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

Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

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

  • #31
    Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
    So then, would a deal like TJ Ford for Outlaw or Webster and #24 (or a 2nd rounder since they have 4) work with the cap situation? Can they absorb that much? Thanks so much for being a cap expert!
    Yes, that deal could work under the cap rules, but I'm not entirely sure they'd want to use their cap space that way.

    (BTW...that deal would create a TE for the Pacers for between roughly $4-5mm.)

    Again, I would not think Portland would be interested in such a deal, and if they were, I think we might be more interested in Blake (depending on who we draft).

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

      Bump.

      Interesting to see how Hollinger's rankings have held up a year in. Lawson, Evans and Curry all in the top-five looks great (and I suspect Griffin would as well), and Blair at seven looks good. His biggest miss seems to be Collison at #18.
      Last edited by Lance George; 05-21-2010, 11:53 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

        Interesting catch, thx .
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

          Definately an intersting read given what we know now.

          Reading the part about Lawson just makes me sad. I wanted Ty Lawson from the beginning. A trio of Hibbert/Lawson/Granger would have been amazing to watch.

          I wonder what John Hollinger's Draft rater has to say about this years draft.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

            Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
            Definately an intersting read given what we know now.

            Reading the part about Lawson just makes me sad. I wanted Ty Lawson from the beginning. A trio of Hibbert/Lawson/Granger would have been amazing to watch.

            I wonder what John Hollinger's Draft rater has to say about this years draft.
            Player School Draft Rater
            1. Ty Lawson North Carolina 16.34
            2. Blake Griffin Oklahoma 16.21
            3. Tyreke Evans Memphis 15.02
            4. Austin Daye Gonzaga 14.24
            5. Stephen Curry Davidson 14.18
            6. Nick Calathes Florida 13.66
            7. DeJuan Blair Pittsburgh 13.56
            8. Danny Green North Carolina 13.28
            9. Jonny Flynn Syracuse 12.99
            10. James Harden Arizona St. 12.97
            11. Hasheem Thabeet Connecticut 12.90
            12. Earl Clark Louisville 12.88
            13. Jrue Holiday UCLA 12.73
            14. Jeff Teague Wake Forest 12.50
            15. Gerald Henderson Duke 12.17
            16. Paul Delaney UAB 11.85
            17. Aaron Jackson Duquesne 11.83
            18. Darren Collison UCLA 11.80
            19. Terrence Williams Louisville 11.80
            20. Leo Lyons Missouri 11.53
            21. Eric Maynor VCU 11.35
            22. John Bryant Santa Clara 11.30
            23. DeMarre Carroll Missouri 11.18
            24. Tyler Hansbrough North Carolina 11.11
            25. Wayne Ellington North Carolina 11.04
            26. Jordan Hill Arizona 10.97
            28. B.J. Mullens Ohio State 10.81
            30. James Johnson Wake Forest 10.63
            31. Chase Budinger Arizona 10.51
            45. Derrick Brown Xavier 9.55
            48. DaJuan Summers Georgetown 9.38
            51. Jodie Meeks Kentucky 9.35
            52. Sam Young Pitt 9.34
            54. DeMar DeRozan USC 9.26
            62. Toney Douglas Florida St. 8.56
            68. Patrick Mills St. Mary's 8.36
            83. Jack McClinton Miami 6.64
            Found them on a message board.


            Hollingers Woo-Doo ratings

            1 DeMarcus Cousins Kentucky 16.14
            2. Evan Turner Ohio State 14.79
            3. John Wall Kentucky 14.68
            4. Greg Monroe Georgetown 14.39
            5. Derrick Favors Georgia Tech 13.98
            6. Xavier Henry Kansas 13.52
            7. Luke Babbitt Nevada 13.35
            8. Al-Farouq Aminu Wake Forest 13.30
            9. Wes Johnson Syracuse 13.03
            10. Greivis Vasquez Maryland 12.97
            11. Sylven Landesberg Virginia 12.52
            12. Omar Samhan Saint Mary's 12.47

            13. Damion James Texas 12.44
            14. Daniel Orton Kentucky 12.15
            15. James Anderson Oklahoma State 11.98
            16. Paul George Fresno State 11.87
            17. Gordon Hayward Butler 11.87
            18. Manny Harris Michigan 11.80
            19. Jeff Foote Cornell 11.71
            20. Darington Hobson New Mexico 11.69
            21. Eric Bledsoe Kentucky 11.66
            22. Marqus Blakely Vermont 11.58
            23. Luke Harangody Notre Dame 11.37
            24. Jordan Crawford Xavier 11.32

            25. Da'Sean Butler West Virginia 11.26
            26. Jon Scheyer Duke 11.20
            27. Devin Ebanks West Virginia 11.16
            28. Tiny Gallon Oklahoma 11.13
            29. Quincy Pondexter Washington 11.08
            30. Larry Sanders VCU 11.07
            31. Armon Johnson Nevada 10.98
            32. Brian Zoubek Duke 10.96
            33. Aubrey Coleman Houston 10.91
            34. Jeremy Lin Harvard 10.87
            35. Mikhail Torrance Alabama 10.84

