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

Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

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

  • Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2008101011
    Indiana 102, Chicago 95
    Preview - Box Score - Recap

    (0-2)
    1234Total
    Chicago 2022322195 Final
    Indiana 24251934102
    (1-1)
    Chicago
    Starters MinFG3PtFT+/-OffRebAstTOStlBSBAPFPts
    D. Rose G 30:495-91-32-20 2464000513
    K. Hinrich G 25:216-131-40-0+10 1501100113
    A. Gray C 28:135-80-03-6-6 51101202413
    T. Thomas F 30:085-150-05-6+14 31000131415
    L. Deng F 27:272-90-02-4+1 175310246
    Bench MinFG3PtFT+/-OffRebAstTOStlBSBAPFPts
    L. Hughes 33:315-150-33-3-10 0314000413
    T. Sefolosha 23:555-92-41-1-13 1541200513
    D. Nichols 12:000-30-20-0-13 011002020
    D. Washington 11:421-30-10-0-14 001210042
    E. Brown 6:582-20-01-2-3 020000015
    A. Nocioni 6:071-30-10-0-3 020200002
    C. Simmons 3:480-20-00-0+2 000000110
    D. Gooden DNP - Coach's Decision
    B. Gordon DNP - Coach's Decision
    J. Noah DNP - Coach's Decision
    R. Powell DNP - Coach's Decision
    Totals37-914-1817-2413501818856095
    Percentages: .407.222.708 Team Rebounds: 10
    Indiana
    Starters MinFG3PtFT+/-OffRebAstTOStlBSBAPFPts
    J. Jack G 31:103-70-14-5+15 0641101110
    M. Daniels G 24:295-100-13-4+2 0230200113
    R. Nesterovic C 15:484-70-00-0-5 011211038
    A. Croshere F 21:350-30-22-4-10 250000042
    D. Granger F 15:261-60-23-4+5 022111015
    Bench MinFG3PtFT+/-OffRebAstTOStlBSBAPFPts
    B. Rush 27:177-91-13-6+7 1412200018
    T.J. Ford 26:556-140-16-9-5 0553002318
    S. Graham 18:421-20-00-0-3 040210012
    J. Foster 16:111-20-02-4+11 141102034
    R. Hibbert 16:014-90-01-3+1 162311149
    J. McRoberts 15:123-60-10-0+8 131001116
    J. Davis 11:132-41-32-2+9 140000027
    M. Baston DNP - Coach's Decision
    T. Diener DNP - Coach's Decision
    M. Dunleavy DNP - Coach's Decision
    T. Murphy DNP - Coach's Decision
    J. Tinsley DNP - Coach's Decision
    Totals37-792-1226-4174620159650102
    Percentages: .468.167.634 Team Rebounds: 11
    Game Info
    Technical Fouls: Chicago - E. Brown 1
    Arena: Allen County War Memorial Coliseum, Fort Wayne, IN
    Attendance: 9,105
    Officials: Bob Delaney, Kane Fitzgerald, Luis Grillo
    Legend

    +/-:
    Team net points while player is in game,
    TO:
    Turnovers,
    PF:
    Personal Fouls,
    BS:
    Blocked Shots,
    BA:
    Blocks Against


    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

    General Thoughts:

    Nice to see us win a game where we don't shoot the 3 well and leave a ton of points on the floor by missing free throws.

    If Troy Murphy misses time this year, we cannot let Croshere be our starting PF. Our rebounding was awful when he and Rasho were in the game together.

    I think we'll be a better team than the Bulls this year.

    The Ford-Jack-Daniels lineup that O'Brien used for most of the 3rd quarter was awful. I hope we never see it again. Interestingly, when Daniels was replaced by Rush, it got much better.

    Players:

    Jack: He had a much better game at the point. He seemed less rushed and wasn't facing the kind of ball-pressure he was against NO. He had a solid all-around game. His outside shot doesn't look good, but I think it's better than we've seen so far.

    Ford: Another solid game from TJ. He was forced to carry the offense during the 3rd quarter and did so fairly well. Once our guys start making shots I expect his assist numbers to jump.

    Daniels: Had a very good offensive game in the first half. He was very active without the ball and finished well. His defense on Hinrich in the first quarter was bad. His outside shot is still not trustworthy.

    Rasho: I love his jumpshot and his passing. He really needs to rebound better though.

    Granger: I don't know what to say. He looks terrible right now.

    Croshere: I don't see a spot in the rotation for him. He's not shooting well or doing much else. If Troy misses time this year, we really need to start Jeff at PF.

