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: Joe Alexander

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

  • Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

    We are nearing the end of the draft threads, but we have a few more left to go. Tonight, the focus is one of the fast risers in the draft, the 6'8 Forward from West Virginia, Joe Alexander.

    Alexander has a very interesting pedigree. He is a late bloomer, and has only been playing competitive basketball for about 5 years, as he only took up the game in high school. His schooling in college makes him a very unique hybrid of radically different coaching styles, from the finesse and intellectual Princeton style of John Beilein, to the much more aggressive and defensively inclined Bobby Huggins. The fact that Alexander seemed to respond to the much more confrontational and dictatorial Huggins and ratchet up his game speaks highly of the potential toughness and work ethic Alexander will bring with him to the NBA.

    Alexander probably works out in a practice setting better than he actually plays the game. Some of athleticism is off the charts, as he reportedly is a dunking machine. You see on some of the websites still photos of Alexander doing amazing things, including leaping up and head-butting the rim! It was reported a few weeks ago by draft express that Alexander would likely move up on people's boards once they worked him out and put him in drills, and that prediction has come true. projected to go in the 20-25 range based on how he actually plays the game, he now may go as high as 8th to the Milwaukee Bucks.

    But the game isnt played in a controlled, one on one environement with coaches standing around blowing whistles. It is played 5 on 5, and in the course of an actual game, Alexander isn't quite as impressive as his talents would indicate he would be.

    As you know, our Pacers biggest single weakness by far in my opinion is an inability to defend the perimeter, in particularly the wing position. We simply have no one at this time who can defend our opponents best player. I put in some tape of Alexander, hoping I might see someone who athletically has the size, strength, work ethic, technique, and desire to be a shutdown defender. If I had seen it, I might be on here recommending him as our selection, if he is there for us.

    But, I didn't not see that. In fact I think at this moment Alexander is a below average technique defender, with above average athleticism that goes wasted most of the time. He has many holes in his technique, which considering he played last year for a very good defensive teacher in Coach Huggins, that is a concern.

    Alexander is enthusiastic, but very raw as on the defensive end. He does put forth the effort however, which at least gives you hope for his future if he gets the right guidance at the NBA level. His biggest weakness is that he stands too upright in his defensive stance, which violates every fundamental rule of being a good defender: Lowest man in a one on one situation wins! He gets beat off the bounce way too often, mostly by guys who arent that good. He has recovery ability because of his flexibility and natural athleticism, but he takes false steps too often, and crosses his feet while sliding in his stance way too much for a defensive coach like myself. It is in these fundamental areas you see his lack of development at an early age....most kids quit crossing their feet while sliding at about age 14-16.

    This lack of good teaching also rears its ugly head on one of my personal defensive pet peeves: contesting jump shots. No doubt, Alexander can sky off the ground, so contesting a person who rises up in front of him to shoot SHOULD be a strength of his. But, because he is off balance too often in his slide, his man often gets his shot off over Alexander because he hasnt reached the peak of his jump yet. Add that to the fact that quite often Alexander contests jump shots with the incorrect hand (the arm furthest away from the ball...on the 4 tapes I watched to write this, Alexander is almost 100% a "right handed contester", which if guarding a right handed shooter is bad).

    Those defensive flaws MIGHT be overcame at the NBA level. Unlike lots of players, Alexander seems to have the willingness to learn and improve, and he certainly has the athleticism to become better. We will see what happens, but clearly he has a long way to go.

    Offensively, Alexander probably looks really good when guarded by a chair or some other coach in a one on one drill, but playing 5 on 5 he has some negatives.

    Because Huggins chose to more or less keep the "Princeton style" offense his predecessor was running, Alexander won't be as prepared to play NBA basketball as he might have been otherwise. That is unless the Rockets or Nets or Wizards select, who are teams who at least incorporate some of the concepts of that scheme into their play. What I did see of the play of Alexander is mixed bag of good things and bad in terms of how he will adapt to the NBA.

    On the one hand, Alexander does well coming off downscreens and getting to a spot to meet the pass. On the other, he doesnt read the screen well, he only got to the spot in college because he is so fast doing it, and covers so much ground with his huge steps. He is reasonable as a cutter, although his technique is only ok.

    With the ball, Alexander isnt nearly as quick and athletic as he is without it. His body often moves faster than his dribble does, so he ends being slightly off balance all the time when trying to drive. He can pull up and shoot over almost anyone, but because his balance isnt that good, he has to float just a bit in mid air, and therefore he shoots the most impressive missed shots you'll see. However, missed shots don't count, so how high he was while shooting them really don't help much. His best move is a one or two dribble drive, then cross over and step back into a jumper. He looks like an NBA player shooting this shot, except he just doesn't make it enough in game situations.

    His best attribute as an offensive player I think is that he takes huge steps. He cover so much ground, he often looks like he is traveling although he isn't. What he needs to do is get better balance, so he can take those steps lower to the ground, and be in better control of his body. He isn't smooth at all, he is kind of herky jerky when trying to get into a jump shot. No question in my mind, he will be able to get his own shot off at the NBA level. The question will be, do you want him to?

