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

Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

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

  • #16
    Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

    The one major difference I've noticed between Danny and Brandon so far is that the game seems to come more naturally for Rush. When you watch Danny play, it always looks like he's trying really hard. Brandon has a level of smoothness that makes the game look easy for him. You hear it said that making it look easy is a quality of greatness. I'm not ready to annoit Rush yet, but if he has a work ethic similar to Danny's, he could wind up being a very special player.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

      Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
      The one major difference I've noticed between Danny and Brandon so far is that the game seems to come more naturally for Rush. When you watch Danny play, it always looks like he's trying really hard. Brandon has a level of smoothness that makes the game look easy for him. You hear it said that making it look easy is a quality of greatness. I'm not ready to annoit Rush yet, but if he has a work ethic similar to Danny's, he could wind up being a very special player.
      Brandon definitely looks smooth and less choppy than Danny. Part of that is, Brandon has a better handle...which already allows him to finish pretty well. He is also more aggressive than Granger was at a similar stage...both on offense and defense. He truly plays hard on both ends of the court. IMO, the sky is the limit for him if he keeps hungry and works on his game. He has the size, quickness, shooting ability and defensive tanacity to be a great one.....but you know, show me the money!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Interesting. BlueNGold posted this already, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

        http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Apasqf0...8607%26lang=en

        Ok, given. It's mediots... yahoo mediots even. But those are the five rookies discussed in the video.

        I haven't been paying attention to the preseason for teams other than Indy... are Rush and Hibby doing well enough to be mentioned ahead of the guys picked 3-10 ahead of them? Seems like Mayo/Love/Rudy might have gotten some love over Rush.

        Also, it was interesting that the analyst suspects that Rush will be "a better player" than Danny. That's interesting... I've only seen Rush for two games but he looked more like "future solid starter" than "future star" to me.

        Thoughts?
        You know I'm a big Rush fan, probably Kegboy and I were the top guys pulling to get him on the Pacers, but no freaking way I see Rush ahead of Mayo this year. I also don't see Rush topping out at Danny level (well Danny's top level that is).

        Love might not tear it up right away but he's going to be strong. Both Lopez kids look to have a bigger impact than Hibbert. Westbrook is definitely the better athlete to Rush and should get a real shot.

        In fact the ONLY issue I ever had with Westbrook was as the PG solution. But as a SG he's a damn nice player, a better version of Fred Jones. Better defense, better all-around game.

        Rush and Hibbert have only one thing going for them this year, they might be asked to play a lot more than some of the other rookies, including Bayless.


        BTW, smoothness is relative. Rush is a true SG and Danny is a true SF. Rush will never out rebound or out shot block Danny. We might as well say Danny looks smoother than Hibbert. I don't think Rush is as strong as Danny for another example.

        Shawne Williams was better than Granger, wasn't he?
        Smoother, yes. Apparently not as motivated. I don't fault the off-court thing, but I do fault his apparent response to it which was to not prove a point to the team with a bit of a chip.

        Rush does have one big advantage over Danny - awareness. Brandon's strongest aspect was his court awareness and how he and Mario interacted at both ends of the court. They closed holes on defense and they help create spacing on offense.

        Danny on the other hand has obviously struggled with a natural court awareness and given his intelligence I'd suspect he's got a habit of over thinking situations. Shawne's awareness wasn't much better which also kept him from moving past Danny.

        I believe Rush was a bit older than Granger coming into the league and played on a higher profile college team
        And much better coached. No offense to DG's coach but that Kansas team was run to perfection which is why Arthur also was a player of top interest. Mario has also been solid so far in Miami. Those kids along with the Memphis kids probably saw the closest thing to a pro situation they could. UCLA's program wasn't too far off either.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 10-26-2008, 08:04 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

          I don't think Rush has the same "tools" as Granger, but I do think his basketball IQ is slightly higher.


          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            You know I'm a big Rush fan, probably Kegboy and I were the top guys pulling to get him on the Pacers, but no freaking way I see Rush ahead of Mayo this year. I also don't see Rush topping out at Danny level (well Danny's top level that is).
            Come on. The guy simply mentioned three of the top known rookies and then went on to mention two more that are being overlooked in Rush and Hibbert. He never said Rush would be ahead of OJ. But the man didn't have time to go down the whole darn list for goodness sakes. He skipped over the rest of the obvious selections and decided to devote some time to some darkhorses. And why not? Both have performed above expectations in the preseason. Both are already part of the regular rotation. And both, may I remind folks, did not get a chance to work on some early rookie kinks against NBA-level players during the summer. The two of them were not allowed to play in the summer league games and that left them at sort of a disadvantage compared to the other rookies. I’m glad they are getting some pub from folks because they deserved it and they earned it the old fashion way: they impressed their coaches, teammates, the opposition and the journalist who caught their games. That’s the way one should get his respect. It should not be handed to an individual ahead of time simply because of where they were drafted and the hype they come into the league with.



