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

Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

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

  • Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

    EDIT;I was reading Hollinger's article again and it dawned on me that the 439 for Gordon wasn't his rank, it was his score. Hollinger mislead me by going from giving players ranks to their scores.

    That makes a big difference, but it's still not that good. Of course Gordon's a freshman too.

    Here's the full article;

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ftRater-080131

    Draft Rater: Beasley has most pro potential among collegians

    By John Hollinger
    ESPN Insider

    The numbers currently support the case of Kansas State's Michael Beasley being the top draft prospect.

    Let's face it, the NBA is a busy place in February. But before we get too consumed by trades and All-Star weekend and playoff races and what not, let's take a step back and have another look at the draft. Actually, the fans of a few teams (hello, Heat fans!) will be more than happy to do this already as they look ahead to whom their teams might select this June


    To review, last year I created a system to rate college players' pro potential based on their NCAA stats; earlier this year I updated that with a list of the top returnees from a year ago.

    Now, with half a season of college stats under our belts, we can start evaluating players based on their performances this season.

    Before we do, let's make sure you take this list with the proper mouthful of salt. Because this is based on a half-season, we're looking at samples of 400-600 minutes from most of these players. Thus, short-term flukes can have a dramatic impact on the rankings. Additionally, in a universe as vast as Division I college basketball, with minutes samples of this size, one should expect a couple of players who don't really belong to creep into the top of the list just by chance. In a couple of cases, it appears that is what might have happened.

    Additionally, a lot of teams play cupcakes in the first half of the season and pad their stats against bad teams. I have a schedule adjustment in the rankings, but it's possible it doesn't deal with this harshly enough; we'll know better once we see the year-end rankings in April.

    Finally, this whole system relies on heights and birthdates being correctly reported. If either isn't the case, then the whole thing blows up. With the reputation college heights have for being inflated, this factor is of particular concern.

    Of the players on the list below, the one most vulnerable in that respect is the No. 2 prospect, Oklahoma's Blake Griffin. He's listed at 6-10 but some scouts suspect he's only 6-8; were that the case, he'd fall to the No. 6 spot.

    Also, the No. 12 prospect, North Carolina's Ty Lawson, would drop to No. 15 if he's an inch shorter than his listed 6-0, as many surmise; and teammate Tyler Hansbrough would tumble out of the top 20 entirely if he turns out to be only 6-8.

    With all that said, these would be the top 20 players if the draft were held today. I used a minimum of 400 minutes played this season to qualify. Note also that stats are through Monday, so it doesn't include more recent games, such as K-State's win over Kansas Wednesday night:

    Title of data
    Player School Year Score
    Michael Beasley Kansas State Freshman 856
    Blake Griffin Oklahoma Freshman 725
    Kevin Love UCLA Freshman 724
    Danny Green North Carolina Junior 649
    James Harden Arizona State Freshman 642
    Robbie Hummel Purdue Freshman 601
    Jerryd Bayless Arizona Freshman 599
    Andrew Ogilvy Vanderbilt Freshman 598
    Ryan Anderson California Sophomore 586
    Dar Tucker DePaul Freshman 583
    DeJuan Blair Pittsburgh Freshman 582
    Ty Lawson North Carolina Sophomore 566
    Tyler Hansbrough North Carolina Junior 558
    Matt Howard Butler Freshman 556
    Chase Budinger Arizona Sophomore 547
    Malik Hairston Oregon Senior 537
    Tyler Smith Tennessee Sophomore 528
    Roy Hibbert Georgetown Senior 527
    Marreese Speights Florida Sophomore 526
    Kosta Koufos Ohio State Freshman 525


    Holy Freshmen, Batman! The first thing that jumps out is that nine of the top 11 players are freshmen, including the first three players on the list. This is indeed a highly regarded freshman class, led by consensus top pick Michael Beasley. By contrast, it's a somewhat lightly regarded class of returnees.

    But the proportions are still a bit shocking. And this is without the celebrated freshmen who didn't make the cut (more on them in a minute), and one other freshman, Austin Daye of Gonzaga, falling 18 minutes short of the threshold (he would have been sixth).

    Upperclassmen are an endangered species here. Only four cracked the top 20, and one of them, Danny Green of North Carolina, might be a short-term fluke. His numbers weren't nearly this good a year ago, and he barely cleared the 400-minute threshold. The highest-rated senior, Oregon's Malik Hairston, also looks fishy; he might have trouble keeping up his scintillating 65.2 true shooting percentage.

    That said, I should point out that this list might become more balanced by the end of the year, since a number of upperclassmen who were considered strong draft candidates had rough starts to their seasons (more on that below).

