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 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

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

  • Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

    This is the first of my 2009 draft analysis threads, giving a detailed breakdown of players who may be available at or near the Pacers draft slot at #13.

    I begin this series today with a look at the national champion point guard from North Carolina, Ty Lawson. Lawson is a player who it was rumored was highly thought of last draft season by the Pacers front office, before pulling out of the draft because of a DUI charge. Lawson rebounded from that mistake by being the central driving force to lead his Tar Heels to a national championship last march.

    And make no mistake, Lawson did LEAD them to the title. It is remarkable really on film when you look at how dominant UNC was with him on the floor, and how much of a dropoff they experienced when he was either on the bench or injured. Lawson was clearly the most valuable player on a very talented roster coached by the affable Roy Williams.

    Like most players in this draft not named Blake Griffin, Lawson has some very specific strengths and some glaring question marks and weaknesses that need to be thought about strongly. Whatever team/coach/system Lawson ends up in will likely play a determining factor in his long term NBA success.

    Lawson's strengths are numerous. The most standout thing to see on film is just his outstanding straightline quickness with the basketball. His game was a perfect marriage with the high octane system played at UNC, where their famous running game was fueled by Lawson's ability to just fly up court with the basketball, getting UNC into scoring position quickly. Teams at the college level usually didn't dare to attempt to try to pressure Lawson at all, fearing his amazing speed dribble. I think many teams may have been remiss in not trying full court pressure against him, because Lawson doesn't show a great deal of "wiggle" in his dribble, although since he was rarely pressured, he really had no need to. Even when some teams did attempt to rattle him with backcourt pressure, he basically was so much quicker than his opponents at the college level that he was able to manuever through them.

    His breakneck speed getting up the floor with the dribble is interesting to think about, because it isn't clear to me that that is a skill that will always translate to the NBA. It would be useless to get the ball up that quickly for instance, if none of your teammates bother to run with you. You would have to wonder about Lawson in a half court controlled type system, as that style would clearly hinder him and not be a good fit for his best skill. It is also not clear how in the course of an 82 game schedule how much of this particular talent would simply fade away due to fatigue and extra minutes.

    Unlike many players in this draft, Lawson is a true point guard with a pass first mentality. He clearly would rather drive and pass the ball to someone else that be forced to finish a play himself. However, at the college level he was able to score in traffic, but again, whether he can do that in the NBA would be a question mark due to his lack of ideal size. One thing in his favor that I really like is that I thought Lawson showed really good strength and balance after contact, showing good upperbody coordination and toughness when bumped on a drive, even while in mid air. Like most young guards, Lawson does leave his feet a little too often, but while aggravating that isn't a fatal flaw. I will say that Lawson is obviously short at barely if at all 6 feet, and he also from what I can tell doesnt make up for that by being a dynamic leaper either. He lacks the freakish athleticism of a Rajon Rondo, for example.

    His ability to stay balanced and be strong with the basketball enables him to get to the line very well, and gives him a chance to finish the play too. That is a skill that will translate very well I think, and portends well for his future as a double figure scorer in the NBA. Lawson is one of the strongest guards upperbody wise in this draft, along with being the quickest with the basketball by a good margin.

    Lawson shoots fairly well off the dribble, although my guess would be that is a function more of his ballhandling skill than shooting prowess. His speed and quickness enable him to get more open than other average guards, enabling him to make a better percentage of shots....it won't be that he is a better "shooter" per se, just that he will get himself free a bit easier than most.

    Lawson will need to put in serious work to improve his jump shot and gain NBA three point range. Some players dedicate themselves to that skill and get at least somewhat better at it, and some players come into the league and do not. Almost everyone that guards Lawson will try to back off him and cut off his drive, so he will need to at least be able to hit enough of a percentage from the perimeter to make teams guard him closer. Due to his lack of height and awkward release, Lawson will need to be able to have room and time to be accurate, but his speed will likely get him that time on most nights. He'll be a player that teams will want to double off of but won't be able to, because if he catches a return pass from the post and is unguarded he will be into the paint before your defense can rotate.

    In the screen/roll environment in the NBA, teams will definitely need a strategy to try to contain him. The obvious best one early in his career will be to have his man go "under" the screen, and force him to make the wide open jumper. If he gets the ability to make that happen, he might be almost unguardable in this area, as most bigs won't be able to step out on him and prevent him from turning the corner, and once he does that almost no one in basketball will be able to contain his dribble.

