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 analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

    With our team defense being particularly porous this season, having someone inside who can play all around solid defense in the paint next season is imperative if we want to see our record improve.

    I don't think anyone would, in general dispute, that last paragraph.


    Plain and simple, I think we go for a PF/big man. That simple. >>
    >
    I know you don’t think there is anyone viable to date, other than Blake, but I think otherwise. Yeah, I know the draft is a long ways off and a lot of kids still haven’t declared, but I think there is an extremely short list of guys who could help fill our need besides Blake. >>
    > >
    I’m sure you’ve been looking at them, but I’ll throw the names out there;>>
    > >
    Patrick Patterson >>
    Dejuan Blair>>
    > >
    There’s been quite a bit of discussion on Blair on here. Not so much with PP, who is the guy I’m actually pretty geeked about and think he would be PERFECT here. I’m sure both guys are on your radar.>>
    > >
    I’m hoping we pick the biggest big man available. Or to quote you:>>
    > >
    The first choice, option "A", is the simplest and cleanest. Draft somebody you are lukewarm on and try and sell the choice to your fan base, who already knows you need a power player anyway. Maybe this player ends up being a solid bench player long term, or maybe you get really lucky and he ends up being better than any of us (or even yourself perhaps) thinks they will be. Even if this player ends up being just a mediocre player, he at least probably is an upgrade over what we have now, even if he isn't the long term type player we need.
    >>
    > >
    That notwitthstanding, I would bet the farm on your draft day big trade scenario for a guy who’s in the league already.>>
    > >
    I’ve been naming Brandon Bass all season long as I guy I’d like to see here. Speights is my personal wet dream since draft day and the same goes for Hickson….but they ain’t coming here.>>
    > >
    To a lesser extent, throw in Maxiell, Powe and Wilcox to the mix.>>
    > >
    To be honest, I’m not so much worried about getting a BIG man as I am a tough man.>>
    > >
    Matter of fact, I think you draft prognosticators are getting TOO hung up on height. Think back to some of the tough son of a beetchs, who weren’t giants. Charles Oakley used to give us fits…at 6’8. Xavier McDaniel, one of my all-time favorite players was 6’7…6’8. >>
    > >
    Till he ended up being an all star F-up, I though David Hharrison was going to be that guy for us. Just think what kind of team we have right now if he had lived up to just %50 of his promise. I’ll never forgive that simpleton for screwing this organization over with his lazy, clueless…uh…I digress.>>
    > >
    I strongly believe a draft time trade WILL happen and our PF need will be addressed.>>
    Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 04-19-2009, 09:01 PM.
    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

      Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
      As much as people might have undersold McBob when the trade with Portland went down, people are just as much overselling him now. I know everyone loves the scrappy kid who hustles but let's stay real here. Which I know is asking a lot because Pacer fans are great at overvaluing our own talent.

      I tend to disagree. Mcbob was very undersold at the time of the trade, than there was a string of nice games about midseason where people started to say, "hey, maybe this kid has some game" which afterward he was inexplicablly sat again by Obrien. The brief flirtation was quickly forgotten and "Wait hold on, this is just stephan graham syndrome, Mcbob is a scrub" became the prevailing view again.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Josh is a sure thing or anything, but "hey, nice hustle guy, blabla" is not the whole story here, not even close. Josh is a hell of an athlete and he was once a top high school recruit and projected lottery pick for a reason, that is physical abilities and upside. He was a dissapointment at Duke because he never became the kind of scorer that people expected, had attitude concerns, and came out of college too early... as a result, he fell to the second round.

      I just get annoyed at people who act like Josh is some kind of "known qauntity" when he is the youngest player on the team with his kind of athleticism and unique skill set. If Josh was a first round pick (which at one time he was expected to be) and had the kind of hype and expectations that Rush and Hibbert did, people would look at him a lot differently.

      I don't mean to constantly derail threads about PFs with the "Mcbob solution", but I think people are missing the point. Somehow saying "I think Josh has potential and should get a little run" got miscontrued as "I think Josh is a sure fire hall of famer"... Im pretty sure nobody ever said anything to that effect.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

        Thabeet
        Blair
        Patterson

        Of those three whichever of Blair or Patterson is available, that is who they will pick.
        I just have this feeling the Pacers are going to get another player in this draft via
        trade of a current Pacer.

