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 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

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

  • Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

    Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson
    Written by thunderbird1245

    Link

    Back again today with my second draft analysis thread of 2011, this time of shooting guard Klay Thompson of Washington State. You can read my first thread of this season about Colorado wingman Alec Burks elsewhere on this site, as well as my player analysis threads from previous NBA drafts.

    Thompson is the son of former NBA big Mychal Thompson, who certainly provided many hoops highlights in his career for those of you old enough to remember him. His son Klay will likely get his chance to follow his Dad’s footsteps into the NBA, as he is projected currently as a mid first round selection. Unlike his father, Klay is only 6’7, 206 lbs, and has a thin wispy build reminiscent of several thin shooting guards who have graced NBA floors in the past. With a highly thought of game and an NBA pedigree, I was anxious to get a look at Thompson, and that is why I finished my analysis of him rather early in this process.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— —–

    Thompson was the only real major weapon for Washington State, and their staff used him appropriately considering his skill set. Almost totally a catch and shoot type of wing guy, Thompson is a really good mover without the basketball, reading screens at a very high level, and using different speeds to set up his man for the various cuts needed to come off screens.

    Thompson has really good footwork, a sign of someone who has been very well coached throughout his life….which is what you would expect from a son of an NBA player. He is efficient in his steps regardless of the type of cut he makes, rarely wasting a step, and is able to get angles on his defenders quite often despite lacking in sheer quickness or athleticism. He is able to catch and square his shoulders as the ball is in flight to him, rather than waiting until he catches the pass to get ready to shoot…..that enables him to get his jump shot off even when closely guarded. He was a nearly 40% 3 point shooter in college despite being very closely guarded as their only real threat, and despite really lacking the ability to blow by people with the dribble.

    Thompson uses an array of shot fakes and jab steps to create space for himself….like Coach Knight I am a big fan of the perimeter shot fake, and therefore I liked watching Thompson throw defenders off balance by using them so frequently. He has a high smooth release* on his jumper, and with his size I don’t think he will have any major trouble getting his shot off once he gets open at the NBA level. For the most part he takes good shots, and unlike Alec Burks he does very well at normally getting himself squared up to shoot, again I give credit for that to his footwork and cutting ability as the ball is in flight to him.

    However, very good coaching and technique aside does not hide the fact that Thompson is a below average NBA athlete for his position. In fact, one of the reasons they had to screen for him so much at Washington State is that he struggled to get open on his own, lacking the explosive kinds of v-cuts and speed to be able to even get an entry pass without a screen. At the NBA level, if you are a wing player who has to get a screen to get open consistently, you had better be a dominant, deadeye, unbelievable shooter…….time will tell if Thompson can be that at the next level.

    As a ballhandler, Thompson is a one or 2 dribble guy it appears. He is not creative with the basketball either for himself or for others. He is not someone you can run isolations for, nor is he someone you can have as a ballhandler in a screen/roll situation I don’t believe. He has no positional versatility, he is strictly a wing. He plays below the rim on his drives, and though he is a very good foul shooter he likely will rarely actually get to the line.

    Basically, he is what he is offensively. A wing who can shoot the ball well, and who cuts efficiently to get open but needs help to make that happen. He isn’t a driver nor a player who can get his own shot, nor can he create shots for others.* He is a guy you can run plays for, or who you can use to space the floor for others. While he isn’t a great passer, he has some promise as a player who you could use to take the ball out of bounds in some situations, and he is a guy you’d play at the end of the game if you could offensively as he will be a steady hand at the foul line for you.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ——-

    We all have our own biases when we evaluate players. Some value shooting more than other do, others value size more than most, it just depends on our own point of view. Those who know me know I don’t like super small wings (wings in point guard bodies) usually, and I don’t like perimeter players who can’t guard. Unfortunately, Thompson falls into that latter category as a poor defending 2 man even at the college level.

    There is no question in my mind that Thompson will be a man you will have to try and hide defensively at the NBA level, and that teams will target to attack whenever possible. Against the dribble, Thompson stands up out of his stance when attacked, and is slow laterally anyway. As a coach, if you wanted to play Thompson bad enough you could scheme around him some by having him always play “half a man” on the perimeter (totally forcing him one direction into pre planned help) but he isn’t going to be good enough to just play heads up on someone decent and be able to stop him off the bounce.

    Thompson is too slow and weak fighting thru screens, as he lacks the defensive awareness and athleticism necessary to avoid being screened in the first place….he runs into alot of screens I think, which I think happens because he stays so close to his man away from the ball (knowing he lacks the recovery speed to play a step or 2 off)…..Thompson is easy to screen.

    And if he is ever posted up, he is too weak at this point to not give ground inside, and he lacks the quickness and lightness of foot to get off the ground and contest someone’s post move.

    So basically what I am saying is that I think he will be below average defensively against the dribble, against cutters, and against post ups…..basically he will be a gaping hole in your team defense that in order to play him, you will either have to be able to live with somehow or be able to cover up. To me, this means he will never be good enough to be an NBA starter unless surrounded by 4 top defenders at every other position….which rarely if ever happens.

    You’d think with his offensive ability that he’d be a good fit for a real up temp team, but I totally disagree with that. He needs to be able to find his niche with a halfcourt team that runs alot of set plays and that can hide him to a degree defensively.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ——-

    To me Thompson projects at best to be a 10-15 minute back up wing, maybe your 4th wing in a 4 wing rotation. His defensive limitations are severe enough to me that his offensive strengths don’t make up for them. Now, if he becomes better than I think he will be offensively and turns into Reggie Miller, or Rip Hamilton, or Ray Allen, then* he will be a net positive for you…..but I don’t see him being that level of good offensively either.

