just not close...yet. To be honest I didn't see Bynum taking off the way he did either.

    I haven't watched enough Lawson (UNC), Hendrix (Alabama) or Randolph (LSU) to comment.


    OWL - I said that because with your 7-8 pick (hopefully, if they miss the playoffs) you must take a guard, and I'd like it to be Augustin, though EJ makes sense too. So then it's 15 on the board and there's Love for whatever reason. Push someone down some stairs, whatever it takes, and bring him in too.

    Not only does he play smart, he's a great character guy as well. If you want a solid fundamentals team a group with Love, Augustin and Granger is a good start. Then go get a coach that develops players rather than riding stars. Oh, and if Rush is on the board in the 2nd round by a miracle then I really party.

    NONE of these guys look to be all-stars (maybe EJ), but all of them could make a nice dent in the skill deficiencies of the team.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-08-2008, 07:34 PM.

    Comment


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

      His playmaking skills are on par with a 19 year old Tony Parker's.
      No, they aren't. He NEVER runs plays like Tony Parker, that's COLLISON'S JOB. Watch the freaking games already, the Stanford game was a prime example of what Westbrook offers.

      He's an NBA athlete, no doubt. He was huge at the end after being missing most of the night, but his plays were off of loose ball hustle and rebounds. When they needed a SET PLAY it went to Collison, he broke guys down and then made passes, including a great one in the lane that led to a dunk.

      Westbrook is used to FEED LOVE, the two man where if they can't get it to Love then Westbrook is allowed to go off the dribble for HIS OWN SCORE.

      This is every freaking UCLA game. I'm not making crap up. So how does doing that imply Tony Parker? When you watch MANU do you think Tony Parker? I don't.

      Westbrook is much closer to a Manu type, though honestly Fred Jones remains the smack you in the face first impression.

      Great kid, great athlete, and he'll help a team. But he hasn't yet played PG for UCLA this year and hasn't once shown anything close to that type of game.

      Did you watch the Stanford/UCLA game?

      he'll almost certainly be UCLA's starting PG next season.
      For someone raving about the "scout's" WTF are you talking about here? EVERYONE is saying that if he stays he doesn't get to play PG because UCLA has just recruited a couple of top notch PGs that will get that job. He'll stay at SG/SF if he stays (Shipp plays SG this year), and if he continues to project as a top 12 I don't think he will stay.


      Look, I fully expect Westbrook to impress people in the tourney. He makes plays. He'll get that loose ball or get a big And-1, dunk on an outlet from Love, etc. He's likely to have a 20 point night even.

      But this obsession with him as a PG is beyond me. Why would UCLA have Collison at PG over a guy expected to get drafted before Collison as an "NBA PG"?

      Originally posted by mrknowname View Post
      i have to agree with this. westbrook is still so raw and has a lot of room to improve still, which makes him so intriguing. i'm not sure he'll ever be the answer at PG, but he seems like he'd be the perfect 6th man. i guess most people don't like him, because he isn't a sexy name
      Some people are projecting him as UCLA's top pick, on a team sending Love and Collison to the same draft possibly. He's noticed.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-08-2008, 07:27 PM.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        OWL - I said that because with your 7-8 pick (hopefully, if they miss the playoffs) you must take a guard, and I'd like it to be Augustin, though EJ makes sense too. So then it's 15 on the board and there's Love for whatever reason. Push someone down some stairs, whatever it takes, and bring him in too.

        Not only does he play smart, he's a great character guy as well. If you want a solid fundamentals team a group with Love, Augustin and Granger is a good start. Then go get a coach that develops players rather than riding stars. Oh, and if Rush is on the board in the 2nd round by a miracle then I really party.

        NONE of these guys look to be all-stars (maybe EJ), but all of them could make a nice dent in the skill deficiencies of the team.
        If the guard is the best talent available then, sure take the guard but with the need at
        center nearly as great I would make sure this guard is much better than the bigs available
        such as Thabeet, Love, ect...
        I think they could get guard also in the second
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


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

          If we get a second pick Hansborough is my first choice, but the homer in me wouldn't mind DJ.


          Comment


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

            Wow, what if Mayo stayed? Kinda wish he did come out. Guess we'll see how USC does in the tourney.
            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

            Comment


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

              Good Lord, Lawson has that sneaky speed you love in a PG. He doesn't look that fast, but he is able to outrun just about anyone.


              Comment


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

                Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                Wow, what if Mayo stayed? Kinda wish he did come out. Guess we'll see how USC does in the tourney.
                They'll be one of the 7-8 sees that lose to a mid major. OJ stinks. He'll try and take over and get beat by a fundamental basketball team. Book it.
                STARBURY

                08 and Beyond

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  But this obsession with (Westbrook) as a PG is beyond me.
                  FWIW it's worth, I think you're spot-on with Westbrook. What you're running into is a lot like the Gordon love. They're just not willing to listen to the other side -- even when you think the player is, and will be, a good one.

                  I've watched the last four or five UCLA games. Westbrook just doesn't demonstrate the traditionally necessary point guard skills. Could they develop? I suppose -- but not soon enough for this year's draft, which I imagine he'll likely be in. The NBA isn't a place to develop better ball handling, you know?

                  How often do you see a college player that isn't a team's primary ball-handler turn into a really solid NBA point guard? Not very. There are, of course, exceptions. But it's certainly not the rule (Luther Head, anyone?). And in the draft's top 10, you should be gunning for a top-flight starter who's everything you want in the position.

                  Westbrook isn't that, and won't be in the next four months. Two years and four months? Maybe. But he probably won't give himself that chance.

                  Comment


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

                    The high-end is Arenas o WEstbrook. And no one projected him to be what he is. Westbrook will be a tweener hoping to be a more athletic Mo Williams.

