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

Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

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

    Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?...aft&id=5297196

    This one is kind of fun- and we get Aminu!!!!

    A different kind of mock draft
    June, 17, 2010
    JUN 17
    11:56
    AM ET
    EmailPrintComments
    1
    By Chad Ford, Fran Fraschilla, David Thorpe, Ryen Russillo, Jordan Brenner and Mike Hume
    We've been running this blog since November. Since that time, we've dissected scores of prospects, produced dozens of lists and provided countless looks at what NBA teams are thinking.

    But with a week to go before the draft, it's time for our team to put our collective money where our collective mouth is. It's time for a group mock draft.

    So the four writers (Chad Ford, Fran Fraschilla, Ryen Russillo and David Thorpe) and the two editors (Jordan Brenner and Mike Hume) divided up the teams and took on the first round of the draft as if they were GMs.

    The only guideline was to pick based on what each drafter would do, rather than what the actual team would probably do.

    Here's how it turned out.

    1. Washington Wizards (Ford): John Wall, PG, Kentucky
    The Explanation: Duh.
    The Peanut Gallery: Fraschilla's "nice pick" is received by Ford with humor, who responds, "Thanks, I want the GM of the Year award now." Hume urges everyone onward: "Oedipus, who was blind and is dead could see that one coming. Let's move on."


    2. Philadelphia 76ers (Fraschilla): Evan Turner, SG/SF, Ohio State
    The Explanation: Philly takes the versatile Turner. His high school coach told me in December that he's the best winner he's ever coached. The guy coached Isiah Thomas!
    The Peanut Gallery: Hume astutely pointed out that "Michigan would agree with that statement." Thorpe addressed the high school coach by saying, "Sounds like a great future GM."

    3. New Jersey Nets (Russillo): Derrick Favors, PF, Georgia Tech
    The Explanation: Favors will be the second-best player in this draft. NJ is thrilled to add him next to Brook Lopez.
    The Peanut Gallery: Ford took the serious route, saying, "I agree with Ryen, but when they sign Carlos Boozer or Amare Stoudemire this summer, his minutes will be sparse."

    [+] Enlarge
    Don McPeak/US Presswire
    Boom or bust, opinions were split on Cousins.
    4. Minnesota Timberwolves (Thorpe): DeMarcus Cousins, PF/C, Kentucky
    The Explanation: He has the best upside, and he'll get lots of minutes to melt off the fat once we move Big Al Jefferson.
    The Peanut Gallery: After taking Cousins, Thorpe takes rapid fire. Fraschilla: "What, no point guards for the Wolves?" Brenner: "Didn't you already raise more red flags on Cousins than you'd find at a Nebraska game?" Ford: "Just what the Wolves need -- a third gravity-bound big man who can't play D and likes to take 30 shots a game." Ouch.

    5. Sacramento Kings (Brenner): Wesley Johnson, SF, Syracuse
    The Explanation: I know he struggles off the dribble, but he will be a nice complement to Tyreke Evans at both ends and can knock down the corner 3-pointer at the NBA level.
    The Peanut Gallery: Oddly, it sounds like this. Is that good or bad? You be the judge.

    6. Golden State Warriors (Hume): Greg Monroe, PF/C, Georgetown
    The Explanation: Stephen Curry started a nice trend of adding guys to the Warriors with their heads on straight. We'll continue it by taking Monroe. He helps upgrade the second-worst defensive efficiency team in the NBA, and as a great-passing big man, he should flourish with Curry and Monta Ellis. Of course, if Cousins had fallen here, I would have tried to swap with Detroit.
    The Peanut Gallery: Most of the ribbing occurred before the pick was even made. "Quit stalling, Mike," Ford said. "Whatever you do, the guy is screwed." To which Thorpe replied, "Why? Is this the Clippers' pick?"

    7. Detroit Pistons (Ford): Ed Davis, PF, North Carolina
    The Explanation: The Pistons have no size, and while Davis is far from a polished prospect, he'll crash the glass and block some shots.
    The Peanut Gallery: Brenner said, "Brandan Wright called from the bench. He's happy to have his twin in the league now."

    8. Los Angeles Clippers (Fraschilla): Ekpe Udoh, PF, Baylor
    The Explanation: I am a huge Ekpe Udoh fan here. Plays with high IQ on both ends, no mistakes, big body, no issues off the court. Safe selection.
    The Peanut Gallery: Ford takes the cake, reminding Fraschilla, "You can say the same thing about most 25-year-olds who still haven't graduated from college."

