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 #3: Tristan Thompson

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

    Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

    Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson
    Written by thunderbird1245

    Link

    Today we dive back into the draft analysis for 2011 with a detailed breakdown of Texas forward Tristan Thompson. Previously for this draft we have looked at Colorado guard Alec Burks, and Washington State guard Klay Thompson, you can find those breakdowns elsewhere on this site if you have yet to read them.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ———

    Tristan Thompson has the measurables you’d look for in a pure “4″ man in today’s NBA. While slightly undersized height wise at 6’8 3/4″, he makes up for that with a wingspan near 7’2. With today’s game being more and more populated with smaller/quicker power forwards, that is plenty big enough for the position in its purest sense.

    Ideally you’d get some positional flexibility with this position, either being big enough to slide over and play the “5″ defensively at times, or being able to be quick and svelte enough to* play some on the perimeter….but Thompson offers you neither, he is a pure PF, pure and simple.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ——

    Let’s start the inspection of “TT” with breaking down his defensive pros and cons first.

    Thompson will bring some defensive skills to the table. He has a nice and low center of gravity, and has the requisite lower body strength and balance to not be backed down in the post. Thompson can hold his ground, and does a good job of establishing a base defensively and pushing guys slightly off their sweet spot.

    When defending someone with the ball in the low post, he does a nice job of being physical, and in contesting the shot. Thompson isn’t a dominant shotblocker or great leaper, but he does elevate quickly off the ground, which bothers most post players and causes them to have to fade often when shooting, or at least makes them inaccurate. This is no small thing, I think it means that against most back to the basket players around his size, he will be able to play them one on one with no help.

    He also works hard when he is faced up and driven. He has good balance here too, and moves his feet well. He couldnt stop elite NBA small forwards or anything, but he isn’t going to be beaten off the dribble very often by the men he will need to guard most of the time. I think he will be good on the screen/roll, giving whoever his NBA coach is some options on how to play that play, as he will be quick enough to hedge hard or even trap it on occasion if called upon to do so.

    So Thompson has some good points defensively, but not all is well on this end of the floor.

    In help situations away from the ball, he seems to me to drift and not really be aware of what is going on. Part of that is youth I know, but he does seem to be a guy who is very “man” oriented, and he loses track of where the ball is too often. He is not a weakside shotblocker, as he is too often out of position and too late to react in the painted area. I think he will improve in this as time goes on, so these aren’t dealbreakers per se.

    However, his lack of hitting the defensive glass is. While his offensive rebounding is fine, he doesn’t hit the defensive glass well at all. He almost seems frozen at times as the ball is in flight, neither blocking out or following the ball’s trajectory to an open area. He has good hands and can snag the ball out of the air, so that is not the problem. Thompson jumps well and in fact gets up off the ground quickly and into the air quickly on the offensive end (usually the sign of a really good rebounder)….so the only conclusions one can draw here is that he is either lazy or just not focused on this part of his game…..for an NBA 1st round draft pick as a power forward to be a poor defensive rebounder, I’d say that is a problem.

    Still, Thompson to me projects as a nice defensive power forward, particularly on the basketball, and he gives you a little bit of variety in how you can play certain matchups and situations.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ——

    Unfortunately, in basketball you have to play both ends, and Thompson right now is a poor offensive player.

    Projecting ahead, I think he might end up being a decent screen/roll guy, as long as he can just roll right to the rim and catch a lob pass. At this point, anything beyond a dunk is outside his range….and he likely will never be a pick/pop guy. For reasons unknown Texas didnt use him that way very often, but I could see him being pretty good in those high ball screen situations that are so pervasive in today’s game.

    With his back to the basket, Thompson basically has no moves. He seems like a kid who relied his entire life on being bigger and stronger than his opponents, and now that he reached the college level and that wasn’t always the case, he didn’t have the fundamental background to fall back on.

    Being a lefty helps him in my eyes long term, but for now he really can’t make a solid move with any fluidity at all. Many left handed guys are very right shoulder oriented….Thompson is too to a degree, but even his best moves end up in wild and off balance spinning type shots that have very little chance to go in.

    Against guys smaller than him, he can over power people and knock them over and score, like a bull in a china shop. But against people bigger than him or at least as athletic, Thompson is no threat to score at this point. His back to the basket game is very very poor at this point.

    He does show some signs of being able to face up with a nice reverse pivot (AKA as the “Sikma” move), and a one dribble pull up game. But right now that has to end in a layup for it to work for him, as he can’t make the pullup over anyone at this point….he has no jump shot and no range. This lack of range kills him as a 10-15 feet baseline jumper guy, a shot that people these days just about have to be able to make. Right now, his jump shot and interior moves are almost like a turnover, making him a non threat unless he gets a transition opportunity.

    He does run the floor well in transition, so that is a plus. And despite being a crappy defensive rebounder, he hits the offensive glass hard…..showing me that it is more an effort problem than skill problem in the defensive end. And because he drives hard and crashes into people, he gets to the line very well. Unfortunately he can’t hit free throws….under 50% last year, and watching him shoot you can see why. His release is all jacked up and will almost need to be totally rebuilt on the fly at the NBA level.

