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 analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

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

  • #76
    Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

    Originally posted by Granger-Rush09 View Post
    Ok, Ok, Ok, I feel it is my Duty as an Adoring Pacer Fan that I put The Hanbrough Argument to Rest For Good. As A DUKE BLUEDEVIL FAN, I Believe that there is absolutely no one more entiltled to hate Hansbrough Than I am. But my Reasons for hating him at UNC is the Exact Same Reason why I cant wait to see him Play (and Start) with the Pacers. He Gave a Dominant Effort on a Consistant Basis.
    This is an important point. Let's not start thinking that consistent effort and toughness is a negative. If that were the case, Jeff Foster would be working somewhere as a CPA. Ok...maybe Foster is more athletic than Hans, but let's not get carried away...he gets by with effort first and foremost...and can't even make a layup for goodness sakes...and has been in all-star conversations. I fully expect Hans to be an effective and disruptive force.

    ...also, while talent is handed to certain players, effort is precisely how a player improves his game...and adapts to whatever situation confronts him. I don't think the NBA is any different than any other endeavor. Yes, some people will always be more gifted. Others adapt and find a way. Hans will be in the latter category and IMO his ceiling will be defined by how well his midrange game develops.

    Anyway, dude's college career speaks for itself.....and just because his game doesn't fit the mold doesn't mean he will not be effective.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      True.

      For BOTH sides.


      But in fairness to me I'm presenting valid points. To dismiss the combine draft ranking jump similarities to Alexander last year is wrong. To dismiss the fact that Cardinal was a successful hustle PF that took charges, ran his motor all the time and developed an NBA 3 is wrong.

      And in terms of PPG between the two, Tyler played for the famously high octane offense with no defense Tar Heels while Cardinal played for the defense first Boilers. NC's claim to fame was getting up court, and not only did Hans hustle up but his PG Lawson was notoriously great at north/south speed.

      NC played okay defense but crushed teams the second they took possession. Their scoring was higher than most teams because of this and must be considered a factor.

      I think these are all extremely reasonable points.

      Let me put it another way, no matter who we drafted there would be people on here saying they were going to work out. But the fact is that we just probably saw 15-20 dud first round picks taken, some of them in the top 15.

      If not Tyler then pick the kid you do think is in trouble. DeRozen perhaps. Rubio? Harden? And why them instead, what did their track record or combine or scouting say that makes them MORE LIKELY to struggle than Hans?

      Not everyone can be a winner here, some picks will not make it. The fact that Hans had all this attention, won awards, went 4 years and played with a big time program should tell you that of all the players he was one of the MOST WELL SCOUTED and long before the combine.

      All those people rated him lower, but now suddenly they are all wrong and a bunch of hopeful Pacers fans have correctly identified him as worthy of 10 spots higher than he had been projected.

      See, I'm not calling him a 40th pick, I'm calling him a 20-22nd pick, just like he was ranked month after month during the season. He didn't climb during games like Rush or Love, he jumped in ranking basically when the Pacers said they were drafting him.



      140 character version - "You guys are right, your kid is the smartest/best singer/best player, you are in no way biased."*


      *also the ultra-sarcastic version
      Why are you SOOO obsessed with the draft order? The most prevailing attitude pre-draft was that after the top players were gone, the draft was reletively flat in talent. FLAT. But you're acting like a #13 pick had tremendous value compared to #20 or wherever.

      You're just looking at the number. You're saying to yourself "13 is a WAY lower number than 20." You're basing all of your logic, all of your emotions, all of your temper on this supposed fact: Hansbrough is worth a number 20. We picked him at 13. OH MY GOD, that's a difference of 7.

      But was it a difference in talent? No, it wasn't. The players on the board were relatively flat in talent and they all had about the same odds of panning out.

      There's a saying in business: "Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it".

      Let's ask ourselves what people were willing to pay to move up to #13.

      What was the VALUE of the #13 this year? What were we offered by other teams in order to move up? My guess (yes, it's just a guess) is that not much was offered. How would you respond to this: "We'll give you our lower pick plus this other guy we drafted two years ago that has already proven that he isn't any good."

