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

Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

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

  • #16
    Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

    yays

    Hansbrough
    JJ
    Flynn
    Jennings
    Clark
    Maynor
    Hill
    Holiday
    Henderson
    nays

    Blair
    Daye
    Twill
    Mullens
    Lawson
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

      Worth Trade up for Yays:
      -Griffen
      -Evans

      Picking @ 13, Definate Yays:
      -Curry
      -Holiday
      -Jennings
      -Hill
      -T.Williams

      -On the Fence @ 13 (= "Mays"?)
      -Blair
      -Clark
      -Henderson
      -Flynn
      -Johnson

      Picking after 13 only (2nd pick?) Yays:
      -Hansbrough
      -Lawson
      -Maynor

      No Interest/ Nays:
      -Mullens
      -Teague
      -Buddinger
      -Daye
      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

        I have a very short list for #13.

        Yay

        T. Williams (no brainer. I want him to develop into our point guard)
        Jennings (I think he may do well surrounded by guys like Granger, Hibbert, and Jack)
        Henderson (Great wing defense)
        Evans (Intriguing on offense/defense)


        Yay later in the draft

        Teague (can never have enough bench scoring)
        Curry (maybe)

        Nays at any point in the first round
        Mullens
        Daye
        Maynor


        Undecided
        James Johnson-not sure he has the desire
        Holiday-intriguing because of size, but if he blooms I think he's a team problem in the future.
        Blair-improves our "toughness", but defense becomes worse.
        Lawson-Love his efficiency, but going off of what others have said.
        Hansbrough-Seems to produce, but seems to have limitations.
        Hill-Like the idea, but haven't seen him play.

        If we can't improve our PG position, I hope we use the draft to gain a veteran post presence or future 1st round pick.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

          Yays:
          Athletic Player with +def.
          Holiday
          Johnson
          Clark
          Jennings
          Henderson

          I would love to get a late first and then Yay:
          T. Williams
          Sam Young
          Hansbrough

          Nays:
          Blair- undersized fat guy with bad knees- no thanks
          Curry-yeah I said it -I smell a bust
          Daye-unless he is playing against third grade girls.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

            In no particular order.

            Yays:
            Gerald Henderson
            James Johnson
            Jennings
            Evans
            Jennings
            Eric Maynor
            Jordan Hill
            Jrue Holliday
            Johnny Flynn
            Terrence Williams
            Earl Clark

            Definite Nays:
            Hansbrough
            Daye
            Jeff Teague
            Chase Buddinger
            BJ Mullens

            I'm fine with Hill, who is very unlikely to drop to us and thus slide past for example the Nets. It's pick #13 and it's not a great draft, Hill would be a very nice addition at #13 IMHO.

            Regards,

            Mourning
            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


            • #21
              Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

              I'm drafting at the #13 with the Pacers NOT having a 2nd 1st pick, and being realistic who will be available.

              YAYS

              James Johnson
              Eric Maynor
              T'Will
              Clark


              NAYS

              Daye
              Mullins
              LAWSON
              Teague



              There are others I like but with a 2nd 1st pick. 13 is too high for them.

              Hansbrough
              Henderson
              Young
              Pendergraph
              Jennings

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                There are others I like but with a 2nd 1st pick. 13 is too high for them.

                Hansbrough
                Henderson
                Young
                Pendergraph
                Jennings
                WTF? Those guys are supposed to go ahead of our pick, how is 13 too high for them?!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                  Yays

                  Trade Up:

                  Hill
                  Evans

                  @13:

                  James Johnson
                  Blair
                  Jennings
                  Henderson
                  Lawson
                  Maynor
                  Holiday

                  Trade Back:

                  T-Will
                  Hansborough
                  Sam Young

                  Nays:

                  Flynn
                  Teague
                  Mullens
                  Buddinger
                  Daye
                  Ellington
                  Clark

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                    Thanks for the template Mr. Sobchak.

