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

Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

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

  • Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

    My second draft analysis is another UCLA player, Russell Westbrook. If interested, my first thread about the draft was about UCLA big man Kevin Love.

    Westbrook is another player who opinions will vary about. Westbrook is a very good athlete, who moves and slashes well. He handles the ball well for a 2 guard, and has the athleticism to be an effective finisher in traffic. He isnt particularly great at any one offensive skill, but he knows how to make plays to help you win. He is strong with the ball in traffic, and savvy enough to be able to control his body and get fouled. From the perimeter, he is a decent shooter if given space, with in my view potential to really improve this area of his game to become a real strength eventually.

    How much a team/person likes Westbrook probably derives from whether you believe he can eventually become a serviceable NBA point guard. He is listed as a point guard in some draft websites, and played the position occasionally for the Bruins and Ben Howland. He does have the athleticism to play the point, particularly defensively, but in my view offensively in most systems he would be miscast as a traditional lead ballhandling guard. If you are a team like Indiana who covets a starter level point guard, in my opinion you should not be expecting Westbrook to fill that role.....at least in the way Indiana plays offense. It would be interesting to see him play in an offensive system like the triangle, which doesnt use a traditional point guard. If drafted by a team who wanted to play like that, Westbrook could probably fill that type of spot. Outside of the Lakers (and possibly Pheonix next year, as I look for them to play radically different offensively) I don't see a team in the NBA leaning toward playing that way.

    Westbrook I believe is a 2 guard, with some emergency backup ballhandling skills. Opinions may vary wildly about that on this board and around the league.

    Defensively, Westbrook is well taught, well schooled, and motivated. He plays bigger than he is listed at, contests shots well, is capable of staying in front of most perimeter players, and causing them problems. He can get up in a weaker ballhandlers grill and still remain quick enough to not get beaten often off the dribble. He does really well at avoiding being screened, which means he reads situations well along with being a good defensive communicator and listener. (It also means he has been in a really quality defensive system). To me, most of Westbrooks future depends on his ability to be a defensive stopper off the bench.

    Whoever drafts Westbrook will have to decide if they want him to become stronger, or become quicker. That will determine what type of defensive role he will play for the team that gets him. If a team wants a strong point guard defender off the bench, Westbrook can do that now to most of the back up level point guards in the league and some of the starters. Currently I think he would lack the quickness to defend Tony Parker, Chris Paul, or other point guards who rely on their quickness....but most players are going to have that problem anyway.

    If you want Westbrook to be able to guard wings, likely he will need to get stronger in order to take the pounding of coming through bone jarring screens night after night for 82 games. Right now he is too thin to handle that as a starter, but could eventually grow in to that type of player someday. I do think he can play right away as a 15 minute, 4th wing, role player defender type off the bench.

    So, the questions are:

    1. Can he legitimately play the point in the NBA?

    I've already answered no, at least on most teams.

    2.If he is a wing, will he primarily be used as an offensive player who has defensive skills, or as a defensive player with some offensive punch occasionally?

    To me he is more of a defender, but opinions may vary.

    3. Which player currently in the league does he remind you of?

    I've heard people say Fred Jones, but I don't agree with that at all. Westbrook is alot more of a cerebral player than Fred, and I think has more long term upside.

    To me, I see a slightly better version of Raja Bell of Pheonix. If he played in the right system, I could also see an older version of Ron Harper of the Bulls early title teams (not when he was a big scorer for the Clippers in his younger days). The best things about Westbrook are I think his attitude, willingness to defend, proper fundamentals defensively he learned at UCLA, and his attitude. This is all pop psychology now, but I see Westbrook as one of the more rare NBA guys whose game will improve with age, as he settles in to a role somewhere and refines his skills. A big key to Westbrooks future will be landing on the right team, as it is for so many other players similar to him. If he gets lucky he can have a long career playing a key role for a championship level team, if he doesn't he ends up like another player he is similar to, Maurice Ager from Michigan State, who has been buried on the bench his entire career.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

    Thank you kind sir! Please tell us how you think he would do if the Pacers picked him, like you did for Love.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 05-17-2008, 09:07 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      Thank you kind sir! Please tell us how you think he would do if the Pacers picked him, like you did for Love.

      I think he would be a fine fit for us, and a solid if unspectacular player for us for the future, as long as our expectations are in order and not out of whack.

      He would fit nicely as a rotation player with our wings. Drafting him would/could really help Granger, because when these 2 were in the game together (without Dunleavy), then some of the time the matchups would allow Westbrook to guard the opponents best wing player. Not all the time, but some of the time, Westbrook would be a huge factor defensively. For instance, playing Detroit he helps us because he could shadow Rip Hamilton or occasionally defend Chauncey Billups, where as now Danny has to do that. Playing against the Celtics, Westbrook could really cause trouble for Ray Allen. He also has enough offensive game that he could attack guys like that on the other end too. He could really give trouble for Ben Gordon too.