    McRoberts: He had another solid but not spectacular game. He's a skilled player who's a very good fit at PF in O'Brien's system. Scoring seems to be his weakness at this point. He needs to develop a couple post moves and a consistent jump shot. If he can do that, he'll be an effective NBA player for a long time.

    Hibbert: I thought Roy looked very solid. His passing was good. He's got a decent jump shot and a nice jump hook. I hope his bad FT shooting was just an anomaly. He still obviously needs to get stronger and in better shape. All in all, I think he's ready to give us about 10 minutes a game in a rotation where Jeff, Troy, and Rasho get the majority of the minutes at the 4 and 5 spots.

    Rush: He was the most impressive player tonight. His jumpshot looks effortless. He's much more effective at attacking the basket than I thought he was. I was especially impressed by his ability to finish with both hands and to drive to his left. Also, he was doing most of his good work with Sefolosha guarding him. I love his efficiency.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

      Overall Impressions:

      TJ Ford - Fast, fast, fast. However, I counted at least 5 times that he got to the rim and wasn't able to finish...perhaps more.

      Jarrett Jack - Very nice bounce back game for him. Though it's more minutes than I expect him to play in the regular season (31), that was the level of performance I had been hoping to get from him. I'm still hoping for that "Travis-Best-as-backup-to-Mark" type player. A guy you're pleased to have most of the time, who occasionally makes you thrilled, and (hopefully) less occasionally makes you cringe.

      Roy Hibbert - Mentioned above, I really think he looks like he's in a lot better shape than he appeared to be in college. However, the thing that struck me was "smart". He made two beautiful assists to cutters for layups, and a really sweet jump hook. I'll be interested to see how well he's able to get post position against frontline defenders, though. If last night was any indication, I'm more readily able to see him developing into an NBA starter down the road.

      Rasho - Nice jumper...makes Hibbert look fleet.

      Austin - Same old Austin...love the guy, but I can't remember anybody other than George McCloud capable of being colder from the field. I'm pulling for him, but I still haven't seen anything that would make me cut a guaranteed contract for him.

      Josh Davis - We know he's gone, but he hit a couple of shots...However, I can't help but think that Davis's a copy of McBob, who's a copy of Croshere, who's a copy of Murphy...and we all know about the quality of a copy of a copy of a copy. Also, if there's any question about his status in the NBA, check out the ESPN Box Score, where he was listed as "John Davis". (Or, the fact that I just had to edit this entire paragraph, because I kept calling him "Reed" instead of "Davis".)

      McBob - Nothing spectacular, but at this point, I wouldn't have any heartburn over him making the team.

      Stephen Graham - I like the guy well enough, but he's in trouble. With DG, Junior, Daniels, Rush, and Jack, there are just too many bodies that can play where he plays ahead of him.

      Brandon Rush - All I could think about as I watched the second half was T-Bird's Pre-Draft Analysis. Beautiful job of running off screens, I love the curl play, and his jumper was feather soft last night. I am hopeful that we are able to get him in the rotation and get him looks like that on a regular basis. However, I also remember, and share, T-Bird's concern about fit here. It's not like I don't think he can be productive, it's just that he might not flourish in JOB's system the way he could if he could perform in a Reggie Miller/Rip Hamilton type offense. He shows signs that he would be most successful in that type of system.

      Marquis Daniels - Marquis is what he is. He's a decent rotational player who can create his own shot. There are a lot of teams he can help, but I'm not sure the Pacers are one of them.

      Danny Granger - Talk to me at the end of preseason if he still hasn't found his shot. Even then might be too soon to break out into a cold sweat.

      All in all, it was a nice bounce back game, but Chicago is a vastly inferior opponent to New Orleans. However, it gave me what I want to see in a preseason game: signs of improvement from the previous game(s).

      One last thing, though:

      About that free throw shooting....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

        JJ leads in rebounding again. (Tied w/Hibbert at 6). Ford chips in 5. It's just going to be nice to get all around production from outrPGs-including energy and enthusiasm-compared to the JT era.

        The inside personnel could get a little scary at times. We'll see. Basic interior strength and rebounding will be challenged.

        I may not have seen a good representative sample, but I thought Graham's defense was shaky. Agree that Croshere is completely unimpressive so far, and that's without unreasonable expectations to begin with.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

          Here's a good wrap up from Indy Cornrows at Pacers.com.

          http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5800011706

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

            I did watch this game. And I agree Cro and Rasho together was horrible - terrible rebounding and the interior defense let a lot to be desired.