    As a decision maker, so far he appears to be pretty good, although his team at UNC and their style of play kept him out of "difficult decision" situations. He makes great decisions while driving into the paint or in transition, but is a much weaker decision maker in a half court controlled set. As a point guard, he rarely was asked to survey the floor from the top and "choose a side and take it to the action", which is a critical skill in my opinion for a point guard to have. Generally, Lawson created easy decisions for himself, and Coach Williams did a great job of not getting in the way too often by slowing him down or overcoaching him.

    Speaking of Coach Williams, the freedom to play he gives players within the UNC controlled break system has got to make him a blast to play for. I'm not sure we'd be talking about Lawson so much if he hadn't played for Williams, a soft touch who clearly got the most out of Lawson's skills. Players play free and easy for Williams, and it is easy to see why the nation's best high school players gravitate to him.

    Having said that, the soft touch Williams displays does give me pause when evaluating UNC players. A person cannot be sure how a player from UNC will respond in losing streaks, or when a coach really chews and rides them....as that will be a new experience for them. UNC rarely calls set plays from the bench, so a more half court oriented team will have to be cautious when trying to decide how a UNC player will fit their style.

    Williams also substitutes more often than any coach in college basketball. I think that is a great thing in general, and its exactly what I would do if I were him, playing a breakneck offensive style with a roster full of All Americans. As good as Lawson was in college, he only played around just over 2/3's of the possessions. Even more noticable, he played in short spurts, often playing in much shorter intervals than he will asked to at the NBA level. Perhaps a small thing, perhaps not. Lawson wasn't asked to play through fatigue, play through tough stretches, or play through failure or mistakes for very long.

    In short, you have to at least wonder about his ability to play through being winded, through being heckled by veteran opponents or hostile crowds, or playing for a tough coach who is hard on rookies. Lawson will not be a finished product in these areas when he gets to training camp.

    Basically, I really like Lawson as an offensive player....but now we need to talk defense.

    UNC under Roy Williams is generally a team that outscores you, not a team that really buckles down. Lawson shows some good defensive traits, such as the ability to get steals and read passing lanes, but sometimes his effort and concentration just isn't there. He should/could be a really good ball pressure point guard defensively, and sometimes in college he was, but not consistently. Again, his athleticism was just too much for college guards to handle, but that won't be the case in the NBA....he'll be a good athlete among many.

    To be an all-star or difference maker, Lawson will need to be coached up to be at least a good and consistent defender that you can count on. Right now he can get steals and convert them better into transition opportunities better than most, but he also is just as likely to drift off and lose his man due to lack of concentration. Lawson shows much better on the ball than off, and in a defensive system based on help more than ball pressure that could be a problem.

    A smart coach would use Lawson as a big time pressure defender I think, as I suspect he has the lateral quickness to handle a role like that. I will say though that I don't think his lateral quickness is as impressive as you would think....it isn't all world like I project his quickness with the dribble to be. Like Roy Williams did, I think it would be smart for an NBA coach to limit his minutes somewhat in his first year or 2 just to let him get acclimated into the NBA.

    Lawson will basically just need to get tougher to be a good defender....more concentration, more coaching, more effort.....the skills and talent are there.

    He will always struggle defensively in the low post, as his lack of height will be an issue there. However, his upperbody strength will negate that to a degree as he will be strong in the chest and be able to be physical with people. I wouldn't demerit a point guard for not being a good post defender too much anyway.

    But, I would demerit a defender for Lawson's biggest defensive weakness I see, which is overall "lazy arms". Lawson has a major defensive tendency to play with his arms dropped and hands not being active. This hurts his ability to slide his feet, and is devastating to his ability to contest shots. Not being a great leaper along with being short already, you simply can't be a decent defensive player playing with your hands and arms that low. Lawson doesn't contest shots well, he just lets guys shoot over him, often then leaking out to recieve an outlet pass after a make or a miss in the UNC fast break/early offense system.

    That won't work for me, and it will need to be fixed by someone at the NBA level. Again, I view that as an effort, concentration, and coaching issue, not one of talent. Can't do anything with his height, and can do little with his leaping ability. But you can certainly improve his conditioning and technique, and he will need to be individually coached up at this big time at the NBA level.