            36 Cole Aldrich Kansas 10.83
            37 Patrick Patterson Kentucky 10.79
            40 Willie Warren Oklahoma 10.71
            45 Avery Bradley Texas 10.42
            50 Ekpe Udoh Baylor 10.03
            54 Ed Davis North Carolina 9.88
            60 Terrico White Mississippi 9.68
            62 Hassan Whiteside Marshall 9.65
            65 Craig Brackins Iowa State 9.56
            68 Solomon Alabi Florida State 9.52

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

              Aldrich, Patterson, Warren, Ed Davis and Udoh... Wow.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                There was a separate thread made for Hollinger's 2010 Draft Rater.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                  WOW! Indeed!
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    I do like that he has age as a consideration. I have to concede that some of what looks good about TWill and Sam Young, and AJ Price to an extent, is their mature awareness vs other college players. They know the game more, they handle the college game emotions better, but that doesn't mean they'll have that advantage at the next level. In fact you assume they will totally lose it among other very mature players with lots of pro experience.
                    Something else to consider, there is no guarantee a player developes those "maturing" emotions.

                    We know TWill, Sam Young, and AJ Price have learned the game, understand the game and know how to play..and everything else that comes with experience.

                    All you have to do is look at Jerome Dyson and Stanley Robinson to realize that just because you are an upper classmen, it does not mean you actually have all the intangibles that come with being "experienced." There's only an advantage of being experienced if you are capable of developing those emotions.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      Something else to consider, there is no guarantee a player developes those "maturing" emotions.

                      We know TWill, Sam Young, and AJ Price have learned the game, understand the game and know how to play..and everything else that comes with experience.

                      All you have to do is look at Jerome Dyson and Stanley Robinson to realize that just because you are an upper classmen, it does not mean you actually have all the intangibles that come with being "experienced." There's only an advantage of being experienced if you are capable of developing those emotions.
                      I totally agree about the "bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" when it comes to a player that has proven something, be it maturity, shooting, whatever.

                      I feel very good about promoting TWill, Young and Price as picks, certainly better than Hollinger's system suggested they would pan out.

                      In fact here's the ones I think he missed badly on.

                      Way too high, just silly. Lawson has panned out okay, but he's not only not better than Evans or Curry, he's not in the same ballpark so far.
                      1. Ty Lawson North Carolina 16.34
                      4. Austin Daye Gonzaga 14.24
                      6. Nick Calathes Florida 13.66
                      8. Danny Green North Carolina 13.28

                      Considered good at this spot, but I questioned his awareness, he was half the impact player TWill was for L'ville
                      12. Earl Clark Louisville 12.88

                      Teague was not ready and showed an immature game for a PG
                      14. Jeff Teague Wake Forest 12.50

                      This is a technicality one, not just because I like Henderson as a prospect but because so far we just don't know if this is a bust or a Larry Brown bust
                      15. Gerald Henderson Duke 12.17

                      Yikes...
                      16. Paul Delaney UAB 11.85
                      17. Aaron Jackson Duquesne 11.83

                      These guys lower than all those guys above? Collison I think comes back to earth in the long run, but still. At worst these guys are rated close to correct but well above the guys listed above them.
                      18. Darren Collison UCLA 11.80
                      19. Terrence Williams Louisville 11.80
                      21. Eric Maynor VCU 11.35

                      Yikes again.
                      22. John Bryant Santa Clara 11.30
                      23. DeMarre Carroll Missouri 11.18

                      See Henderson, this is where I would rate Tyler and where he tracked, but at this point we just don't know
                      24. Tyler Hansbrough North Carolina 11.11

                      Good gravy
                      25. Wayne Ellington North Carolina 11.04

                      Epic fail, though apparently some GM's listen to Hollinger way too much. Annoys me because I rated them much higher so I don't think their ability was hidden or a surprise
                      31. Chase Budinger Arizona 10.51
                      52. Sam Young Pitt 9.34

                      This might actually be one of his better ratings, but it sure does stand out that he had a lottery guy rated this low. DeRozen has played and while not a star and not one a prospect I liked much, he's not "out of the NBA, late 2nd round" bad by any stretch.
                      54. DeMar DeRozan USC 9.26

                      No info on him yet, but he was deservedly IMO rated much higher than this. His injury has kept us from finding out yet.
                      68. Patrick Mills St. Mary's 8.36


                      So I'd say he was pretty off on about 30% of his ratings at least, and given that the mock drafts were probably in the same level of success and that my "I just watched them" amateur effort probably was too, I don't think he's anywhere close to finding the magic formula.

                      I agree with plenty of his rankings, last year and this, but I think he's probably got some huge misses in there too.