                    Yays

                    Trade Up:

                    Rubio
                    Hill
                    Evans

                    @13 (if we trade Ford by draft day):

                    TWill
                    Maynor
                    Holliday
                    Lawson
                    Jennings

                    @13 (if we don't trade Ford by draft day):

                    Blair
                    Johnson
                    Jennings
                    Lawson
                    Maynor
                    Holliday

                    Trade Back:

                    Sam Young
                    Hansborough

                    Nays:

                    Derozan
                    Teague
                    Mullens
                    Budinger
                    Daye
                    Ellington
                    Clark

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                      The way it is with this draft, with players from 4 to 24 pretty much of the same value I'll be satisfied with whoever they take.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                        Trade up (although extremly unlikely)
                        Evans
                        Rubio
                        Hill

                        Yay@13 (I actually like the potential of these guys)
                        Holliday
                        Jennings

                        OK @ 13 (Best of a bad situation. Will at least add something to team)
                        Twill
                        Blair
                        Johnson

                        I'm ok with almost anybody if they acquire another pick. I have no desire to see them trade back to where none of the above players is available.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                          Guys that I think will be gone by the time the Pacers pick such as Rozen, Hill, etc I won't even bother to list.

                          I will do the nahs first. There really isn't a lot of them because I think most prospects are on the same level from early-mid lottery towards the end of the first round.

                          I would pass on:

                          BJ Mullens, Jeff Teague, Austin Daye, and Chase Budinger.

                          Also pas on:

                          Johnny Flynn and Tyler Handsbourgh. I put these two seperate because I do like them but I question Flynn's small size and decision making abilities and Handsbourgh lack of szie and the fact that I just don't see him as a starter in the NBA. I want the Pacers to go for someone who they think will be good enough to start.

                          In order of prefreance here are my yahs:

                          1A. Eric Manyor: Experience, NBA ready, Clutch.
                          2B. Derrick Brown: I haven't not talked about him much, no one has but I think he is a sleeper and if the Pacers can somehow pick this guy up I would be thrilled. I don't care if its with the 13th pick or late first round Derrick Brown would be high on my draft board if i'm the Pacers.
                          3. Gerald Henderson: Lets be honest no matter what position the Pacers need defense bad. Drafting Henderson, who is NBA ready, allows the Pacers to not pick up Marquis's option and not worry to much about when Dunleavy comes back.
                          4. Terrance Williams: Same as with Henderson.
                          5. DeJuan Blair: You take him the hopes of him turning into Paul Millsap.

                          Those would be the guys I target with Manyor and Brown the clear cut favorites.

                          Others I would be ok with but have some serious question marks include Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, Earl Clark, and James Johnson.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                            Yea: An athletic player with quick feet and defensive upside.

                            Nay: Anything short of this.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                              These are "Yays" who I see having an immediate and long term impact, in order of of my personal preference:

                              1. James Johnson. I think he can be a perimeter "4" long term, and short term gives great versatility as a backup player getting big minutes behind all of Murphy, Granger, and Rush. I still believe he is the most likely player we will pick Thursday, although it is far from a sure thing. I like his strength, ability to score, and overall well rounded, mature game. He can be a "David West" type PF I think, and is a good fit for us and our current personnel in my judgment.

                              2. Gerald Henderson. I think he will be a very very good perimeter defender on the ball, which is our biggest weakness I think. He can play backup minutes behind Granger and Rush, be able to defend some point guards as well, and is just very solid. Good citizen, smart player, fills a need, low bust potential. Also will give us someone who can score off the dribble, which on a team full of jump shooters is an important asset. Never going to be an all star, but will help you win in a few different ways.

                              3. Terrence Williams. I've warmed up to Williams some since I wrote my review of him, not because I think he has suddenly gotten better or solved his weaknesses as a player, but because I once again have begun to remember how bad our perimeter defense has been for a while now. I think Williams could potentially be an all NBA first team defender in time, and give us some positional flexibility down the road. He, like Henderson, can give us back up minutes immediately for Granger and Rush, and probably if he pans out will be a better defender and rebounder than both of them. Again, this is us taking a backup player long term for us, but our roster is devoid enough of overall talent that I'm ok with that. Possibly, Williams might end up being a better passing version of Trevor Ariza, and since I've wanted us to get Ariza forever, It stands to reason I'd like Williams.