    Because he will never rate as a superior NBA defensive player (his ceiling is likely average to slightly above at max) to ever be a player on a championship team he will need to be on a team with a great defensive system and coaching, and ideally be with one or 2 superior individual defenders. Offensively, Lawson will be good enough to win big with, but defensively will be the question, making where he fits in to be very important to him for early success. In the perfect world he will need a bigger backcourt partner, and possibly a defensive oriented back up point guard as a caddy early in his career.

    Even though he has negatives, you certainly in my view cannot ignore the talent and championship pedigree of Ty Lawson. To me he rates as a definite NBA starter early in his career, and a fine offensive player that you can win with big if he improves a little defensively.

    Is he a great fit for the Pacers currently in our present system???? That is debateable, but by the time we are contenders again for a title/consistent playoff runs our system likely won't be the same anyway. Lawson will be most effective with the ball in his hands with the freedom to create and use his alarming speed, not as effective in a "passing game" motion system as we run currently. He wouldn't necessarily be a defensive upgrade currently over what we have either, particularly playing in the sagging defensive scheme we use now. However, that will likely change as our roster and coaching staff evolves anyway, so you would need to think big picture when evaluating Lawson for the Pacers future.

    Coming up with NBA comparables for Lawson isn't that difficult to me. I think he projects as slightly below Tony Parker, closer to his fellow UNC brethren Raymond Felton. Felton by the way I predict will be a great free agent pickup for somebody this off season.....he has gotten significantly tougher and better playing a year for Larry Brown, a great teacher of point guards.

    Keeping my tradtion of the past NBA players to compare him to, the easiest and most obvious one to me is Terrell Brandon, long time point guard of the Cleveland Cavaliers.....and I see now by looking that's exactly who one of the draft web sites used as well.

    Lawson will be a very effective and good long time NBA starting point guard, and certainly should and will be a strong consideration for the Pacers at #13, especially if the Pacers have plans to move another similar player to Lawson: TJ Ford. I see Lawson long term as a slight upgrade on Ford, and in the short term would be cheaper and healthier obviously. If the Pacers do select Lawson, you can almost certainly guarantee that Ford would be on the move....those players would be somewhat redundant on the same roster I think. If we pass on Lawson, I highly doubt he gets past Philadelphia at #17, as I think the Sixers would be a strong fit for him. In fact, a deal with the Sixers and the Pacers makes some sense involving either the rights to Lawson or Ford.

    And obviously, in building a team with a future championship mentality you can't overlook Lawson's pedigree and past successes of being the best and most important player on a title winning team. Lawson looks like a good long term point guard to me in the right situation....not perfect, but definitely starting quality in the very least.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 05-24-2009, 05:41 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
    Lawson will be a very effective and good long time NBA starting point guard, and certainly should and will be a strong consideration for the Pacers at #13, especially if the Pacers have plans to move another similar player to Lawson: TJ Ford.
    My reoccurring thought while reading your breakdown was "but we've already got one of these".

    Like you mentioned, I don't think we take him unless we are moving TJ Ford.

    I think our need in "interior toughness / post defense" is bigger than our need at PG.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

      How does he compare to DJ Augustine and Acie Law?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

        TBird, when I read your analysis of Lawson....I think to myself that he's a "pass first, score second" version of Ford.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

          It seems to me that if the Pacers take Lawson and then trade TJ all you have really
          done is made a lateral move. Plus it takes time to know the point. Is Lawson significantly better than TJ?
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

            I could see the Pacers taking Lawson, signing Jack and trading Ford for a big. This way, Jack is the starter and Lawson would have no problem being a back up. I still have a feeling that TJ isn't real comfortable coming off the bench.

            Like someone said earlier, I see Lawson as a pass first score second version of TJ.

            Lawson is the only one of the 6' and under PG's that I wouldn't mind the Pacers picking at #13. I'm personally hoping that Blair falls to us.
            Last edited by 2minutes twowa; 05-25-2009, 12:46 AM.
            Turn out the lights, this party's over!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

              The simplest answer is drafting Lawson as the replacement to Jack, allowing him to walk this summer. This would set Lawson up to apprentice under Ford.

              This would be the cheapest solution, but I don't think it's necessarily the best short or long-term option for the Pacers. I believe they need to use the #13 to add talent, not replace it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                If we do go for a replacement to Jack I would like Evans or Jrue. If we go for a replacement for TJ, Lawson and Jennings.

                I just think that Lawson will be the only one available.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                  How about Flynn though? Wouldn't he be a better fit for the Pacers? Just asking.
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                    Thanks everyone for your responses so far.