                    Comment


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

                      Westbrook is a project, but his upside dwarfs guys like Collison and Augustin. If you're happy with mediocrity, go ahead and draft one of those two midgets that won't be able to play defense in the NBA and whose upside is Damon Stoudamire. I have higher standards, and am more of a gambler, so give me the 19 year old, 6'3" athletic freak with lockdown defense and blossoming point guard skills.

                      Edit: for the record, there are several players that I'd take before Westbrook.

                      Beasley, Rose, Bayless, Mayo, and Randolph, absolutely. Gordon, Jordan, Lopez, Love, Lawson and Thabeet, possibly. However if none are available, and we're looking for a guard, I'd take Westbrook over Augustin and Collison without question.
                      Last edited by Kofi; 03-09-2008, 05:10 PM.

                      Comment


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

                        singletary with 14pts 3reb 3asts at half against maryland...

                        senior night for singletary...he puts up 27pts 6rbs 8asts...scores his 2,000th career point...and is getting his jersey retired...i will say this again, if we can get singletary in the 2nd round, he WILL be a steal!
                        Last edited by croz24; 03-09-2008, 08:34 PM.

                        Comment


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

                          i may sound like a uva homer with my talking up of singletary, but i swear i have never been a fan of uva...i am hoosier and indiana colleges fan all the way...but singletary might just be the best pg in the country. no, he does not have the high-end potential of some of the other pgs, but i'd put his ability right up there with lawson and augustin as far as the here and now is concerned...
                          Last edited by croz24; 03-09-2008, 08:43 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Indy View Post
                            Good Lord, Lawson has that sneaky speed you love in a PG. He doesn't look that fast, but he is able to outrun just about anyone.
                            What I don't trust with him is his handles. To me he dribbles with a very fundamental, somewhat clunky style. At speed, yes, but not the kind of talent that will get by at the next level. If you run point you have to be able to yo-yo just to get by. I think Saras showed that pretty well.


                            Damon Stoudamire vs Fred Jones. Tough call. Seriously.

                            My issue with Westbrook is simply the "he's a PG". A lot of the scouting online right now is from the start of the season, not from after this year of play, so they were still going by what they thought would become of him. In practice it hasn't been that.

                            He is athletic, but there is a reason why Shipp works the SG spot. Westbrook is a great all-around guy, 6th man energy type of player. Collison is borderline I'll agree, I hate his poor inside shooting, at least at times. Augustin does have size to consider but he's got a hard dribble and plays with strength despite being smaller.

                            And frankly after watching Jax and Best get destroyed by Damon that first year I'd be pretty happy to get a PG like that.


                            Love - well this is a player I want, I think he would help with your team chemistry and running, and without hurting you much on the boards. Think Murphy except instead of the 3 you are getting great passing and a bit more of a Foster edge to him. And he's pure PF IMO, not a center at all.

                            But the only way they can afford to take him IMO is if they have a deal for JO in place. Ideally they'd be trading JO into that pick, say 14-15.

                            One other option depends on how PHX finishes. They've sold A LOT of picks in recent years and might come off that ATL pick if it's poor enough.


                            The other bigs I go Arthur all the way. I could almost see the good sense behind Arthur before Augustin. Thabeet I just can't deal with before the 15-16 range personally, too much "if" on that (PS, 8 freaking blocks vs Cincy!). Hibbert, no interest at this point though I really like him as a college player. Seems like a good kid.


                            And Rush, nothing he's done has changed my mind. To me he's like a SG version of McKey, or Bobby Phills as I've compared him before. That's my target for the 2nd pick if they could get one in the mid-20s. His game is well rounded, though like McKey he is willing to defer to others, almost to a fault. I guess I look at poise in a lot of these kids, and the methods they use to succeed.

                            That's why Hansbrough doesn't blow me away. Fundamentals, yes, but translatable to the NBA? Not sure on that. His methods are very NCAA basic to me. Disciplined certainly, but that won't fly in the NBA.

                            This is how some of these guys and teams get blown up in the first few rounds. The refs let them go at it more than usual and the underdog is able to be unorthodox and extra physical and some teams just don't have anywhere to go if the system is disrupted.

                            That's a big reason why the tourney helps identify top prospects. Not just the numbers they do, but how and when they come up big. Think about Alford going coast to coast, that was a skill that he wouldn't be able to get away with in the NBA. So he was an NCAA hero, sure, big play for the win, but not an NBA type of play.


                            Singletary - I haven't paid much attention to. Guess it's too late now unless they get the NIT. Well they have the Ga Tech game on ESPN2 this week for the ACC tourney.



                            FWIW, I had a dream last night that the Pacers were picking around 11th and Bayless slipped to them. Seriously. I literally woke up happy. I think the thought of it made me so excited I woke up. Talk about a dork out.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-09-2008, 10:08 PM.

                            Comment


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

                              Seth, do you have any past scouting here at P.D. or IndyStar? I'd like to read it to see if you have a good eye for talent or not.

                              Comment


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

                                well, i agree with seth about westbrook, arthur, hibbert, somewhat thabeet, rush, collison and hansbrough just mentioned in his last post...i do disagree with him however about love. the ONLY way i'd draft a role player who could provide great chemistry in the 1st given the pacers strong desire for talent upgrades, is if we were to draft a mayo-type with our 1st pick and acquire the 2nd pick to draft love...if we went big with a 2nd 1st rounder, i'd much rather prefer an arthur or jason thompson over love...i would also LOVE to get my hands on anthony randolph. i'd even take him with our own pick if we drafted 10+ and mayo didn't slide...
                                Last edited by croz24; 03-09-2008, 11:31 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X