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

pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

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

  • pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

    Though workouts are just getting started, a good amount of mocks and analysis are being made on selections and who should be picked.

    Looking at the Pacers needs and draft position, I've come up with a list of players I'm hopeful the Pacers will select at #13.

    I warn you these are just my opinions.

    Earl Clark (Louisville)

    I haven't heard Earl Clark mentioned around the digest a lot, but I think he's an interesting pick for the Pacers. I think Clark is a tremendous athlete and has the frame and skill to play both forward positions. Looking at the Pacers recent injury history I think it's good to have a versatile type player. Clark is a really good defender and has solid ball handling skills for a guy 6'9. He has an inconsistent jump shot and seems to to coast through games at times, but I think this can be coached. The kid is a solid on the boards as well.

    Terrence Williams (Louisville)

    Now Williams appears to be one guy a lot of folks are hot on, and for good reason. Terrence Williams brings a lot of skills to the table, he can handle the ball, has excellent court vision, locks in defensively, and is another really athletic guy. The knock has mostly been on his jump shot, but the kid actually has pretty good form, and could improve under Keller. He's a tough player and could also defend 3 positions. His ball handling and court vision could definitely help his back court mate and the guy can rebound for his position as well. Was a little turnover prone, but I never really saw Louisville with a solid PG who could lead the team and distribute.

    Gerald Henderson (Duke)

    I thought Henderson improved a lot this year and became a lot more confident in his game and skills. Some says he's undersized for a SG , but I think 6'4-6'5 is fine. Another good defender and stat stuffer like Williams mentioned above, but Henderson has a better jump shot, but not as good ball-handling skills. I see him as a terrific team player. Seemed very unselfish, on a talented Duke team. I think he and Williams could both help our team and the wing position immediately

    Ty Lawson (North Carolina) and Johnny Flynn (Syracuse)

    I'm not sure why the Pacers would go PG unless they can't resign Jack, or decide to trade Ford, but if they do, they'll likely have to choose from Lawson and Flynn. Lawson appears to be the safe pick, and I believe the Pacers like him last year before the injury. Lawson was the floor general for the Tar Heels and really played well all year. Really quick player and strong for his size, and loves to get up and down the floor. Has good court vision and doesn't turn the ball over too often. Really good at getting in the passing lanes on the defensive end, but size will still be a problem on the defensive end

    Johnny Flynn is also a small yet fast PG with excellent ball handling skills. Flynn is a playmaker and seems to just have a knack for playing the game of basketball. Can get ahead of himself at times and lack of size could hurt him defensively, but I think he's an underrated defender fo his size in my opinion I think he'll thrive in the Pacers uptempo offense, as will Lawson. I think Flynn is the better athlete, is a clutch performer and seems to be a good leader. Flynn does remind me some of Tj Ford, except stronger and more durable. Though Lawson appears to be the safe pick, I think Flynn would be the better pick, though I hope the Pacers don't draft a PG


    Chase Budinger (Arizona)

    Now I may be going out on a climb here, but I think Budinger is going to be a solid professional player. He's also a really athletic player, and he's a quick jumper with a nice shooting stroke. Is a pretty solid passer, and a very unselfish player.. too unselfish at times. I think his quickness could make it hard on him defensively. Reminds me of Dunleavy some, except he's a better athlete, but doesn't have the ball handling. He actually attacks the basketball pretty and is a good finisher. Might be a reach at 13, but I don't necessarily think so.



    There's other players whom could be selected here, but I don't think they'll be available (Holiday, Evans, Blair, and Curry)

    Though the Pacers an athletic big I think the only one in the draft worth selecting at #13 is Clark.

    I would prefer the Pacers to select a wing, either Williams or Henderson at #13 if available.

    If Ford is moved or Jack isn't resigned I would like to see Flynn or Lawson with the selection.. in that order. Though we may need a bigger PG if Jack is gone, I don't see Evans or Holiday on the board, and I don't know what I think of Maynor.

    The wildcard at 13 is Budinger, not sure how well he worked out, but I can see his stock rising during the workouts.

  • #2
    Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

    Flynn, Williams, Holiday or trade down.

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

      Those are some good mentions there. I've mentioned Earl Clark a couple of times only to get a response that he is a tweener(he's a SF period). I guess peope are still holding onto hope that a talented PF will fall to us. I believe that he is going to be the best player available at 13. Clark is a match up nightmare(can guard three positions). He needs to make defense his focus at the NBA level and let the offense come to him, believe me he can score. Dude is a superior athlete. Shoots too many jump shots.

      If Clark was to be selected before 13, Terrance Williams is the guy I'd want. Tremendous athlete, rebounds well, good shooter, outstanding hands and defense anticipation. Even more turnover prone than his teammate Clark, but as pwee31 mentioned the Cards never really had the ballhandler they needed.

      Budinger is a stretch, or maybe not. More agile than people think. He has some hops too. Budinger will not be a great defensive player, but he will not be a liability. He's too athletic to stink at defense. It's just that damn White Men can't Jump poop. I think all people see is just another guy like Dunleavy in him, just a step slow. Which isn't true. More Similar to Ginobili in my opinion. Best shooter available to us at the 13 spot.

