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: Anthony Randolph

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

  • Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

    Today I profile the 10th player in this series, forward Anthony Randolph from LSU.

    The young freshman wing player from LSU is only 18 years old, not turning 19 until July 15th. Because of his extreme lack of experience, gauging how good of a pro player Randolph may become is going to be a matter of predicting the future, as the young "4" man is far from a finished product.

    There is little argument that Randolph has huge potential to be an impact forward in the league. Randolph looks like a potential starting caliber player in time, if he continues his current upward path as a player.
    However, that word in the previous sentence, "if", is a gigantic question, because it may be just as likely that Randolph ends up being much more sizzle than steak. Randolph carries with his selection a lot of potential, but a huge amount of risk.

    Admittedly, I am pre disposed to like left handed players who are multi faceted in their game. I really liked watching Jalen Rose and Calbert Cheaney play the game, and I feel like Lamar Odom and Manu Ginobili are both very entertaining to watch play today. Randolph has the potential and profile to be similar to the above mentioned Odom if he turns out to be as good as many of the talent evaluators project him to be.

    Most of the experts have a higher opinion of Randolph than I do however. I don't mind so much waiting on pure post players to develop their games and talents, as history tells us that pure centers take longer to grow into their bodies and games. However, regardless of where he is projected to be drafted, I see no reason why a lottery team, such as the Knicks for example, would have interest in taking a flyer on a player who even when he develops will be slotted at a position that is the easiest to fill in basketball.

    Randolph projects to be a classic "face up 4" in my opinion. I don't see him being a low post factor on either end, as his super thin frame at this point will limit him to playing on the perimeter. I see his potential as an offensive player in time, but I fail to see who Anthony Randolph will ever be able to guard, even giving him a huge benefit of the doubt.

    As I said, I see potential for growth as an offensive player, but let it also be said that as of right now today, Randolph will have a difficulty contributing on the offensive end. You cannot be a perimeter playing "4" man like Shawn Marion unless you can consistently make outside shots, and Randolph cannot currently do that. The most troubling thing I see about him and his potential is his shooting form itself, which is awkward, slow, and inaccurate. He seems to lack the decision making prowess (maybe it is lack of experience, maybe it isn't) to know what a good shot is and what one isn't.

    The inability to be a good shooter will enable slower defending forwards who potentially would have match up problems against him to be able to lay back from him, negating his single biggest weapon, which is a really good first step. He really covers a bunch of ground with it, and it has to be what the experts are drooling over watching him play. Without the ability to make the open jumper however, Randolph will find his biggest asset to be useless.

    Defensively, Randolph, as I said, looks like a sieve. He can't hold his spot against people posting him up, and he can't defend quickness without putting his hands all over people. He is the type of defender who may look more impressive than he actually is, as occasionally he will make a great steal or big block that wows the fans, but when you examine closely he is also the guy who loafs back on defense, gets screened too easily, fails to help his teammate on a drive, and gets pushed underneath the rim while trying to box out. I don't see, even if Randolph fulfills his highest potential, who he consistently can defend at the next level.

    There are things about Randolph that trouble me as an analyst. I see the athletic ability no question, and I see the raw potential. But I have real concerns about why his team was so pitiful in college, why his potential doesn't match his production, and whether he seems like the kind of player who will continue to work on his game after recieving the big checks. Being an NBA player takes a huge commitment playing against real professional men who take their craft seriously, and Anthony Randolph is completely not ready, in my judgment, to deal with that currently.

    Randolph looks like a player who has always been the biggest and best player his whole life, so he has never had to learn the nuances of the game, or the fundamentals of how to really play. He looks totally and completely reliant on his natural talents, which at the NBA level won't be enough to make it long term.

    Randolph would be a great player I think for some team that is totally loaded, and that has a winning culture and lockerroom, to draft and then bring along slowly, and if you did that, perhaps in three years or so you might have a really quality player. But I don't see how Randolph helps anyone this year or probably next, and the fact that he may be drafted as high as 5th or 6th is starting to convince me that this draft and its talent may be a bit overrated. The best thing for Randolph and his long term future would to be drafted by someone like Jerry Sloan, just to teach him how to play and to toughen him up, but instead Randolph looks to me much more likely to be drafted by a team that is a cesspool of losing, selfish play, or incompetence, such as Memphis, New Jersey, or perhaps the Clippers.

    While I suspect that it is likely he will be drafted in the top 10, I would not be at all surprised to see Randolph drop as the draft gets closer. The huge risk he carries with him, and the lack of ability to help this season in my opinion makes him a tough sell to a losing organizations fanbase.

    We have seen Larry Bird already pick a very similar player in Shawne Williams, so I would be shocked to the core if Bird selected his left handed clone in Randolph. Williams may or may not eventually be a major contributor, the jury is still out on that. But remember, Williams was picked much lower in the pecking order than Randolph will be a few days from now. Remember also that Williams can actually shoot, where as Randolph can't, at least right now, from outside of 10 feet.