        So I vote option A. It may not be enough to get in the playoffs but it is going to be close
        Next year 41 and 41 is doable. The question is will it be enough.
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

          Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
          Would this player you won't yet mention happen to be Patrick Patterson?

          That sure is who I am starting to take a good look at. A couple inches
          undersized, but with exceptionally long arms, great athleticism, and
          reportedly tough as nails.

          Living in Southern Indiana, I get some extra coverage of Kentucky than some of you probably do, so I actually watched Kentucky play on television live a few times this season. But, while I have some preliminary thoughts about them, I have yet to begin to put the microscope on Patterson yet, nor on Jodie Meeks.

          All I have is the preliminary notes I took on the games I watched all year, just so I could do this project again in the spring. Last year I did much of my evaluation from games taped or saved, this year since I have had the ability to plan better I actually took notes on the games I watched as I was watching them. But, I haven't began to evaluate anyone on Kentucky yet.

          I will say at least early that I think this is going to be a much tougher class to evaluate on the whole than last year's was....I felt pretty confident on last years class as I was going thru it.......maybe when I get to the end of the evaluations near the draft I will feel as confident about this years class, I don't know yet.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

            Originally posted by d_c View Post
            Charlie Villanueva is pretty much the opposite of the player that you guys want. Avoid this guy.

            Brandan Wright maybe available, but he's not the big bruising/physical presence forward that everyone wants and I don't think the Pacers-Warriors match up trade wise in any kind of deal. Randolph is not available. He is skinny, but taking that into account, he's also one of the best pound for pound rebounders/shotblockers in the league at 19 years of age.

            Philly and Cleveland probably envision Speights and Hickson, respecitively, as future starters. They like those guys just like you like Brandon Rush.

            Milsap is highly unrealistic. He's a restricted FA and would require a sign and trade, which would require the Jazz to take back big salary and I'm not sure they'd want any of the Pacers big contracts. Same things applies to Carlos Boozer.

            Brandon Bass could be a partial answer. For one thing, he's a lot closer to 6'5" than he is 68". He'll hit the boards hard, throw his body around and score some garbage points inside, but he won't add much to you defensively. He would be PART of the answer, just not a complete one.

            But even then, don't the Mavs need Bass' services every bit as much the Pacers? I'm not sure what a realistic deal is.

            Best thing to do right now is just re-sign Josh McBobbies (should be able to keep him for cheap) and maybe another cheap guy off the scrapheap like Mikki Moore or a hustle guy you find in summer league.

            You can draft a guy, but at #13 in a bigman depelted draft, I'm not sure what you'll get and we all know any bigman taken at that spot isn't going to play much next year.
            I agree with all of this. Not sure why I'm even posting....hmmmm.

            I do see a Bass/Powe player as only a partial answer...to get some buckets in the post and provide some physicality. The reality is, what we really need (i.e. a long, strong Dale Davis type) is not going to be available unless we pluck him out of the draft. It might be a good idea to hedge bets and go pretty hard for a player like Bass or Powe.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
              Living in Southern Indiana, I get some extra coverage of Kentucky than some of you probably do, so I actually watched Kentucky play on television live a few times this season. But, while I have some preliminary thoughts about them, I have yet to begin to put the microscope on Patterson yet, nor on Jodie Meeks.

              All I have is the preliminary notes I took on the games I watched all year, just so I could do this project again in the spring. Last year I did much of my evaluation from games taped or saved, this year since I have had the ability to plan better I actually took notes on the games I watched as I was watching them. But, I haven't began to evaluate anyone on Kentucky yet.

              I will say at least early that I think this is going to be a much tougher class to evaluate on the whole than last year's was....I felt pretty confident on last years class as I was going thru it.......maybe when I get to the end of the evaluations near the draft I will feel as confident about this years class, I don't know yet.
              Patterson is perplexing... He reads a bit like Ike Diogu on draft express but I haven't really watched him play much. People say he has big upside but he is ranked so low on draft boards and I cannot figure out why. There has to be some sort of red flag because if he really had the potential to be such a good player I would think he would rank higher. Anyway, scouts question his defensive awareness and thats a big worry for me.
              "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

              - ilive4sports

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                TBird...After being on PD for awhile, I have to say you are the one person I actually look forward to reading.
                My only question is this...Why aren't you working for the Indy Star???

