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 #7: Nikola Vucevic

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

  • Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

    Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic
    Written by thunderbird1245

    Link

    The NBA draft profiles roll on, with tonights in depth study of USC Center Nikola Vucevic up next. I’ve previously broken down Alec Burks, Klay Thompson, Tristan Thompson, Jordan Hamilton, Chris Singleton, and Marcus Morris. Burks and Singleton I was obviously very high on, the other four I was not particularly thrilled about and didn’t project them as a good fit for us. Now the question for this preview is, in which category will Vucevic fall into? Find out below…..

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

    Vucevic checked in at the NBA combine with outstanding measureables, as he turned out to be a little bigger than he looked on tape. 6’11 3/4 in height, with an almost 7’5 wingspan. While not exactly a tower of strength, he did weigh in at 260lbs, which is about right for his height in a professional basketball player. Along with Enos Kanter, Vucevic is clearly a legitimate NBA center in terms of size and ability, a tough thing to come by in this day and age.At only age 20, he still has plenty of time to improve and grow into his body.

    It merits mentioning that Vucevic has a very solid basketball background. Originally from Montenegro, his father Borislav was a very good player in Europe for over 20 years. You can see a certain awareness and savvy in Nikola that comes from spending alot of time watching and learning his father’s fundamentally strong game, and from being around professional athletes from a young age.

    Vucevic has clearly been coached well and is mature from a mental standpoint. While he clearly has many issues, his college coach Kevin O’Neill has an NBA pedigree and background, and had Vucevic preparing himself doing NBA drills and hearing NBA terms and tips his entire time under his tutelage.. Plus playing for Kevin, we also know for a fact that there is no curse word in the English language that Vucevic hasn’t heard! No question that Vucevic has been coached hard and coached well in college and long before then.

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

    We all know the stereotype…”Euro” big man: soft, finesse, etc etc And I think that way of thinking in someways is hurting his draft stock, because to me if you go by sheer talent and potential, Vucevic should be rated much higher. As it is, I believe he is climbing and will go very near our 15th pick, if not before.

    Let’s put him under the Tbird microscope from an offensive perspective first.

    Vucevic is the best back to the basket player in this draft long term in my opinion. Already he has very nice touch going to either shoulder, and with his length and sheer size he will have no issues getting his shot off. He already possesses one major NBA weapon right now, which his jump hook, a shot he can make with either hand on either side of the floor. His foot work once he catches the basketball is very sound, and he clearly has been taught very well to be able to move so nimbly in a variety of ways and positions. He has nice coordination, he isn’t clumsy and awkward like alot of young big men are. He has a variety of moves besides his jump hook if need be, and while they all need to be done with more force and physicality, the skill level is there right now.

    While I think his footwork is good WITH the basketball, it has to get a little stronger before he gets it. He doesn’t always post hard or deep enough, and shorter defenders can get into his lower back and push him off the spot. However, contrary to popular belief, the college game is much more physical inside than the NBA, and some of this shoving into his kidney area will be called at the pro level. Still, he needs to get more physical before the ball gets to his hands, and pin guys a step deeper than he currently usually does.

    He has the face up/perimeter game all coaches ideally like in todays NBA game. He can make the 20 foot jump shot currently right now, which will make him a nightmare to guard for big men in pick/pop situations and as a floor spacer. In fact, I project he will be one of the better perimeter “5″ men in the league as a standstill jump shooter within a couple of seasons, if his playing time and situation allows him to develop that.

    Unlike most bigs who are somewhat perimeter oriented, Vucevic can actually dribble the ball one time if need be. I don’t think he is a threat to drive all the way to the rim or anything, but eventually I think he will have the skill to pump fake on hard closeout defenders, and be able to take a bounce away from them and make a shot off the dribble. Very few 7 foot players can do that, but I think as long as it is a simple straight forward move (no spin dribbles, quick ball handling or fading away like Dirk for instance) that he will be able to make that shot.