    As is my custom, I am trying to think of a good comparable player to Randolph that played in the eighties or nineties, but I really can't. Guys as raw and as limited as Randolph is couldn't make it in the league back then.....they stayed in college and honed their games. I guess the best I can think of is a much bigger version of Harold Minor, who looked athletically superior in warmups, but once the games started he looked more like the journeyman that he actually was.

    If in the unlikely event Randolph slips to 11, the Pacers should either pass altogether and choose someone else or attempt to find a team to trade down with. Randolph cannot help us and would be a really bad fit for us and our current situation.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-15-2008, 07:15 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

    when evaluating randolph, one must take into account the coaching situation there concerning john brady and his firing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

      God, he does sound like Bender (except for the shooting part, which doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        God, he does sound like Bender (except for the shooting part, which doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies).
        you talk as though bender was an untalented scrub...? without his knee issues, i'm willing to bet bender would have become our best player within 2 years time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

          Bender's knees notwithstanding, I always thought his biggest hiderance
          was his head, or more specifically, his seemingly almost complete lack
          of hoops-IQ. The kid not only had no in-between game whatsoever,
          he seemed to not even grasp the possibility of it's usefullness.

          He was an athletic freak though. I'll give him that.

          No opinion on Randolph. I've never seen him play in game
          action and in fact, didn't even know he existed until the draft
          speculation got underway. But, croz24 has a point, Brady couldn't
          coach his way out if a paper bag.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

            Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
            Bender's knees notwithstanding, I always thought his biggest hiderance
            was his head, or more specifically, his seemingly almost complete lack
            of hoops-IQ. The kid not only had no in-between game whatsoever,
            he seemed to not even grasp the possibility of it's usefullness.

            He was an athletic freak though. I'll give him that.
            He was athletic but had almost no basketball skills. Should have been a high jumper.

            I'll be very curious to see where Randolph goes - I know as much about him as I do the Italian player, Gallinari.

            However, once you get past Rose, Beasley, Bayless and Mayo nobody knocks my socks off in this draft, so I could see him being taken as early as 5 just because of the upside. Lopez is a legit NBA big man so he may get a top 5 spot by default but I don't see him making a bunch of all-star games either.

            I've never seen less of a difference between the 5th best player and about 25th than I have this year. I don't think it would be any more surprising if, say, CDR (picked in the 20's) was an impact player rather than Gordon (probably 7-10).
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              you talk as though bender was an untalented scrub...? without his knee issues, i'm willing to bet bender would have become our best player within 2 years time.
              Hell yes I would love to see what Bender could do if he was able to be healthy. It's a damn shame.

              Bender, I thought, showed some signs of life he just wasn't able to get out on the court much which is a damn shame.

              Anyways I think Randolph can be a pretty good player. I think he could end up being a lot like Lamar Odom and not just in skills but in terms of the best role for him too. I think like Odom Randolph is best being the third opition on a team. Which really ain't so bad.

              The problem with this is that it is hard to judge where to select him. He is too good to slide out of the top 10 but really will probably never be the man on his team.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

                Two guys I have been very skeptical of in this draft have been CDR and Randolph, So the fact that you don't like either one is very comforting to me.
                "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


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

                  Randolph is a twig right now. Wait until he hits the weight room and begins an NBA training regime until passing judgment on whether he can play the 4. I'd love to get Randolph. You could groom him behind JO for two seasons, and after that, you might be looking at your next franchise player. He's obviously not going to be a guy that can come in right away and play starter's minutes, but if you wait, I think you could easily be looking at a Lamar Odom or maybe even a Chris Bosh type player (Did anyone see Bosh at GTech? Skinny as a rail).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

                    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                    Randolph is a twig right now. Wait until he hits the weight room and begins an NBA training regime until passing judgment on whether he can play the 4. I'd love to get Randolph. You could groom him behind JO for two seasons, and after that, you might be looking at your next franchise player. He's obviously not going to be a guy that can come in right away and play starter's minutes, but if you wait, I think you could easily be looking at a Lamar Odom or maybe even a Chris Bosh type player (Did anyone see Bosh at GTech? Skinny as a rail).

                    QFT. The guy has a 7'3'' wingspan and runs the floor like a guard. He is a one man fast break.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CRtna5iDFc

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

                      basically, after mayo, rose, and bayless, the only player i desperately want on the pacers and who would be a joy to watch is joe alexander. some call me crazy for wanting him because he's a tweener sf/pf, but not only can you not teach athleticism, you also can't teach desire, intensity, and unrivaled work ethic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

                        Bosh was pretty skinny.

                        So was JO, for that matter.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph




                          After: ????
                          Last edited by PR07; 06-15-2008, 11:45 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

                            Who is next? I am really enjoying these assessments.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Anthony Randolph

                              You should put a link to your previous 9 profiles, and continue to add to it as you make each analysis. Thanks for doing these, they're fun reads.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X