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: DeAndre Jordan

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

  • Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

    The draft threads are coming quicker now as we get closer to the draft. The 11th player profiled in this series is Texas A&M big man DeAndre Jordan.

    Jordan has been on the radar for quite a while in this state, as he was recruited heavily by Indiana University, before finally deciding to stay in his native state of Texas to play for Texas A&M under Billy Gillespie. Unfortunately for Jordan, Gillespie bolted for the bluegrass of Kentucky, and the Aggies hired a coach in Mark Turgeon that is more of a perimeter based guy. I think that change more than any other hurt Jordan's development this past season, as he and Coach Turgeon just never meshed well. That is probably one of the major reasons Jordan is entering the draft, even though he clearly isn't ready yet.

    When evaluating Jordan, you are really trying to read tea leaves more than anything else. You simply have to imagine the player he could become, instead of the player that he currently is. At this moment, Jordan isn't anywhere close to being able to help an NBA team, and will likely be a developmental league type of player to begin with.

    On draft night, Jay Bilas from ESPN may set a record for using the word "upside" when describing Jordan. DeAndre more than anything just LOOKS like a great player would look, even though he has none of the skills necessary at this time to actually BE great. Where he should be staying in college and learning his craft, instead he will be riding pine in the NBA or in minor league cities in the southern United States.

    Jordan has a great potential NBA body. He has gigantic wingspan, runs the floor like a gazelle when he wants to, is explosive as a leaper, and is quicker for his size than any other player in the draft. He has good hands, and can catch the ball in traffic. He shows a softer shooting touch around the bucket, and has a nice little basic jump hook he shows occasionally, pretty much always turning to his left shoulder, shooting it right handed while holding his defender off with his left hand. You can clearly see where Jordan has promise offensively, but is still totally a project. His free throw shooting form is beyond horrible, as he looks like he is shooting a bowling ball instead of a basketball. I heard Bill Raftery suggest in a radio broadcast that players needed hard hats when they lined up along the lane for a free throw and Jordan was shooting. Raw is the only word you can use fo rnow, who knows what he may be 5 years from now?

    As a passer, the only way to describe Jordan is "terrible." It is hard to say exactly which is worse: His awareness of what defenders are doing to him, his alertness of where his open teammates are, his actual fundamental passing techniques, or just a total unwillingness to pass in the first place. As an evaluator, you'd like to see Jordan only have one or 2 of those characteristics, but instead he has them all. If a player has a willingness to pass, but struggles making accurate and strong passes, you can coach that up. If a player wants to pass, but doesn't recognize situations well, you can coach that up. If a player can be a good passer but doesn't want to be, you can solve that problem too. Solving all of his problems is going to be a challenge.

    DeAndre also has that terrible word POTENTIAL stamped across him on the defensive end. Because he is so incredibly "long" (another Jay Bilas draft night word we will be hearing alot) you can easily see that once Jordan figures out what he is doing out there, that he may end up being a plus as a weakside shotblocker. Right now he has no clue of where to be defensively, as his awareness is about as bad as you'll ever see in a lottery projected player, but he COULD develop into a good defender in time, we just can't tell yet. As of right now, he is a negative defender because his teammates can't rely on him to be in the right place, and he sometimes pouts (like all immature kids do) when things don't go well.

    Jordan is a really good rebounder, and I project him to be almost a rebounding specialist early on in his career, as that is the part of the game where his awesome athleticism can help him the most. I don't think he plays with a great "nose for the ball" per se, I just think on film he is an incredible leaper, very quick off his feet, with a wingspan that reminds you of some sort of predatory animal. I bet Jordan really looks good in the old "Mikan" drill so many of us coaches still run in practice occasionally.

    At this point, Jordan will be about the weakest physically of any big man in the league. In short, he pretty much resembles a toothpick on the floor. He has almost zero lower body strength, so he gets pushed off the spot almost at will by average players. He has good hands and catches the ball well, but he is so weak that he can't always keep it once he has it. He can't post up, because even a little contact knocks him way off balance. Guys can score off him inside by just jumping into him, negating his length by overpowering him. He also has terrible footwork and balance, and is easily faked out by a more clever player.