                              This is a probable "Yay" I would be happy with, except I didn't do an extensive in depth review of him because I felt we had no chance to get him:

                              4. Jordan Hill. Hill is really the only big man in this draft who seemingly could play at the same time as Hibbert, Foster, and Murphy all three (in limited minutes with Murphy right now admittedly). Hill has low probablilty of being a superstar from what I can see right now, but he will be a nice rotation player immediately for us, and a potential starter down the road at a position we are somewhat weak at. I think he has the ability to bulk up some in time and be able to play back up minutes at the "5" in a couple of years, helping the rosters long term flexibility.

                              These are "yays" for point guards I'd be happy with long term, as long as we had a plan in place to move TJ Ford for a post/wing player and additional picks:

                              5 (tie) Ty Lawson/Eric Maynor: Lawson definitely helps more now, and fits into our current style of play better than Maynor. Maynor has more long term flexibility to be a more traditional point guard in multiple systems I think, where as I think Lawson will only be above average in a very fast paced system. Lawson will definitely be a better player in year 1, Maynor may indeed pass him by year 3 or 4. Both I think are long term NBA starters at the point guard position for winning teams. I think it is extremely possible that the Pacers also rate these 2 players very highly.

                              This is a "yay" for a point guard I have never seen play in person or on film, but if we take him I would have to trust our front office that he has star potential:

                              6. Brandon Jennings. I personally wouldn't gamble like this with selecting him with the intent to keep him, but I tend to prefer older more mature point guards anyway. If we select him and keep him, I trust Bird and Morway enough to be able to endorse the selection as the long term best move, although I don't think he helps us at all in the short term.

                              These are my "Nays", for various reasons I will explain:

                              1. Earl Clark. Despite the fact that I like his potential as a shut down defender and that he can play immediate minutes in our front court, I do not like players who I have to question their effort, concentration, attention to detail, or work ethic. He could pan out to be a very good NBA player away from the controlling and hard to play for Rick Pitino, but I am not willing to gamble on that fact.

                              2. Jrue Holliday. Again, I am not willing to gamble on a point guard who I havent seen play the position. Holliday looks like a small combination guard to me, and those are easy to obtain. I see little value in Holliday for our current or immediate future circumstances.

                              3. (tie) BJ Mullins or Austin Daye. These guys are so far away from being NBA ready that to me they don't merit serious consideration for us. If I were a solid playoff team and had no immediate needs I could gamble on their potential, but we arent in that circumstance.

                              4. Jonny Flynn. Looks like a spark plug off the bench point guard to me. I have serious defensive concerns, since I havent seen him play man to man defense in college. Size is another smaller concern, but not nearly as much as my defensive questions in general. Maybe private workouts would make me feel better about him, but obviously Im not privy to that information.

                              5. DeJuan Blair. Blair is a definite "Nay" for me. I see him as a rebounding specialist only who will be a defensive liabilty, especially when paired with our current big guys. Not a very good fit for our current offensive scheme either. We need a player with a more well rounded game than that, despite his engaging personality. If I thought he would be a great defender that would change my mind, but I see him as a defensive liability who doesnt fit in here strictly from a defensive perspective.

                              6. Chase Budinger. I didn't do an extensive review of him, because in the little I watched of him I didn't see him as anywhere close to a realistic option. He doesnt play smart, coasts from time to time, is as soft as Charmin, and doesn't help our team defensive ability at all. Good athlete but doesnt play hard all the time, doesnt help you win. Looks like a spot up shooter at best to me, which we don't need.


                              Player I am on the fence about:

                              1. Jeff Teague: He is from Indiana, is the best perimeter shooter in the draft, and I think he can get his own shot. He wants to play here I think, and I like his attitude. Maybe I am wrong and he can develop as a point guard......