    9. Utah Jazz (Russillo): Luke Babbitt, SF, Nevada
    The Explanation: I may have tried to get Udoh based on need if/when they lose Carlos Boozer. But since I started this Babbitt thing, he is the selection.
    The Peanut Gallery: Thorpe likes the pick, as does Fraschilla, saying, "Love him ... fits right into the Jazz system ... bigger Matt Harpring."

    10. Indiana Pacers (Thorpe): Al-Farouq Aminu, SF/PF, Wake Forest
    The Explanation: Bedlam in Indy. We're taking a frontcourt player who can dunk. Aminu is a top-five upside guy.
    The Peanut Gallery: There's general surprise that Aminu lasted this long. Brenner said, "I can't say anything bad about that pick, except that I had him pegged for the Hornets." Fraschilla points out that "Butler fans would be disappointed, but it's the right choice to stay away from Hayward here."

    [+] Enlarge
    Douglas C. Pizac/US Presswire
    It may be tough for Indiana to swallow, but Hayward isn't a fit with the Pacers.
    11. New Orleans Hornets (Brenner): Gordon Hayward, SF/SG, Butler
    The Explanation: He's the one guy here I know will make my rotation, and I'm thinking playoffs next season, especially with CP3 with one foot out the door. Plus there's a potential hole at the 3 that Hayward could fill with a little more strength and a steadier shot.
    The Peanut Gallery: Thorpe is a big fan, commenting that "if he can shoot the 3, he's going to be a terrific 2-guard."

    12. Memphis Grizzlies (Ford): Paul George, SF, Fresno State
    The Explanation: If Rudy Gay's gone, at least they get his clone.
    The Peanut Gallery: Is Fraschilla truly being complimentary or showing off a dry wit? "Nice pick," he said, "Great potential ... team did go 15-18."

    13. Toronto Raptors (Hume): Avery Bradley, PG/SG, Texas
    The Explanation: Now that the "build-around Bosh" experiment has exploded, Toronto has needs everywhere. With PG Jose Calderon on the block and, methinks, a long rebuild ahead, I'll take Bradley. His ceiling might not be as dazzling as John Wall's Sistine Chapel model, but his leak-free D will get him minutes early and help Toronto's league-worst defensive efficiency.
    The Explanation: "Right ... In about three years," Thorpe said. "But I like the pick." So does Brenner, who adds that "he can't be coached any worse than he was at Texas." Rough year for Rick Barnes, folks.

    14. Houston Rockets (Fraschilla): James Anderson, SG, Oklahoma State
    The Explanation: He has developed into very versatile scorer, will play well off Aaron Brooks' penetration and fits the inside-out game if Yao Ming is healthy.
    The Peanut Gallery: The other guys were quick to jump on this one. "And we have our first reach of the draft," Thorpe announced. Brenner glanced at the depth chart before asking, "Where will Mr. Anderson play with Kevin Martin, Shane Battier and Trevor Ariza around?" Fraschilla, though, isn't backing down. "I saw him 15 times in three years," he said. "Texas put every guy on their roster on him, including Bradley."

    15. Milwaukee Bucks (Russillo): Xavier Henry, SF/SG, Kansas
    The Explanation: I was afraid he would go to Memphis at No. 12. He could be the answer to Michael Redd if he isn't healthy and the Bucks lose John Salmons.
    The Peanut Gallery: Ford comes at him ruthlessly, saying, "Didn't Cole Aldrich post better lane agility numbers in Chicago?" Fraschilla hits the slow note as well, while Hume knocks Russillo for even thinking Redd might be healthy. Backed into a corner, Russillo can merely muster, "But they need a wing scorer!"

    16. Minnesota Timberwolves (Thorpe): Cole Aldrich, C, Kansas
    The Explanation: We had the worst frontcourt rotation in the NBA last year. Now we don't. And the triangle will force both of our guys to lock in every night. We're collecting assets that can be moved later.
    The Peanut Gallery: "Hometown boy!" Fraschilla shouts (virtually). Brenner mentions that he thinks Aldrich might actually be underrated as an athlete.

