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: Chris Douglas-Roberts

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

    My draft preview rolls on today with a look at Chris Douglas-Roberts, the high scoring swingman from Memphis.

    As one of the best players on a team that played for the collegiate National Championship, CDR is one of the more well known players in this draft. Most analysts put him as a likely pick somewhere in the low teens to mid twenties, meaning he likely won't end up in Indy unless the Pacers acquire another first round pick late in the first round.

    Almost every draft analyst has a much higher opinion of Roberts than I do. While I freely admit that Roberts has "upside" as a potential volume shooter, I am of the opinion that he is one of the more overrated players in the view point of the public. I have several problems with his game, all of which I will discuss below.

    Roberts is primarily thought of from an offensive perspective. Because of that, I will discuss what I see as his offensive flaws first.

    First, I do not think it is being taken into account enough yet how much of an advantage for Roberts it was to play with the marvelous point guard, Derrick Rose. Like all great lead guards do, Rose made the game much much easier for his teammates, and directly led to many of their successes, and in no player was that more true than CDR. Every team playing the Tigers had to account for the lightning quick Rose, letting CDR have almost free reign offensively in the halfcourt. This particularly showed up to me in the "breakout", which is defined as the ability for a player to get open in the half court against tight pressure without the benefit of a screen. Roberts, because of the attention and "sink" defense teams had to employ to help on Rose and his penetration, had to work less hard to get open than perhaps any wing player in the country. Whether Roberts even has the skills and work ethic to do this basic basketball chore still remains an unanswered question in my eyes.

    Secondly, there are many questions about Roberts stemming from the very unique "dribble drive motion" offense that Memphis runs under John Calipari. This is an offensive concept invented by a small college coach named Vance Wahlburg, former coach of Pepperdine University briefly, and is likely the next big thing to become popular in basketball coaching circles. Before I detail Roberts specifics, let me give a quick overview of how this offensive scheme works, then I'll come back to my concerns about CDR in particular.

    This "dribble drive motion" is ideally suited for Derrick Rose, a guard who can blow past almost anyone who guards him. The wings in this scheme are wide to draw defenders away from the middle of the floor, and very little if any screening ever takes place, nor does the "dribble drive" scheme attempt to post anyone up. How it starts is the PG is asked to simply beat his man off the dribble and get near the paint. The wings simply wait for their defenders to be forced to help and circle behind the ball to predetermined spots. Assuming the point guard is stopped, a "kick out" situation occurs.

    This player who recieves this kickout pass was often CDR. His job is either to make the spot up jumper, or drive past his recovering defender trying to close out on him. By driving past a defender who is probably less athletically gifted (due to Memphis weak primary schedule) and already off balance, Roberts often looked like he had a quicker first step than I think he actually indeed has.

    If unable to score, players again behind the ball circle to predetermined spots, where the ball is passed out and another "dribble drive" takes place. This repeats itself as the offense tries to drive the ball constantly against defenders desperate to recover to the three point line. You can see more intricate information on Coach Wahlburg's website if you so desire.

    I already mentioned that I think Rose and his great penetrating skills helped Roberts get open, and how this scheme made his first step look quicker. The DDM also made Roberts look like a better passer and decision maker than I think he in reality is, by making it unnecessary for him to read the defense much. He didnt need to scan the floor on his dribble for open people, he was instructed to throw the ball to predetrmined areas of the floor where shooters were located every time. All he had to do was make an accurate pass, not make a decision on where to throw the ball. Now, making an accurate pass is a skill unto itself, and Roberts does do that well, but his decision making skills simply can't be proven yet.

    The lack of proof of variety to his game scares me alot about Chris Douglas Roberts. He wasnt asked to screen in college.....can he do it well in the NBA? He wasnt asked to run plays and read screens as a cutter...can he do it? He wasn't asked to get open on his own against tight pressure....can he do it? He wasnt taught to post up....can he do it?

    Defensively, the same doubt applies. Is he clever enough to learn how to fight through screens set against him? We don't know.....he certainly didnt do much of that in college in practice. Can he stay effective playing a high volume of minutes? We don't know yet, because Coach Calipari limited his minutes pretty wisely to keep him fresh. Can he defend the low post against a stronger player? He never had to defend the post in practice (or at least not often)....can he learn to do this at the pro level?

    He certainly does seem to be a hard worker, and he showed a lot of improvement from his freshman year to his sophomore year. But how much better did Rose make him look, and how much was due to his own labor? It is hard to say for sure. If he worked hard to improve, I find it hard to believe other aspects of his game came along but his free throw shooting didn't. That is a major red flag for me for a wing type of player.

