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 #9: James Johnson

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

    Today I head back to Tobacco Road, putting the Wake Forest Demon Deacons best player, James Johnson, under the microscope for a complete breakdown of his intriguing game.

    Johnson played against elite competiton in the Atlantic Coast Conference for head coach Dino Gaudio at Wake Forest, and decidely held his own against many of the best teams in the country, in some of the very toughest venues to play in.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before I get too far into this evaluation, I want to mention something positive about the Wake Forest kids and their character that I forgot to write about when doing the profile of Jeff Teague.

    Both Johnson and Teague were recruited to the Winston-Salem campus by the very popular coach Skip Prosser. Prosser was well respected and highly thought of by his peers and former players as one of the truly nice guys in the coaching business, which at the college level is often full of sharks, hangers-on, shady boosters and agents, and the like. Prosser was a long time protege of another coach who fit that profile, a man named Pete Gillen.

    Prosser died in his office of a heart attack while these kids were in school, and it devastated the community of Winston-Salem and the entire college basketball community. Despite that, winning is what it is all about for so many college coaches, and so the back channels were soon opened to these kids at Wake Forest by those suggesting that they abandon their teammates and school at this sign of trouble, in the programs moment of sadness and despair.

    However, led by the high level kids of character at Wake Forest, which included both Teague and Johnson, I don't believe one player transferred to another program. Instead, in the face of adversity, those kids did what they promised Coach Prosser they would do, which is to play hard and be good students and representatives of Wake Forest. In a situation where their own families, advisers, and big time coaches were trying to get the elite players there to quit, they perservered and stayed there, and eventually led the Demon Deacons to the #1 ranking midway through the season.

    It ended up that the teams own weaknesses couldn't be overcome, and they struggled later in the season, and eventually suffered a very bad loss in the first round of the NCAA tournament. But that loss doesn't diminish the fact that all the kids at Wake Forest did the right thing by sticking together in the memory of their fallen coach.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Let's move on to talk about James Johnson's strengths and weaknesses.

    Most kids in this draft are not the most well rounded players....guys either seem to have potential to excel on the offensive end of the floor but be bad defenders, or have high level defensive talent with major holes as offensive players. Johnson exhibits some of those traits as well, but he is more well rounded than most of the kids in this area of the draft....he has alot of different skills to bring to the table.

    His biggest skills are going to be as an offensive player I think, so let's discuss his game at that end of the floor first.

    The first thing that stands out to me is this: Johnson just "moves" so well up and down the floor. He just looks like a player who understands his body, understands how to get to where he needs to go. He has extremely good balance, and perhaps most impresively to me he has great footwork in running....he takes giant steps, so while it doesn't look like he is sprinting that fast, he covers a ton of ground changing ends. From a kineisology standpoint, he has been the most impressive player I've done a profile of to date. Johnson just fits the "eye test"....he simply LOOKS like he will be a good player, if that makes any sense.

    His game is extremely well rounded from an offensive standpoint. Johnson uses his left hand better than most players at his size, and is capable of finishing or dunking the basketball with either hand, which is not a small skill...Johnson can finish in traffic very well, and that skill translates to the NBA.

    He has a nicely developed mid range game. He may not get all the way to the rim, but his very nice balance and footwork give him the advantage of being able to turn and face at the foul line or mid post area after catching the ball with his back to the basket and be a scoring weapon. He has the "jab step" move down well, and he has the mid range one dribble pull up jumper already in his arsenal. When Johnson catches the ball with his back to the basket and does what some coaches call a "Sikma pivot", (named after the former Sonic Center who had impeccable post player footwork), i.e. using a reverse pivot to create space between himself and his man, he is exceptional at staying low and quick to the ground, enabling him to rise up fluidly and smoothly to shoot or to make a quick one dribble move.

    As a low post player, Johnson does everything you'd want a player to be able to do, and he does it at an above average level. Again, his balance, timing, and footwork is very impressive. He does a really good job of placing his "power post foot" IN BETWEEN the feet of the defender guarding him, which is the ideal set up to shoot a fadeaway, or to gain leverage enough to spin either direction to score. Getting a post player to do this is not an easy or natural act to teach them, and in fact I believe that post play in general is very poorly taught at all levels of the game right now. Johnson has a skill in this area that no one in this draft has in being able to do that consistently.