    Everyone who watches him knows he is raw, that is not in question. What will make or break Jordan and the teams in position to select him will be how his attitude and body develop over time. Right now, his body looks good and has scout's imaginations running wild with thoughts of the next Dwight Howard or Andrew Bynum. But, he has work ethic and maturity questions all over him too, and no one can tell how a player will react once he becomes rich with his first contract. If he wants to become really really successful, I think if he ends up with the right team he can make it. However, it is just as likely that Jordan ends up being a major bust, perhaps one of the biggest busts of this draft, similar to Golden State's selection of Patrick O'Bryant or Detroit's selection of Darko Milecic. With Jordan's future almost being a crapshoot, the question is, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?

    I personally have thought alot about this, as Jordan will likely be picked very near us, and many draft projections have him listed as our second our third possible choice. A few even have him as our pick in their mock draft. It is a tough call, because Jordan is a player who can get you fired for picking him, and also fired for not picking him, as is described accurately on draftexpress.

    My personal feeling is that I would pass on Jordan if available at 11, and would go in another direction. I have all sorts of reasons why, some due to his own personality, and some due to my own opinions on what the Pacers traditionally do well as an organization.

    Jordan had such a bad year at Texas A&M that it concerns me. I know attitude wise being an 18 yr old kid in a new environment is a big adjustment, but for a player you are going to give millions to, I'd like to see above average maturity, and with Jordan it just isn't there. I have major concerns about his ability to handle criticism, about his ability to handle the NBA lifestyle, about his work ethic and desire to improve his game, and whether he truly wants to be a great player, instead of just a guy who collects a check. It bothers me greatly that he did not get along well at all with Coach Turgeon, who is regarded as one of the better coaches in the country. It bothers me that his foul shooting is so pitiful, since in many cases that is a indicator of not working hard at your game. (not every case obviously, but I don't look at Jordan and think of Shaq or Wilt, do you?)

    This is all psychoanalysis now, and away from my pure basic basketball way of thinking, but when I watched Jordan play this season, one huge thing I thought was missing from his repotoire was JOY OF PLAYING. I just didn't see a kid who enjoyed playing basketball, who enjoyed the attention and notoriety of being a big time player. He looked like a sourpuss to me, and a player who had an unhappiness about him that rubbed off no doubt on his teammates, and which probably rubbed their new staff the wrong way in College Station Texas. That really bothered me...I thought he seemed mentally weak, and didnt handle the challenge of playing against better competition well. I don't see the hunger, the burning desire to be great. I freely admit this could all be crap, because I don't know the kid personally obviously, and making decisions like this by watching tape is a major mistake I know. It is interaction with teammates and personality traits that you have to study in person, not on DVD while sitting taking notes. It is why scouting is an art, not a science. I would assume the entire league is basing their opinion of Jordan on factors like these however, using personality tests and interviews with his background and past to determine whether he is worth the investment. Great players show more self confidence and more swagger than Jordan does to me, but am I right or wrong? Who knows?

    In many ways, I think drafting Jordan might be like buying a brand new car. While somebody is going to do it, you might be better of to wait and buy it later, after the initial depreciation happens. Jordan looks like a player to me that will struggle badly early, show some potential attitude and adjustment problems, and reach the end of his rookie contract either ready to flame out of the league, or ready to bust out and become a beast. We might be better off seeing which way he goes before investing our hopes, dreams, cash, and #11 pick in him, which is too valuable to waste for a team in our situation.

    If we were a better franchise, with a couple of championships in our past and recent success of developing a big player well, I might feel differently. But we have too many holes and too many weaknesses I think to push all of our chips to the middle and select Jordan....I think our current state of our roster demands a safer pick. If we do select Jordan, we will need to bring back a mentor type of player for him to almost be his babysitter for a while, and no, Sam Perkins isn't it. We don't have a great big man coach at all in Indianapolis, and I don't trust our franchise to be one that can grow Jordan to be the beast that he might end up being.

    I personally hope Jordan goes ahead of us to New Jersey, so we don't have to make that decision as a franchise. My opinion is that they will select him at #10 and see what happens, leaving us to be able to select someone else for more immediate help.

    I can't think of a really good comparable to Jordan in the 80's or 90's, because many players like him didnt make teams back then. Of course, back then he would have stayed in college 4 years, making that last statement moot.

    Modern day players who he reminds me of potentially are Tyson Chandler and Nene, which I suppose are better players than I think Jordan will end up being. I think Jordan looks more like Saer Sene, who the Sonics gambled on and likely lost with a few years ago.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-17-2008, 10:59 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

    Nice interview though...

