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

Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

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

  • #91
    Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

    I usually care more about the draft and look up things about the prospects, but not really this year.

    Between it being so week and we're picking 15th, I really hope we trade the pick.

    If we keep it, an international player like Donatas Motiejunas might be interesting.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

      Originally posted by Trophy View Post
      I usually care more about the draft and look up things about the prospects, but not really this year.

      Between it being so week and we're picking 15th, I really hope we trade the pick.

      If we keep it, an international player like Donatas Motiejunas might be interesting.
      I feel the same way about the draft. I usually study measurements, watch all of the videos, and usually have a favorite guy by now. This draft is so weak we need to trade our pick. If we could trade up for around the 7th-10th pick I would try to get Biyombo. He is one guy that intrigues me.
      Last edited by pacers74; 05-27-2011, 08:11 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

        Originally posted by I Love P View Post
        I want JaJuan Johnson. Imagine this lineup in a few years.

        Darren Collison
        Paul George
        Danny Granger
        JaJuan Johnson
        Roy Hibbert

        Something just popped up in my pants, hold up.
        JaJuan Johnson is 20-30 pounds away from being an impact player at the next level. What is with our continued fascination with big men who play small?
        "Reggie Miller is the hardest player to guard." --Kobe Bryant

        "Playing Reggie Miller drives me nuts. It's like chicken-fighting with a woman." --Michael Jordan

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

          Trade the pick for something that can be used now and in the future.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

            Jimmer and kemba are going to surprise a lot of people. To say that size is the reason jimmer wont do good is bs. Just look at Jk barea. Jimmer is going to be a guy who has big nights, not every night. No matter what team he is drafted by.
            Last edited by itzryan07; 05-27-2011, 11:19 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

              Originally posted by owl View Post
              I believe Utah will take Knight at 3 and a big at 12.
              Not saying they won't but I think Knight at 3 is fairly high...
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                Is there a way to go back and study each "edition" of Chad Ford's mock drafts each year, and compare them to the real results?

                I'd love to look at a nice layout that would let me view, one year at at time, each of his mocks (1.0, 2.0, etc.) next to the real draft results.

                My vague recollection is that his is still very fluid like everyone else's, that is until just before the draft, when he can get very accurate.

                But I'd like to see for myself, if that's possible. Can anyone point the way?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                  I think this is really close to his last one, last year, he nailed 1-8 IIRC.

                  Mock Draft 7.0

                  Washington

                  John Wall
                  Position: PG
                  Height: 6-foot-4
                  Weight: 196 pounds
                  Age: 19
                  School: Kentucky

                  (Wall's previous position: No. 1 to Washington

                  Analysis: John Wall is just hours away from being the No. 1 pick. He appears to be the only "sure thing" in the draft right now. Blessed with amazing athleticism and the ability to make clutch plays, Wall has the tools to be a superstar.

                  The task for the Wizards now turns to filling in the spaces around him -- getting a healthy and focused Gilbert Arenas, looking for bargains or perhaps Rudy Gay in free agency, and figuring out how to turn the Wizards into a powerhouse franchise. Adding Wall is a big, big step in the right direction, but only one of many the Wizards are going to have to take.

                  2 Philadelphia

                  Evan Turner
                  Position: SG
                  Height: 6-7
                  Weight: 214
                  Age: 21
                  School: Ohio State

                  (Turner's previous position: No. 2 to Philadelphia

                  Analysis: All the talk that the Sixers were considering going big is now fading. After they worked out Derrick Favors and DeMarcus Cousins on June 18, coach Doug Collins, who was very high on Favors before the workout, fell out of love. Collins was concerned about Favors' raw skills and wasn't impressed during the interviews.

                  So at this point, I think you can use a Sharpie on Turner at No. 2. Unless another team makes a last-minute offer that includes taking Elton Brand's contract off the books in Philly, Turner will be a Sixer.


                  3 New Jersey

                  Derrick Favors
                  Position: PF
                  Height: 6-10
                  Weight: 245
                  Age: 18
                  School: Georgia Tech

                  (Favors' previous position: No. 4 to Minnesota)

                  Analysis: After Favors' so-so workout on Monday, the Nets began to move toward Syracuse forward Wes Johnson. But a league source told me on Wednesday night that after 24 hours of debate, it looks like Favors has re-emerged as the favorite to go No. 3.

                  The news squashes the prevailing theory around the league that drafting Johnson would be a precursor to the Nets' signing free-agent forward Carlos Boozer this summer. Both Johnson and Boozer are represented by the same agent, Rob Pelinka.

                  The source stressed that the decision wasn't a final one and that the Nets were also exploring potential trade options with the No. 3 pick. But if the draft had been held on Wednesday night, Favors would have been the pick.