    He just has such good fundamentals that he was fun to break down. Small things like always showing a big high target for his passers, patience once he caught the basketball, the ability to play at the mid post, the ability to have such good footwork in the pick/pop, make him potentially a very nice player at the NBA level on the offensive side of the floor. Unlike my last breakdown of Jordan Hamilton (who I absolutely hated watching play), I enjoyed watching Vucevic offensively.

    Now, keep in mind that he is primarily going to be a half court guy. Vucevic can’t run the floor well, so you won’t see him doing anything as a high flyer on a break or as a rim runner. There will be no alley oop passes that are successful to him. I do think if used properly in the right system that he can help a running team by being a very nice trailer on secondary breaks, being a guy who the defense has to closeout on hard to the top of the circle.* Once he develops NBA 3 point range, that could be a nice asset for him to have, as long as he doesn’t fall in love with it.

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

    Where most players like Vucevic’s typical stereotype lose most of us is on the glass. I can tell you that early on I was also assuming he’d be a rebounding softy….happily I found I was wrong.* In addition to the 17pts a game he averaged for USC, he also managed to get over 10 rebounds a game.

    Vucevic isn’t Charles Oakley or Dale Davis or anything, but he does go after the basketball well. He is a blockout guy, who is so long and big he engulfs rebounds on the defensive glass just by being huge. Clearly he was taught well at a young age to block out, and to get a wide base while doing so. You’d think he might be a guy who gets shoved under the rim alot being a little thin, but that isn’t a problem for him….he gets his but down and both hands high, and he gets balls that are within his area at a high rate. He isn’t a guy who is quick and slithery or skies way up in the air to rebound like the truly elite rebounders in the NBA, but he does block out almost every time, and he gets the balls he is supposed to get. One criticism I have is that he doesn’t outlet the ball as well as I’d like him to, but then again USC was very halfcourt oriented and not looking to run much, so I am not sure if he really has that area as a problem or not.

    He doesn’t project to be a dominant defensive rebounder or anything, but it will hardly be a weakness. His offensive glass work isn’t as good as you’d like, but that is somewhat explained by a variety of factors. First, he is on the perimeter alot. Second, he is admittedly slow. And third, he doesn’t follow his own shot very well. In a way that last one doesn’t bug me as bad as it may others….he shoots it like he expects it to go in instead of miss! Still, his lack of sheer athleticism and quickness off the ground into the air likely means he will never be a great or even good offensive rebounder. Vucevic will be on the whole an average rebounder probably, not dominant but not soft as charmin like so many others are….at least he is big and plays with a pretty high motor on the glass, unlike many other clumsy soft bigs we see bouncing around the league.

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

    Well, he sounds really solid as an offensive player….as rare as big skilled mature offensive big men are, why is he projected in the mid to late first round?

    The answer is defensively clearly.

    Guarding other big guys his size or close isn’t a huge issue at this time. He tries to fight for position, and even though he can be weak at times and give ground, he is so huge that it is still very difficult to shoot over him. He has to be careful defensively to not get pushed in deeply, but normally he is strong enough to not let that happen.

    He does a good job not giving up angles, and being a smart defender against back to the basket moves. Many young players foul alot (as much as I liked Chris Singleton in this draft, he fouls a ton and that is a concern with him), but Vucevic really doesn’t. He just stays in front, doesn’t leave his feet, and plays within his own capabilities. Against a similar back to the basket slower center inside the painted area, he will be fine I think.

    He will have major work to do when he has to rotate to people, closeout, and especially guard the ball screen. Vucevic isn’t clumsy or lazy, but he is just slow. He doesn’t bend his knees very much and he has “low torque”…meaning he doesn’t start/stop well. Way too upright when trying to hedge, and because of that his coaches had to plan around him, which means as a staff your defensive game plan is limited with him in the game.* He is going to primarily need to be a “stay at home” defender, and even then he is going to be a guy who the offense doesn’t fear to attack with the dribble. You aren’t going to be able to use exotic rotations, hedge hard or trap ball screens, or really do anything with alot of aggression defensively with him in the game. And there will be some matchups that will be so unfavorable for him that you’ll just be unable to play him at times.

