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 #4: DeJaun Blair

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

  • #46
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    I saw him get routinely attacked in the post by all types of offensive players in college. If he didn't intimidate in college, he has no chance against bigger and better atheletes.

    I will say he got into Thabeet's head though. That was awesome.

    I'm honestly not sure if he's worse defensively than Troy Murphy, but I can't say for sure. I'm trying to level the thread here because it's easy to see the words "tough" and "rebounder" and automatically associate those with being an intimidator/good defender.

    Blair's tough and a very good rebounder, but he is not a defender.
    This I can agree with for the most part. But I think people are gonna be surprised to see how much that extra 20 lbs. of slop had to do with most of his struggles defensively. I think he'll make more plays at the next level because of that and improve drastically defending quicker players and the screen roll in particular.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      i don't think blair is necessarily undersized. there are players with comparable size who have found success playing pf in the nba (though more often in a backup role). from draftexpress' database (format is height w/o shoes : wingspan : standing reach : weight)

      Code:
      dejuan blair  6'5.25" 7'2"    8'10.5" 277
      jason maxiell 6'5"    7'3.25" 8'11"   258
      paul millsap  6'6.25" 7'1.5"  8'9.5"  258
      brandon bass  6'6.25" 7'2.5"  8'10.5" 246
      joey dorsey   6'6.25" 7'1.75" 8'11"   265
      reggie evans  6'7.5"  7'2.5"  8'11.5" 250
      ike diogu     6'6.5"  7'3.5"  9'1"    255
      Four or five of those seven I wouldn't sign if they were UFAs, let alone take with our lotto pick.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
        I'm in the same boat as many others. I like a lot about what Blair brings to the table, but I think he has too many limitations to really be a great pick for the Pacers.

        Here's why I don't like him:

        1. I think, in spite of his toughness and rebounding, he's a perpetual defensive liability. Ultimately I think perimeter-oriented bigs will go right around him and post players will shoot right over him. When he's on the floor, you're not going to be able to switch anything. He's going to be horrible at closing out on shooters and slow in rotating. He's a poor defender in space and is going to pick up fouls faster than Hibbert did last year.

        2. I don't think he's a good pairing with Hibbert offensively because they need to occupy the same spaces on the court to be effective. All of Blair's points on offense come from low post touches. He's a poor shooter, poor ball-handler, and poor passer. In order for he and Hibbert to be effective, you'd have to move Roy into the high post quite a bit. While he can play from that position, I think it diminishes him a bit as a player. Outside of getting the ball in the low post, Blair is going to provide less offensively than Foster. He doesn't shoot as well, most likely won't be as good of an offensive rebounder, and won't cut as well. There's certainly no conceivably successful offensive scenario with Blair and Foster on the court together.
        I agree on these points for sure. I am probably a little more positive on him than you are, or I should say I was.

        Good footwork, hard screens, physically intimidating and enjoys that style. So he'll get himself into position for boards and knock people down for some putbacks (without fouls I mean). He will make people unhappy about playing inside against him even if they are taller than him.

        Think about Ron Artest and guys capable of shooting over him. They still don't like how he's able to muscle them below the shoulders, and he's able to deny them the spots they want to back into, which is another way of forcing a bad shot (IMO better than a hand in the face anyway).

        So hurray, get him.

        The problem is that he offers nothing more. Nothing. He's Foster where you give up his quickness to the ball, hops and height (granted Foster has lost a step athletically) for physicality and screening. But for the most part he's just as awkward a match as Jeff currently is.

        And one new issue that has cooled me to him is something that is seen by most people as a positive - he's trimmed way down. Now I don't want to see him balloon up at all, but on the flipside as I watched some clips of his workout last week I couldn't get over how similar his game looked despite the weight.

        What I mean by this is that he didn't suddenly have new moves or a new playing style, he wasn't suddenly taller or leaping better to my eyes. He was just same old Blair but with less bulk behind his playing style. Given that a big factor in his style is his ability to use his own mass so well this just bugs me.

        It might be silly, but just like we have learned that bulking up for bulk's sake doesn't always work so well with some bigs, I think getting too lean can detract from power guys who are less about the vertical game than the floor spacing game.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          And one new issue that has cooled me to him is something that is seen by most people as a positive - he's trimmed way down. Now I don't want to see him balloon up at all, but on the flipside as I watched some clips of his workout last week I couldn't get over how similar his game looked despite the weight.

          What I mean by this is that he didn't suddenly have new moves or a new playing style, he wasn't suddenly taller or leaping better to my eyes. He was just same old Blair but with less bulk behind his playing style. Given that a big factor in his style is his ability to use his own mass so well this just bugs me.