    His other big attribute I like from his offensive game is his willingness to screen. There are times on film when setting those blind backscreens the Princeton offense asks you to do that he just really pops people. I love that! A willingness, even an enthusiasm, to screen is a great thing to watch as a coach. However, many of his screen attempts are wasted because his technique is bad, particularly because he gets really bad angles on down screens. He hits guys physically, but because he doesnt "square up" a screen he lets the defender he is trying to block off slide through too easily. The desire is there, but not the technique, too often for my taste.

    At this point, I didnt see much of a post game from Alexander. Partly because they run an open post most of the time, Huggins really never did just post up Alexander on the block and throw him the ball. I have to assume that is because he has no post game to speak of yet, and it remains to be seen if he ever will develop one. Drafting on Thursday, you have to assume that you can teach him some elementary moves as his career moves along, but it isnt a sure thing.

    Alexander can sky for rebounds, and occasionally he will come up with one that is spectacular. But more often than not he is in the wrong place at the wrong time, which tells me he might not be reading the ball well as it is in the air. Huggins is like I am as far as emphasizing attacking the ball more than "blocking out", so his lack of boards isn't from being told to blockout 20 feet from the bucket, unnecessarily taking himself out of the play. Offensively because that offense emphasizes spreading the floor, keeping the paint open, and getting back on defense, it is possible his offensive rebounding numbers could go way up playing a different style. I would suspect that they will in fact.

    The other things you notice about Alexander are his toughness, his consistent motor and effort, and his enthusiasm for playing. I bet Coach Huggins really liked this kid and hates to see him go. He could take a verbal lashing from Huggins and still keep playing, he didnt fold up or shrink. He always was asked to take big shots, and was the "go to" guy for the Mountaineers, and he seemed to like the responsibility. He didnt always come through of course, but he didnt shrink from the moment. He seemed to play hard consistently in short or long stretches, and he seemed to be able to concentrate well, a hidden skill that is important. He really seems to enjoy playing the game, and being part of a team. I bet he ends up being a really great teammate.

    So, what do you have in Alexander?

    In the end of the day, I think you have an average player who will work extremely hard to be as good as he can be, and will be able to help a team on those long February road trips when nobody else feels like playing hard. He will win you some games off the bench on back to backs by simply outworking guys who are actually better than he is. He will probably be good for the coaches in practices, and will be a nice piece for someone off the bench. He strikes me as a limited player though, as he doesnt have the size to play the 4 or the lateral quickness, ballhandling, or decision making skills to play the 2. He looks like a backup small forward to me over time, with a chance to start only in the right circumstances.

    He does have upside, because he has the work ethic AND natural size/athleticism for the game....many players only have one or the other. His flaws though are many, and they are somewhat difficult to fix. He has no post game, no go to move, is a questionable shooter, and will have defensive issues. That is a lot of flaws for kid being picked perhaps in the top 8. If you select him, you are counting on a player really improving a bunch of his fundamentals one he enters the league, and not that many players ever have improved as much as Alexander will have to to be a legitimate starter on a good to great team.

    One last concern about Alexander is his reliance on being so athletic. His fundamentals are poor in many cases, so if he was to lose a step or get injured (it is easy for me to imagine him jumping high for a 18 footer and coming down on someone's foot), he might be in deep trouble. If he loses his freakish hops, I'm not sure you have enough there fundamentally at his core to count on, no matter how great a kid or how hard a worker he might be.

    I think in current day thinking, I'd compare him to a somewhat better version of Austin Croshere. I saw Matt Harpring as a comparable too, which I think is close but he is more athletic than those two players. It is a tough job comparing Alexander to someone playing today.

    Thinking of a comparable in the past was too hard for me as well. Tom Gugliotta is close, but I don't think Alexander is quite as good as he was, although thats the best I could come up with.

    Because of his nature and intangibles, I think Alexander is a relatively safe pick for someone, but as high as he may go makes me wonder again about the true strength of this draft. I don't think he projects as a quality starter on a good team, and it seems to me a team picking that high should at least get someone who could start for them eventually. It also important to note that his position of small forward is the easiest position to fill in basketball.

    I hope the Bucks take him at 8 as is rumored. I like the kid, but if available at #11 I think the Pacers should and would pass.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

    OUCH!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

      something you didn't take into account is alexander's value to the west virginia team. there's a reason west virginia had the late season run they had last year, nearly knocking off xavier to make the elite 8. you can't just discount such leadership when evaluating a prospect, especially when that player was averaging 24ppg 8rpg during that span. i often question how much of these players you actually watch.
      Last edited by croz24; 06-20-2008, 12:59 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

        I like his motor and the Marine factor in that I think he can be all that he can be. I always want them to get guys who will reach their potential. I think Joe will and that is high and all you can ask.

        This draft is littered with busts to me. Guys who are young and will get some money and stop caring that much. Joe doesn't seem to be that guy at all.

        Nice work T Bird, I really really appreciate your breakdowns. I print them out and read them pretty thoroughly. Thank you.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          i often question how much of these players you actually watch.
          Or you could just say you disagree.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

            Alexander just doesn't sound like a need for the Pacers. Like so many people have already said, Granger is going nowhere but here.