    On the other hand, his offensive skill is going to be pretty good I think in time…..eventually someday I think he might be a good enough back to the basket guy that many teams will have to go double him, and we know he will be a major pick/pop weapon right from jump street. So, a team will have to decide if he fits with their scheme and personnel, and if his offensive strengths will overcome his major defensive flaws for them.

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

    So what do we have Nikola Vucevic? I think we have an offensively skilled versatile big man who in time can be a high level offensive weapon. However, his defensive shortcomings to me mean that his ideal role will be as an off the bench, more minutes than usual back up center, providing a major offensive boost for a team’s second unit. Having said that, he is going to better than roughly half of the NBA starting centers eventually, so he has a good chance of being a pretty decent NBA starting “5″ man for quite a few years. I don’t think he is an all star or anything, but with the right personnel and coaching staff/system in place, I think you could be a good team with him as your starter a few years from now, but that is in an ideal world. That ideal team would need extremely good defenders elsewhere on the floor to compensate for him, and I doubt he is worth that amount of trouble. On my team, he fits best as a really good offensively back up center with a chance to be better than that.

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

    Ok, so what does Indiana do at #15 with him?

    Vucevic is a pretty good player I think, especially for this draft. We need a long term back up center badly, and our second unit could use an offensive boost for sure. Backing up Hibbert would mean he could come along slowly and not be rushed, even though I think he can contribute in small doses immediately. If he hits his ceiling, young skilled centers make very good trade bait down the road. I think he will be fairly bad defensively, but we already play with Hibbert so we wouldnt have to play drastically different styles when we substitute. Vucevic is a better rebounder than Hibbert is, so we’d gain a little there when we substituted for our current big man. I wouldn’t complain at all of we made a practical but admittedly “unsexy” selection of Vucevic at #15. He has a great pedigree and background, is a high character kid with skill offensively, and would be a good financial investment to have a back up center on his rookie contract.

    I would pick a few other guys first ahead of him that are on our radar, but not many.

    Having said that, I am about 90% certain that Indiana will pass on Vucevic. Mainly because I have a pretty good source who tells me Indiana will “for sure” bring Erazem Lorbek over from Europe this season, and that he is “very ready to play and help us right now”. So, if that is true I see no reason to draft Vucevic when other needs can instead be addressed.

    Even if my source is incorrect, I still think ultimately Indiana passes, though I think they have to think about it. Ideally I think we’d all like someone more athletic and defensive oriented than Vucevic to fit with our current personnel, and I am guessing our front office agrees with that assessment.

    There are people in this draft I like a little better than Vucevic, but not that many. There are scenarios where I suspect he’d be my selection, but I am guessing there will be guys higher on our/my board than him when our turn comes on Thursday June 23. But if we did select him, we should all be pretty satisfied that we got a reasonable good value and pretty good player long term.

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

    If we don’t end up with him, where will he go?

    To me he makes* sense for Portland at #21…they would be a high quality good fit, as they play a slower pace there and have concerns up front. New York at #17 would be a nice match, since they love offense there and don’t care that he can’t guard on the perimeter.* Boston at #25 would be another really good landing spot.

    If you believe the latest rumors, Philadelphia loves him at #16, as Doug Collins wants to go big and get a center who can space the floor some with alot of pick/pop. If that is true, then perhaps we may get on the phone with the Sixers and see if they want to move a player I loved coming out of Florida but who has been a disappointment to them so far in Mareese Speights.

    But I think he ends up with the Houston Rockets when it is all said and done, likely at #14 but perhaps later at #23.

    We will see what happens, but I think someone is going to get a nice role player/back up center and maybe borderline starter.

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

    Current NBA comparable: poor man’s Zydrunas Ilgauskus

    Former NBA comparable: Luc Longley

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

    *beeps*

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

    I really liked watching this guy at USC he led his team to an epic victory vs UCLA this year was fun to watch. Very skilled for his size reminds me of more athletic Kristic
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-14-2011, 09:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

      Thank you, Tbird, for reviewing Vucevic! I've been pondering him, specifically, the past few days and was challenging my own preference that we select a defensive-minded athlete (e.g., Singleton, Shumpert). I know Marshon Brooks is the hotly-rumored choice now, but as you point out, Big V would nicely fill a definite need (even if we re-sign Foster for another year or two). Moreover, signing Jamal Crawford to be our closer might be easier (if not less expensive) than signing a veteran backup 5.