    So offensively, he is a liability in just about every aspect. He has no moves with his back to the basket and is a poor jump shooter. I do see some possibilities and potential for him as an off the ball screener, and a transition rim runner, and maybe as an offensive rebounder……but he will never be a very good offensive player in my view, which to me means he is a career backup at the very best.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ——

    In reality, Thompson in my opinion should have stayed in school. To me he seems more like an athlete who plays basketball, and isn’t really a basketball player….if that makes sense. The idea solution to me for him is to go play in Europe, get great fundamental coaching for a couple of years, and then try and make an impact in the league when you actually can play, instead of what he is attempting to do now.

    It to me is further proof of the weakness of this draft when he is considered to be a middle of the first round selection. Yes, I see the potential, but that is all he is at this point…..very little true abilities to play at this point. I can see gambling on a kid who is 7’2″ or something, but this kid is just another slightly undersized power forward with middling skills.

    If I am the Pacers, I would pass on Thompson and not think twice about it.

    I admit, his high draft stock has me puzzled a little bit. Who needs an undersized power forward who struggles to give effort on the defensive glass and who can’t shoot? I have no idea where he might go, I struggle to see a good fit for him. Maybe Pheonix at #13? Maybe Charlotte at #19? To me he is a second rounder, but obviously I am going to be wrong on this one.

    Irregardless, I don’t think he will be our problem in Hoosierland…..I don’t see the Pacers choosing him, though I have been wrong before.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————— ——

    Current NBA comparable: I am struggling to come up with one. Probably someone similar to him on the end of someone’s bench somewhere.

    Past NBA comparable: a very poor man’s version of Othella Harrington

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

    *beeps*
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

    Regarding his NBA comparable, a less athletic Tyrus Thomas perhaps?

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

      I would pass on Thompson. Singleton would be a better choice if you are going that direction.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        Regarding his NBA comparable, a less athletic Tyrus Thomas perhaps?
        oh, man. that would be the kiss of death for me.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

          This is the guy I want...he won't be there.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

            Past NBA comparable: a very poor man’s version of Othella Harrington
            Does this scare anyone else?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

              I think the entire article from TBird should make you cautious. I know nothing about this kid. At all. And if TBird says that his skill set is underwhelming, I fully believe it.

              I think the he is the type of upside kid you can take in a draft like this, though. If you can totally break down his shooting form and rebuild it, then you have a solid PF who can play decent minutes in this league. I think the best point TBird made was that why would you go for his upside as a 6'8" PF? You shouldn't. Based on his assessment I am really rooting for him to be gone before we pick at 15.
              "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

              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                For once, TBird and I are in complete agreement on something. Thompson scares the **** out of me, moreso than any other top-15 pick.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                  I do not like any of the Texas players right now.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                    Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                    I think the entire article from TBird should make you cautious. I know nothing about this kid. At all. And if TBird says that his skill set is underwhelming, I fully believe it.

                    I think the he is the type of upside kid you can take in a draft like this, though. If you can totally break down his shooting form and rebuild it, then you have a solid PF who can play decent minutes in this league. I think the best point TBird made was that why would you go for his upside as a 6'8" PF? You shouldn't. Based on his assessment I am really rooting for him to be gone before we pick at 15.
                    I think the only way you take this guy is if he is clearly better than Josh and Tyler. According to this profile, at best, he seems to bring what you already have.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                      Irregardless isn't a word.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                        Hopefully Bird is not considering him as one of his prospects. There are a lot of better PFs in the draft that are projected to be available at 15th.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                          How much worse does Thompson look than Ed Davis did last year? Davis had a surprisingly good rookie season, but I remember before the draft a lot of people had doubts about him.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                            Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                            How much worse does Thompson look than Ed Davis did last year? Davis had a surprisingly good rookie season, but I remember before the draft a lot of people had doubts about him.
                            I was real down on Ed Davis last draft. I was way wrong, I really like the kid now.

                            I'm really down on Tristan Thompson in this year's draft. I'd still pass, I'm right sometimes.
                            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #3: Tristan Thompson

                              Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                              How much worse does Thompson look than Ed Davis did last year? Davis had a surprisingly good rookie season, but I remember before the draft a lot of people had doubts about him.
                              I was one of those who thought Ed Davis would be a good option to consider, although I preferred George when I saw who was available when it was our turn to pick. I do remember most saying Davis would be awful.

                              I guess I again have a somewhat more favorable opinion of Thompson than most in this thread, although to a lesser extent than with Ed Davis, who I liked as an option for us. I think Thompson would only have to add some basic moves and a short jumpshot to suddenly become MUCH more effective. Those don't seem to me to be impossible skills for him to develop. I would agree he should have stayed in school, but I'm not convinced that it would be that hard to teach him some basic offensive skills. He doesn't seem like an awful choice to me. I think he'd be a decent mid- to late-1st round choice.

                              However, I'd probably pick Singleton or Faried over Thompson at 15 if they are the best available. Also, even though his flimsy defense would drive me crazy and he isn't my type of player, I'd also pick Motiejunas. It's no secret that I despised JOB and softie "power forwards" like Murphy, but under a different coach who might use a sensible inside-out strategy, Motiejunas could be a nice weapon to have.

                              Comment

                              Previous template Next
                              Working...
                              X