          It might be silly, but just like we have learned that bulking up for bulk's sake doesn't always work so well with some bigs, I think getting too lean can detract from power guys who are less about the vertical game than the floor spacing game.
          I've assumed (and this may be a bad assumption) that the decrease in weight was seen as a good thing, not because he'll be a better player if he's slender, but because it shows he can be serious about doing the work to improve himself. So it's a demonstration of discipline more than a showing of a dramatically improved player.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            I've assumed (and this may be a bad assumption) that the decrease in weight was seen as a good thing, not because he'll be a better player if he's slender, but because it shows he can be serious about doing the work to improve himself. So it's a demonstration of discipline more than a showing of a dramatically improved player.

            As a contrarian, I would question his disclipine because he's lost 39 lbs in less than two months. That, to me, shows he hasn't been taking care of himself (i.e. dedicated) for a prolonged period of time.

            It could be a situation like Roy Hibbert's, where schoolwork/other things were cutting into his workout time, but 39 lbs in 2 months is very abnormal.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

              Originally posted by Naptown Seth
              Good footwork, hard screens, physically intimidating and enjoys that style.

              The problem is that he offers nothing more. Nothing.


              Sincere question:

              Isn't that enough? We've been clamoring for a Dale Davis -type enforcer. Isn't that what Blair offers to be?


              The other thread that's going now has been diverted to the defects of the methodology (which I think rexnom, Seth and Count55 are right in saying the article assumes too much). But that thread suggest something useful and possibly important. It says in a weak draft, teams ought not to pick the best player available hoping for an unexpected prize. Rather they should pick a player who gives them one skill they need. They aren't going to get a player with the complete package anyway, so they'll do better to fill a need.

              That argues for Blair, even if he is limited.
              Last edited by Putnam; 06-04-2009, 07:33 PM.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                Sincere question:

                Isn't that enough? We've been clambering for a Dale Davis -type enforcer. Isn't that what Blair offers to be?
                We've been climbing with difficulty or effort to get a Dale Davis type?


                Sincere answer: No, it's not. If he becomes another slow footed defensive liability, then the "tough" gets us nothing. If he, like all of the other bigs we have, gets spread out and broken down, it gets us nothing. If he can't protect the rim, or he can't function effectively in the offense, then we may just end up being bad, regardless of how much of a badass he is.

                Now, I'm not sure whether or not he will have these faults, but tough simply isn't enough. He's got to have some other parts of the game to offer.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                  I'd like to hear Seth's thought on my first question.
                  Last edited by Putnam; 06-04-2009, 08:24 PM.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    I saw him get routinely attacked in the post by all types of offensive players in college. If he didn't intimidate in college, he has no chance against bigger and better atheletes.

                    I will say he got into Thabeet's head though. That was awesome.

                    I'm honestly not sure if he's worse defensively than Troy Murphy, but I can't say for sure. I'm trying to level the thread here because it's easy to see the words "tough" and "rebounder" and automatically associate those with being an intimidator/good defender.

                    Blair's tough and a very good rebounder, but he is not a defender.
                    Well, for what it's worth, if the NBA doesn't work out, the WWE sure will!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      Sic 'im, Seth. You've now got to uphold your honor as "best debator."

                      You're saying Blair has "good footwork" and can be effective against larger players, as Artest is. Count says he'll be a slow-footed defensive liability who can't protect the rim. Is Blair what you described, or what Count describes?
                      I said "if" he becomes a slow-footed liability. I've heard it both ways, and it's difficult to tell from college competition...but this is from this thread:

                      Originally posted by tbird
                      Blair will struggle big time in screen/roll situations defensively. He is a bit slow and crosses his feet when trying to slide them, and he will have a tough time staying in front of even average speed guards. His lack of closeout ability and conditioning means he will struggle to recover back to his man if he pops to the perimeter for jumpers as well. As long armed as Blair is, he isnt really projecting to be a big NBA shotblocker, and he plays with his arms down when contesting shots too often....add that to his lack of leaping ability and elite conditioning, and he is going to struggle defensively all over the floor, unless he is guarding a player trying to post him and play with his back to the basket. And even those type players will be able to launch over him. Blair will be a defensive liability, not because of effort exactly but just because of his limitations.
                      Originally posted by seth
                      The problem is that he offers nothing more. Nothing. He's Foster where you give up his quickness to the ball, hops and height (granted Foster has lost a step athletically) for physicality and screening. But for the most part he's just as awkward a match as Jeff currently is.
                      Now, Seth saying he's not as quick as Foster isn't incredibly damning, as Foster (at least in his prime) was pretty quick for a big guy. However, I've got two of the top talent evaluators on this board, with lots more viewing time than me, indicating that the thing that worried me most is a worry to them, as well.