    Having great footwork helps Johnson catch the ball very very deep inside, letting him score with ease even against bigger defenders. Johnson just uses leverage very well. Johnson seals defenders on his back with a wide target, and does a good job of showing a target hand to show post feeders where he wants the ball. He didn't always get the ball in college to Wake Forest playing without a true point guard and playing way too disorganized and frenetic in my opinion, but in a more organized program I think he would have put up pretty big scoring numbers in college, more than the 15 or so he averaged last season.

    Johnson can make the easy pass out of the post well enough, and he may in fact be a great post passer....but we don't know that yet because Wake Forest didn't move well once Johnson got the ball. That along with the fact that teams in the NCAA don't have the sophisticated double teams that NBA teams play with leave us with a mystery a little bit of how well Johnson will read cutters going off of him...we just don't know yet. My guess is that Johnson is going to be an above average passing post player, which will be important to him because I think he will end up being a good enough offensive post player that teams will have to double him some to get the ball out of his hands, particularly against second unit big men early in his career.

    I think Johnson will be an absolute offensive force playing in the high post. If a team has a low post presence in the game with Johnson, and chooses to use him in this way, he projects to be hard to guard in this area of the floor. It's easy to see him playing in a high post area, creatively facing up and playing a high/low game with Shaquille O'Neal, Dwight Howard, or one of the other really good back to the basket players in the league. A team like Orlando could REALLY use a player who could play the high post like this in order to have a different way to feed the ball to Howard right now.....Johnson will excel I think in doing that for someone.

    Two things Johnson is going to have to do better to be a really solid/stud level NBA scorer in the low post are learn to "re-post" much much more aggressively after making a pass back out, and making more foul shots. I LOVED watching DeJuan Blair re-post guys almost into the basket support for Pittsburgh, and was hoping to see Johnson do that as well, since initially he does such a great job getting position. Alas, more often than not Johnson would make a perimeter pass and either just stand flat footed waiting to see what would happen, or drift to the perimeter himself.

    Some people are going to want to use Johnson as a perimeter player more than I would. I love that he has skills out there, and he definitely is a weapon on the perimeter against slower/bigger defenders. But I just like him better offensively when he stays inside a bit more than he has shown in the past....I don't want him to fall in love with the 3 point shot, which he has shown no tendency to do as of now but depending on how he is coached, he might do in the future. That's something to keep an eye on, especially if he ends up in Indiana.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Defensively, Johnson is just ok. If he was outstanding defensively already, he would be gone way before we pick anyway, so I guess in some way that might be a blessing.

    There is definitely a school of thought that Johnson might be stuck in between positions, and while I see his weaknesses as easily as the next guy, I don't see that as being true. Johnson to me clearly is a post player, and not a bigger wing. That being said, I am only really interested in how well he can defend the low post areas, screen/rolls as a "hedger", his perimeter ability to contest jump shots against perimeter "4 players" and how he is in help.

    For those who play and project Johnson as a wing, I think you'll be disappointed in his defense so much you won't be able to play. As much as I love his balance and agility in most things offensive, Johnson just doesn't slide his feet side to side that well. Part of it is weight issues (Johnson is a little heavy and that needs to be monitored), and part of it is probably effort and concentration. His biggest issue is that he stands too upright after about 3 slides, so big time wing guys are going to be able to take him off the dribble.

    Of course, don't have him guard guys like that and you don't have that issue.

    Instead, I think the best thing to do is to play him at the 4 spot on both ends. He will be able to guard your normal post playing back to the basket power forwards, and he will be able to chase and contest the jump shooting power forwards in the league well enough that he won't be a liability.

    He doesnt have the defensive potential anywhere near Earl Clark, but he also doesnt have his effort/attitude/liabilities either. Clark is a defensive game changer if he pans out, Johnson is more likely to be an average individual defender who plays hard and plays within a team scheme.