                    To Major Cold: I project him to be much better than Acie Law, and probably close to the same as DJ Augustine. I think Lawson is stronger upperbody wise than Augustine, which may help him slightly long term, plus even though Lawson is small in height I think he is slightly taller than DJ, although it's close.

                    To Count: I think your point is accurate, as far as it goes. But I also think that if indeed that is your plan (and if it were me, it would be because I think Ford is better than Jack as a true point guard, but lets not have that debate again) then it might be smarter to take a bigger, less similar player to Ford. However, one unintended perk to having 2 point guards of roughly the same dimunitive size would be to force Coach O'Brien to not play them together at the same time.

                    To 2 minutes twowa: Your solution is the most commonly thought plan Pacers fans have I think. One idea I've thrown out the last couple of days is TJ Ford to Sacramento for Thompson (young big) and Kenny (edit: thanks cablekc!) Thomas expiring contract. Not sure what Kings fans would think of that, but they would still have 2 draft picks to fill needs and wouldnt necessarily need to draft a point guard at #4 in that case.

                    To Mourning: I'll have more on Jonny Flynn at some point before the draft once I'm finished evaluating him. I have some early preliminary thoughts about him but I'm going to keep them to myself until I'm finished watching film of him. I watched Syracuse play several times this year, and took notes on Flynn as I did so, but I need to rewatch what I have to really focus in on him.
                    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 05-25-2009, 01:10 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                      To Count: I think your point is accurate, as far as it goes. But I also think that if indeed that is your plan (and if it were me, it would be because I think Ford is better than Jack as a true point guard, but lets not have that debate again) then it might be smarter to take a bigger, less similar player to Ford. However, one unintended perk to having 2 point guards of roughly the same dimunitive size would be to force Coach O'Brien to not play them together at the same time.
                      Based off of what I have read from your previous posts....I would think that you would not be in favor of getting 2 "similiar" PG since they would not "complement" each other.

                      About playing 2 undersized PGs in the line-up....although I could be wrong....haven't we seen games where JO'B played both Ford and Diener together? In an effort to foster ball movement......I'm under the impression that JO'B prefers to have as many ball-handlers on the floor as possible.

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                      To 2 minutes twowa: Your solution is the most commonly thought plan Pacers fans have I think. One idea I've thrown out the last couple of days is TJ Ford to Sacramento for Thompson (young big) and Kurt Thomas expiring contract. Not sure what Kings fans would think of that, but they would still have 2 draft picks to fill needs and wouldnt necessarily need to draft a point guard at #4 in that case.
                      I did suggest some trade of Ford to SacTown if they got Griffin....but now that they dropped to 4th, coupled with the possiblity/rumor that Rubio dropping to the 4th spot ( which I doubt would happen ) and the liklihood that the Kings would reach for Jennings / Evans / Holiday at the 4th spot.....I don't see them taking on Ford while giving up Thompson. They need the frontcourt depth.

                      Unless we are able to move Ford for an expiring Contract ( like Ford for Kenny...not Kurt...Thomas+23rd pick )......I'm thinking about a Ford for Nocioni+$1mil+23rd pick trade. Nocioni has 1 more contract year....but is only owed about $1.5 mil more in guaranteed $$$ while reducing the SalaryCap hit over the next 2 seasons. I like Nocioni as an aggressive/tough backup SF/PF that can spread the floor and provide some solid Defensive help.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 05-25-2009, 12:59 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                        Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                        How about Flynn though? Wouldn't he be a better fit for the Pacers? Just asking.
                        A lot of the mock drafts have us taking him. I wouldn't be surprised if we drafted him. He would make a good backup PG to Jack believing that Ford is traded. I actually like Flynn I think he would be great for us. Also Eric Maynor is a big name in mock drafts for us. He's ok. I like Flynn or Lawson better.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                          Personally I think the Pacers are going to have to have a top flight point guard in order to be successful again. A great PG can change the entire fortunes of a team- look what Billups is doing in Denver right now.

                          Ty Lawson is simply not that guy. He could be a very good backup PG- yes- and maybe he is worth taking for that role, but like many have said, we already have this type of player in TJ Ford. I think the long term prospects of TJ's health will play a big role on TPTB's outlook on Lawson. Right now, I don't think he would do a lot to help the fortunes of the team.