      "No thanks," we say. "We'll just keep it simple and pick the guy we want right now ... unless you're offering Bynum ..." *other end goes to dial tone*

      While it is true that 13 is a smaller number than 20, you can't tell me that the next 7 players chosen in the draft have better odds of being great players. That's the real issue here. Did we pass on players who were the far more obvious pick? No, we didn't. There was no Danny Granger falling in this thing. The NBA potential of the remaining draftees was flat. Anyone could guess and everyone had the same odds to be right.

      The cost of moving up to #13 in this draft was valued by other teams to be pretty low. How do I know this? I guessing if someone had actually offered a good deal, we would have heard about it. The best deal was Chicago's two picks, and even they pulled the offer. I'm sure if a decent deal to move down (Like the bulls' two picks) were still on the table, we would have taken it. We didn't. Why? Because there were no good offers. Because the #13 pick had little to no real world value. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay, and nobody wanted to pay much of anything.

      #13 vs #20 is not an argument, it is an obsession with numbers that has little application to the way this draft was working out.
      Last edited by Los Angeles; 07-01-2009, 08:18 PM.
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        But simply by the fact that he was the choice he suddenly became a much better player and prospect around here than he ever was.
        I think you are definitely right about this.

        I have grown to be ok with the pick, mainly because there just wasn't much left on the board that we "missed" on. MAYBE Jrue, but something about the way he faded late in the year when things weren't going his way bothers me. MAYBE James Johnson, but I am really not a big fan of drafting tweeners in general. Overall I think Larry grabbed a player who will max out his talent and stick in league.

        But the more I read with an objective mind there seems to be a pretty good argument that Tyler's dominant college offensive game is just not going to translate. That is not to say he can't be effective, but much to the chagrin of most of the board I see him being reduced to a jump shooter at this level. He will certainly not be living at the foul line the way he did in College. I think he will be a solid defender but not an impact player on defense and certainly not a shot blocker. He will hustle and be a solid rebounder, but far from dominant.

        All signs point to the perfect energy PF who will come off the bench and kick start your team with his hustle... I really believe he will have a very positive impact with his motor. I envision him having a Carl Landry like impact being slightly undersized and not an elite athlete, but bringing a lot of energy and utilizing the skills he has to maximum effectivness.

        That being said, if you are penciling him in as the starter of the future next to Hibbert, we are in trouble. If the Pacers had not drafted him nobody would care, and his abilities are being overrated by the board due to this post draft hype going on. Don't set the kid up for failure with unreasonable expectations.
        Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 07-02-2009, 12:49 AM.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

          Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
          That being said, if you are penciling him in as the starter of the future next to Hibbert, we are in trouble. If the Pacers had not drafted him nobody would care, and his abilities are being overrated by the board due to this post draft hype going on. Don't set the kid up for failure with unreasonable expectations.
          I don't think that's fair to the majority of posters about Hansbrough. Most of them aren't somehow giddy that he "fell" to 13 or shouting that he should have been a high lottery pick, they are just defending his status as a 13th pick. If the Bulls had picked him at 16 don't you think people would be talking about his talents there?

          Yeah, sure, there are some jockers out there with unreasonably high expectations just like there are some pessimists with unreasonably low ones. That will always be the case. Don't overlook that most people are "OK" with the pick and see the upside Bird sees, at a reasonable level for a pick in the second 10 of this particular draft.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

            Fair enough... I am mostly referring to any and all Carlos Boozer comparisons I am seeing and people in general christening Tyler our PF of the future, which may in fact be the minority... but sticks out like a sore thumb when skimming these threads.
            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

            - ilive4sports

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

              I had a chance to go back and watch him play against Duke, not his best game really. The guy who he was matched up againstwas Kyle Singler of Duke listed as 6'8" and 235, had a really nice game. So size wise it was pretty much a push. Singler seemed comfortable on the permimeter. Also, I rewatched the Chicago pre draft camp again and focused on TH.