    Wow, after what you have said, I wouldn't touch this guy. Sounds a bit too much like another 7 footer we are about to release. What a shame...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

      I am meh on DeAndre Jordan. He seems just like Saer Sene, but by all accounts Sene was at least a hard worker, where Jordan is not.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

        he did come off pretty well in his interview on pacers.com.

        Yeah, I hope Jersey picks him. Just leave us out of it. I feel like if we pick him he will bust and if someone after us picks him he will be a superstar, just how our luck goes with these types.
        "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


        • #5
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

          Its too bad Sene had microfracture surgery this year- He's only 21 years old. Either way I think the jury's still out on him.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

            Agreed. If we're going to go with a big man, I would really prefer Speights over Jordan. If we take Jordan, I just have this strong feeling that he will never truly pan out as we hope he will.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

              JOY OF PLAYING
              Yep. We don't need another Olawakandi.

              The last thing the Pacers should be doing is gambling with this pick. We need talent, not potential.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                If we were a better franchise, with a couple of championships in our past and recent success of developing a big player well, I might feel differently. But we have too many holes and too many weaknesses I think to push all of our chips to the middle and select Jordan....I think our current state of our roster demands a safer pick.
                This passage in your post says it all.....we CANNOT afford to gamble on this draft pick....especially on a player like Jordan. I already had my doubts on Jordan.....but your post solidifies it all.

                I really hope that he really impresses some Scout on some team ahead of us in the draft....I really don't want Bird to wrap his head around whether they should take a risk on Jordan or not. To tell you how much I don't want to draft Jordan, I would much rather draft Augustin over Jordan....and I don't want Augustin at all in this draft.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                  When it comes to big guys, I'll take a less talented kid with a solid
                  work ethic and comeptitive streak over an athletic freak w/o those
                  things any day. Jordan strikes me as the latter and he's probably
                  an 80/20 guy. Or, 80% possibility he busts, 20% chance he reaches
                  his potential.

                  That's worth a taking a flyer somewhere after #20 when your team
                  is already pretty solid. It's not at #11.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                    Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post

                    That's worth a taking a flyer somewhere after #20 when your team
                    is already pretty solid. It's not at #11.

                    Sounds like the 04 #29 pick, and we all know how that has worked out!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                      I agree with QR and a few others in that for a big man I would take Speights. Nothing I have read about the other "bigs" has waivered my opinion on Speights being a good pick for the Pacers as a "BIG."
                      Last edited by Justin Tyme; 06-17-2008, 08:40 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                        I'm pleased to see that my views fit with tbird's...it makes me feel better about my thoughts. Jordan is my nightmare pick...all potential with too many questions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                          ...making that last statement mute.
                          I'll be the d*** before Graham shows up. "Moot" not "mute". If that offended you add it to my vote total next year. w00t


                          I also agree with the "don't gamble on him with this pick" POV. How can you at this point? This team is nowhere near the point of success and stability that you need to be to risk this, unless you are blindly desperate, which usually leads to more failure anyway.

                          This kid always looked like he was going through the motions. Contrast that with the notoriously immature and uncontrollable Beasley who always played like he cared about winning.

                          You'd like to see Jordan using game time as his chance to prove out the chip on his shoulder, but instead he took the "this stinks and I'll show you it does" method to running the system. Better to go loose cannon and do your own thing to show scouts what you have if you are trying to prove something about your own coach's utilization of your game and make yourself some money.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                            [quote=Naptown_Seth;736903]I'll be the d*** before Graham shows up. "Moot" not "mute". If that offended you add it to my vote total next year. w00t

                            Problem fixed.....good catch!

                            I'm glad to see that most people who are posting agree with my point of view on Jordan, but I will say this: At some point, if we are to win a championship someday, we will probably need to gamble on a kid like this and hope he pans out.

                            There are times to roll the dice that make sense. The Antonio Davis for the draft pick that became Jonathon Bender was a great move in my opinion that just didn't work. If it had, our franchises fortunes the last few years would have been remarkably different. Back then, we had veteran mentors for Bender, a stable franchise, and a team with depth that didn't need immediate contributions from him.

                            That was the ideal time to make a risky move....this is not, in my view.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird draft analysis: DeAndre Jordan

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              You'd like to see using game time as his chance to prove out the chip on his shoulder, but instead he took the "this stinks and I'll show you it does" method to running the system.
                              TINSLEY!!!!!!!!!!
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X