                          If both Lawson and Henderson are available at 13, I'd keep the PG rotation we have for another year and draft Henderson, grooming him to be our sixth man of the future. Henderson gives us some things we don't really have, and Lawson is very redundant.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            The simplest answer is drafting Lawson as the replacement to Jack, allowing him to walk this summer. This would set Lawson up to apprentice under Ford.

                            This would be the cheapest solution, but I don't think it's necessarily the best short or long-term option for the Pacers. I believe they need to use the #13 to add talent, not replace it.
                            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                            To Count: I think your point is accurate, as far as it goes. But I also think that if indeed that is your plan (and if it were me, it would be because I think Ford is better than Jack as a true point guard, but lets not have that debate again) then it might be smarter to take a bigger, less similar player to Ford. However, one unintended perk to having 2 point guards of roughly the same dimunitive size would be to force Coach O'Brien to not play them together at the same time.
                            To clarify my earlier response, I was not advocating it as a plan. It is just my belief that drafting someone like Lawson is far more likely to be indicative of the Pacers waving the white flag on re-signing Jack than anything else.

                            I don't disagree that Ford is a better true PG than Jack. However, I like the package and the price on Jack better than Ford.

                            I would be ok with Lawson in two instances: (1) we really felt that he was going to be the long-term answer at the point...he could really become Terrell Brandon. (2) We had a plan in place to move Ford that would fill in holes elsewhere on the roster, specifically, physical "4", defensive "2/3", or cheap versions of both.

                            However, I don't think (1) is true, and I don't think (2) is a practical possibility. Therefore, I would expect (pessimistically) that drafting Lawson would basically turn out to be a trade of Lawson for Jack. I don't like that on two counts: (1) I don't think Lawson will be as good as Jack, and (2) I would not be happy about the fact that we couldn't use the #13 to add talent rather than attempt to backfill a loss.

                            Reason #2 would be the most troubling, because we can't afford to waste any opportunity to move forward.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #1: Ty Lawson

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              To clarify my earlier response, I was not advocating it as a plan. It is just my belief that drafting someone like Lawson is far more likely to be indicative of the Pacers waving the white flag on re-signing Jack than anything else.

                              I don't disagree that Ford is a better true PG than Jack. However, I like the package and the price on Jack better than Ford.

                              I would be ok with Lawson in two instances: (1) we really felt that he was going to be the long-term answer at the point...he could really become Terrell Brandon. (2) We had a plan in place to move Ford that would fill in holes elsewhere on the roster, specifically, physical "4", defensive "2/3", or cheap versions of both.

                              However, I don't think (1) is true, and I don't think (2) is a practical possibility. Therefore, I would expect (pessimistically) that drafting Lawson would basically turn out to be a trade of Lawson for Jack. I don't like that on two counts: (1) I don't think Lawson will be as good as Jack, and (2) I would not be happy about the fact that we couldn't use the #13 to add talent rather than attempt to backfill a loss.

                              Reason #2 would be the most troubling, because we can't afford to waste any opportunity to move forward.

                              No question, the Pacers choices they have to make concerning Jack and Ford, and their mutual status with the team will be the deciding factor I think in how they structure an overall draft plan.

                              -They have to determine somehow an idea of what Jack is worth around the league, who their primary competition for him is, and how signing him will effect the salary structure for both 2009-10 but also 2010-11, as you have so eloquently pointed out before. You and I each have an opinion on what Jack will sign for, and for our sake I hope you are correct and I am wrong.

                              -They have to along with that have to quietly shop TJ Ford and see what kind of return they can get on him. Because of the draft being deep in point guards and thin on bigs, you almost have to make a difficult "small for big" trade. While not impossible, this is somewhat problematic normally.

                              -Simultaneously with that, they need to evaluate all the available point guards and determine which one they like best, if one of our two point guard are indeed going to be on the move. I'll be doing my analysis of all these guys as well, so at least this board will have lots of opinions and information about them beforehand to drive the debate.

                              -If they can bring back both point guards, then they ned to try and identify a big who can play as a rotation with who we have now, or a wing player who can compliment what we already have. Depending on how my as of yet unfinished analysis continues on, their may not be a "big" available that is a perfect fit....then they have to decide to "reach" for a big or take the wing player, who might be a better prospect but is also an easier position to fill.

                              No matter what, they Pacers will need to think 3 or 4 moves ahead with this draft pick....and the offseason will just begin in draft night, not end.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X