Tweet
Do you want to see this guy in a Pacers uni next year? I think he's our guy, and honestly, there's not much of a downside to him.
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.
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
-
40Absolutely42.50%17No way!20.00%8Doesn't matter to me. This is a weak draft.37.50%15Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers -
Re: EARL CLARK
Since I live in southern Indiana and talk with Louisville fans pretty frequently, I'm hesitant with Earl. He definitely has the tools to be a great player, but his work ethic has been questioned in the past. You ask a UofL fan what they think of him, and they'll tell you they love him, when he plays hard. There are a lot of times where he will just disappear throughout games making you wonder if he's hurt, or just doesn't have the drive to really excel. If he played his hardest every night, he would have been a top 7-8 pick in this draft IMO.
A guy with his combination of talent, size, and athleticism should have been averaging close to 20 and 10 a game. Instead, he put up a pedestrian 14 and 8. Part of this is because of his work ethic, and another part is because he tries to be someone he's not. Of course this is JMO, but I always felt like he was trying too hard to be a guard by shooting 3's and taking contested outside shots when it was obvious he should be in the low post battling against the big guys.
If someone picks him and can keep him focused while improving his work ethic, they could have a very good player on their hands.Last edited by Coop; 06-02-2009, 02:34 PM. -
Re: EARL CLARK
I'm absolutely sold on him as a 3/4 who plays well in small ball.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
He reminds me of 2 players...
AK-48 (lean, long arms, good defense, suspect shooting, unpolished offense) which is good and Shawne Williams which is... yikes!
That being said, Clark is at least gonna start somewhere on the depth chart (someday).
Remember, many lottery projected guys will never be starters, so I'll take him at 13.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
Maybe."A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman RushdieComment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
In a deeper draft, my answer would be no way. The Ps really can't afford a swing and a miss. They need help period.
BUT....anyone in this draft at 13 is going to be a question mark, so why not?“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
Here's what I wrote to TBird a couple of days ago. I agree, I think he'll be the pick. Here are my reasons:
The Pacers traditionally use smokescreens. We've "needed a PG" in the draft for a few years running (Marcus Williams, Acie Law, DJ Augustin etc etc.) and haven't taken one. Given that everyone once again is convinced we will, I bet we won't. I don't think one that really jumps off the page will fall to us (all bets are off if one does). Here are some of my thoughts:
1. PG as smokescreen to get who we really want.
2. We're desperate to make the playoffs next season. Giving up Jack or Ford for a rookie PG likely won't help that all too much. I could be wrong, but I know being a rookie PG is extremely difficult to learn. The franchise knows it needs to get back in the playoffs to draw fans back in.
3. Given that, if we don't like our current PGs, the best way to improve them would be to get a current NBA PG rather than wait on a rookie who may not pan out due to height (Flynn, Lawson), red flags (Evans), weight (Maynor) or any other reason. So trading for Hinrich or S&T for Felton or Miller or someone would be a better "win now" option.
4. Using the PG as smokescreen theory again, it throws everyone off. Mock drafts all have us taking a PG. Teams will expect us to. That way they won't trade up to get our actual target. Our 2 positions that we don't have "players for the future" are PG and PF. This means we're getting a PF.
5. That PF? Earl Clark. He fits the bill of what we traditionally do. Experienced? Check. Good program? Check. No red flags? Check (as far as I know anyway). Tourney runs? Check. Big performances? Check. Versatility? Check.
Bird loves getting proven, successful college players. He loves length. He risked a lot on Shawne Williams. If he's afraid to take a chance again, maybe he doesn't want Clark. But I think he will do a better background check this time. Clark measured out at 6'10" and can play the 3 and 4. We could ease him in behind Murphy, and he could get spot minutes behind Granger. He would eventually take Murphy's starting job or the majority of the minutes.
He has good form on his shot which should mean he'll figure out the NBA 3. He can handle the ball. He can defend. He can rebound. He has a midrange game. He can post. While he is a perimeter oriented 4, that may actually be a good thing. Look at Orlando. If Clark pans out we could be a more athletic version of them (minus Howard, but maybe Hibbert is improved by then).
We could be a match up nightmare down the road with a true C, and a 2, 3, 4 combo that plays out on the perimeter. Each of whom could shoot or drive or even post and be a threat. This has given the Cavs fits, and a lot of the elite teams struggle vs. the Magic who employ the same style.
The last point is, if you want to win a championship and come out of the East, you better build your team to beat LeBron. We would have at least 3 legitimate guys that we could throw at him. Rush, Granger, and Clark could all take turns guarding him and frustrating him, while the Cavs would struggle on the other end to match up.
