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's Mock draft 5.0

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

  • #31
    Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    He's not a huge Star or anything...but I'd easily take Ronny Turiaf. He's a total "blue collar / Lunchpale" type of Player that Bird loves to have on his Team is a huge Lockerroom Vet with a lot of heart and drive. I'd take him to replace Foster as the Backup Big Man that can play next to both Hansbrough and Hibbert as a Rebounding Shotblocker.

    I wouldn't do a "15 for 17+Turiaf" but I'd easily take Turiaf off of their hands for a TPE type of trade.
    Turiaf can't be traded because hes a free agent ( player option i think)

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

      @chadfordinsider
      Chad Ford Bismack Backlash: In wake of shaky Euro workout, Biyombo now offering to work out for few teams in the US - Pistons & Knicks both got calls


      If he falls to #17 then I would do a swap with the Knicks.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
        The Knicks are apparently interested in trading up to get a shooter aka Jimmer or Brooks. Wait, isn't that who we're rumored to be interested in?
        Ya, I'm not interested in making this trade unless they do one of their patented stupid Knick-moves.

        The Knicks apparently want the same guys we do, why would we trade? No one on the Knicks I'm overly interested in.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

          Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
          @chadfordinsider
          Chad Ford Bismack Backlash: In wake of shaky Euro workout, Biyombo now offering to work out for few teams in the US - Pistons & Knicks both got calls


          If he falls to #17 then I would do a swap with the Knicks.
          If he's there at #15 and you think he'll be anything, take him at #15.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

            Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
            @chadfordinsider
            Chad Ford Bismack Backlash: In wake of shaky Euro workout, Biyombo now offering to work out for few teams in the US - Pistons & Knicks both got calls


            If he falls to #17 then I would do a swap with the Knicks.
            Perhaps this is who the Knicks are trying to trade up to get. They need a center next to Amare and would like to get better defensively. If the Pacers have no interest in Biyombo, perhaps the Knicks are looking to jump ahead of the Sixers if he slides, as the Sixers will be looking for a big as well.

            That's really the only thing that makes sense as I don't think the Sixers would bother taking Jimmer or Marshon Brooks? If any it would be Jimmer, which would mean the Pacers are more high on Marshon and would like to add an asset, or lose a contract in the process

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

              BUCKS NOTES: Thompson has the look of a great shooter


              http://www.journaltimes.com/sports/a...cc4c002e0.html

              GERY WOELFEL gwoelfel@journaltimes.com JournalTimes.com | Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:39 am |

              Let me preface my thoughts on an NBA draft prospect with these words: There will never, ever be another Reggie Miller.
              Miller was one of the most incredible shooting guards the world has ever seen. His repertoire of shots was simply mind-boggling.
              In the eyes of many pro hoops observers, there was only one better shooting guard during Miller's era in the NBA and I think we all know who that is.

              Which brings us to that draft prospect: Klay Thompson. He's a shooting guard from Washington State and, yes, he reminds me a lot of Miller - at the same stage in their careers.
              Let us count the ways they are similar:

              - Thompson can flat-out shoot the ball and shoot it with range, just like Miller did. He shoots the 3-pointer effortlessly.

              - Thompson is hardly an athletic specimen but is clever with the ball and has an uncanny knack for getting his shot off whenever he desires, just like Miller did.

              - Thompson has a slender build. So did Miller. Thompson weighs just a few pounds north of 200. Miller was just a few pounds south of 200.

              - Thompson is 6-foot-7. Miller is 6-7.

              - Thompson played in the Pac-10 Conference as did Miller, who went to UCLA.

              - Thompson is perceived as a "soft'' player, the same perception Miller had entering the 1987 draft.

              - Thompson is confident and articulate. Ditto for Miller.

              - Thompson is projected to be drafted somewhere between 10 - where the Bucks pick - and 14. Miller was drafted by the Indiana Pacers at No. 11.

              After Thompson worked out for the Bucks Wednesday at the Cousins Center, I couldn't help but tell Thompson how he is, in so many ways, similar to Miller.

              Much to my surprise, and delight, Thompson said I was the second person in recent days who had favorably compared him to Miller.

              That other person, Thompson said, was none other than the man who drafted Miller for the Pacers.

              "Donnie Walsh told me that, too, after I worked out for the New York Knicks,'' Thompson said of the Knicks president and general manager. "I shot the ball pretty well in their workout and, because we have similar builds and similar size, Donnie told me how I really, strongly reminded him of Reggie Miller.''

              When I noted how there were plenty of Miller skeptics when he entered the draft, and how 10 other teams passed on him, a broad smile came to Thompson's face.

              "That could be me then,'' Thompson said excitedly. "I hope so anyway because I love Reggie's game.

              "He wasn't the most overly athletic guy, but he sure knew how to play. That's exactly how I try to play.

              "If I could be anything like him, if I could play like him one day, wow. That would be amazing.''

              In that workout for the Knicks, Thompson was amazing. And he was Milleresque. He made a remarkable 21 of 25 3-point attempts.

              - Thompson is an avid Los Angeles Lakers fan - his father, Mychael won three NBA titles while playing for the Lakers - but he said playing in Milwaukee could serve him well.

              "I'd love to play here,'' Thompson said. "I love the city; I haven't been to a city I really don't like. But I know they have a good fan base here and the facilities are really nice.

              "And I think I could just focus on basketball here.''

              - Cory Higgins, a guard from Colorado, was one of six players who worked out for the Bucks Wednesday.

              Next up for Higgins: a workout with the Charlotte Bobcats. The Bobcats president of basketball operations just happens to be his father, Rod.

              "It's going to be weird, but I'll be fine,'' Cory Higgins said. "I'll be in a comfortable setting with people I know.''