    [+] Enlarge
    Matthew Emmons/US Presswire
    Damion James could provide instant impact.
    17. Chicago Bulls (Brenner): Damion James, SF/PF, Texas
    The Explanation: We need a post scorer, but there's none around. We need a shooter, but there also aren't any (that you guys won't laugh at me for taking this high). So I'll continue with my theory that taking a guy you know will make your rotation is always a good thing and grab James, who will play a solid role in this league for a long time.
    The Peanut Gallery: This one turns into a writer vs. editor debate. "Big mistake," Ford said. "Take Jordan Crawford. He's Ben Gordon Part 2." Counters Brenner, "I think Crawford has Gordon's shot selection and Jordan's (as in mine) touch. No thanks." [Ed. Note: The editor always gets the last word. Sorry, Chad!]

    18. Miami Heat (Thorpe): Patrick Patterson, PF, Kentucky
    The Explanation: I'm flipping a coin between our biggest need, a center (Solomon Alabi) and the best player left (Patterson). It's Patterson, who's a Udonis Haslem clone in the making. This gives us leverage on Haslem's new deal as well. At 18, I just want to avoid a Kirk Snyder ... or Cedric Simmons, Joe Alexander, Hilton Armstrong, etc.
    The Peanut Gallery: Brenner raises yet another depth chart question, asking, "Won't Patrick just be backing up Amare, Boozer or Bosh?"

    19. Boston Celtics (Ford): Eric Bledsoe, PG, Kentucky
    The Explanation: They don't need him, but he's the best talent left in the draft. And Rondo doesn't need to keep playing 48 minutes a night.
    The Peanut Gallery: Russillo immediately states, "They could use a backup PG. I love the pick." Adds Fraschilla, "Same huge hands as Rajon Rondo and same type of athlete. Needs to learn the position like Rondo."

    20. San Antonio Spurs (Russillo): Solomon Alabi, C, Florida State
    The Explanation: Thorpe is trying to influence me. I will take Alabi. Eventually they have to put size next to Duncan. I am tempted to go with Daniel Orton, but his knee is messed up.
    The Peanut Gallery: "About four years ago in ESPN The Mag's 'NEXT' issue, when he was in high school, we said he could develop into the next Tim Duncan," Brenner said. "Some idiot wrote that. Oh yeah, that was me."

    21. Oklahoma City Thunder (Fraschilla): Jordan Crawford, SG, Xavier
    The Explanation: I have the two Thunder picks at Nos. 21 and 26 and will take Jordan Crawford here. He's easily one of best scorers in draft, and his attitude improved as the season went on. They can use him off the bench.
    The Peanut Gallery: The guys are relentless after this pick. "Order some extra long shorts," Russillo joked. Thorpe mentions that "he'll be great as their third 2-guard behind Thabo and Harden," just seconds before Ford says nearly exactly the same thing. "Love the sarcasm," Fraschilla responds. Ford clearly realizes who we're messing with and says, "Fran's getting ready to make all of us run suicides."

    22. Portland Trail Blazers (Brenner): Craig Brackins, PF, Iowa State
    The Explanation: They have so many guards, so I can't justify taking the guy who is clearly the best player left in the draft. But I'm not taking a Euro-stash, either. I like that Brackins can give them some pick-and-pop options off the bench.
    The Peanut Gallery: Anticipating the selection of Brenner fave Jon Scheyer, "If he takes Scheyer, I'm going with Matt Bouldin," Thorpe said before the pick. The room is stunned into silence by the brilliance of this choice.

    23. Minnesota Timberwolves (Thorpe): Kevin Seraphin, PF, France
    The Explanation: Yes! The Wolves need that Euro-stash. Like I said, the Wolves won't have the worst frontcourt going forward. Not at all. Either Kevin can help this season, or he'll come over in a year.
    The Peanut Gallery: Ford and Fraschilla, the two guys who have seen Seraphin the most, are oddly silent. That leaves Brenner to attempt to fill the void by announcing that "I don't think anyone from Europe should be allowed to be named 'Kevin.'" Counters his co-editor, Hume, "The editor who has to spell check those names begs to differ. Kevin will do just fine."

    24. Atlanta Hawks (Hume): Quincy Pondexter, SG/SF, Washington
    The Explanation: I was hoping Seraphin might slip so we could stash him and save some cap room for Joe Johnson (assuming there's a prayer of him returning). I'm going back and forth between Elliot Williams and Pondexter, but I'll take Q-Pon. I think he works hard and can execute in a half-court set. Feels like a safe pick for a playoff contender.
    The Peanut Gallery: The response is simple and accurate. "I like it," Thorpe said.