            I was impressd by both Rush and Roy. Neither seem like rookies both are prety smart players.

            sorry, have to go, maybe I'll post more later

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

              Originally posted by count55 View Post

              Brandon Rush - ....and his jumper was feather soft last night.....
              The last time I saw a jump shot I liked as much, and described the same way as you have here, was when Randy Wittman was at IU. Very smooth shot.
              Last edited by Tom White; 10-11-2008, 11:01 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                I'll just throw a couple of quick thoughts here on the game.

                1. If our backup point guard continues to lead us in rebounding I am going to be on suicide watch. While I certainly appreciate Jacks tenacity for gathering rebounds the fact that our centers and forwards have yet to grab double figures in boards is driving me crazy. Yes, I know pre-season. I keep telling myself that.....

                2. While Croshere and Nesterovic was not the greatest combo last night I want to say that I actually like Rasho. He has a solid all around game and has legitimate size. He is not afraid to use his body for defense and having someone who can score at that position is certainly a welcome change. He seems well suited to run the type of offense that we are running (whatever that is).

                3. Here is my shocker of the day. If I were picking today, based on what I've seen, I would keep McRoberts over Croshere. Don't get me wrong I have always liked Austin and right now he is rebounding well. His shot is falling at present but I'm not that worried about it, he has always been streaky. But I think McRoberts is a differant kind of player. God help me for saying this but he is a little more like Foster with the abiltiy to score and play more physical. However it's just two games & I am under the impression that Croshere already has a place at the table.

                4. To quote the late great Hawk. Oh whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaataaaaaaaaaaaaaa Rush.
                Brandon looked like a 5 year vet on the floor. Something clicked on and he was everywhere on the floor. If he can give us 1/3 of that during the season I will be thrilled.

                5. Roy looked pretty good as well. But rebound the GD BALL!!!!!!! He actually had a good number of boards but he could clean up the rim if he would just agressively attack it. However this is what I was warned of about him so I have to remember that he is not going to be able to be judged by the boards he brings in in a game. Offensively he is already very gifted. His passing ability is uncanny for someone his age and size. Once he develops a go to move he will be a real hand full for defenders.

                6. I'm trying guys, really I am. But O'Briens offense is just killing me.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                  There was a lot of hype when Kareem Rush entered the league. It appears to me that Brandon is the one that will live up to it, yet there is less hype around him.

                  The way Brandon plays is a thing of beauty. I've yet to see a glaring weakness in his game. Maybe someone can point one out.

                  I like his ability to convert on the drive. He is better than Danny Granger at the same stage in Danny's career. Much more aggressive and assertive. Better defensively. Better shooter. Am I overstating this?

                  Just one game...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                    As far as the Hibbert Rebounding comments go. He gave us a solid 6 rebounds in 16 min of being on the floor. That to me is a sign of a 15 and 10 player once he starts to get 25 min a game and he is just a ROOKIE!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                      so can anyone say derrick rose looked better than rush last night? I cannot wait to pair him with another basketball smart player in MDJ who has the ability to make more shots for him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                        I also agree that I'd take McRoberts over Croshere right now. McRoberts seems like he could be Jeff Foster's eventual replacement.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          The way Brandon plays is a thing of beauty. I've yet to see a glaring weakness in his game.

                          He is better than Danny Granger at the same stage in Danny's career. Much more aggressive and assertive. Better defensively. Better shooter. Am I overstating this?

                          Could a new avatar be in your future?
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                            Rush: He was the most impressive player tonight. His jumpshot looks effortless. He's much more effective at attacking the basket than I thought he was. I was especially impressed by his ability to finish with both hands and to drive to his left. Also, he was doing most of his good work with Sefolosha guarding him. I love his efficiency.
                            Rush's biggest weakness is dribbling and going to the basket. He's much better going to his left for some reason. That dribble drive from the left wing is his best drive; we've seen it in the game and in that practice video.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers v. Bulls - Post-Game

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                              The way Brandon plays is a thing of beauty. I've yet to see a glaring weakness in his game. Maybe someone can point one out.

                              I like his ability to convert on the drive. He is better than Danny Granger at the same stage in Danny's career. Much more aggressive and assertive. Better defensively. Better shooter. Am I overstating this?
                              I think he's a very solid looking player.

                              The only things I would point out:
                              1. He's 23 already (older than Granger as a rookie), so kind of old for a rookie in this day in age. Just saying that a player of that age you should expect to be refined and polished.

                              2. He needs to work on his ballhandling to be a fulltime SG.

                              Otherwise, he looks like a player to me. Also, there wasn't much hype about Kareem Rush coming into the league. He dropped into the 20s in the 2002 draft, IIRC where as Brandon was a lottery pick so Brandon is obviously the guy with more hype and expectations.
                              Last edited by d_c; 10-11-2008, 03:03 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X