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

2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

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

  • #31
    Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

    This is me being a homer, but I like a kid by the name of Justin Harper at Richmond. 6'10" SF at the NBA level. Great stroke, good handles. Gets to the rim and finishes. Has a back to the basket post up game. With some VERY nice moves to go with a solid fadeaway. He is capable of scoring a lot more, but Richmond doesn't need his scoring as much as his defense. Good on-ball defender and weak-side help defender. Smart kid who is also a good kid and would be a hard worker at the next level. One thing I wonder though is how his quickness would match up against NBA SFs. He can definitely play minutes at the four as well. He would be a great guy to snag in the second round. He reminds me of Danny quite a bit actually. Probably a little stronger than Danny coming out of college and with post up moves. Not as fluid as Danny though.
    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

      Regarding Jimmer Fredette, I'd have to see more video of both of them to be sure, but at a glance Curry seems to have a faster release and seems to be quicker.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Regarding Jimmer Fredette, I'd have to see more video of both of them to be sure, but at a glance Curry seems to have a faster release and seems to be quicker.
        idk...you could claim curry might be ever so slightly quicker, but fredette has one of if not the quickest release in college. that zona game is one of the only videos of fredette on youtube. i'd suggest catching a byu game when they're on tv. fredette has these guys in the top 15-20 yet again and is such a joy to watch. it truly is astonishing how alike curry and fredette are. i like fredette's assassin's mentality moreso than curry's. fredette and singlar are the two guys i want right now and i'd take either top 10.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          idk...you could claim curry might be ever so slightly quicker, but fredette has one of if not the quickest release in college. that zona game is one of the only videos of fredette on youtube. i'd suggest catching a byu game when they're on tv. fredette has these guys in the top 15-20 yet again and is such a joy to watch. it truly is astonishing how alike curry and fredette are. i like fredette's assassin's mentality moreso than curry's. fredette and singlar are the two guys i want right now and i'd take either top 10.
          Having seen the game where Jimmer dropped 49 and seeing Singler at his best this year I can't disagree. Athleticism isn't there (Fredette is much more athletic than given credit for though), but the killer mentality is and that is something that isn't taught. Singler has been great this year especially.
          We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

            I see why you compare them. I'll disagree on Fredette's release. It's not slow, but it didn't strike me as quick, either.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Lace Dunn is my guy to get, though the Pacers don't need a SG unfortunately.

              Need to look at 20-28th guys that can play center, at least as of right now.

              PF guys to follow are the Morris boys at Kansas.


              I'd rather move Price into the backup PG than to draft another one, at least for now. Definitely need a big on the bench.


              BTW, I don't bother with serious scouting till Jan 10-15th. I will try to look for the "hard to find" guys on small schools when possible, but for guys at the big programs I like to let them get into serious ball before following them.

              I'll start working up video then too.
              If we trade Dunleavy as is likely, and PG is a better 3 than 2, then we're down to Brandon at 2 (assuming Dahntay is gone).

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                well here's a video of his 49 (23fga) point game vs arizona last year. also had a 45 (23fga) point game against tcu last year. i've yet to see a game of his where the opponent contained him whereas i watched butler contain and completely shut down curry in person. nearly identical players and yet jimmer is a late 1st-2nd round projected pick?

                Hell of a shooter, but Curry is much more athletic.
                Reminds me of Adam Morrison, ain't gonna get those shots against someone quicker than him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                  Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                  Hell of a shooter, but Curry is much more athletic.
                  Reminds me of Adam Morrison, ain't gonna get those shots against someone quicker than him.
                  i think you are just flat out wrong in stating curry is much more athletic, especially since curry isn't exactly known for his athleticism. makes me question how many times you've seen fredette play or even curry for that matter. and fredette has gotten those shots against every level of competition in the ncaa. from ucla, to florida, to kansas state, to arizona, etc. and how is fredette's game remotely close to morrison's other than the fact that they are both white?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                    Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention:

                    Consider me sold on Jordan Hamilton out of Texas. Sophomore averaging roughly 20, 7, 2, and one steal.