    [+] Enlarge
    David Saffran/US Presswire
    Stephenson is talented, but will he ever see the ball in Memphis?
    25. Memphis Grizzlies (Ford): Lance Stephenson, SF, Cincinnati
    The Explanation: He's got great talent and a questionable attitude. If he matures, watch out. The Peanut Gallery: Needless to say, adding another player who loves holding the rock to a roster that averaged the fewest assists per game in 2009-10 riles up the room. "They still use just one ball, right?" Hume asked.

    26. Oklahoma City Thunder (Fraschilla): Elliot Williams, SG, Memphis
    The Explanation: This is a Euro-stash pick, and they'll probably take Tibor Pleiss here, the 7-foot German. But, instead, I will take Williams, who gets to the rim effortlessly.
    The Peanut Gallery: "The guy couldn't get off the bench for most of his freshman year at Duke and couldn't knock down wide-open jumpers," Brenner said. "That would concern me."

    27. New Jersey Nets (Russillo): Daniel Orton, C, Kentucky
    The Explanation: I'll take the most bummed-out guy of the night, Daniel Orton. The questions about his knee are valid -- a lot of teams seem to think he will need a second surgery. But it isn't about need this far down in the draft, so I'm happy to take him late.
    The Peanut Gallery: Thorpe calls him "the DeJuan Blair of the draft," while Brenner wonders if Russillo is aiming for an Eddy Curry on both sides of the Hudson River.

    28. Memphis Grizzlies (Ford): Hassan Whiteside, C, Marshall
    The Explanation:[Ford is clearly worn down by making his third pick for the Grizzlies on the night, his breakdown in his latest mock draft will have to suffice.]
    The Peanut Gallery: "You're single-handedly trying to finish off that franchise, aren't you?" Brenner asks. "I'm trying to channel Chris Wallace," responds Ford, dryly.

    29. Orlando Magic (Thorpe): Darington Hobson, SF, New Mexico
    The Explanation: I'm looking at both Dominique Jones and Hobson (same agent by the way). Jones is the superior scorer of course, but Hobson is a very talented passer and the Magic need that in a big way at the 3 spot. Also, he's a bit of a tough guy to coach, but Stan Van Gundy will have the credibility to reach the kid.
    The Peanut Gallery: No one's knocking the 29th pick. Instead, Ford is asked to grade the draft. "Jordan: F; Mike: B; Fran: C; Thorpe: A-; Ryen: B-; Ford: A+." Russillo wonders whether he lost points for Babbitt or Orton. "No," Ford said, "just lost points for spelling your name Ryen instead of Ryan." It's been a long night.

    30. Washington Wizards (Ford): Dexter Pittman, C, Texas
    The Explanation: At 300-plus pounds, it's like getting two for the price of one.
    The Peanut Gallery: Hey, the guy's our draft guru for a reason, right?
    Last edited by Chuck Chillout; 06-17-2010, 06:43 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

    Ed Davis..."Brandan Wright called from the bench. He's happy to have his twin in the league now."
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

      Aminu falling to 10 is my gut feeling surprise of this draft.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
        Aminu falling to 10 is my gut feeling surprise of this draft.
        If he does I hope we grab him up

        He seems to have the highest "upside" in the draft after Wall, according to some experts
        Sittin on top of the world!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

          well wouldnt that be nice
          Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

            Bird supposedly hung up on another GM when Granger fell to him, saying I gotta go, we are drafting Danny Granger. I'd wouldn't mind him hanging up on another GM this year, too.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

              Client list of Aminu's agent, Raymond Brothers:

              Ben Gordon
              Caron Butler
              Jamal Tinsley
              Zach Randolph

              I'm guessing the Pacers know Brothers pretty well. Would having the same agent as Tinsley make the Pacers more or less likely to draft Aminu? Or does it even matter?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                Client list of Aminu's agent, Raymond Brothers:

                Ben Gordon
                Caron Butler
                Jamal Tinsley
                Zach Randolph

                I'm guessing the Pacers know Brothers pretty well. Would having the same agent as Tinsley make the Pacers more or less likely to draft Aminu? Or does it even matter?
                Doesn't matter. At all.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                  Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                  Aminu falling to 10 is my gut feeling surprise of this draft.
                  And they'll trade him like they did Bayless, that's my gut feeling.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                    I don't see this being the outcome.