    Johnson does need to be taught better, emphasize more effort , get in better physical shape, and learn to play the drive better. If he is stuck on the wing, a team that "funnels" drivers into the MIDDLE OF THE FLOOR TO HELP,( instead of to the baseline like the Pacers do) will have more success with him. Johnson has the strength, balance, and footwork to play a driver to force him to one direction within the scheme of an overall plan, but he wont have the ability to play him straight up and shut a guy down, like a Ron Artest used to have.

    Against a driver, Johnson won't always rise up and contest a pull up jumper hard enough. That is a league wide problem anyway, and the Pacers suck at that as a whole, so he'd fit right in. We only have Granger and Rush who occasionally do that well, and if Johnson ends up here I would home that someone on our team or our staff would emphasize to him that his defense has got to improve for him to be an NBA all star level player.

    In the post, Johnson is a better defender. He has power to fight for position, and good footwork to prevent easy passes to be made to his guy. At only 6'8" he is a few inches shorter than is ideal, but hopefully his long arms can abate that some. He again won't be a defensive stopper in the low post, but he won't be a giant hole either. In general, he will make a guy struggle to catch the ball, fight him for the spot, then hold his ground and force a player to make a shot over him with his arms high. A great defender would be bigger than Johnson here AND be able to leap up into the air and contest the shot, but Johnson doesnt possess those skills.

    As a help defender, Johnson is just ok again. He can be a shot blocker if he doesnt have to move too far to make the play. His lack of ability to slide his feet well combined with an overall lack of natural defensive instincts makes him a helper who gets there a half step too late sometimes. I do believe that Johnson has some upside in this area, and can be coached up....the physical skills and abilities are there.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Johnson averaged 8.5 rebounds a game last year playing 30 minutes a night or so. This is impressive to me considering how much time he spent on the perimeter for Wake Forest, more than he will in the pros if he ends up being the type player I think he is: A versatile quicker post player instead of a bigger wing.

    Not much to complain about here with Johnson. He rebounds strong, on balance, and with 2 hands. You could nit pick a bit about his lack of "force" sometimes when he boards, but that is a small thing. He has good instincts to rebound even though he isn't the tallest guy or best leaper. What stands out most to me are 2 things: He seems to often be the first guy in the air to get a rebound, and his great ability to rebound the ball and dribble up the floor himself.

    Getting into the air quickly and first is much more important than than being big and tall. On the Dan Dakich show yesterday, I heard him quote the great Jerry West about this very topic. West said a key scouting thing for him was too always look at guys who seemed to jump first in a crowd, as that showed "quick twitch" muscles, athleticism, and anticipation. I think Johnson has those type of rebounding and muscular talents.

    The ability to dribble the ball up after a rebound is very important on a running team. Johnson's superior ballhandling in this area lets a team be less reliant on its point guard to bring the ball up, and changes the "geometry" of a team's fast break and early offense potentially. In a perfect world, I'd rather have my bigs make great 2 handed outlet passes to a quicker player out ahead, but in lieu of that, being able to bring it up yourself has its advantages as well.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    How would Johnson fit onto the Pacers?

    Long term I think he might be a great fit. Short term might be different. Let's discuss it, using the following criteria:

    1. Can he play in a line up alongside Murphy?

    Using Murphy as a "5" and Johnson as a "4" works on offense somewhat, but defensively Murphy would get killed by anyone with a decent center. I don't like the combination defensively....of course, any combination involving Murphy and a smaller player is going to be limited.

    2. Can you play him alongside Hibbert/Foster as Murphy's backup?

    Absolutely, but if Murphy plays 32 minutes a night, that just leaves 16 more for Johnson to play as a post player.

    3. Can he guard the "perimeter 4's" that are becoming so popular in the league?

    Yes, I think he can do a credible job, better than anyone we have probably, although that isn't saying much.

    4. Can he play at the same time as Granger/Rush?

    Absolutely, which means Johnson is a better player for the future than the present perhaps.