                      For good measure...Seth agreed with the following assessment from one of the best minds around here:

                      Originally posted by mellifluous
                      I'm in the same boat as many others. I like a lot about what Blair brings to the table, but I think he has too many limitations to really be a great pick for the Pacers.

                      Here's why I don't like him:

                      1. I think, in spite of his toughness and rebounding, he's a perpetual defensive liability. Ultimately I think perimeter-oriented bigs will go right around him and post players will shoot right over him. When he's on the floor, you're not going to be able to switch anything. He's going to be horrible at closing out on shooters and slow in rotating. He's a poor defender in space and is going to pick up fouls faster than Hibbert did last year.

                      2. I don't think he's a good pairing with Hibbert offensively because they need to occupy the same spaces on the court to be effective. All of Blair's points on offense come from low post touches. He's a poor shooter, poor ball-handler, and poor passer. In order for he and Hibbert to be effective, you'd have to move Roy into the high post quite a bit. While he can play from that position, I think it diminishes him a bit as a player. Outside of getting the ball in the low post, Blair is going to provide less offensively than Foster. He doesn't shoot as well, most likely won't be as good of an offensive rebounder, and won't cut as well. There's certainly no conceivably successful offensive scenario with Blair and Foster on the court together.
                      All of that adds up to another guy we have to hide on defense.

                      Now, this:

                      Originally posted by Putnam
                      And more to the point: if this draft simply doesn't have many complete players, isn't what Blair offers the thing the Pacers need most?
                      I agree that this is a weak draft, but I simply don't buy the idea that the Pacers need a physical tough guy more than anything else. Even if it was, Blair is not Dale Davis. (I'd argue, in fact, that even Dale Davis wasn't the "DALE DAVIS!!!!!" that gets talked about so longingly around here, but that's another can o' worms.)

                      We get beaten defensively by teams that spread us out, and pick us apart. It's becoming more and more a slash and kick league, and players, particularly bigs, have be able to protect the paint and recover to the shooter. You can have the biggest badass on the planet, but if he can't cover enough ground, the opposing offense will just go around him...rendering him the NBA equivalent of the Maginot Line.

                      I'm ok with drafting Blair, but he needs to bring more than tough if he's going to be of any help. That was the question you asked, and the question I answered. His toughness does us no good if he becomes another guy we have to hide on defense. Our fig leaf just isn't that big.
                      Last edited by count55; 06-04-2009, 08:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        Our fig leaf just isn't that big.
                        Great!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          ESPN: Blair's Bad Knees

                          http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft....%20tch-090604

                          On the downside, Pittsburgh's DeJuan Blair has to be bummed. Blair looked solid in the drills and really impressed teams with his weight loss and tone. He also measured short, but his wingspan, standing reach and his athletic abilities made up for much of it.

                          However, the news became much grimmer for Blair when the results of the medical testing came back. Multiple NBA teams are saying Blair's knees have been red-flagged.

                          Blair tore both of his ACLs in high school, and the preliminary word from the physicals is that his knees aren't in great shape.

                          How bad they are depends on who you talk to, but the range wasn't good. I heard everything from "devastating" to "troubling."

                          Blair's agent, Happy Walters, doesn't feel words like "devastating" are accurate in describing the report he saw.
                          and.....

                          We had DeMar DeRozan going to Toronto with the ninth pick in our latest mock draft.

                          Don't expect him to slip past there. League sources say the Raptors have let DeRozan know that if he's there at nine they're taking him.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: ESPN: Blair's Bad Knees

                            Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post

                            Hmmm..sounds like someone in the mid/late first round really wants Blair. As negative as I am about his game, the 'knee' seems to be a ploy.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: ESPN: Blair's Bad Knees

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              Hmmm..sounds like someone in the mid/late first round really wants Blair. As negative as I am about his game, the 'knee' seems to be a ploy.
                              Am I correct in assuming that any team can have its own medical staff evaluate a player prior to the draft? Blair's knee history would seem to demand investigative prudence.


                              "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                              - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...html?eref=sihp
                                • The biggest news from the predraft tea in Chicago, where prospects wanting to become professional basketball players did not play games, were the measurements. The one that jumped out to front-office representatives: DeJuan Blair of Pittsburgh -- power forward DeJuan Blair of Pittsburgh -- was 6-5¼ in socks and 6-6½ in shoes. The offset was having a 7-2 wingspan, nearly three inches more than Blake Griffin, also a power forward, and a standing reach of 8-10½, an inch and a half more than the projected No. 1 pick. Said one GM, asked afterward about Blair's updated chances of making a successful transition to the NBA: "It'll be pretty tough."
                                Via SI.com
                                Last edited by ESutt7; 06-05-2009, 03:17 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X