                              On the negative side, he is a small 2 guard, not a point guard at all to me at this level right now, and likely never will be. Bit of a gunner. Probably will top out as as a instant offense scoring guard off the bench, who gives you offense to help you about every other night. Small guards who a primary scorers are cheap and easy to find, and are very hard to build around I think. I'd be likely to pass on him even if I thought he was an ELITE small scoring 2 guard due to how hard it is to build around a guy like that, and Teague isn't going to be elite.

                              So, as it stands, my "Pacers draft board currently would look like this I think, subject to change at this point:

                              1. Johnson
                              2 (tie) Henderson/Williams, just due to our roster situation and current weaknesses. Henderson is likely safer, Williams likely slightly more upside.
                              3. Hill. (assuming that I actually liked him on film, which I didn't watch so I cant say)
                              4. (tie) Lawson/Maynor, assuming I had a trade in place to move Ford.

                              5. Jennings, assuming I am willing to let him set for a couple of years and do without any immediate help. (and assuming I watched and liked him on film....this is no question a pick based on potential, not production)

                              Those are my top 7, probably in that order, as I currently write this on Sunday morning. I wish in retrospect I would have collected film on Hill, but I didn't, and now I am out of available personal time to present a full review of him.

                              Tbird

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Go on the record: Yays and Nays for the Draft

                                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                                These are "Yays" who I see having an immediate and long term impact, in order of of my personal preference:

                                1. James Johnson. I think he can be a perimeter "4" long term, and short term gives great versatility as a backup player getting big minutes behind all of Murphy, Granger, and Rush. I still believe he is the most likely player we will pick Thursday, although it is far from a sure thing. I like his strength, ability to score, and overall well rounded, mature game. He can be a "David West" type PF I think, and is a good fit for us and our current personnel in my judgment.

                                2. Gerald Henderson. I think he will be a very very good perimeter defender on the ball, which is our biggest weakness I think. He can play backup minutes behind Granger and Rush, be able to defend some point guards as well, and is just very solid. Good citizen, smart player, fills a need, low bust potential. Also will give us someone who can score off the dribble, which on a team full of jump shooters is an important asset. Never going to be an all star, but will help you win in a few different ways.

                                3. Terrence Williams. I've warmed up to Williams some since I wrote my review of him, not because I think he has suddenly gotten better or solved his weaknesses as a player, but because I once again have begun to remember how bad our perimeter defense has been for a while now. I think Williams could potentially be an all NBA first team defender in time, and give us some positional flexibility down the road. He, like Henderson, can give us back up minutes immediately for Granger and Rush, and probably if he pans out will be a better defender and rebounder than both of them. Again, this is us taking a backup player long term for us, but our roster is devoid enough of overall talent that I'm ok with that. Possibly, Williams might end up being a better passing version of Trevor Ariza, and since I've wanted us to get Ariza forever, It stands to reason I'd like Williams.

                                This is a probable "Yay" I would be happy with, except I didn't do an extensive in depth review of him because I felt we had no chance to get him:

                                4. Jordan Hill. Hill is really the only big man in this draft who seemingly could play at the same time as Hibbert, Foster, and Murphy all three (in limited minutes with Murphy right now admittedly). Hill has low probablilty of being a superstar from what I can see right now, but he will be a nice rotation player immediately for us, and a potential starter down the road at a position we are somewhat weak at. I think he has the ability to bulk up some in time and be able to play back up minutes at the "5" in a couple of years, helping the rosters long term flexibility.

                                These are "yays" for point guards I'd be happy with long term, as long as we had a plan in place to move TJ Ford for a post/wing player and additional picks:

                                5 (tie) Ty Lawson/Eric Maynor: Lawson definitely helps more now, and fits into our current style of play better than Maynor. Maynor has more long term flexibility to be a more traditional point guard in multiple systems I think, where as I think Lawson will only be above average in a very fast paced system. Lawson will definitely be a better player in year 1, Maynor may indeed pass him by year 3 or 4. Both I think are long term NBA starters at the point guard position for winning teams. I think it is extremely possible that the Pacers also rate these 2 players very highly.