    5. Can he give us any minutes backing up Granger/Rush?

    Maybe in limited spots, but unlike most analysts I like him better inside. Offensively yes he can play as a wing backup, and since we are talking about only having to defend bench wing players.......maybe I am underrating him as a potential 3rd/4th wing player.

    Basically, the ideal player for him to play with inside for some of his minutes would be a Marcus Camby, Joakim Noah, Tyson Chandler type, who can protect the rim yet not get in his way too much offensively. He doesn't need help like that all the time, but a player like that along with Hibbert in a rotation would be a better fit for Johnson's short term game than Murphy's unique skills.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    So where does all that above leave us?

    It leaves us with this: I think if I were laying odds today, this very minute, that James Johnson is going to be an Indiana Pacer on draft night. He seems to fit the criteria we can expect the front office to value. If we pass or make another move that means a bigger player isn't needed, then I think Johnson goes to either Pheonix at #14, Detroit at #15, or Chicago at #16. Chicago makes a ton of sense for Johnson's game, and would likely mean a Tyrus Thomas trade is forthcoming from the windy city.

    The Pacers probably like his maturity, well rounded game, ability to score in multiple ways on the perimeter and in the low post, and toughness. Johnson is just a sophomore at Wake Forest, but he is 22 years old, 2 years older than his classmates.

    It's also interesting for me to note that while I often say that a particular player would be liked by Coach O'Brien but not Bird, or vice versa, I think in this case Johnson is a player they likely agree on and both really like.

    If the Pacers select Johnson, it also means that it is likely that the Pacers will retain both TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack as a point guard combination next year, since they will be passing on a high quality opportunity to draft a potential replacement for one of them.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Who does Johnson remind you of in the league currently, and in the past?

    Those who don't think as highly of Johnson as I do might say players playng today like Leon Powe or Ryan Gomes. In our recent past, some comparisons might also be to Al Harrington (minus the attitude) A past comparison guys who think Johnson is going to be mediocre might use would be Clarence Weatherspoon.

    But I think Johnson is better than that, so here are mine:

    Current NBA player comparable: David West, New Orleans Hornets

    Past NBA comparable: Mark Aguirre


    Again, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

    Thanks for the great analysis T-bird. After reading this I'm almost positive he is one of "6" candidates that JOB mentioned recently and he is a very strong candidate for our pick. My question is how do you see him fit Bucks, Nets or Bobcats?

    I was following some Wake Forest message boards throughout the year and again I compiled insightful comments by some knowledgeable posters. Unfortunately I don't have their nicknames but still here they are and I hope you guys enjoy it.