    The Pac-10 rules: Those of you who think the Pac-10 (or at least the nine Pac-10 teams that aren't located in Corvallis, Ore.) is the best conference in the country just got a whole lot of ammo to support your cause. Six of the top 17 players come from that league, representing five schools. Another Pac-10 player, Brook Lopez of Stanford, has a decent chance to crack the top 20 with more minutes. He missed the early part of the season when most of these guys were padding their stats against the St. Leo's and IUPUIs of the world, so his numbers don't look as good right now; he's only 30th.

    What about the other freshmen? As I mentioned, several prominent freshmen aren't on the list right now. Derrick Rose pulled in at 25th, missing the cut partly because his assist ratio is so low the computer sees him as an undersized shooting guard. Syracuse's Donte Greene is 26th, with a very negative pure point ratio hurting his rating. It's easy to imagine both moving up the list as they get acclimated to the college game and spread the ball around a bit more.

    EDIT; Here's where Hollinger changes from rank to score. I didn't catch it the first time around.

    A few others face a longer road up the charts. O.J. Mayo (371) failed to impress, partly because he is already 20 years old, and partly because of his -1.82 pure point ratio. Let's just say he's got a lot of work to do if he's going to play point in the pros.

    The system was beyond unimpressed with DeAndre Jordan (353), the Texas A&M freshman who has lured scouts with raw talent but isn't putting it to consistently effective use as a collegian. His four steals on the season were the least of any prospect, suggesting he might not be as athletic as we've been led to believe. Also, he averages a whopping six turnovers for every assist.

    Indiana's Eric Gordon also scored far worse than expected (439), partly because the formula wonders how athletic a 6-5 guy can be when he has had only eight offensive rebounds all season, and partly because his other numbers are nice but hardly special.

    Who the heck is … ? OK, there are four names on this list that nobody expected to be here. All four are freshmen who have played well in the early going. As I mentioned above, these could be outliers based on the small sample of minutes, but these players at least warrant tracking as the season goes on.

    Let's start with DeJuan Blair, who is at least something of a prospect -- Chad Ford's big board has him at No. 91 right now. He is an undersized power forward in the Jason Maxiell mold, with an insane rebound rate (nearly one every two minutes) and a great nose for the ball (1.9 steals per game). Even with a ding for being an undersized 4, his numbers are eye-grabbers. But he is only 6-7 and he plays inside, so you can understand why NBA teams are skittish.

    The others aren't even on the radar but have played extremely well in the early part of the season.

    Dar Tucker is a 6-5 swingman for DePaul who has done a little bit of everything for a mediocre team. He is second on the team in scoring and rebounding even though he comes off the bench.

    Robbie Hummel is a scrawny-looking forward for Purdue who is shooting 43.9 percent on 3-pointers and, more surprisingly, is leading the team in rebounding and blocked shots. Basically, he is a high-efficiency guy who has shown a surprising willingness to get his nose dirty.

    Like Blair, Butler's Matt Howard is an undersized power forward (6-8, 225) who has been very effective in the basket area, ranking second in scoring for the nation's No. 12 team. Butler is way better than the rest of its league and won't play anyone of consequence until the NCAA Tournament, but it's worth noting that Howard played very well against good teams in the early season. In particular, he destroyed Ohio State with 23 points on 9-of-13 shooting, despite giving up several inches to the likes of Kosta Koufos and Othello Hunter.

    Why does my computer hate all the bigs? No, my draft formula doesn't hate all big men … just the ones in this draft. Among players 6-10 or taller, only Oklahoma freshman Blake Griffin ranks in the top 15. The others? Not so much.

    Looking at the big men in Chad Ford's top 30, we see only Roy Hibbert, Kosta Koufos and Marreese Speights appear in our top 20, at the back end, while others didn't even come close. Hibbert isn't having as good a season as he did a year ago, so he has slipped, while Koufos and Speights simply haven't done anything to wow the judges so far.

    I already discussed DeAndre Jordan and Brook Lopez, but we can go right down the list. Darrell Arthur (446) was one of my highest-rated returnees, but he takes a hard ding for a substandard rebound rate and has been too turnover-prone, with nearly two a game. DeVon Hardin's stats (376) never have backed up the hype, and this season is no exception. Trent Plaisted's numbers (375) also leave a lot to be desired -- his low rates of blocks and steals are major negative indicators. JaVale McGee (387) has four turnovers for every assist, as does Hasheem Thabeet (339). Ouch.