            Lots of discussion here about Rush and Granger. Obviously Rush isn’t at Granger’s level yet nor is it a guaranteed he will eve get there. But I think its clear that at this stage of his career Rush is further along than Granger was when he was into his first month as a rookie in the NBA. But we shouldn’t be surprised by that. Rush was a big time prospect in high school and for the most part lived up to expectations while at a big time program like Kansas. He has been testing himself against the best at his level since 8th grade. Its not out of the question that Rush ends up being a better player.

            This is a LOADED rookie class. It appears to be much better than last season’s. Folks should be happy that Hibbert and Rush are generating some positive buzz rather than dismissing any compliments.



            Love might not tear it up right away but he's going to be strong. Both Lopez kids look to have a bigger impact than Hibbert. Westbrook is definitely the better athlete to Rush and should get a real shot.
            There are a number of guys you didn’t mention that could be both better than Hibert and Rush and better than the four guys you listed above. But I’ll take on the four you listed one-by-one.

            I love Love’s game. If he was 7 feet tall I would have taken him #1 because he is both smart and aggressive. But the truth is the dude is 6’7. Not the 6’9 they list him as, 6’7. That’s short even for a PF. Could he still end up being a very good player? Yes, because he brings so many great things to the table. But when you’re 6’7 and not that athletic and not that fast it makes it more difficult to score in the paint. And it seemed like at UCLA when Love was facing really big frontlines he missed a very high number of his shots. What makes one think that situation will get better in the pros where he’ll face bigger, stronger, even more athletic and most importantly even taller opponents? He’ll get minutes, he’ll get boards, he’ll give effort. But lets wait and see before we make claims about his greatness too.

            Never had any doubts about Brook Lopez being a good player. What I love about him is his aggressiveness when looking for his shot. That’s something Roy ca learn from. And while some dismiss Brook’s athletic ability I think we can agree that its better than Roy’s as his stamina. After that there isn’t anything I can recall that B. Lopez is better at than Hibbert. Hibbert was always the much more efficient scorer/shooter (just check out their respective fg% in college). Roy is more skilled and has a higher bball IQ in my opinion. Roy also causes more problems for opponents in the paint. I wish Roy had been given chances in preseason games to play 30 plus minutes and shoot 19 times like Brook. But Roy’s minutes, for one reason or another, have been more limited. The Nets also don’t play the same style of ball as the Pacers. In other words the Nets appear to try to establish post play rather than taking quick three-point shots every other time down the court. Different system. Because of that and because the Nets don’t really have much in terms of height, Brook will likely get more minutes and put up a better numbers. But if you look at the stats put up by him and Roy during the preseason and consider the minute per game for each, Roy was probably a bit more impressive. Call it a tossup. Brook could end up being the better player but if that happens what’s the big deal? He’s supposed to be considering he was drafted 7 spots ahead of Roy.

            As for Robin I ‘m willing to bet money Roy is and will be the better of the two. Robin took away the defensive double-teaming of Brook by the opposing players while at Stanford. I mean you had to keep an eye out on an above average 7 footer of course. But for the most part he rode Brook’s coattails. Robin was a glorified garbage man while at Stanford. He did his job rebounding and blocking shots but that’s about it. And what had he done in the summer league or the preseason to suggest he is going to be better than Roy? Some Phoenix bloggers even pointed out how the team may have made a mistake and a few have mentioned how clueless Robin has looked on the floor at times. Contrast to what folks have been saying about Roy n terms of his picking up things quickly and looking prepared. In fact its very possible that Roy generated more positive press and buzz than the Lopez Brothers combined this preseason (although Brook came on strng towards the end).

            I don’t care if Westbrook is a better athlete than Rush. That doesn’t mean Westbrook will be the better player. If athleticism was the ultimate determination for NBA success then my boy Patrick Ewing Jr would have at least gone top five in this past draft. David Falk was right when he mentioned how idiotic most NBA GMs are and how they keep making the same mistakes. Falling in love with athleticism and potential is an example of this. There are a lot of great athletes drafted in the NBA who don’t amount to anything if they don’t know how to play, too immature to learn, or too uninterested I developing their skills. Now I’m not saying Westbrook is going to be a bad player. He may end up being great. I just never understood how he could get drafted that high when he had not proved that he had a good enough handle to be a fulltime point guard at the college level. Now we have to trust he’s going to be good enough to do be a point in the NBA? I’m not sold on that yet no matter how athletic that guy is. And considering he is not even a legit 6’3 his being a shooting guard puts him at a disadvantage.

            By the way you are a fan of OJ mayo, right? Well if you put such a premium on athleticism then shouldn't you be devaluing OJ considering his level of athletic ability is the one negative trait according to NBA scouts? But I'm sure you realize has game even if he isn't a super athlete.

            .