    JJ is the biggest tweener I've ever seen. Unless he develops some ballhandling skills and a serious midrange game, he'll be a complete dud. Same with Aminu to be honest, but Aminu has got a better nose for the basketball and the game than JJ. You can look at JJ and see that he has always been good because he was bigger, more athletic, and older than the kids he played against. All that goes away in the NBA.
    A few weeks ago my desktop was JJ dunking in the Carolina game (I think). I work with a guy who follows the NBA fairly close and he thought it was Labron in some sort of charity game.
    James Johnson has the same body as Lebron James. That is crazy potential in itself. But he's such a tweener between NBA SG, SF, and PF. He's got skills, but they need work.
    Ph....Please! JJ has the same body as LeBron? No way! Maybe if JJ lives in the gym. LeBron is absolutely jacked and his strength and speed is ahead of JJ's. Let's not get carried away now.
    I don't think JJ's a tweener. I think he's got the quickness and more than enough size to defend SF's in the league.
    On offense he's already a great passer. He needs to polish up his jumper and know when not to dribble. But these things have nothing to do with being a tweener.
    He's bulked up more this yr and is more of a threat around the paint and moving off the ball than he is from the outside. his ball-handling is overstated on nbadraft.net as well. his lack of lateral quickness in particular makes me think he's more of an undersized 4 who can play some 3. in order for him to make that transition to more 3 than 4, he'll have to improve his range, lateral quickness and ball skills.
    He's the rare college 3 that will likely start out as a 4 in the NBA. I like him a lot. But his jump shot looks ugly. It needs a lot of work with a shooting coach. If he can improve dramatically on that (like Harrington did), he can be an NBA 3, but he will be an NBA 4 - like a smaller Al Horford. He plays the 3 now, because Aminu is much more comfortable inside.
    I go to Wake and watch just about every game, and go to every home game, so I've got a pretty good feel about how good the Wake players are. James is very athletic, coordinated, and strong, and he has a decent midrange shot. His handles aren't great, he's very lazy on defense and boxing out most of the time, and can sometimes make very stupid plays, but he is our 2nd best natural basketball player. James always looks fluid and decisive, whereas Aminu is a garbage man, he gets open dunks from passes from Ish, Teague and Johnson, and gets putbacks. Him and James aren't similar in that James creates a lot for himself and others, whereas Aminu has no real skills right now besides running the break and getting putbacks, like a shorter Tyson Chandler. Aminu's jumpshot is terrible and he never really handles the ball that much either. He is decent at starting the break though. James will be a short 4 like a Brandon Bass or maybe an Al Harrington, because he's not quick enough to be an NBA 3, and he can hit the midrange J, and is plenty big and strong enough to bang in the post (6'9 245). He is also the toughest player on Wake, and he NEVER backs down from anyone. This maybe because he is a 9 time world champion kickboxer and a karate champion too. He will bring toughness and a nice skillset to whatever team drafts him.
    Antoine freakin' Walker, unfortunately. Just what the world needs...
    This is from an anonymous scout:

    "I love him, but I don't know if he plays hard every night. He's a sneaky athlete. He has that big body, a good mind, a great passer who can put it on the floor, step out and shoot it. He's physical enough that he can pound it inside if he wants to."
    This is from an anonymous GM:

    "No one is going to mess with that kid. He and his dad are serious kickboxers. That will get you instant respect in the NBA. Instant."

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

      TBird... as always my friend.

      Placebo.... terrific follow up.

      This is my number one player that I hope the Pacers are targetting, assuming they stay at 13. From value and need perspectives, he fits everything we want and won't cost us to move up. I would love to see him as a Pacer. I may even forego my wishes of signing Brandon Bass if we take him.
      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

        I hadn't really considered him, but if he's as good in the post as you say TBird, we'd be hard pressed to pass on him. Al Jefferson came to mind when you were talking about his offensive post footwork. A mini version perhaps?

        His pre-draft interview with Sacto, he says he prefers playing at the 3. If that's the intention, I wouldn't have interest.
        Last edited by ESutt7; 06-13-2009, 08:20 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

          I have been trying to convince myself that Johnson would not work here. But the more I hear about his bulking up, and other GMs salivating over him, I think he might work out.

          If he has trouble with defensive rotations, and we select him. Playing 15 minutes will be hopeful. But when Foster/Murphy go down with an injury, he might get his Rush appearance.


          I think this guy could be great in the pick n roll if we ever utilize it.

          Good call. I like him.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

            http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/james_johnson_2009.html

            Notice how Johnson says that he can sub for Danny and that Danny can help him take his game to the next level. He also speaks of "running the 4-3 interchange". Also, note that the portion of the written description about his strengths says "Strong, fluid and athletic wing with a versatile skill-set. Handles the ball well and can shoot from distance. Sees the floor and will make the extra pass. Rebounds at a solid clip."

            Sounds like he, as well as the Pacers, believe that he is a big wing player who can rebound. It doesn't sound as if he thinks that he is actually a traditional 4, or that he would anticipate being utilized as one. This may impact his ability to be converted to the position by whoever coaches him.

            If the Pacers have plans to trade another of our more established wings for a higher quality interior player, this could be a beneficial, intriguing pick. Or, they could be looking at him as some sort of insurance policy in case Dunleavy isn't able to return to form as quickly as they would like (which would be horrible for the franchise IMO).