              Defensively, Hansbrough was much better on the perimeter than I remembered, but also showed some things that I didn't like. First of all, Singler has range out to the college 3 comfortably and was as tall or taller than Tyler, so to me it's kind of what he'll face in the NBA with less athleticism. This guy wasn't as quick as some NBAers, but Singler can handle the ball well and has a quick release with range, at least in this game.

              So back to TH. Tyler absolutely has quick enough feet to work off the pick and roll, but he had his ankles broken a couple of times after a switch in that situation. So I saw the tools to defend the Pick n roll, but not necessarily the execution of it. It was as if he would over correct his defensive position. I think this can be cleaned up.

              Against an as big as quick shooter Tyler at times couldn't recover to get a hand in the face of the shooter. Again, I think he had the athleticism, but he would allow himself to get caught in traffic or just not look very comfortable 22 feet away from the basket.

              On both the P n R and guarding perimeter big, he did seem to adjust throughout the game and covered this better later in the game, but it was inconsistent and didn't seem natural.

              It's good news bad news to me watching him. He has quick enough feet, but he hasn't put it together on an elite level or at the speed the NBA will require. I think he'll struggle early on with the speed of the NBA game defensively, much more than I hoped.

              Same for help side defense, he was a tick too late almost every time to stop dribble penetration. He would get stuck between helping and not helping. This made me think it may actually help him to be able to be in Obie's harder help commitment type scheme, at least initially. It will take the should I or shouldn't I out of the equation.

              Lastly, on defense in the paint, he was in his wheel house. You could visibly see he was very comfortable and at home boxing out, having contact with his man, seeing the floor better (sans late helps). I think he'll be able to guard bigger physical players in the NBA in the low post, so that's something I really liked here. The defensive low post was where he was comfortable and it showed. So nice scheme by coach K to try to pull him away with Singler.

              So to summarize, I felt like he will be a very good low post defender right away, but will struggle much more than I thought out on the perimeter at least at first. However, I think he does have the tools to improve to adequate in that area in year 2 or 3. So I think he'll be better defensively in the low post than I expected 2 weeks ago, but worse out on the floor than I expected.

              More when I have time on THs offense, toughness, the crowd, and Ty Lawson.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                At some point, we need to talk about turning all the commentary and exposition (which is mostly very good stuff) in to an accredited college-level course so we can all get Ph.D.s in Advanced Tyler Hansbrough Studies.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  At some point, we need to talk about turning all the commentary and exposition (which is mostly very good stuff) in to an accredited college-level course so we can all get Ph.D.s in Advanced Tyler Hansbrough Studies.
                  Or maybe a 12 step program/support group.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                    On offense, he's very poised which I think will immediately help in the NBA, I never see him get frustrated or afraid to take a shot or make a play. He doesn't dominate the ball or hold it without purpose. Granted he had Ty Lawson and other NBA caliber talent around him, so I don't think Roy Williams ever put him in a position to do something that he hadn't practiced and felt comfortable doing.


                    The 2 dribble drive. He showed a nice hard dribble right, then spin and pass from the baseline. Also, A hard dribble right then the jump shoulder hook. Both of these moves started 22 feet away from the basket and he has a very strong nice two dribble drive to the basket. Many said that jump/shoulder hook won't work in the Bigs. I think this may be right that it will be ineffective as a low post move, but I think if he takes that hard drive to his right and gets a shoulder past a guy, he can have a very effective shot. You either have to go through his body and foul him or let him shoot it. This of course begs for a counter move, but really I didn't realize that TH had such a good first step off of the triple threat position. If he can stop and pop as a counter off of this move, he'll be way way more effective offensively out on the baseline extended or on the elbow extended. Think Austin minus 25 jab steps and more in control. I see much more potential here than I would have thought.

                    In the post offensively. Great at getting position, great at feeling his man behind him, but I have no idea what he'll do with the ball in the NBA once he gets it down there. He under utilizes his combine atleticism and the quick feet I saw on defense. I was surprised because I felt like he'd be better, but it's what many have said, he could bully his way and put up that short hook and didn't really have to have any traditional post moves. I was hoping for a drop step or maybe a left hand finish that didn't look awkward, but I didn't see it. I'll make a prediction right now that Al Harrington will pull the chair on him at least 3 times next year.

