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: Roy Hibbert

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 9
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

    The next of my series of potential draftees is Center Roy Hibbert, from Georgetown. Hibbert will almost surely be available at #11 when the Pacers select, and most likely will only become an Indiana Pacer if the team either acquires an extra pick in the later first round, or if the Pacers trade downward from #11.

    In my judgment, C Roy Hibbert is an extremely underrated player in this draft, and on this board. At 7'2 and 270 lbs, Hibbert would give us our first true legitimate center since Rik Smits. Like Smits, Hibbert will never be a dominant player, but he could be a very very valuable piece to a high quality basketball team.

    In many ways, the somewhat unique way he was used at Georgetown hurts his stock now, but in the long run will be good for his game in my opinion. Georgetown under John Thompson III runs the "Princeton" style of offense perfected by Pete Carril, and used in the NBA by the New Jersey Coach Kevin Frank, and at times by New Orleans and Houston. The Hoyas often used Hibbert at the high post area, rather than feeding the ball to Hibbert on the low block and letting him go to work. Because of this Hibbert has lower point productivity than you might expect out of a center worthy of being a first round pick, but he now will have a more well rounded game at the next level than most coming out of college.

    When on the rare occasions Hibbert got the ball in the low block, he is a productive (although bit mechanical) weapon. He has a nice ability to finish inside with either hand, and a particular nice right handed jump hook he can extend and shoot over people on the block. He also uses shot fakes very well for a player of his size, which is good because he lacks the explosiveness to lift off the ground and sky over people. Because of his ability to shot fake, he will be good at the next level against some post defenders at drawing fouls and getting them sent to the bench.

    No one can tell this quite yet, but because he has very advanced passing skills and vision he learned by playing in the "Princeton" scheme, he will be very good at either playing the high post in the NBA game, or at passing out of double teams on the low block....which is a skill most bigs have to learn to do on the NBA level on the run....Hibbert will likely be one of the better passing centers in the league right out of the gate.

    If drafted by Indiana, Hibbert immediately becomes the best screener on the Pacer roster by far. For some teams this wouldn't be a big factor, but for us this would be a huge plus for a franchise that doesnt have a single good screen setter on the payroll. Hibbert excels at setting all varieties of screens, from ball screens to downscreens for cutters coming from the baseline. He would be our best player since Dale Davis at setting "pin down" screens for shooters coming to the wing areas.

    When you watch the Hoyas play on film, while I don't think they used Hibbert nearly enough inside, and they didn't get him nearly enough shots.....you can also see a team that played with a team concept and was very well taught at little things. Hibbert does a good job of talking while playing, communicating with his teammates during possessions both offensively and defensively. The ability to communicate while playing is a HIGHLY VALUABLE SKILL, and one that is very difficult to learn for most players....Hibbert does that very well already. He also plays with a wide base offensively, which means he presents a good target to throw the ball too, making it easier for passers to find him in traffic. Playing with a wide base is also a main reason why his screens are so important, because players have to take a wider route to get around him, giving his teammates an extra second/step to get shots off.

    In doing research for this article I also discovered a fact that I didn't know, in that Hibbert was a very young college entrant, and is still just 21 years old. Since big guys often develop later anyway, this somewhat encourages me that Hibbert still has quite a bit of potential upside to his game, where as before I assumed he might be near completely developed. Although he has a full 4 years of college experience, he is only a year or 18 months or so older than many other bigs who played for only one season in college.

    Defensively, Hibbert is solid, fundamentally sound, and unspectacular. He is strong enough to not get pushed around inside, and long enough to really bother most players he is guarding by contesting their shots with a long hand up. He also for us would be our second best shot blocker besides Jermaine O'Neal, and would severely lessen the defensive issues we have when Jermaine is out of the lineup, which as we know happens all too often.

    Like most big men, Hibbert gets in foul trouble too often. Since he will be a part of a rotation of bigs at the NBA level, and will only be asked to play roughly 60%-70% of the time, I don't see this as an extreme negative. I also think in the more physical NBA game that some of the touch fouls Hibbert got in college won't be called at this level. In the low block area, Hibbert doesnt have many foul issues, but when asked to go to the perimeter his lack of quickness is a major problem for him.

    Hibbert will be exposed in the NBA by teams who involve him in having to defend the screen/roll, or screen/pop. He lacks the lateral quickness to defend the dribble by a more athletic player outside of the paint. You aren't going to be able to ask Hibbert to be out trapping a ballscreen I don't think, although I do think with better conditioning and experience his athleticism will improve somewhat.

    He also will be taken out of his element by teams who choose to play small. Hibbert lacks the offensive dominance to play in a superfast running game against smaller opponents, so he will be useless against a team like Golden State, for instance. However, in a more traditional style, Hibbert will be an above average player in my opinion.

    I wish he had a more aggressive, dominating, aggressive approach to rebounding. Hibbert may lack the super intense nature that will make him as dominant as his skills would otherwise allow him to. In theory, Hibbert should be a strong rebounder and outlet passer, but too often on tape he isn't that at all. Now, some of the issue is that Georgetwon often used him offensively away from the basket, putting him out of position for put back opportunities. But defensively as a rebounder, you don't see Hibbert always aggressivley "hunting" for the basketball like I prefer. He is more of an old school coaching product, being taught to "blockout" and hold position, then react to the ball coming off the rim. This is how he has been taught to play, so it is hard to criticize him for it, but doing it this way hurts him because he lacks the explosiveness and quick twitch athleticism to be the first to the ball doing it this way at the NBA level. It is easy for us to imagine a player like Jeff Foster, for instance, out rebounding Hibbert because he is quicker and more aggressive.