            Otherwise, I am not sure why we would have much of a reason to choose him.
            Last edited by Brad8888; 06-14-2009, 11:18 AM. Reason: Link didn't show up

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
              http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/james_johnson_2009.html

              Notice how Johnson says that he can sub for Danny and that Danny can help him take his game to the next level. He also speaks of "running the 4-3 interchange". Also, note that the portion of the written description about his strengths says "Strong, fluid and athletic wing with a versatile skill-set. Handles the ball well and can shoot from distance. Sees the floor and will make the extra pass. Rebounds at a solid clip."

              Sounds like he, as well as the Pacers, believe that he is a big wing player who can rebound. It doesn't sound as if he thinks that he is actually a traditional 4, or that he would anticipate being utilized as one. This may impact his ability to be converted to the position by whoever coaches him.

              If the Pacers have plans to trade another of our more established wings for a higher quality interior player, this could be a beneficial, intriguing pick. Or, they could be looking at him as some sort of insurance policy in case Dunleavy isn't able to return to form as quickly as they would like (which would be horrible for the franchise IMO).

              Otherwise, I am not sure why we would have much of a reason to choose him.

              It remains a great debate in many talent evaluators minds what exactly Johnson is, I freely admit that.

              In fact, I would say more than half of the teams in the league would say that they view him as a perimeter player, who has some post up skills, instead of my view that he is a post player with some perimeter skills.

              I view him the way that I do because I evaluate players personally from a defensive perspective first. The first thing I personally ask is "Who can he guard"? instead of "How can he help us score"? In my opinion he will do better defensively playing defensively against most 4 players rather than trying to guard quicker wings on the perimeter.

              Think of it this way: When in the game against these other teams, who do you have him guard?

              Against Cleveland, he guards Verajeo, not LBJ.
              Against Orlando, he guards Lewis/Terkoglu, not Petrius
              Against Boston, he guards Garnett, not Pierce or Allen
              Against Atlanta, he guards Horford, not Joe Johnson


              Thats not to say he can't guard some wings who are a little limited offensively, because he can. He can guard Teyshaun Prince ability wings I think most of the time, it just won't be his strong suit.

              His flexibility is both an asset and a curse to him in some ways......in this way he is a player very similar to Al Harrington.

              Johnson is a much better rebounder with better reach than Johnson has, which is why I think he is a smallish 4 rather than a power 3, which is how I view Harrington.

              No question, others will feel differently. In fact, one of the draft sites popular on the web actually has an NBA comparable to him as our own Danny Granger, a player who has eschewed a post game for a perimeter one.

              A big time defending center would cover up almost every deficiency Johnson has as a player defensively, and would allow you to play him more as a PF. If I were Indiana, and had Johnson in my plans to draft, I'd start looking to move Murphy for a player who complements our roster better inside, like a Tyson Chandler, Jason Thompson, Marreese Speights perhaps, Joakim Noah or players like them.....bigs who can play both as a back up to Hibbert AND also at the same time as Hibbert.
              Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-14-2009, 03:05 PM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                Listening to recent interviews, he views himself as a 3, and says that he models his game after Pierce and Melo. Does that concern anyone at all? TBird, could you see JJ's desire to be in that Melo/PP mold being a problem, where he would drift away from the basket where you view him as more effective? Or do you view it as a postive in that he can be both a good post up/P+R 4 as well as a face up 4?

                I could see the Harrington thing...perhaps being better in the post, but preferring to play outside. The versatility is good, I just hope he wouldn't mind being a 4 if we draft him. He certainly wouldn't get a lot of minutes at the 3, esp. if Dun comes back.