All just a theory, and Clark was very up and down. But with our leadership group legitimate hard workers now, not just big talkers, I think the effort would rub off on him. There was a nice comment in a Ford column about Clark asking a scout how he could get better in his workouts. The scout said no player has ever asked that. So that's a positive sign.
I hope to read your review of him, which will largely depend on which games you saw. But he certainly has the tools. He could be what Shawne was supposed to be, minus the red flags. I think Clark is more of a sure thing than Williams was. But who knows? He could be the next Tim Thomas. Potential never fulfilled. Let me know what you think, but that all makes enough sense to me to believe that's what we'll do. Just not enough big PGs in the draft IMO.
TBird pointed out Williams could have been a Walsh pick, not Bird. Who knows though.Last edited by ESutt7; 06-02-2009, 03:11 PM.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
I'm gonna go with Seth's and UncleReg's assessment of Clark....he's more of a SF then he is a PF. We don't need another SF. He maybe able to "grow" into a PF....but I really prefer to stay away from Tweeners that I pray can become the Low-Post PF defending PF that we need.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
I'm not a fan of his at all.
He's very raw and unproven AND he apparently does not have a strong work ethic...umm how about a big no thank you from me. Maybe if this guy had a great attitude I could see the Pacers taking a flier on him and just seeing what happens. But based off what I have read I'm going to say no, and also predict that he will bust in the NBA.
I'll be pretty upset if we draft Earl Clark. If we do so, I'd stay away from your Capitol Area Burlington Coat Factory for a few days.Last edited by idioteque; 06-02-2009, 03:31 PM.
Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
I think there are some key concerns with his focus and ability to take over games.
Yes, he has the tools to be a special player, but does he have will and want to be a special player? Against Michigan State in the tourney, he shot around 50% and MSU really had no answer for him when he drove to the rim. He didn't do it enough, didn't demand the rock enough, and they lost. He's kind of the college version of Lamar Odom. A guy who's super talented, but often vanishes on the court. I'd be happy if he ended up anything like Lamar Odom, but I'm not sure if he will be that. Seems to me he might just be a guy whose happy to be there (the NBA) and just kind of blend in on a team's roster. That's not a horrible thing, but it's not something I want out of the #13 pick.
One of my buddies is a manager for Louisville. I'll ask him for more info about E-5 next time I see him.Last edited by PR07; 06-02-2009, 03:30 PM.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
All of those players you listed have been gone prior to the Pacers picking, other than Marcus Williams, and with his behavior issues it's easy to see why he wasn't selected.Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
I think people get caught up too much in "smokescreens." I don't see the draft as a cat and mouse game, that has teams making their selections in order to block other teams. Maybe if a team is going to try and piece together a trade to get a player they know will be gone, but that's about it. (Just like a players trade value. It's not like the stock market that goes up and down depending on the day. GMs talk, they know the player's history and character problems. It's not like they only know what the papers report.)
The Pacers and Trailblazers had their trade worked out days in advance with Bayless. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing. They knew that there was a very definate chance that he would slip, and he did. They had their plans set before the draft ever took place, before the public knew.
The Pacers, just like any team, are going to have their order board ready. As players go, they will get checked off the list. If Clark is the next on the board and is available (assuming they don't have a trade to get more pieces with another team) he will be their selection. If a PG is rated higher than him, and their both left, the PG will be their selection.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
If any team uses Earl Clark as their primary power forward, they are in some serious trouble..Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
I have no clue who will be a better pro b/t Clark and his teammate Terrance Williams.
I do not know why some think we are strong at the 3 postion. Q6 over 7 million dollar option. Dunleavy injuried. Danny Granger needs a backup. I disagree with Clark and believe this team might stretch and land Sam Young.Comment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
1. I do think that we're strong at the 3. I think we can reasonably pencil Granger in as playing around 70% of the minutes at the 3 spot for the next 5 years or so.Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
2. I agree that we need an additional wing player, and that we should be able to grab one via this year's draft if we desire.
3. What I do not want to draft is a player who can only play minutes as a 3. Austin Daye is a perfect example. He's not quick enough to play the 2 and not strong enough to play the 4. The only way we would ever be able to play he and Danny together is to move Danny to the 4, which I think is a poor use of his talent.
If we want to draft a tweener 3/4 (like Clark or James Johnson) I'm fine with that. If we want to draft a tweener 2/3 (like T-Will or Sam Young) I'm fine with that. Even if we want to draft a 2 (like Gerald Henderson) I'm fine with that. Just don't pick a 3 like Daye or, to a lesser extent, Budinger."A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman RushdieComment
-
Re: EARL CLARK
I'm extremely skittish of him because of the Shawne Williams experiment, that being said, I'm interested in what he shows the closer we get to the draft. I could see the Bobcats taking him tho.
Comment
Comment