      Now, against bigger wings, he'd be too small to do anything with them. Like LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Carmelo Anthony, etc etc, Granger would still have to cover them.

      Depending on how the Pacers address the point guard position, Westbrook can guard some of the better point guards if you matched him up correctly.

      Suppose for a moment we had a point guard like Shawn Livingston, a bigger player who has lost some quickness but can still play the position offensively I think. Westbrook could guard point guards like Andre Miller, Kirk Hinrich, Chauncey Billups, and maybe Gilbert Arenas for you, allowing Livingston or some similar player to defend a slower guy.

      Offensively, Westbrook initially is probably a 3rd option for your second unit, but as I said originally I love his likelihood to improve in this area. My read on him is that he is driven to be really good, and will keep improving while in the league, unlike 80% of NBA players who essentially stay the same when they enter the NBA and start collecting checks.

      The other adavantage I think Westbrook could give Indiana if we chose him is some roster flexibility. What I mean by that is that I think he can take the roles of both Kareem Rush AND Marquis Daniels, making those guys expendable (if they werent already) and enabling the Pacers to clear additional time to play Shawne Williams more if they choose.

      If the Pacers choose Westbrook, I think we'd be happy with his style of play as he fits some needs, and by all accounts he is a solid citizen with a winning pedigree. I just don't think he is a point guard in any way, shape, or form, and we shouldnt expect him to be.

      Tbird

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

        Would you take him over Love?
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Would you take him over Love?

          That's the million dollar question, if they are both there at #11.

          I guess my answer would depend on what other moves I thought I could make, both on draft night and in free agency later in the summer. For example, if I thought I could acquire another wing defender in free agency or in a small trade, I'd probably take Love. Guys I've mentioned before might be a better fit that Westbrook might be Aaron Afflalo of Detroit and Quinton Ross of the Clippers. There are a couple of other good defensive wings in this draft too who may be available in the late first round. If I thought I could obtain a late first rounder somehow and add someone like Kyle Weaver with that pick, going with Love at #11 would be the way to go.

          On the other hand, I think a wing defender is a bigger "need" for us than an additional big is. If I thought I could add a big guy to get me by later in the draft or as a cheap free agent, I might take Westbrook instead and forego signing the more expensive Ross or someone similar.

          Essentially, I think both of these players are good role players who fill a specific need for us, and each have high character and are solid citizens. I think Westbrook has marginally more upside, but probably carries more risk. I also think getting a wing is generally easier than getting a productive big man......so if you asked me today on Saturday, May 17th I'd probably go with Love, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

          Neither would be a bad choice at #11.

          Of course, there will be other possibilities I'll discuss in later threads.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

            T-bird, do you think Westbrook is a reach at the 11th spot if your assessment is right about him not being a pg but a sg in the future?

            Maybe I am getting ahead of your threads here but do you think Augustine is a better pick at the 11th spot?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

              I don't think either guy will be there at 11, unfortunately.

              However, I love the idea of drafting with a plan. Draft Westbrook at 11 not hoping he's the next Monte Ellis or Dwyane Wade but instead draft him to do something specific, to fit your team. My only issue is that maybe 11 is a little high for a role player. I'd much prefer getting Augustin (whom I really believe in - you might disagree) and then somehow Weaver later.

              Also, T-Bird, I think this is your best, most enjoyable series yet. Please keep em coming. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Trust me, if there's anywhere it's appreciated, it's PD.
              Last edited by rexnom; 05-18-2008, 01:40 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                Originally posted by rexnom View Post

                Also, T-Bird, I think this is your best, most enjoyable series yet. Please keep em coming. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Trust me, if there's anywhere it's appreciated, it's PD.
                An echo of my thoughts, if I would have thought them! (grin) And a nice thing to say rexnom!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                  I wouldn't have said this a month ago, but at this point, provided
                  his health issues (knees, back) aren't of concern to the Pacers'
                  med staff, I'd take Love over Westbrook.

                  Sure, Westbrook fills what we perceive as a glaring need right now.
                  He can presumably defend troublesome opposing PG's and/or 'some'
                  wings. But his offensive game is nowehere near ready for big minutes
                  in the NBA at SG. Which likely means, he'll be a backup on the 2nd
                  unit for at least a year or two. Which means he won't be in the game
                  most of the time when the opposing guys we desperately need help
                  defending are on the court.