                  4 Minnesota

                  Wesley Johnson
                  Position: SF
                  Height: 6-8
                  Weight: 206
                  Age: 22
                  School: Syracuse

                  (Johnson's previous position: No. 3 to New Jersey)

                  Analysis: So we're back to Wes Johnson at No. 4, and I'm not sure if Minnesota will greet the news with joy or relief. It focused on Johnson early but got comfortable with the idea of taking Favors at No. 4 in the past 24 hours.

                  The Wolves continue to look for an Al Jefferson deal (despite GM David Kahn's denials) after being rebuffed by Detroit over the weekend (the Wolves offered Jefferson for Tayshaun Prince and the No. 7 pick) and by the Grizzlies (for Zach Randolph) on Wednesday.


                  5 Sacramento

                  DeMarcus Cousins
                  Position: C
                  Height: 6-11
                  Weight: 292
                  Age: 19
                  School: Kentucky

                  (Cousins' previous position: No. 5 to Sacramento)

                  Analysis: The Kings, as we've been reporting all week, are still leaning toward taking DeMarcus Cousins at No. 5 if both Favors and Wes Johnson are off the board.

                  A team source disputes a report that the Kings have made up their mind, but as we told you Wednesday night, the consensus remains with Cousins. He is the most NBA-ready big man in the draft, and like Tyreke Evans, should be able to come in and make an immediate impact in Sacramento.

                  You either love or hate Cousins, but there's no denying that he's an incredibly gifted scorer and rebounder. Still, he clearly rubs a lot of guys the wrong way. If he matures and lives up to his potential, he's a huge steal at No. 5. And even if he causes a commotion, his talent may still be worth the trouble.


                  6 Golden State

                  Ekpe Udoh
                  Position: PF
                  Height: 6-10
                  Weight: 237
                  Age: 22
                  School: Baylor

                  (Udoh's previous position: No. 10 to Indiana

                  Analysis: The Warriors are talking to a number of teams about potential trades and it looks like the No. 6 pick is up for grabs. The cost, however, is high. The Warriors want whoever takes the pick to also take the contract of Monta Ellis as part of the deal.

                  If the Warriors keep the pick, they're deciding between Greg Monroe and Ekpe Udoh. My source continues to support what I first reported Tuesday night, that Udoh has the edge. How he fits alongside two other athletic, shot-blocking big men -- Anthony Randolph and Brandan Wright -- is a bit of a mystery. But then again, we're talking about the Warriors.


                  7 Detroit

                  Greg Monroe
                  Position: PF
                  Height: 6-11
                  Weight: 247
                  Age: 19
                  School: Georgetown

                  (Monroe's previous position: No. 6 to Golden State

                  Analysis: The Pistons have been exploring a number of deals, but at this point they seem content to stay at No. 7. Of course, they would love to land DeMarcus Cousins, but the price has been ridiculously high to move up two or three spots.

                  While the team is high on Greg Monroe, Ed Davis and Ekpe Udoh, Detroit is still leaning toward Monroe here if he's on the board. He is the only true center of the group, and while he lacks elite athleticism, he is a skilled passer and has a high basketball IQ. He should be able to step in and contribute right away.


                  8 L.A. Clippers

                  Al-Farouq Aminu
                  Position: SF
                  Height: 6-9
                  Weight: 215
                  Age: 19
                  School: Wake Forest

                  (Aminu's previous position: No. 8 to L.A. Clippers)

                  Analysis: The Clippers, according to our own Chris Broussard, have been talking to the Bulls about swapping the No. 8 pick for No. 17 and Luol Deng. That's probably an admission that they're not so high on the rest of the guys left on the board.

                  Of the upside guys left on the board, I think they're highest on Aminu. He's a long, athletic forward who can play both the 3 and the 4.


                  9 Utah (via New York, via Phoenix)

                  Ed Davis
                  Position: PF
                  Height: 6-10
                  Weight: 227
                  Age: 20
                  School: North Carolina

                  (Davis' previous position: No. 7 to Detroit)

                  Analysis: I continue to get mixed signals out of Utah. On one hand, with Carlos Boozer likely leaving, they need a big man, and Davis is the best big guy left on the board. He's the type of long, athletic forward the Jazz have needed for a while. The problem is that Davis is pretty raw and probably not ready to contribute right away. GM Kevin O'Connor tends to not care about that -- he likes to take the best talent available, so it's probably not a big deal.

                  On the other hand, the team also has a need on the wing, and the Jazz like Luke Babbitt, Gordon Hayward and Xavier Henry. Of the three, I believe Babbitt has the lead.

                  It sounds like Davis has the slight edge here, but if one of those three wings went No. 9, I wouldn't be shocked, either.