    Whether or not you think coaching can improve this one glaring weakness for Hibbert at the next level probably determines whether you like him as an overall player. Of course, some coaches (and some of you) still prefer this style of rebounding anyway, so seeing him "find/pivot/blockout/react" as a rebounding style rather than see him watch the ball and read its flight before attacking it aggressively won't annoy you as much as it does me.

    I personally am of the opinion that this CAN be coached up, so for the other reasons mentioned above I probably like Hibbert more than most of you and other experts do. I would probably prefer Hibbert and his more guaranteed productivity than I would the risk/reward scenarios of other highly rated bigs in this draft, although I certainly can see the arguments for going another direction. I still see Roy Hibbert having a long and productive career in the NBA, and being on productive winning teams as a role player and productive starter in most cases. Hibert has a very low liklihood of being a bust, and I think he is one of the safest picks in the draft.

    Keeping with my tradition of comparing players, who will Hibbert be like? He is more refined than Dale Davis, not as fast or talented as Robert Parish, not as slow and lead footed as Ilgauskus, not as aggressive or tough as Alonzo Mourning. So who do I compare him to?

    Being as smart and well coached as he is, I am going to go with another intelligent but unathletic big man, who had a career similar to what I envison Hibbert being like in the league: Bill Cartwright.

    Here is hoping that Hibbert doesnt have the injury history that "Medical Bill" Cartwright did in his younger days.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 05-26-2008, 12:48 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

    Generally, a guy his size will have a solid spot on an NBA roster. Yes, he is low risk and I thought he stepped up pretty well against Oden. IMO, his size would be at least a nice thing to have available against the bigger centers in the league. If we trade down he's not a bad option.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

      Hibbert is an OK pick at around #25 give or take a few spots, but you don't draft him anywhere near the lottery.

      For one thing, he's a poor rebounder for his size and position. His reaction time and mobility to get to balls just aren't great.

      The main thing about him is his lack of athleticism and stamina. He tired way too easily in the games I watched him in. In the NBA he's facing games that are 20% longer (48 mins compared to 40 mins), he's facing more games per season and he'll be playing against faster opponents.

      If you watch that game against Oden again, he did indeed play pretty well but his weaknesses were on display every bit as much as his strengths. I thought Georgetown wasted Hibbert's energy by having him go back and forth between posting up and setting picks up high, but it showed that he really tired easily.

      He was huffing and puffing after this. He got tired and of course big guys who get tired start reaching and get in foul trouble, which is exactly what happened.

      Unless you get some other really good incentive to trade down, I wouldn't see the point in taking a much less talented guy like Hibbert. If you're at #11 and can get a much more talented guy, then just stay at #11. Don't over think yourself.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

        I really don't like his game in the NBA. I like his IQ, but his reaction to the play was slightly above average in college. What would it be in the NBA?

        I think he would be a nice thrid big man off the bench. A player who comes in plays solid defense and picks up some fouls.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

          My only questions about Roy Hibbert are as follows:
          His speed
          Does he fit Jim O'brein System?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

            I just picked Marreese Speights for us in a mock draft on InsideHoops, I'd be interested in what thunderbird has to say about him.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

              Of the all around big men Hibbert is the more proven "all around player." I really don't like his game bc of the reasons stated by others but I would rather have someone intelligent enough to play JOB's sytsem than some big who has potential to play in his system.

              I would take Hibbert over Thabeet, McGee, Koufos and Speights. Jordans upside is hard to judge. So I'll hold my opinion on him.

              Defensively I like Robin Lopez which I think Hibbert and Robin compliment JO if we are to keep him. If we don't keep him I like Robin's defense over anything offensively Hibbert could give to the pacers line up.

              We need to defiantly address the center position through this draft. I hope LB can either trade down or get multiple picks in order to fill the void at center.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                Originally posted by tdubb03 View Post
                I just picked Marreese Speights for us in a mock draft on InsideHoops, I'd be interested in what thunderbird has to say about him.
                How do you view his defense? To me Speights only compounds the problem with mental toughness of the pacers.

                The Pacers have already proven they can score on teams but they haven't shown that they can be mentally tough enough to play defense at a high level. Speights would be a good player to have if we could afford his shoddy defense.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                  Excellent post, as usual T'Bird.

                  I was wondering what you thought of Hibbert, as I think the Pacers will try to draft a big man. With Harrison likely gone, Foster and JO getting older, plus what O'B said in his last radio broadcast about a top-level point defender being unavailable at draft#11, it would appear we would go for a big rather than an elite defender (or Augustin). It just makes sense.

                  Keep the posts coming. They're great reading.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                    good read, especially for those that dont have a chance to watch college basketball...

                    hope you do DeAndre Jordan next....

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                      Boourns to Hibbert.

                      Boourns, I say.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                        I wouldn't touch Hibbert at #11. He's a nice backup center at best.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                          Originally posted by TheJ2TheJ
                          Hibbert is the black Jason Collier.

                          He's ready to take the title of 'Most Likely to Die of a Heart Attack on the Court" away from Eddy Curry.

                          Can we delete these blatant pushes to get banned.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                            Sassan wonders why he's not welcome here, and is offended we have the "nerve" to ban him after we give him a leash he didn't deserve in the first place. It's sad.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Sassan wonders why he's not welcome here, and is offended we have the "nerve" to ban him after we give him a leash he didn't deserve in the first place. It's sad.
                              If Sassan really wanted to discuss the Pacers he would quit getting himself banned. *It's just asking for trouble*

                              As for Roy Hibbert I won't be as upset if the Pacers take him after reading T-Birds enlightning post.
                              Last edited by Will Galen; 05-27-2008, 10:26 AM.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 template Next
                              Working...
                              X