                      Patterson and Udoh wipe the floor with Tiny Gallon. Gallon did have one really great game and it came against Udoh, though Udoh also had a good game. But do you really want a 300 lb 6'9" kid who gets less than 1 block per game over a kid getting 3.7 blocks and 2.7 assists that's an inch taller and 60 pounds lighter?

                      Guys like Gani Lawal and Stan Robinson aren't even listed here? Um, sure.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                        Sookie, one thing we don't quite agree on is Robinson. I found his play to be pretty mature and I thought it was Dyson who caused the most immature havoc for UConn. Walker too, though he was far more reliable IMO.

                        Robinson's kinda got a Ron Artest offense to him, sometimes some iffy shots but not horrible, and the rest of the time he's really helping you. He often would take charge in games, step up his effort and try to get things going.

                        Dyson is explosive but he could really get out of control and keep the ball in his hands. They didn't really run good offense through Robinson except for when he'd set up an alley-oop with a good cut. Most of the time they'd go off the ranch even when he was trying to work a PnR with them to help out. IMO of course.

                        I think Robinson and Cousins are going to be the two biggest surprises in the area of "I thought they had issues". I think both are already showing plenty of maturity. Cousins as the season went along, Robinson all season.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Sookie, one thing we don't quite agree on is Robinson. I found his play to be pretty mature and I thought it was Dyson who caused the most immature havoc for UConn. Walker too, though he was far more reliable IMO.

                          Robinson's kinda got a Ron Artest offense to him, sometimes some iffy shots but not horrible, and the rest of the time he's really helping you. He often would take charge in games, step up his effort and try to get things going.

                          Dyson is explosive but he could really get out of control and keep the ball in his hands. They didn't really run good offense through Robinson except for when he'd set up an alley-oop with a good cut. Most of the time they'd go off the ranch even when he was trying to work a PnR with them to help out. IMO of course.

                          I think Robinson and Cousins are going to be the two biggest surprises in the area of "I thought they had issues". I think both are already showing plenty of maturity. Cousins as the season went along, Robinson all season.
                          Stanley is a really good kid, and as some people say "you're kind of heartless if you don't root for him."

                          Well, I root for him..but I'm also realistic.

                          4 years in the program, and his senior season he was still asking Gavin Edwards (the kid who played 10 mpg his entire career until his senior season) where he was supposed to be on offense..and who he was supposed to cover on defense. (I'm sure part of that was his first three years AJ was literally pointing out where he needed to go almost every posession.) We didn't run any plays for him because that would involve him knowing the plays. (and let's be honest, it's not like Calhoun's plays are complicated)

                          Problem with Robinson is he is SO athletic, that everyonce in a while, he makes a few moves that make you go "WOW" once or twice a game. And that's nice, but flash annoys me when there's a lack of substance.

                          I will say though, in Robinson's defense, He was fantastic during Uconn's Final Four run, and had a tendency to play better with Dyson off the floor. But he always played like a lower classmen..a freshman..And perhaps he's better suited for the pro game. However, my prediction for Robinson is this: Whichever team is suckered into picking him, he'll show a few brilliant things throughout the course of the year. Probably carry a team to a win or two..fans excited. But he'll also have moments where he disappears. He'll do the same year two and year three..fans grow restless but still think "The kid has a ton of potential.." and he'll do the same year four and year five...because that's what Stanley is..a kid with amazing athleticism and a bit of basketball talent..but mentally, well..let's just put it this way..if people think Rush is inconsistent...

                          Dyson, honestly he's a ball dominant shooting guard that can't shoot. He lived off of driving to the basket, except he wasn't all that confident in his knee, and Uconn didn't have any shooters. He's not a leader. He had potential defensively..but he had poor fundamentals (in fact, at the end of the day, that was both Dyson and Stick's problem..poor fundamentals overall) and his senior season, when he'd attempt to go for the steal and his man would drive past him, there was no Thabeet to block the incoming shot.

                          It was actually funny, I thought Price did a lot for that team, but I had no idea. There were three players (Craig Austrie, Thabeet, and Gavin Edwards..two of which left, and one..career bench player) who didn't depend on AJ to: get them mentally involved in the game, get them physically involved in games, tell them where they need to be on offense, tell them where they need to be on defense, bail them out of tight spots in games, pump everyone up, calm everyone down, tie their shoes for them ect.. (he wasn't a point guard, he was a freaking babysitter.)

                          So moral of the story, I hope the Pacer's aren't the suckers who end up with Robinson or Dyson (not that I think he'll make it in the league) Having Gavin Edwards for Summer league would be fine, he'll know the plays, try hard, won't make mistakes, and won't hog the ball. (also won't make the team..) I say that knowing I could be wrong with Robinson..but really, I doubt it. He's talanted, he just doesn't have "it" mentally.
                          Last edited by Sookie; 05-21-2010, 10:23 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X