      The implications are fun to ponder. If we draft him and thus consider ourselves set at the 5, how does this change our needs at 4? If we no longer need to pursue the elusive 4-5 Player X, who best to sign/acquire to pair with our lumbering giants? Could McRoberts be further developed as a pure 4? Would JuJuan Johnson provide nice weakside help while not having to worry about his slight stature? Would an athletic, defensive, veteran 5 such as Chandler, Dalembert or Jordan be a suitable twin-tower?

      My last comment here is to consider the idea of acquiring another (late-) first-round pick, since we have little chance of using our #42 on a big who will pan out. Assuming we buy/acquire Boston's pick, for example, which is the better pairing: Vucevic at #15 and, say, Reggie Jackson at #25 ... or Marshon Brooks at #15 and, say, Jeremy Tyler (or perhaps Keith Benson) at #25? And because young bigs take the most time to develop, let's not worry about next year, let's answer the question in terms of two or three years from now. (Option C might be Brooks at #15, Jackson at #25, AND bring Stanko & Lorbek over to fill out our stable of bigs! Athleticism in the back court; size in the front!)
      Last edited by DrFife; 06-14-2011, 09:56 PM.


      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

        I wanna know more about Lorbek.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

          I'd heard that Stanko might be coming over, but the Lorbek talk has been quiet for a while. That's interesting news!

          If true, you can most likely rule out a big player getting drafted. If that's the case, I'm hoping that either Burks or Singleton will be available when we pick.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

            T-Bird and I think alike in regards to getting Speights. A few dayz ago I suggested a deal to get Speights from Philly. Again Bird, burn up darn the phones getting it done.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

              That'd be kind of interesting if Lorbek and Barac both came over to play next season. I always kind of assumed they'd never even bother. If they're ready, it makes sense. They'll be young and cheap, which I'm sure will be a welcome concept for us right now. Barac replaces Solo, and if he's really any good, maybe Lorbek backs up Tyler?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                Nice post on a guy that I thought I was the only one who liked the kids game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                  is Vucevic a potential pick for the 2nd round? or 1st round? or? :/
                  Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                    Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                    is Vucevic a potential pick for the 2nd round? or 1st round? or? :/
                    he should go in the 20 to 35 range

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                      he should go in the 20 to 35 range
                      he doesn't sound very appealing at 15 :/ a poor man's z? yikes.
                      Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                        Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                        he doesn't sound very appealing at 15 :/ a poor man's z? yikes.
                        a poor mans Z is pretty much Roy Hibbert IMO (but Roy has potential to be better than Z in a few years)

                        Z was very good in his prime which was ages ago.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          That'd be kind of interesting if Lorbek and Barac both came over to play next season. I always kind of assumed they'd never even bother. If they're ready, it makes sense. They'll be young and cheap, which I'm sure will be a welcome concept for us right now. Barac replaces Solo, and if he's really any good, maybe Lorbek backs up Tyler?
                          I can see one but not the other come over. If there ever was a time for either Lorbek or Stanko to come over, it would be now given our MINIMAL need for a Big Man to replace Solo or ( more then likely IMHO ) replace Foster int the role of Backup Center. The problem is that if both comes along...one will likely be taking a lesser role on the team....which I'm not sure one will prefer. Whoever is the better player in the long run should be the one that Bird "woes".
                          Last edited by CableKC; 06-15-2011, 04:21 AM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                            Originally posted by ensergio View Post
                            I wanna know more about Lorbek.
                            I agree. He could really be a wildcard for us this year. You just never know. You get a guy surrounded by quality young NBA talent and he may be a second round steal 6 years in the making.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #7: Nikola Vucevic

                              Originally posted by ensergio View Post
                              I wanna know more about Lorbek.
                              Interesting.. according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erazem_Lorbek

                              On August 18, 2009 he was transferred to Liga ACB club FC Barcelona for an undisclosed fee. He signed a three-year contract with the possibility to leave and join NBA after his second year.
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X