                    Now good news/bad news. Tyler can jump and he does have decent reach and he does have active coordinated feet, so he can do some work down in the low post, but I see him as ridiculously raw at this point, which honestly was disappointing. If he can stop aligator arming shots, stop mini jumping, stop turning only over his left shoulder then that would be a start. My kingdom for a low post/big man coach.

                    Rebounding, I'll just say this. I think he'll be a boxer outer and if the ball comes over this way he'll grab it strongly, but not a guy who reads the trajectory and can go get it. So think more like an agressive Roy, but less like Jeff.

                    The crowd was awesome, it was at Duke, they hate him obviously. Tyler never blinked....... literally he never blinks

                    Ty Lawson, in this game, was the best player on the floor, imo. Fearless, poised, I can't say enough. He is the straw that stirred that drink to me, but it's not to take anything away from TH or Green or the others. Lawson is the point guard he's supposed to be in charge. It is no wonder why the won it all.

                    Lastly, Singler gave TH a crisp elbow to the jaw when their was a scramble for a loose ball. TH took it, I was very impressed. He didn't try to fight the guy, didn't cry to the refs, didn't have to be calmed down. He reacted by seeing if he was bleeding looked the ref for a seond and that was it. I liked it, no fake toughness, no theatrics. I appreciated that. Refs T'd up Singler, Carolina came back to win going away and TH finished his career 4-0 against the Dukies, I believe. Not bad.

                    To summarize, I like Tyler Hansbrough. I think he will minimize his shortcomings, maximize his strengths and reach his potential. I really can't ask for more than that. Whether that means practice player or viable starter someday, clearly, it's too early to make that call, though.
                    Last edited by Speed; 07-02-2009, 01:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                      Thought I would bump this after today's game.

                      T-bird mentioned Hansbrough having good hands and it's something I disagreed with because of his inability to get loose balls. However, it was one of the very few things that McRoberts went out of his way to say in the JMV interview (Hansbrough has great hands, according to "Mac").

                      What am I missing? What exactly do you mean by having good hands?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                        What am I missing? What exactly do you mean by having good hands?
                        I would mean an ability to hold on to a pass and to protect the ball when passing or shooting. Not getting loose balls may or may not come into it depending on why they are missed - bad angle vision so you can only get a hand on it, for instance, would reflect on something other than your hands. Haven't seen Tyler enough to know which it is for him.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                          Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                          Fair enough... I am mostly referring to any and all Carlos Boozer comparisons I am seeing and people in general christening Tyler our PF of the future, which may in fact be the minority... but sticks out like a sore thumb when skimming these threads.
                          I wouldn't even take the Carlos Boozer comparison into consideration, to be honest with you, just because it sticks out "like a sore thumb" doesn't mean that even most of the people who liked the TH pick actually believe it to be true.

                          The most common ceiling I have seen cited on this board for TH is Luis Scola. I mean' we're talking Luis freaking Scola here, which is saying that the biggest TH supporters believe that TH may become a 12 and 10 player at best. I don't think the glasses are too rose colored, there.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                            I had to re-read the 1st post in this thread. Now, this is an in-depth study. Great read.

                            I'm not sure if Hansbrough is going to develop a good post footwork, inside pivot moves for example. I'm also worried about his rebounding, I always thought he's too slow getting off the floor. I also agree with the poster that classified his screening as bellow average: I always thought of Hansbrough as a lousy screener who doesn't hold position for long enough consistently. I think that Hansbrough has some untapped potential, but I'm not sure if it's that much as the OP believes. He'll probably improve in some aspects of the game but not in others.

                            I see Scola as his plausible ceiling, with the Argie being the more skilled and intelligent player but Hansbrough covering the gap with quickness and energy. I don't think he's going to be as good as that former Pistons big man. It's going to be funny to follow his career, intriguing rookie.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X