                    For starters I doubt the Clippers will draft Udoh, a PF instead of Aminu, a SF.

                    If he's available, I'm sure Bird will take Udoh.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                      Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                      I don't see this being the outcome.

                      For starters I doubt the Clippers will draft Udoh, a PF instead of Aminu, a SF.

                      If he's available, I'm sure Bird will take Udoh.
                      Agreed. they have Griffin at Power forward this coming year.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                        Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                        I don't see this being the outcome.

                        For starters I doubt the Clippers will draft Udoh, a PF instead of Aminu, a SF.

                        If he's available, I'm sure Bird will take Udoh.
                        But they could take G.Hayward!

                        They also have been linked to P.george & to a smaller degree, L.Babbit.

                        As K.Garnet would say: "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!"
                        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                          James Anderson is my TWill or Love now. He's a brilliant scorer, the best scorer this season, kills people running screens, scores off dribble or catch and shoot equally well, and as Fran points out...
                          "I saw him 15 times in three years," he said. "Texas put every guy on their roster on him, including Bradley."
                          Kansas put 3-4 guys on him and he still killed them. His only issue was being exhausted after having to do all the work for 35 minutes and starting to see his shot go. Put him on a team with 1-2 other real options and he'll load up the points for you.

                          Plus his pulled hamstring has his workouts looking low key so GM's are letting him slip.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                            Can someone post Ford's draft tiers article?

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Yet Another ESPN Mock- Ford, Russilo, Thorpe, and Fraschillo and some other guy

                              Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                              Can someone post Ford's draft tiers article?
                              Here it is:

                              link: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?...aft&id=5301543
                              Analyzing the draft tiers

                              June, 18, 2010 Jun 18
                              11:10
                              AM ET
                              By Chad Ford


                              Every time I put up a new mock draft (Mock Draft 5.0 came out Wednesday), I get a lot of feedback from readers who wonder how I put it together and how it differs from the Top 100 rankings.


                              This is how it works: Both pieces are reported pieces. In other words, I talk with NBA scouts and executives to get a sense of:


                              (A) Which teams like which players (mock draft).


                              (B) What the consensus is among all 30 NBA teams about who the best players in the draft are (Top 100).


                              I use the word "consensus" lightly. Often, even GMs and scouts employed by the same team can't agree on rankings of players.


                              "I fight with my scouts constantly," one prominent GM told me. "Everyone has their own ideas, their own preferences, their own methodology. There really is no consensus, and, I hate to say it, I'm not sure there's even any real right or wrong."


                              Obviously, both pieces are imperfect because the draft is an inexact science. NBA teams do more than watch prospects play games. They work out players, give them psychological tests, do background checks and conduct personal interviews. All of these things influence the process and can change opinions.


                              Factor in the ranking wars with another age-old debate -- do you draft for need or for the best player available -- and it's no surprise the draft can be so volatile. Many teams take into account holes at certain positions (i.e., the team has no small forward) or coaching/system preferences (i.e., the Jazz draft players who can fit into coach Jerry Sloan's system) when making their decisions.


                              To make sense of disparate rankings and debates over team needs, the past few years I've chronicled a draft ranking system employed by several teams that have been very successful in the draft, what I call a tier system. Instead of developing an exact order from 1 to 60 of the best players in the draft, these teams group players, based on overall talent, into tiers. Then, the teams rank the players in each tier based on need.
                              [+] Enlarge Chris Graythen/Getty ImagesJohn Wall is on a level all his own.


                              This system allows teams to draft not only the best player available, but also the player who best fits a team's individual needs.


                              So what do the tiers look like this year? After talking to several GMs and scouts whose teams employ this system, I put together the following groupings. (Because the teams do not want to divulge their draft rankings publicly, the teams will remain anonymous.)
                              Players are listed alphabetically in each tier.


                              Tier 1



                              John Wall


                              Note: Wall is the consensus No. 1 pick in the draft, but unlike last year with Blake Griffin, he's not miles ahead of Evan Turner or Derrick Favors. Still, when all 30 GMs agree you are No. 1, you get your own category.


                              Tier 2



                              DeMarcus Cousins, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson, Evan Turner


                              Note: Turner is the consensus No. 2 pick in the draft. All but two teams listed him as the No. 2 player on their boards, regardless of need. However, one team listed Favors and another went with Cousins at No. 2, while Johnson got a handful of votes at No. 3. The thing they all have in common is that every team I've spoken with believes these players could be NBA All-Stars down the road.