                Considering the PGs...a lot of them seem similar...perhaps that's why we'd look to acquire a late 1st, if there was one we liked? Or maybe one of the wings. But there are some intriguing guys at the back end of the 1st that could be quality role players on good teams: Budinger, Maynor, Collison, Young, Ellington, or even Teague if he slips could be worth a late 1st.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                  I have more to say on this issue when I have more time, but I think that James Johnson is just as much of a 4 as Rashard Lewis, Boris Diaw, Thaddeus Young, Yi Jianlian, Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, Shawn Marion, Michael Beasley, Antawn Jamison, Hakim Warrick, Andrei Kirilenko, Ryan Gomes, Jeff Green, and Lamar Odom. It doesn't matter what he wants to play or who he patterns his game after. All he needs to be is strong enough to bang in the post (he is), be an effective rebounder (one of the questions I have about him) and on a team where the majority of the minutes at the 3 are going to be played by a superior player (Granger), now he's a perimeter-oriented 4 rather than a three. He's never going to be a 4 like Dale Davis, but those guys are nearly impossible to find these days. I think James Johnson will be plenty sufficient to play the 4 on most nights in the NBA.
                  "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                  - Salman Rushdie

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                    After reading TBird's analysis I did more homework on Johnson, and I tend to agree that this is going to be our guy. And you make a good point, a lot of the 4s are 3/4s, and JJ can certainly do that. I can definitely see the West comparison, and I hope he's used in a similar fashion. I'd love to see him utilized in P+R and pick and pops, while getting a certain number of touches on the low block every night. I'll be interested to see if the Pacers like anyone else enough to pick up another pick. But picking a big at 13 (if one was good enough) instead of a PG has always made more sense to me.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                      Will he still be there at 13?
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                        I can't believe I haven't heard a comparison to Paul Milsap. Undersized with excellent athleticism. A nose for the ball rebounding to complement that level of athleticism from a "4". I really think he compares VERY well to a Paul Milsap. The same player most Pacers fans on here covet. I think this is our guy. He gets in an NBA level work out regimen and he becomes the exact player we want. I am not saying he changes much of his game at all. I just think he needs to play the way he is comfortable and that is what we want. I think he makes the Carmello comparison only because he is hyping his status that way to make that comparison from GM's. His agent is doing a good job. He is the player I want. I won't be disappointed in a "draft our favorite PG prospect and trade Ford" concept however. I really think we will have a solid offering of PG's at 13 if they can make something else work. With our pick at 13, this is my guy though, with no assumptions of trade.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                          It's possible a team like NJ could take him over any PG (since they have Harris) and over Hansborough or Blair.

                          And I think the fact that he can handle the ball and has a perimeter game negates the comparison to Millsap who is a post player/dirty work kind of a guy more than doing anything on the perimeter in terms of creating shots.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                            Audio interview with Johnson:

                            http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/182...TLE=Interviews

                            He specifically points out wanting to play the 3 at about the minute mark.

                            Gosh, would seem awful counterintuitive to bring in another guy in our "position of strength", but we don't have any depth there, especially since we're letting Daniels go. Bringing him in as Danny's backup, and testing him at the 4 might be what they'd be thinking if they drafted him.

                            I'd bet that if we don't draft him at 13, then he'll be gone the pick or two afterwards, so they'd have to be targeting him in order to land him.

                            Seems like the decision point for the Pacers is pretty cut and dried: if they've decided to re-sign Jack and hold onto TJ, then Johnson or Blair would likely be our pick...

                            If on the other hand, they want to trade Ford, or not re-sign Jack, then they'll go after a PG that drops, or take Maynor.

                            If Brandon Jennings dropped, I'd be a happy man.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #9: James Johnson

                              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                              I can't believe I haven't heard a comparison to Paul Milsap. Undersized with excellent athleticism. A nose for the ball rebounding to complement that level of athleticism from a "4". I really think he compares VERY well to a Paul Milsap. The same player most Pacers fans on here covet. I think this is our guy. He gets in an NBA level work out regimen and he becomes the exact player we want. I am not saying he changes much of his game at all. I just think he needs to play the way he is comfortable and that is what we want. I think he makes the Carmello comparison only because he is hyping his status that way to make that comparison from GM's. His agent is doing a good job. He is the player I want. I won't be disappointed in a "draft our favorite PG prospect and trade Ford" concept however. I really think we will have a solid offering of PG's at 13 if they can make something else work. With our pick at 13, this is my guy though, with no assumptions of trade.
                              The only think Milsap attribute about Johnson is his first to lift for a rebound. Other than that I think defensively, and perimeter speaking they are two different players.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X