                  10 Indiana

                  Gordon Hayward
                  Position: SF
                  Height: 6-8
                  Weight: 211
                  Age: 20
                  School: Butler

                  (Hayward's previous position: No. 11 to New Orleans

                  Analysis: This is where the draft really begins to break apart. The Pacers have been high on Greg Monroe, Ekpe Udoh and Ed Davis, but none of them are on the board here. That leaves them with a bunch of swingmen -- a position Indiana doesn't really need to fill.

                  Indy has been burning up the phone lines trying to find a point guard, but if the Pacers can't make a deal, they'll likely be choosing between Hayward, Paul George and Xavier Henry.

                  George has the most upside, but he's also the likeliest bust among those three. Henry is probably the safest pick of the three, but he also is the most one-dimensional and probably duplicates Brandon Rush. That leaves Hayward, the hometown boy. He's a mix of Henry and George. He doesn't have the upside of George, but he does have a higher ceiling than Henry.


                  11 New Orleans

                  Patrick Patterson
                  Position: PF
                  Height: 6-8
                  Weight: 245
                  Age: 21
                  School: Kentucky

                  (Patterson's previous position: No. 13 to Toronto

                  Analysis: The Hornets appear to be locked in on a couple of prospects here. They like Patterson, Xavier Henry, Cole Aldrich and Hayward.

                  With the exception of Hayward, all three are pretty safe picks. Henry would give them shooting. Aldrich would fill a hole in the middle. Patterson would give them some much-needed depth at the 4 and would be able to contribute right away.


                  12 Memphis

                  Paul George
                  Position: SF
                  Height: 6-9
                  Weight: 214
                  Age: 20
                  School: Fresno State

                  (George's previous position: No. 12 to Memphis

                  Analysis: It's tough to know which way the Grizzlies are leaning. During the past few weeks, the three names that have generated the most buzz have been George, Babbitt and Patterson.

                  After the Grizzlies made a huge reach for Hasheem Thabeet at No. 2 last year, you'd think they would go conservative and take either Babbitt or Patterson. Although neither player has enormous upside, both are NBA-ready and can provide instant offense.

                  However, as the process moves on, it appears that George remains ahead of Patterson, Babbitt and a late dark horse, Damion James. Although George is clearly the biggest risk of the group, he's also the player with the most upside. If he develops his many talents, he could be a superstar.


                  13 Toronto

                  Eric Bledsoe
                  Position: PG
                  Height: 6-2
                  Weight: 192
                  Age: 20
                  School: Kentucky

                  (Bledsoe's previous position: No. 18 to Miami

                  Analysis: The Raptors are talking to a number of teams about trading the pick. As of late Wednesday, a potential deal of Rudy Fernandez and No. 22 for the 13th pick wasn't making much progress. The team is also talking to Oklahoma City, which now has three first-round picks and is looking to move up.

                  The Raptors have been high on Patrick Patterson and Avery Bradley, but the word out of Toronto late Tuesday had them looking at Eric Bledsoe and Cole Aldrich. Between the two, I'm hearing Bledsoe may be the choice.


                  14 Houston

                  Cole Aldrich
                  Position: C
                  Height: 6-10
                  Weight: 236
                  Age: 21
                  School: Kansas

                  (Aldrich's previous position: No. 14 to Houston

                  Analysis: The Rockets are another team that has tried to move up a few spots in the draft. At No. 14, it looks as though virtually every player they covet will be off the board. If they can't move up, that should put them in the mode of taking the best player available.

                  That would be Aldrich, a big man with the ability to block shots and rebound. He also has a decent face-the-basket game. With Yao Ming's long-term status really up in the air, Aldrich would give the Rockets a backup big who should be able to step in and play right away.


                  15 Milwaukee
                  (via Chicago)

                  Xavier Henry
                  Position: SG
                  Height: 6-7
                  Weight: 210
                  Age: 19
                  School: Kansas

                  (Henry's previous position: No. 15 to Milwaukee

                  Analysis: The Bucks addressed some of their needs at the wing position this week by trading for Corey Maggette and Chris Douglas-Roberts. But sources in lace Milwaukee say the addition of both players won't affect their draft strategy. Of the players left on the board, Henry looks to be the best value by far. He can play either the 2 or 3 and can shoot the lights out.

                  Another player to watch here is VCU's Larry Sanders. If the Bucks go big, I'm hearing he's the guy.
                  Last edited by Speed; 05-27-2011, 11:57 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                    Other interesting part

                    37. Milwaukee Bucks (Philadelphia)

                    Lance Stephenson | SG | Cincinnat
                    The Bucks are considering Stephenson at 15, so if he were to slide here they'd be thrilled. Stephenson is a very good offensive player. It's his questionable attitude that's causing him to slip this far.




                    40. Indiana Pacers

                    Ben Uzoh | PG | Tulsa
                    This athletic combo guard is a great athlete, who could provide a spark off the bench for the Pacers at both backcourt positions.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X