      All I know is we aren't getting a PF. The wing talent will be plentiful. Good job pwee31.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
        Johnny Flynn is also a small yet fast PG with excellent ball handling skills. Flynn is a playmaker and seems to just have a knack for playing the game of basketball. Can get ahead of himself at times and lack of size could hurt him defensively, but I think he's an underrated defender fo his size in my opinion I think he'll thrive in the Pacers uptempo offense, as will Lawson. I think Flynn is the better athlete, is a clutch performer and seems to be a good leader. Flynn does remind me some of Tj Ford, except stronger and more durable. Though Lawson appears to be the safe pick, I think Flynn would be the better pick, though I hope the Pacers don't draft a PG
        While I'm not sold on Flynn as a surefire pick, there are things I like about him a lot. He's demonstrated more intangibles than any other player in this draft. At the end of the season when Syracuse was making their run, it often seemed like he was willing them to victory. They were competing with, and beating, more talented teams largely due to good coaching and Flynn's leadership and refusal to quit. He's got a killer instinct that could make him special, provided his game actually translates to the NBA level.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

          I was going to start a thread similar to this. I need more time to do it right, but for now I'll get a placeholder in here.


          Guys I'd like on the Pacers that they could reasonably get (first or 2nd round)
          TWill, Budinger, Henderson, Evans, Pendergraph (2nd), Adrien (2nd), Holliday, Jennings (likely gone much sooner, but a wild card still), Sam Young

          Guys that worry me, but I'd be interested in
          Clark, Blair, Ellington (almost in the no thanks range actually, but he's a gamer), Mullens, J Johnson

          No thanks
          Lawson, Flynn, Maynor, Curry, Collison


          Sure, if it's definitely farther down
          Mills, Teague, AJ Price (mid rnd 2)


          Not sure how I feel about Lawal or Hansbrough

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

            Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
            Earl Clark (Louisville)

            I haven't heard Earl Clark mentioned around the digest a lot, but I think he's an interesting pick for the Pacers. I think Clark is a tremendous athlete and has the frame and skill to play both forward positions. Looking at the Pacers recent injury history I think it's good to have a versatile type player. Clark is a really good defender and has solid ball handling skills for a guy 6'9. He has an inconsistent jump shot and seems to to coast through games at times, but I think this can be coached. The kid is a solid on the boards as well.
            Here is UncleReg's post regarding Earl Clark ( who has paid attention to Louisvill games ).

            http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...&postcount=543

            Here's my breakdown:

            Defense

            Great defender. He is a tremendous shot blocker because he is so quick off the ground and has incredible length. His length gives him the ability to guard bigger forwards, and his incredible footwork and quickness allows him to stay in front of quicker forwards and even most 2-guards. In fact, his combination of length and quickness makes him a slightly better on-ball defender than even T-Will. It's his off-the-ball D that gets him into trouble, which NaptownSeth has already pointed out so well.

            Rebounding

            This guy absolutely grabs every rebound in sight. He cleans up on both ends too, as he is a GREAT offensive rebounder. I've never had as great of an appreciation for rebounding than I've had now just because I've had the pleasure of watching Earl and T-Will over the past two years. Again, length and leaping ability allow him to get to balls that most could never dream of getting to.

            Hands

            Here's the thing... and this is not going to make any sense considering his nimbleness, agility, and athleticism. His hands are like baseball mitts when handling passes, rebounds, or loose balls from about chest level to the ceiling. But any bounce pass at the knees or a loose ball off someone's leg and he can be butterfingers. I have no explanation for this. Overall, great hands.

            Passing/Ball Handling

            Great vision and passing. This is probably his greatest asset because he is such a terrific passer at his size and position. He also has above average handles for his size, but not reliable enough to play a point-forward role like T-Will

            Shooting/Offense

            He can hit the open 3 at times, but I'd say his comfortable range is just inside 20 feet. If he floats around the perimeter and just shoots long-range jumpers all day, he will KILL you. Something that Louisville fans have had to deal with in the past. He is at his best when he is either attacking the basket or playing inside with his back to the basket. Since he is normally a mismatch problem for opposing defenders, he can get to the basket with ease. He has also developed a pull-up midrange jumper this season, which is great to see and scary at the same to think how much better this kid can become.

            Attitude

            I've heard a lot of "analysts" say that he sometimes coasts and doesnt give it his all. This only seems to be the case because of his demeanor. He's just one of those guys who looks like he's not exerting himself. Maybe it's because he's so fluid, smooth, and always calm, but he definitely gives it 110% each time he steps on the floor. He gets visibly upset with himself when he makes a mistake and occasionally shows emotion after a big moment. I am sympathetic cause I played sports the same way. People would always say that it looked like I wasnt trying when I knew I was busting my *** off on every play. He is a quiet kid and wont give you any problems off the court.