    What about those guys from last time? You'll notice that few names are the same from when I presented my list of the top returnees a few weeks ago. There's a reason for this -- a lot of them are really struggling. I dealt with Hibbert and Arthur above, but there's more where that came from.

    Chase Budinger was the top returnee but has dropped several spots thanks to some worrisome ballhandling numbers in the early part of the season and a low rate of steals. Three "who dats?" on the list -- Stanford's Lawrence Hill, Arkansas's Patrick Beverley and Tennessee's Chris Lofton -- have been unable to come close to last year's pace and have tumbled well down the table.

    Of the group, Ryan Anderson, Ty Lawson and Clemson's K.C. Rivers (who was 21st) are the only ones to come close to replicating their performances from a year ago. We'll see if they snap back in the second half.
    -----------------------------

    Hollinger created this rating system last year and is still making tweaks to it, but it's already pretty good at picking players that will stand out from those who probably won't.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 02-01-2008, 03:43 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

    What a horrible, horrible system. Truly laughable.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

      What little respect I had for Hollinger's "numbers" just went out the window.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

        Originally posted by Indy View Post
        What little respect I had for Hollinger's "numbers" just went out the window.
        I bet Hollinger is somehow responsible for the BCS, too.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          What a horrible, horrible system. Truly laughable.
          It's not laughable when you see the results he's got with it! My take is it just means Gordon just won't be an impact player. But like he warned, it's just a half a years stats and things can change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            It's not laughable when you see the results he's got with it! My take is it just means Gordon just won't be an impact player. But like he warned, it's just a half a years stats and things can change.
            Which makes it laughable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

              I haven't seen Gordon much, but I've been impressed when I've seen him. My dad has a theory that Gordon is coasting to get these stats, and come tournament time, he's going to be completely unguardable.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                Gordon is highly overrated. Many people on this site act like he's the second coming when he's not even the best player in his draft class (Beasley). Every year, it's always the same, people hype the draft, talk about how this year is the deepest draft ever like woh, 10+ allstars in this draft, every year a few guys pan out, most don't. You'd think people would learn.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                  He's been hurting the last 1 1/2 games.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                    Originally posted by Dece View Post
                    Gordon is highly overrated. Many people on this site act like he's the second coming when he's not even the best player in his draft class (Beasley). Every year, it's always the same, people hype the draft, talk about how this year is the deepest draft ever like woh, 10+ allstars in this draft, every year a few guys pan out, most don't. You'd think people would learn.
                    I was right about Wade, and I'd stake money I'll be right about Gordon, too. The guy is a stone-cold baller.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                      Originally posted by Dece View Post
                      Gordon is highly overrated. Many people on this site act like he's the second coming when he's not even the best player in his draft class (Beasley). Every year, it's always the same, people hype the draft, talk about how this year is the deepest draft ever like woh, 10+ allstars in this draft, every year a few guys pan out, most don't. You'd think people would learn.
                      I do agree he's become massively overrated around here. And his overall game does make me worry. However there's no doubting in my mind he's gonna be a top-tier scorer. He has too much going for him - amazing range, nice turnaround, the ability to get to the rim and finish. He could end up being the Glenn Robinson of SG's - great scorer, not much else. Personally, I'd prefer Mayo as I think he brings more to the table overall, but with Gordon being the hometown hero, I can understand why people want to see him in a Pacer uniform.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        I was right about Wade, and I'd stake money I'll be right about Gordon, too. The guy is a stone-cold baller.
                        Yeah I would too.

                        And saying Gordon isn't the best player in this draft and Beasley is would have been like saying like Wade isn't as good as Melo. He's still really freakin' good.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                          I haven't seen Gordon much, but I've been impressed when I've seen him. My dad has a theory that Gordon is coasting to get these stats, and come tournament time, he's going to be completely unguardable.

                          He's pretty 'guardable' right now...

                          As the strength of IU's opponents go up, Gordon's impressive performances are going down. Hard to say what effect the wrist has now, but he's been figured out at this point and I'm not seeing him figure out what to do about it.

                          It's still early tho...

                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            He's pretty 'guardable' right now...

                            As the strength of IU's opponents go up, Gordon's impressive performances are going down. Hard to say what effect the wrist has now, but he's been figured out at this point and I'm not seeing him figure out what to do about it.

                            It's still early tho...

                            -Bball
                            Scored ten straight against Wisconsin tonight. Before the refs took all the momentum away.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                              You guys getting all hot and bothered about people like Hollinger dissing Gordon. If he drops in the draft it's more likely he'll be in the Pacers range.

                              Which doesn't mean the Pacers will take him.

                              And if that happens maybe history will repeat itself and we'll pull the next Reggie out of the draft.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X