                    He hits a degree of tough shots and he has NBA range. Has a nice array of moves around the basket, solid rebounder, and even though he has some very minor problems with quickness, he comes off as a good NBA player right off the bat.

                    Body control, touch, and athletic are some good adjectives to describe his game. He's also good at getting his shot off and he has a pretty shot. I can't wait to see him play again the fourth.

                    Any beefs with Hamilton anyone?
                    We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                      Originally posted by hoops_guy View Post
                      Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention:

                      Consider me sold on Jordan Hamilton out of Texas. Sophomore averaging roughly 20, 7, 2, and one steal.

                      He hits a degree of tough shots and he has NBA range. Has a nice array of moves around the basket, solid rebounder, and even though he has some very minor problems with quickness, he comes off as a good NBA player right off the bat.

                      Body control, touch, and athletic are some good adjectives to describe his game. He's also good at getting his shot off and he has a pretty shot. I can't wait to see him play again the fourth.

                      Any beefs with Hamilton anyone?
                      He is nice but he is to much like paul and danny we need a big. But maybe we pick him and make a trade idk. I really like him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                        A guy Im really high on in the 2nd or late 1st is Nolan Smith from Duke. We are losing Ford and need a 3rd PG and not only that Price is not guaranteed to leave his injury problems behind. I wasn't sure Smith had what it took to run the PG spot but from what Ive seen this season Im convinced he can. He has great size at 6'3 is quick and a strong defender, I think he is a nice contrast to Collison's lack of size at the position. As of now hes got avgs of 18pts 5rbs 6asts 1stl and shoots 53% FG......not to shabby. I know we need help inside but I dont think there is much help there that late in the draft.....we may even be able to trade down some to grab Nolan.....if we end up with say a pick in the high teens Smith can likely be had mid to late 20s so we could move back and get some other possible value. Thoughts ?
                        Last edited by Wylder1324; 01-02-2011, 09:07 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                          I'd rather take Fredette (like this kid a lot) or Kalin Lucas (who I know isn't all that, but really is getting crapped on with draft status) and take a Hamilton or Singler. But Nolan would be okay I guess; not a terrible pick, but I'm not getting too excited about him.

                          Smith is a poor man's Avery Bradley on defense which is still nothing to scoff at, and he's better on offense which is nothing to get excited about. I don't like his offensive skills at the next level though. He lacks some fluidity, or robotic (kind of like Danny but Danny has a way to work through it), and he doesn't have NBA range. He'd be a liability with court spacing.

                          Speaking of someone who lacks fluidity, I'd like to mention Chris Singleton. He's got all the defense and that is great. But the guy puts the "R" in robotic. He's someone I'm not real high on because he lacks potential to ever be any good or special on offense.

                          One player that I hate with a burning passion for us to even think about getting is Marcus Morris. He has T-Rex arms and he's way undersized. He doesn't have that workhorse or banger type of game to make up for it either. He would be a decent second round guy but he's a mess for a lottery pick.
                          We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                            Do I dare bite into the tempting "Singler becomes Detlef" apple one more time? He's going to be a high prospect but I've been waiting to see him prove himself for 3 years now.




                            Singleton - agree hoops_guy


                            Morris brothers are a tough read, but at times I can see some PJ Brown in there.




                            Ugh, guess I need to clear the Tivo and hard drives and give up on all the unclipped footage of last NCAA and summer league. Took on more projects than I could handle. I'm almost starting to resent all the scouting work because it's so much...work.

                            Unfortunately it looks like it will be relevant yet again this year with the team picking in the 10-15 range.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                              I really want Jared Sullinger the kid has unreal post moves. Undersized but it doesnt matter with the skill set he has. I hope we can trade up and get him.
                              Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-05-2011, 12:47 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: 2011 Prospect Scouting Thread

                                I just watched Perry Jones play this kid is insane also. At worse he will be Rashard Lewis he is so long and skilled at shooting and dribbling. He gets compared to T-mac a lot so i had to see if he is worthy. He looked amazing he will be the first pick in the draft calling it now. Unless a team who need a pg pick first then it will be Irving.
                                Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-05-2011, 12:55 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X