                  Is Westbrook a guy you can put in the game in Q-4 to stop a Billups
                  or a Wade or the like ? Not really, because his offensive diffciencies
                  will hurt you too much at the other end. He might be that guy in
                  3 years. He's not now.

                  On the other hand, if TBTP thinks that Westy can essentially learn the
                  PG spot on the fly and they're willing to suffer the growing pains for
                  2-3 years, then I'd take him. But as we're seeing with Rondo's
                  (a kid with vastly more PG experience than Westy) struggles with
                  inconsistency in the playoffs even while surrounded by 3 All-Star
                  caliber guys, great athleticism will only take you so far at that
                  position.
                  Last edited by Rajah Brown; 05-18-2008, 08:27 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                    Very informative and interesting reads indeed, thx .
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                      Westbrook has no legitimate position in the NBA. At best, he develops decent NBA PG skills and will never be the starting PG you want. Alternatively, he becomes a consistent backup SG off the bench with a decent mid range game. Kareem Rush is probably that good or better.

                      He might become a better PG than we have on this team, but it's not saying much. Augustin, even with his lack of athleticism, is already where Westbrook will be in terms of skills.

                      Skills at the PG position outweigh athleticism...just look at Mark Jackson. Maybe none of the available PG's are worth picking....so you pick Kevin Love I suppose.

                      Maybe not as bad as James White, but I just don't want to see another athleticism based pick who never contributes on the floor nor has a true NBA position.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Westbrook has no legitimate position in the NBA. At best, he develops decent NBA PG skills and will never be the starting PG you want. Alternatively, he becomes a consistent backup SG off the bench with a decent mid range game. Kareem Rush is probably that good or better.

                        He might become a better PG than we have on this team, but it's not saying much. Augustin, even with his lack of athleticism, is already where Westbrook will be in terms of skills.

                        Skills at the PG position outweigh athleticism...just look at Mark Jackson. Maybe none of the available PG's are worth picking....so you pick Kevin Love I suppose.

                        Maybe not as bad as James White, but I just don't want to see another athleticism based pick who never contributes on the floor nor has a true NBA position.

                        This is by far the most pessimistic view of Westbrook I have seen. I certainly don't believe he is an unskilled athlete as you seem to. I consider defensive ability a skill and westbrook has an abundance of it. He also has the ability to get to the rim and finish - another skill soorly lacking on this Pacers team. Most importantly, IMO, he appears to be unselfish (he doesn't have the SG mentality) and is a team player. The only attribute that he and James White seem to share is athleticism. They appear to have completly different attitudes, whcih is what has always been James Whites problem.

                        IMO, adding Westbrook to the current roster improves the team much more than adding Love would. I also believe Westbrook has a higher ceiling.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                          Ron Harper was an ingenoius comparison to Westbrook, Harper was an allstar caliber player with the Clippers and Westbrook has the same potential. Although on the downside, he reminds me of Antonio Daniels, atheletic enough to play PG, but not skilled enough to play it effectively. It all depends on his ability to prove to GMs he can play point, his workouts can take him high as 6th or as late as 17th.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                            Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                            This is by far the most pessimistic view of Westbrook I have seen. I certainly don't believe he is an unskilled athlete as you seem to. I consider defensive ability a skill and westbrook has an abundance of it. He also has the ability to get to the rim and finish - another skill soorly lacking on this Pacers team. Most importantly, IMO, he appears to be unselfish (he doesn't have the SG mentality) and is a team player. The only attribute that he and James White seem to share is athleticism. They appear to have completly different attitudes, whcih is what has always been James Whites problem.

                            IMO, adding Westbrook to the current roster improves the team much more than adding Love would. I also believe Westbrook has a higher ceiling.
                            Ok, I was a bit harsh on Westbrook. The indirect comparison with James White was unfair to a guy like Westbrook. I just want the Pacers to think skill before athleticism with this pick.

                            We have Flip Murray and Quis Daniels coming off the bench already. Do we really need another combo guard? Is Westbrook really much different than a young, smaller Quis Daniels? Athletic, good defender, gets to the rim...but short on PG skills and not a SG? Sounds like Daniels to me.

                            IMO, the last thing we need after another redundant SF is another combo guard. After Fred Jones, I am just pretty tired of seeing the Pacers pick up these guys who are never going to be good starters because they either do not have the right skills or are undersized.

                            If I thought he was the best that would be available I would back off that position. However, I highly suspect there will be better players available. We could use Jordan Farmar or Rajon Rondo at PG about now don't you think?...

                            So, IMO, we should go with a big or draft a real PG. No more games. No more multi-position players who can't play any position. Trade Ike so we don't have to re-sign him. Draft Love if he drops. Pick the best player available...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                              I forget exactly, but wasn't Ron Harper at least 6-6, if not 6-7 ?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X