                              Tier 3



                              Al-Farouq Aminu, Ed Davis, Greg Monroe


                              Note: This is a pretty small third tier and says something about how NBA GMs see this draft. They believe the three players above have All-Star potential, but all have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it. All three players were consensus top-eight picks. Aminu and Monroe made every list. Teams were a little shakier on Davis, but in all but one case, he made the cut.


                              Tier 4



                              Cole Aldrich, Luke Babbitt, Eric Bledsoe, Avery Bradley, Gordon Hayward, Xavier Henry, Paul George, Daniel Orton, Patrick Patterson, Ekpe Udoh


                              Note: This is a huge tier and shows the parity in the draft. Theoretically, teams are saying you can get the same quality of player at No. 9 that you will get at No. 19. This is where the real depth of the draft is. Of this group, Udoh, Hayward and Henry each got a vote for Tier 3, and all three were unanimous selections from the other teams in Tier 4. Orton and Bledsoe were borderline between here and Tier 5.


                              Tier 5



                              Solomon Alabi, James Anderson, Craig Brackins, Jordan Crawford, Devin Ebanks, Keith Gallon, Darington Hobson, Damion James, Armon Johnson, Dominique Jones, Gani Lawal, Dexter Pittman, Tibor Pleiss, Quincy Pondexter, Stanley Robinson, Larry Sanders, Kevin Seraphin, Lance Stephenson, Jarvis Varnado, Hassan Whiteside, Elliot Williams


                              Note: This is what I would call the first-round bubble group and where the consensus really started to break down. A few teams had Alabi, James and Whiteside in Tier 4, but not quite enough for them to make the cut. Whiteside was an interesting case because he got one Tier 2 and one Tier 3 vote as well. In other words, teams are all over the place on him. Johnson, Lawal, Pittman, Pleiss and Varnado were borderline picks here. Every one of these players dropped out of the top 30 on at least one team's draft board.


                              So how does the tier system work?


                              A team ranks players in each tier according to need. So, in Tier 4, if a team needs a swingman, a guy like Hayward or Henry is ranked No. 1. If power forward is the biggest need, Udoh or Patterson is ranked No. 1.


                              The rules are pretty simple. You always draft the highest-ranked player in a given tier. Also, you never take a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So, for example, if the Hornets are drafting No. 11 (Tier 4 territory) and Aminu (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of position. If they have Aldrich ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Aminu, even though center is a more pressing need.
                              [+] Enlarge Derick E. Hingle/US PresswireDeron Williams could have been wearing a Hawks uni if they'd used the tier system.


                              This system protects teams from overreaching based on team need. The Hornets won't pass on a clearly superior player like Aminu to fill a need with Aldrich. However, the system also protects a team from passing on a player who fits a need just because he might be ranked one or two spots lower overall.


                              Let me give you one of my all-time favorite historical examples from one of the the worst-drafting teams in the past decade, the Atlanta Hawks. Former Hawks GM Billy Knight said every year that he would take the best player on the board, regardless of team need. Then he took Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and Shelden Williams ahead of guards such as Brandon Roy and Rajon Rondo in 2006.


                              A source formerly with Atlanta's front office told me that the Hawks had Marvin Williams ranked No. 1, Andrew Bogut ranked No. 2, Deron Williams ranked No. 3 and Paul ranked No. 4 in 2005. So on draft night, Knight took Marvin Williams with the No. 2 pick after the Bucks selected Bogut No. 1 overall.


                              In a tier system, however, the source conceded that all four players, in his mind at least, would have been Tier 1 players -- in other words, the Hawks thought all four had equal long-term impact potential. If the Hawks had employed a tier system, they would have ranked inside the tier based on team need and fit, rather than just ranking the prospects from 1 to 30.


                              In that case, the Hawks likely would have ranked either Bogut (they needed a center) or Deron Williams (they still need a point guard) No. 1. Marvin Williams actually would have been ranked No. 4 under that scenario, given their depth at forward.


                              Like every draft system, the tier system isn't perfect. But the teams that run it have found success. It has allowed them to get help through the draft without reaching for players. Compared to traditional top-30 lists or mock drafts, it seems like a much more precise tool of gauging which players a team should draft.
                              Last edited by dadscout; 06-18-2010, 06:50 PM. Reason: add link
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X