            "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              i often question how much of these players you actually watch.

              I'm not sure why you are so mad about somebody's opinion of a player you covet. He provided insight about a player he did research on, so that we could read and learn a little more about him.

              "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                something you didn't take into account is alexander's value to the west virginia team. there's a reason west virginia had the late season run they had last year, nearly knocking off xavier to make the elite 8. you can't just discount such leadership when evaluating a prospect, especially when that player was averaging 24ppg 8rpg during that span. i often question how much of these players you actually watch.
                I actually think pretty highly of Alexander and his high character traits, but "leadership" I usually find as a scout is much much easier to see in person than on film. In person, you can see how he interacts with teammates during timeouts, coming off the floor, or in free throw situations when the camera isn't on him, and you can see how he interacts with the coaching staff when he isn't playing. That is hard to do on film.

                To analyze Alexander, I watched him play numerous times live while watching Big East regular season games, and I rewatched 4 games on tape/dvd from the Big East end of regular season, the Big East tournament, and the NCAA tournament.

                I usually only read about workouts or others opinions about him after Ive already sketched out my own thoughts. The I will compare what I see to what someone else better informed saw. If there is a huge difference, I'll go back and re-watch what I saw again to make sure my initial thoughts are accurate.

                Most of the time, regardless of what other scouts think or say, I usually write what my own initial impressions tell me. I usually tend to trust my own analysis, for better or worse. I'm not always right about every player or situation of course, which is why I am always careful to state that these are my own opinions, and easily could be mistaken.

                Overall, I thought I was giving Alexander a pretty positive review, although people who I trust who are reading it think I'm down on him. I'm not at all, I think he will have a long career in the league as a key sub and "glue guy", and a guy you can win with in that role. he wont be a superstar I dont think, and he wont even start unless it is in a perfect situation, but he will be a guy that will represent your franchise with honor, who will play hard, be a great teammate, and be a help to winning.

                I just don't see him as a star or even a near all star, not even close.

                Is a player like I described worth a high pick in the mid to late lottery? Other teams and people will have to decide that.

                I do like hearing the debate though. My own family is giving me grief over the analysis I did of Eric Gordon and Mario Chalmers and DJ Augustin, for example.

                We won't know who is right or wrong for about 3 years probably, but the doubt and different opinions are what make the draft excitement for a hoops junkie like myself.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                  Tbird, do you see him being better than Shawne Williams?
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Tbird, do you see him being better than Shawne Williams?

                    Wow....that's a good one!

                    I think that at this point it is anyone's guess. Alexander strikes me as not quite as smooth, but with better work ethic. I like Williams shooting form a lot better, but I like Alexanders "intangibles."

                    It close enough that I'd probably just keep Williams if I already had Williams, and I'd probably just keep Alexander if I already had him.

                    Alexander is likely a better teammate, so maybe I'd lean toward him if I was forced to pick, but overall I think they are roughly about the same talent level.

                    I'll think about this question and maybe have some other thoughts later.

                    What does everyone else think?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                      Alexander was my favorite player to watch in the NCAA tourney, but I'm a sucker for hustle and effort. I don't think he's a good fit for the Pacers, since "we got 3's". I do look forward to seeing who he ends up with.

                      Tbird, what coach in the league do you think could get the most out of him?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                        i don't always question t-bird's analysis, but i think it's a fair question to wonder how much live action/game tape t-bird watches in order to provide such an analysis. some people merely read the draft profile on a player from various websites, and then combine them all to form one "opinion". not saying that's what t-bird is doing, but it's fair to ask imo. i do find his analysis to be a little overly critical in many regards on joe alexander. anybody can nitpick a player to death.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                          Wow....that's a good one!

                          I think that at this point it is anyone's guess. Alexander strikes me as not quite as smooth, but with better work ethic. I like Williams shooting form a lot better, but I like Alexanders "intangibles."

                          It close enough that I'd probably just keep Williams if I already had Williams, and I'd probably just keep Alexander if I already had him.

                          Alexander is likely a better teammate, so maybe I'd lean toward him if I was forced to pick, but overall I think they are roughly about the same talent level.

                          I'll think about this question and maybe have some other thoughts later.

                          What does everyone else think?


                          That's interesting! If you had Williams you'd keep Williams! Alexander hasn't even played an NBA game yet, and Williams has 2 years pro experience. That says to me someone didn't use their 2 years pro experience to the fullest advantage, Alexander is the better player, or both.

                          I can take or leave Williams, but if the opportunity presented itself to have Alexander or Williams there would be very quick decision. I'd take Joe Alexander in a heartbeat.
                          Last edited by Justin Tyme; 06-20-2008, 04:07 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                            What bothers me about Shawne is his lack of drive. He looks to be the same player
                            as when he was drafted 2 years ago plus he has difficulty making good decisions
                            outside of basketball. Alexander seems the obvious choice.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Joe Alexander

                              i believe he is spot on. Alexander has limited lateral quickness when he is faced to the basket and moves either direction. Most of the time he counts on his hops to compensate for his offensive weaknesses. This assessment helps confirm that he is not right for this team.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X