    Now, there are teams he could help as a designated shooter in spots. He’d be a nice fit I think for the Celtics at #25, possibly Oklahoma City at #24, or Miami maybe at the top of the second round at pick #31, all teams that his strengths could be hidden while his shooting ability could be used to relieve pressure off others. All those teams have high level defenders around him and have shot creators who could draw defenders to them and then dish to him spotting up.

    It is a testimony I think to the relative weakness of the wing group in this class that Thompson is unlikely to make it to the teams I just described above. Instead, I am 99% sure he will go in the top half of round one, perhaps even higher than that.* Even though I don’t see him as anywhere near good enough to be a top 10 pick, I can see the Milwaukee Bucks at pick #10 being a very good fit for him, and in fact that is where I think he is the most likely to end up.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ——-

    How would he fit for Indiana, and should we take him at #15 if he is there?

    In my view we need a ballhandler, and a man who can get his own shot to fit best as a 3rd wing, replacing in effect Mike Dunleavy with a younger, more athletic and dynamic player. At least, if we pick a wing that is what we need….and I simply don’t see Thompson as a particularly good fit with the skill sets of Paul George and/or Danny Granger.

    While I am sure many of you would like his professional stoic demeanor, the way he can shoot the rock coming off screens, and his high revving motor moving without the ball, to me his defensive shortcomings are too much to overcome for me to be in favor of his selection by Indiana at #15. I would pass and not give it a second thought, though I am sure many smart people can disagree.

    However even though I’d pass personally, I do think he will be under some consideration for Larry Bird if he is there, due to his ability to shoot, and his solid background as the son of an NBA champion player (albeit a Laker). Research tells me that he has one marijuana arrest in college, but I don’t necessarily think that is much of a red flag at this point. Still, I suspect the Pacers front office will in the end go in a different direction on draft night. We will see.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

    *beeps*

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

    I watched Klay play 10 times this year has some Rip Hamilton in him he would be a ok pick at #15 but i would be pissed if Jackson was still there and we take Klay over Jackson,. Only down side is his defense is absolutely terrible. But not very many people in the NBA play defense so he should fit right in.
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 05-24-2011, 03:59 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

      I get 2 post by thunderbird in one day. Sweet

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

        Thank you RoboHicks!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          I watched Klay play 10 times this year has some Rip Hamilton in him he would be a ok pick at #15 but i would be pissed if Jackson was still there and we take Klay over Jackson,. Only down side is his defense is absolutely terrible. But not very many people in the NBA play defense so he should fit right in.
          Do you think he is more of a JJ Redick type player minus the defense. Rips a pretty big comparison IMO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            Do you think he is more of a JJ Redick type player minus the defense. Rips a pretty big comparison IMO.
            no he isn't rip i said he has some rip in him BIG DIFFERENCElol. It is just the way he plays the game running off screens and that's the way he gets open and scores.(the same way reggie and rip played the game ) So ya accentualy he will be J.J Reddick maybe a bit more athletic but not much more. But his defense will be absolutely terrible he sucked at defense playing in the PAC 10 so it will only get worse when he deals with NBA rules and players.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

              If his defense is that bad and his game is that one dimensional, I'd rather trade the pick, honestly. He's exactly the type of player I don't care for.

              Chad Ford's last mock draft had him listed as a PG??

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                If his defense is that bad and his game is that one dimensional, I'd rather trade the pick, honestly. He's exactly the type of player I don't care for.

                Chad Ford's last mock draft had him listed as a PG??
                Ya I have seen a couple of mocks listing him as a pg/sg. I say Pass.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  Ya I have seen a couple of mocks listing him as a pg/sg. I say Pass.
                  PG? lol he would suck at pg who list him at pg he has never played there. That mock needs to change his position. Wait Chad Ford list him at pg? no way he could ever play pg.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                    PG? lol he would suck at pg who list him at pg he has never played there. That mock needs to change his position. Wait Chad Ford list him at pg? no way he could ever play pg.
                    How Ironic Draftexpress.com has him as our pick in thier mock draft

                    http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Klay-Thompson-5490/
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                      How Ironic Draftexpress.com has him as our pick in thier mock draft

                      http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Klay-Thompson-5490/
                      Ya there is no way that Bird takes him over Jimmer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        Ya there is no way that Bird takes him over Jimmer.
                        Oh please God no!!!

                        If he takes Jimmer, yeah I will still be a fan, but man I will be even more pissed then when they made the Tyler Hansbrough selection
                        Sittin on top of the world!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                          DraftExpress says he's a jump shooter who is unathletic and plays bad defense. Reminds of someone that most people here want to get rid of...


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                            How Ironic Draftexpress.com has him as our pick in thier mock draft

                            http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Klay-Thompson-5490/
                            Ya they list him at SG/SF where he should be. I liked watching him in college but i dont want to draft him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #2: Klay Thompson

                              Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                              DraftExpress says he's a jump shooter who is unathletic and plays bad defense. Reminds of someone that most people here want to get rid of...


                              He really does play like Dunleavy comes off screens and is just basically a spot up shooter. But Dunleavy is a much better play maker than Klay right now at least.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X