                                This is a "yay" for a point guard I have never seen play in person or on film, but if we take him I would have to trust our front office that he has star potential:

                                6. Brandon Jennings. I personally wouldn't gamble like this with selecting him with the intent to keep him, but I tend to prefer older more mature point guards anyway. If we select him and keep him, I trust Bird and Morway enough to be able to endorse the selection as the long term best move, although I don't think he helps us at all in the short term.

                                These are my "Nays", for various reasons I will explain:

                                1. Earl Clark. Despite the fact that I like his potential as a shut down defender and that he can play immediate minutes in our front court, I do not like players who I have to question their effort, concentration, attention to detail, or work ethic. He could pan out to be a very good NBA player away from the controlling and hard to play for Rick Pitino, but I am not willing to gamble on that fact.

                                2. Jrue Holliday. Again, I am not willing to gamble on a point guard who I havent seen play the position. Holliday looks like a small combination guard to me, and those are easy to obtain. I see little value in Holliday for our current or immediate future circumstances.

                                3. (tie) BJ Mullins or Austin Daye. These guys are so far away from being NBA ready that to me they don't merit serious consideration for us. If I were a solid playoff team and had no immediate needs I could gamble on their potential, but we arent in that circumstance.

                                4. Jonny Flynn. Looks like a spark plug off the bench point guard to me. I have serious defensive concerns, since I havent seen him play man to man defense in college. Size is another smaller concern, but not nearly as much as my defensive questions in general. Maybe private workouts would make me feel better about him, but obviously Im not privy to that information.

                                5. DeJuan Blair. Blair is a definite "Nay" for me. I see him as a rebounding specialist only who will be a defensive liabilty, especially when paired with our current big guys. Not a very good fit for our current offensive scheme either. We need a player with a more well rounded game than that, despite his engaging personality. If I thought he would be a great defender that would change my mind, but I see him as a defensive liability who doesnt fit in here strictly from a defensive perspective.

                                6. Chase Budinger. I didn't do an extensive review of him, because in the little I watched of him I didn't see him as anywhere close to a realistic option. He doesnt play smart, coasts from time to time, is as soft as Charmin, and doesn't help our team defensive ability at all. Good athlete but doesnt play hard all the time, doesnt help you win. Looks like a spot up shooter at best to me, which we don't need.


                                Player I am on the fence about:

                                1. Jeff Teague: He is from Indiana, is the best perimeter shooter in the draft, and I think he can get his own shot. He wants to play here I think, and I like his attitude. Maybe I am wrong and he can develop as a point guard......

                                On the negative side, he is a small 2 guard, not a point guard at all to me at this level right now, and likely never will be. Bit of a gunner. Probably will top out as as a instant offense scoring guard off the bench, who gives you offense to help you about every other night. Small guards who a primary scorers are cheap and easy to find, and are very hard to build around I think. I'd be likely to pass on him even if I thought he was an ELITE small scoring 2 guard due to how hard it is to build around a guy like that, and Teague isn't going to be elite.

                                So, as it stands, my "Pacers draft board currently would look like this I think, subject to change at this point:

                                1. Johnson
                                2 (tie) Henderson/Williams, just due to our roster situation and current weaknesses. Henderson is likely safer, Williams likely slightly more upside.
                                3. Hill. (assuming that I actually liked him on film, which I didn't watch so I cant say)
                                4. (tie) Lawson/Maynor, assuming I had a trade in place to move Ford.

                                5. Jennings, assuming I am willing to let him set for a couple of years and do without any immediate help. (and assuming I watched and liked him on film....this is no question a pick based on potential, not production)

                                Those are my top 7, probably in that order, as I currently write this on Sunday morning. I wish in retrospect I would have collected film on Hill, but I didn't, and now I am out of available personal time to present a full review of him.

                                Tbird
                                In light of the Chad Ford Insider article from Sunday:

                                "The Pacers seem to be leaning toward going with either a point guard (Jennings, Maynor, Lawson or, if one of them falls, Jrue Holiday or Jonny Flynn) or one of two big guys, Blair and Hansbrough."

                                Where would you rate Hansbrough?
                                "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                                -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X