    At this point, there are way too many questions for me as an analyst to like CDR and his game very much. While others I have read seem to think he will be a very nice scorer off of quick hitting screens, pin downs, etc etc, I just don't see that. I see a player who isn't exceptionally quick or athletic, but who relies on his quickness and athleticism way too much, instead of a deep understanding of how to play. I also see him as way too weak and thin, and a player who when he drives drops his head and doesn't see the floor well. He drives with poor posture, and doesnt present a big target to catch the ball. As a passer he is easy to trace the ball against, because he doesn't pass fake well and he holds the ball awkwardly and weakly. I think he will have a tendency to wear down over the course of a game and season. I think he may have trouble scoring if his initial move is denied, which it will be by a good NBA defender....I don't see any great moves he makes in combination with another move. I think he will be unable to guard most players at his position due to a lack of strength and quickness.

    To me, CDR looks like a developmental league player this year, with real questions about whether he will ever be a productive pro.

    However, if you pair him with a team who can hide his weaknesses better than most, you may have a productive bench scorer in time. I think his best fits are teams with a great point guard, such as New Orleans (who I think will draft him if available), or a team that will play a style closer to his own college game. There are rumors that Coach Calipari's mentor, Larry Brown, will incorporate some of the dribble drive offense in his scheme in Charlotte, perhaps CDR would fit in there well. Or perhaps New York would be a nice fit in their wide open scheme, although I don't see CDR being a particular effective screen/roll player.

    On the vast majority of teams, and especially Indiana, I see Roberts having very high bust potential. I see no reason for the Pacers to add a player who at best projects to be a poor man's Marquis Daniels, with less ballhandling ability and less strength.

    Since I like to project players from the past, let me give something different and project a best case/ worse case scenario for CDR. Let us call it a "tale of 2 Jimmy's!"

    Best case? Jimmy Jackson. Bounced around the league, but at times was a very effective scorer, particularly when paired with a dynamic and young Jason Kidd.

    Worst case? Jimmy King. Played on the fab 5 with Chris Webber and Jalen Rose, but couldn't stick in the NBA for any length of time.

    The Pacers should just say no to Chris Douglas-Roberts.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-08-2008, 04:38 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

    cdr can become a very solid player in the nba, but he must be in the right system to do so. i don't think the pacers are that system.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

      A lot of people have been clamouring for this guy if we get a pick later in the 1st round, but I have never been sold on him. He scored a lot of points for the most watched team in college basketball, so people automatically assume he is a good prospect.

      You didn't happen to watch Marreese Speights at all this year did you? I would love to hear a more in depth analysis of his game from someone knowledgable. Im leaning toward a big with the 11th pick.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

        speights is not worth #11

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          speights is not worth #11
          Its his defense is that is in question not his offense.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

            I've had similar concerns. He's not that great of an athlete, and I just don't understand what's going to separate him at the next level as he's not an overly good shooter either. He relies a lot on trickery and deception in order to score, and I don't see that working nearly as well in the NBA.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

              He's a bench player in the NBA.
              You Got The Tony!!!!!!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                Nice analysis Tbird

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                  You're a bit harsher on him than I've been because I do think he has a pretty good set of comfortable scoring moves. But this quote did hit me after having seen one of the clips featuring he, Mayo, Rush, and someone else posted in the prospects thread.
                  Roberts often looked like he had a quicker first step than I think he actually indeed has.
                  In that video you got to see all the guys going through various scoring motions, coming off screens, single dribble into jumper, fake and into jumper, etc.

                  I'd never realized that CDR was slower into his moves than those guys. He showed a really bad habit of keeping a high dribble which is of course both a slow move and risky for TOs.

                  Now my main hangup was his defensive game which never caught my attention. Perhaps that was another offshoot of a slower first step and general lateral agility. I just didn't think about it that way at all to be honest. Having read your views I look forward to pulling up the few games I still have on the Tivo and rewatching with that stuff in mind.


                  I don't think the Pacers are going anywhere near him really so it's a moot point probably. You are right though, he's carrying a lot of buzz going into the draft.

                  He relies a lot on trickery and deception in order to score, and I don't see that working nearly as well in the NBA.
                  I disagree with this part, the "working in the NBA" aspect. Clever, spontaneous scoring moves definitely work in the NBA, and IMO often separate a good college player from a good NBA player. To me it's the trickery that is CDR's one, true "NBA talent". You can't just take away one scoring move on him it would appear, so he can still find his points.

                  Now if T'bird is right about the first step issues then it won't matter because he'll never get free enough to get crafty.

                  But the other player in the draft that's proven to be a more crafty scorer than pure traditional scorer is Kevin Love. That's why I give him a shot at the next level, he doesn't have to count on guys not being bigger or quicker than him to score because he just throws out another fake and gets one of his below the shoulders type of scores.