            Rush and Hibbert have only one thing going for them this year, they might be asked to play a lot more than some of the other rookies, including Bayless.
            That’s laughable if you think that’s the only thing Rush and Hibbert have going for them, but that is a matte of opinion I suppose. But here’s the thing you have to take into consideration: most of the guys taken ahead of Hibbert and Rush were drafted by WORSE teams. And if you are a 1)more highly regarded player and 2)playing for an inferior team shouldn’t you by default be getting more playing time and therefore putting up better numbers? I don’t are about Hibbert and Rush having more college experience because that meant nothing on draft night If you are drafted ahead of them you are supposed to be better than them. Period.


            And much better coached. No offense to DG's coach but that Kansas team was run to perfection which is why Arthur also was a player of top interest. Mario has also been solid so far in Miami. Those kids along with the Memphis kids probably saw the closest thing to a pro situation they could. UCLA's program wasn't too far off either.
            None of those programs necessarily prepare kids to be better pros. Calipari has had a slew of highly regarded recruits (Camby wasn’t one because he was a sleeper I high school) whom he allowed to run and gun and Rose may turn out to be the first of that group that actually has a very good to stellar NBA career. And even Rose admitted weeks ago that the basic stuff like playing the pick and roll that he sees in the NBA is not what he was taught while at Memphis. He’s learning it all now. But Rose is too good to be screwed over by even Calipari’s hands-off, let-‘em-have-fun approach. A guy like Dean Smith was great at preparing guys for the NBA even though his teams didn’t run some crazy, fastbreak, NBA-like offense. Sorry, any player can learn how to run and fill lanes at the next level. In college you want the guys to concentrate more on learning or mastering the basics. The programs you listed above don’t have the rep of doing that under their current coaching regimes. Mario is looking okay for Miami which is a team clearly lacking any point guard play as of now. Doesn’t mean anything. Meanwhile Arthur has been a disappointment so far as has virtually all other players coming out of Kansas since the Self has taken control. Its probably too early for me to judge the man as being bad at preparing guys for the next level. But its also too early to suggest he’s good at it just because his players run all game long. In the end your halfcourt game is what defines you in the NBA. Have you seen any evidence of Calipari teaching an above average halfcourt game at Memphis?

            This post isn't about my declaring Hibbert or Rush to be First Team All Rookie or anything like that. But I don't get why some folks here overreact negatively when the two of the get praise thrown their way.
            Last edited by KennerLeaguer; 10-27-2008, 12:04 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

              Originally posted by KennerLeaguer View Post
              Mario is looking okay for Miami which is a team clearly lacking any point guard play as of now. Doesn’t mean anything. Meanwhile Arthur has been a disappointment so far as has virtually all other players coming out of Kansas since the Self has taken control. Its probably too early for me to judge the man as being bad at preparing guys for the next level. But its also too early to suggest he’s good at it just because his players run all game long.
              I'm not sure I understand this aspect of your post. Self runs a pretty disciplined half-court offense at Kansas. He lets them run occasionally, but I wouldn't have described them as a running team. I think Seth was referring to Self teaching fundamental concepts of basketball like passing, team play, and defense. His teams seem to do those things very well.

              I was pretty impressed with Arthur in the one preseason game against the Pacers. He's a tweener and that will always hurt him, but he's a very good scorer. The problem that he's got in Memphis is that he's stuck behind guys like Gay, Warrick, and Milicic at the positions he can play. He's not going to get very many minutes this year, but I like him as a small scoring PF off the bench. There's also a slight chance he could develop into a 3 with a lot of work.

              Here's something that's never been mentioned, probably because it's pure speculation. Did anybody else take note that Brandon Rush was not in the hotel room with Chalmers and Arthur when they got in trouble?
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                Originally posted by KennerLeaguer View Post
                That’s laughable if you think that’s the only thing Rush and Hibbert have going for them, but that is a matte of opinion I suppose.
                I'm pretty sure he's talking about the ROY race, not their overall careers. If they do well as rookies it will be because they get more PT than some other rookies.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  I'm pretty sure he's talking about the ROY race, not their overall careers. If they do well as rookies it will be because they get more PT than some other rookies.

                  I knew that was where he was coming from. And I feel its laughable. Getting minutes doesn't mean anything if you can't produce. If Hibbert and Rush get lots of positive recognition this season it won't just be because of minutes but because of their talents. And since neither is likley to start early in the season (or perhaps not for the entire season) unlike some rookies I don't understand how minutes will be an advantage for them anyway. There will be other rookies on worse teams getting more minutes.

                  The guy also brought up Bayless. That dude can't beat out Steve Blake or the two Spaniards because he does not know how to play. Some of us haveing been claiming this ever since he suited up for Arizona. He doesn't have SG size and he does not know how to play the point. He's a bit selfish and word is he has already frustrated a number of his teammates. He needs to spend less time talking about making teams who passed over him pay and spend more time working on improving areas of his game. Of course this is the problem with this league when you have far too many kids spending little or no time in college working on their skills and growing up as men.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                    Ya but Bayless has awesome videos on youtube...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X