                You'd be a huge upgrade over Mike Wells, not only in that your writing style we be above a 4th grade reading level, but also because your comments are actually insightful...and as a bonus you can actually spell...and put together grammatically-correct sentences.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                  Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                  Living in Southern Indiana, I get some extra coverage of Kentucky than some of you probably do, so I actually watched Kentucky play on television live a few times this season. But, while I have some preliminary thoughts about them, I have yet to begin to put the microscope on Patterson yet, nor on Jodie Meeks.

                  All I have is the preliminary notes I took on the games I watched all year, just so I could do this project again in the spring. Last year I did much of my evaluation from games taped or saved, this year since I have had the ability to plan better I actually took notes on the games I watched as I was watching them. But, I haven't began to evaluate anyone on Kentucky yet.

                  I will say at least early that I think this is going to be a much tougher class to evaluate on the whole than last year's was....I felt pretty confident on last years class as I was going thru it.......maybe when I get to the end of the evaluations near the draft I will feel as confident about this years class, I don't know yet.
                  The obvious question to you is......does there appear to be a Big Man that is in the draft that would likely fill that "Dale Davis" role that many of us covet so much?

                  Barring Griffin and Hill, who could be the "Dale Davis" to the current versions of "Rik Smits" ( aka Murphy/Hibbert )?

                  Blair seems to be the closest thing that we could possibly get in the draft ( assuming that the Nets don't snatch him up ). Have you watched his game?

                  Although it hasn't been official, didn't Patrick Patterson say that he's heading back to KU?
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                    Josh Boone seems to have fallen out of the rotation in Jersey.

                    He seems to be a young tought kid that could fit well beside Hibbert as well as Murphy.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                      Does anyone know if Detroit would be willing to part with Amir Johnson? I know he would not be the absolute answer but I think he would be a nice fit in our big man rotation?


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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                        I tend to disagree. Mcbob was very undersold at the time of the trade, than there was a string of nice games about midseason where people started to say, "hey, maybe this kid has some game" which afterward he was inexplicablly sat again by Obrien. The brief flirtation was quickly forgotten and "Wait hold on, this is just stephan graham syndrome, Mcbob is a scrub" became the prevailing view again.

                        Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Josh is a sure thing or anything, but "hey, nice hustle guy, blabla" is not the whole story here, not even close. Josh is a hell of an athlete and he was once a top high school recruit and projected lottery pick for a reason, that is physical abilities and upside. He was a dissapointment at Duke because he never became the kind of scorer that people expected, had attitude concerns, and came out of college too early... as a result, he fell to the second round.

                        I just get annoyed at people who act like Josh is some kind of "known qauntity" when he is the youngest player on the team with his kind of athleticism and unique skill set. If Josh was a first round pick (which at one time he was expected to be) and had the kind of hype and expectations that Rush and Hibbert did, people would look at him a lot differently.

                        I don't mean to constantly derail threads about PFs with the "Mcbob solution", but I think people are missing the point. Somehow saying "I think Josh has potential and should get a little run" got miscontrued as "I think Josh is a sure fire hall of famer"... Im pretty sure nobody ever said anything to that effect.


                        McBob is nothing more than Louis Amundson w/o the long hair. He not now or ever will be the answer for the Pacers at PF. He's an end of the bench player like Amundson that can come in with some energy, and that's it. Being it's a weak draft, I will give you that he is maybe about as good as the PF's that will be available at #13, and that might be giving him more credit than he is rightfully due.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                          I find this thread a little depressing because it shows we don't have much hope of really improving our inside play

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                            This draft class is very strong for Guards. Brandon Jennings, Eric Maynor, J Flynn, S Curry, J Teague, P Mills, T Lawson, W Ellington, T Evans, D Derozan, James Harden, & R Rubio.

                            I think we need to draft the best defensive G available @ 13. I do not who that will be.

                            I believe the Pacers will land the top pick this year. It will be nice to welcome B Griffen or Rubio on this roster.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                              Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                              I believe the Pacers will land the top pick this year. It will be nice to welcome B Griffen or Rubio on this roster.
                              I hope you're being sarcastic.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                                Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                                I hope you're being sarcastic.
                                Why?

                                While it may not be reasonable to expect the top pick, it seems reasonable to think adding either Rubio or Griffin would be a good thing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X