                  CDR is like that, but in the mid-range game and usually after coming off the kick-out dribble. If he can get that step into something then he can duck under, step back, turn, fade, whatever with apparent equal comfort.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-08-2008, 06:26 PM.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    You're a bit harsher on him than I've been because I do think he has a pretty good set of comfortable scoring moves. But this quote did hit me after having seen one of the clips featuring he, Mayo, Rush, and someone else posted in the prospects thread.

                    In that video you got to see all the guys going through various scoring motions, coming off screens, single dribble into jumper, fake and into jumper, etc.

                    I'd never realized that CDR was slower into his moves than those guys. He showed a really bad habit of keeping a high dribble which is of course both a slow move and risky for TOs.

                    Now my main hangup was his defensive game which never caught my attention. Perhaps that was another offshoot of a slower first step and general lateral agility. I just didn't think about it that way at all to be honest. Having read your views I look forward to pulling up the few games I still have on the Tivo and rewatching with that stuff in mind.


                    I don't think the Pacers are going anywhere near him really so it's a moot point probably. You are right though, he's carrying a lot of buzz going into the draft.
                    I'll be interested in seeing what you think after looking at his game in further detail. You and I have mostly been singing from the same songsheet in this series, so having you review my opinions and getting a fresh set of eyes to examine what my own eyes are telling me will be good reading for a basketball nerd like I am.

                    I really think as time goes on that every player that plays in that "Dribble drive motion" scheme will have to be evaluated alot closer to see if the skills needed to look good playing that way translate. Something similar to an option running back (which I mentioned in the thread) or perhaps a quarterback in a "run and shoot" spread passing attack.

                    I sincerely think he will have defensive issues not just for size/strength/quickness reasons, but because they didnt practice getting through screens every day in practice, since their offense didnt utilize them much.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                      I like CDR for a few reasons.

                      1. He has good size for a NBA 2 guard.
                      2. He can create his own offense. He is the type of offensive player you can throw the ball to with 5 seconds on the shot clock and he can make something happen other than throwing up a lazy contested jumpshot. He will also draw fouls and get the opposing defense moving around. We don't have many guys like that.
                      3. He was a pretty good perimeter defender at Memphis from what I saw.
                      4. He is definately a hard worker. With time he could develop an outside shot, making him a very tough cover. He should also improve his handles with time.

                      He does have some holes, but every player outside of Kobe has them. His strengths and how they translate is what concerns me. How will his unorthadox style of offense work against NBA athletes? How will his quickness hold up when he bulks up over the next few years? How will his slight build affect his defense until he bulks up? And how will his defense hold up, if he bulks up and loses quickness?

                      Sure Rose is due some credit for Roberts solid play, but it's not like Roberts is a spot up shooter that just caught Rose passes and nailed threes. CDR had a lot of big games during thier tournement run. The NBA type size and skill level of both of Memphis' guards was the reason for thier success, IMO.

                      I personally would rather the Pacers take a guy like CDR than gamble on a guy like Westbrook. I think he at worst is a 6th man type who can come in and give you some instant offense and play some good defense against the opponents bench players. Atleast that is his best role at the next level, IMO.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                        I'm curious why you credit Rose so much with CDR's success considering he was a featured offensive player with Memphis last year, scored over 15 ppg and had a higher FG% than he did with Rose. His improvement between his freshman and sophomore years was far more striking than between his sophomore and junior years when Rose joined the team.

                        He isn't overly athletic, which the world knows, but what he is one of the best at is changing speeds and body control. When he gets a defender on his hip he'll be able to keep him there unless a foul's committed. He knows how to work his defender into a disadvantage and when he does takes the quick opportunity to make something of it.

                        Sometimes you have to look at players capable of making plays. CDR does, and he did when Rose was still in HS.

                        Personally, I think he'll be a very solid pro. He may never get to an all-star game but he should be a starter for a long time, the kind of guy who will be a very good defender within the team concept, knows how to gain an advantage and utilize it, and has a lot of basketball savvy.

                        Most of the folks I've seen discounting him seem to be overvaluing athleticism rather than basketball skills and knowing how to play the game. The first he doesn't have a lot of but IMO he has enough. The second he has quite a bit of and for the third he may have as much as anyone who'll be taken in the 1st rd.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                          Man, t-bird, I find myself agreeing with you far more often than not.

                          What are your thoughts on Mario Chalmers?

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            Its his defense is that is in question not his offense.

                            well he has the body and speed to defend, so it comes down to a question of desire and ability to learn. Some have questioned his drive, so its a legit concern. Probably the reason he is not a top 10 prospect right now. I still like him much better than Darrel Arthur, who is too skinny and a poor rebounder, but seems to be projected as the better talent.
                            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                            - ilive4sports

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Chris Douglas-Roberts

                              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                              You didn't happen to watch Marreese Speights at all this year did you? I would love to hear a more in depth analysis of his game from someone knowledgable.

                              I'll second that motion.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X