            Final Comments

            Here's my take on the very controversial Earl Clark. You always hear of players with tremendous upside but many question marks that lead people to say, "He will either be a great one or a bust." I dont think this applies to Earl. While Earl's ceiling is as high as anyone's, his 'basement level' isnt as low as some project. But it's just that Earl is not very likely to reach his full potential. Best case scenario: he'll find himself in a couple of All-Star games and average 18 pts/9 rebs/4 ast year-in, year-out. Worst case scenario: he'll be a guy coming off the bench who can give you 10 and 6, which is not that bad, it's just not Top 10 pick worthy. He wont be a star or a guy who can carry you to the promise land, but he can be a good sidekick or a great third option... it's up to GMs to decide what pick he is worth. Part of his success will depend on development, but his success will mostly be determined by his situation and his mindset in the pros. In terms of situation, if he is a 4, he has no chance. He is a 3, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

            The biggest problem I see with him is mental. He has all the tools and skills to absolutely dominate each game he plays in; but he lacks that killer instinct. I mean, with his ability to get to the basket and his athleticism, he should be telling his opponent, "I'm going to dunk on you so hard you're going to end up on my kid's bedroom poster." How many times has he done this over his three years in college? I've only seen it once (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9XRZZlGa3M). I was so shocked when I saw he did that that I spilled my beer all over my shirt (a very nice one, too). But he either pulls up for a jumper or when he gets near, he'll either float it or try to hang in the air and put it over the defender. He can get away with this on the college level, but not in the pros.

            My opinion is that he is worth a late lottery or mid-round pick, but if we're picking inside 10, I say pass.
            From what I can gather.....if we are looking for a Tweener that is more of a SF that can be an "emergency" Backup PF ( on an "as needed" basis ), then he would be a good fit. As suggested in the PD Mock Draft thread, it would seem that if the Nets wanted to draft a future Tweener Forward that can fill the SF spot ( once Yi is eventually traded ).....then Clark would be a good fit......but not for the Pacers.
            Last edited by CableKC; 05-26-2009, 04:04 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

              I like Budinger but I don't think he's what we need. It'll be like drafting another Rush.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                If TWill, Henderson, Jennings, Jrue, or Evans are gone trade down and get two late 1st rounders.

                SaM Young
                and
                Pendergraph or even T-Psyco

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                  Originally posted by TroyMurphy3 View Post
                  I like Budinger but I don't think he's what we need. It'll be like drafting another Rush.
                  By Rush you mean Dunleavy. And by Dunleavy you mean a more athletic Dunleavy. And by more athletic Dunleavy, you mean a more athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles.

                  And by less at athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles, you mean a white guy.
                  Last edited by Major Cold; 05-26-2009, 05:14 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                    Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                    By Rush you mean Dunleavy. And by Dunleavy you mean a less athletic Dunleavy. And by more athletic Dunleavy, you mean a more athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles.

                    And by less at athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles, you mean a white guy.

                    I'm not sure what just happened but my mind just shorted out and rebooted.

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      By Rush you mean Dunleavy. And by Dunleavy you mean a less athletic Dunleavy. And by more athletic Dunleavy, you mean a more athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles.

                      And by less at athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles, you mean a white guy.

                      ROFLMMFAO!!


                      Good one ..

                      .
                      .
                      "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                        By Rush you mean Dunleavy. And by Dunleavy you mean a more athletic Dunleavy. And by more athletic Dunleavy, you mean a more athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles.

                        And by less at athletic Dunleavy who lacks the veteran savvy and teammate involvement intangibles, you mean a white guy.
                        I actually understood this.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                          Chase's defense takes Mike's defense out back and comes back alone and unscathed. Everyone buys it a beer and thanks it for getting rid of the smell.

                          Chase at this point might not have the offensive awareness that Mike does, but his motor this year was on full all the time and it paid off. The guy turned into one of those dudes that comes from behind you in the half court and blows your shot up out of nowhere, and then goes the other way for the foul at the rim.

                          It's a dramatic change from the tall, spot up SG he was starting to resemble last year (ie, Dunleavy lite). He's more like Brent Barry with a passion for real defense now.

                          Seriously, there might be an empty pod in the AZ locker room somewhere.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                            Clark, Twill, and Henderson are the 3 at the top of my list at #13

                            Budinger is my sleeper at this pick.

                            In the 2nd round I'm looking at:

                            Jeff Pendergraph (Arizona St.)

                            http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jeff-pendergraph

                            Josh Heyvelt (Gonzaga)

                            http://www.nbadraft.net/players/josh-heytvelt

                            Dionte Christmas (Temple)

                            http://www.nbadraft.net/players/dionte-christmas

                            Taj Gibson (USC)

                            http://www.nbadraft.net/players/taj-gibson

                            Wesley Matthews (Marquette)

                            Alade Aminu (GT)


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: pwee31's #13 draft hopefuls

                              I also think the Pacers need to look at Tonney Douglas and Jerel Mc Neil if they are available in the second round. Our second rounder may get a little PT this year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X