              Higgins, who played in the shadow of projected lottery pick Alec Burks at Colorado, isn't on most mock draft lists. And that, according to Jordan Hamilton, is a mistake.

              "I think Cory Higgins is a good player; I think he should be a draft pick,'' said Hamilton, the Texas shooting guard who also worked out for the Bucks and is a virtual lock to be taken in the lottery. "I think he's flying under the radar.''

              - Hamilton is on a short list of players the Bucks are seriously considering with the 10th overall pick. But there's a chance he might not be on the board when they make their selection.
              Hamilton has already worked out for the Charlotte Bobcats and, according to an observer, turned in the best performance among a talented group that included Kawhi Leonard of San Diego State, Chris Singleton of Florida State and Tyler Honeycutt of UCLA.

              The Bobcats were so impressed they have asked Hamilton to return for another workout. The Bobcats have the ninth overall selection.

              - Hamilton, when asked who he patterns his game after, said, "As a two (shooting guard), I think I'm like James Harden. As a three (small forward), I'm a cross between Danny Granger and Paul Pierce.''

              - Considering how the Bucks have a keen interest in both Hamilton and Thompson, Higgins was asked to play the role of his father and evaluate both players' games.

              "They both can shoot the heck out of the ball,'' Higgins said. "Jordan is tough because he's so big and can get his shot off so easily. That's a great asset for him.

              "Klay is crafty and quick. He's quicker than you think. Klay is a good shooter, too. But there's a lot more to his game than just shooting. He's great at putting the ball on the floor and I don't think a lot of people have recognized that yet.
              "I think both will be just fine.''

              - Two veteran NBA scouts agreed the draft's two biggest risers are Texas power forward Tristan Thompson and Singleton.

              - All indications are the Bucks will pass on Brigham Young University guard Jimmer Fredette if he's on the board when they pick.

              - As of Monday, teams could extend qualifying offers to restricted free agents. The Bucks haven't done that with Luc Mbah a Moute yet, although it's only a matter of time before they will.

              - Look for Cleveland, which has the Nos. 1 and 4 picks in the draft, to pull the trigger on a trade and acquire another pick in the teens

              ----------------------

              Lots of interesting stuff here. I wonder who the team in the teens that Cleveland has a possible deal with, I'd love to get JJ Hickson or Sideshow Bob as part of a deal like that?

              Jimmer not going to the Bucks at 10.

              Singleton and Tristan Thompson being risers?

              Klay Thompson and Reggie comparison seems weak to me, Reggie was spectacular because he got 99.9 % out of his abilities and he was an assasin, those are characteristics that are very very rare.
              Last edited by Speed; 06-16-2011, 08:24 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                Klay Thompson is starting to sound more and more intriuging. We might need to grab "the next Reggie Miler" if he is there at 15.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                  Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                  I dont know if there is anyone outside of Stat , I would take off the Knicks hands
                  I think he's getting way too hyped this year (much like Channing Frye once was when he was a Knick, too, btw), but Landry Fields comes to mind. I'm not high (or low, really) on him, but maybe Larry likes him better than Brandon and would be willing to do that trade. Just a thought.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                    ESPN has the draft tiers out but its insider. Anyone care to post?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      ESPN has the draft tiers out but its insider. Anyone care to post?
                      I've been following Chad on Twitter, and he's putting his tier's into historical perspective.

                      Greg Oden is a tier 1 player. So I guess drafting a player who never plays is a great value for a draft pick. Rubio is a 2nd tier... How freaking dumb. Just say "pick 1 to X is tier 1, pick x to pick x is tier 2, etc." because obviously what tier he places them in has nothing to do with on-court performance.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I've been following Chad on Twitter, and he's putting his tier's into historical perspective.

                        Greg Oden is a tier 1 player. So I guess drafting a player who never plays is a great value for a draft pick. Rubio is a 2nd tier... How freaking dumb. Just say "pick 1 to X is tier 1, pick x to pick x is tier 2, etc." because obviously what tier he places them in has nothing to do with on-court performance.
                        If you read his explanations it makes sense. It is based on how they graded as prospects at the time they were drafted. Hindsight being 20/20, it's easy to call Oden a disappointment. But at the time it was a consensus opinion that he was the next dominant center.

                        This year, no one grades out at a Tier 1 level for him. He likes Irving and Williams, and considers them to be potential All-Stars, but neither projects to be a dominant, game changing force in the league.

                        I may not agree with all of his rankings, but his methods make sense.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          ESPN has the draft tiers out but its insider. Anyone care to post?
                          http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...e=Tiers-110616

                          Every time I put up a new mock draft (Mock Draft 5.0 came out Wednesday), I get a lot of feedback from readers who wonder how I put it together and how it differs from the Top 100. This is how it works: Both pieces are reported pieces. In other words, I talk with NBA scouts and executives to get a sense of:



                          A. Which teams like which players (mock draft).



                          B. What the consensus is among all 30 NBA teams about who the best players in the draft are (Top 100).



                          I use the word "consensus" lightly. Often, even GMs and scouts employed by the same team can't agree on rankings of players.



                          I had a very interesting conversation in Treviso, Italy, last week with a number of NBA executives and scouts about just how subjective this process is, how many backroom fights go on, and how, from time to time, teams literally don't make up their minds until they are on the clock. They gave me a lot of (off the record) funny examples. The point was that every team does things a little differently, and even within a team, there often isn't much consensus.



                          Obviously, both the mock draft and Top 100 are imperfect because the draft is an inexact science. NBA teams do more than watch prospects play games. They work out players, give them psychological tests, do background checks and conduct personal interviews. All of this factors into the process and can change opinions.



                          Factor in the ranking wars with another age-old debate -- do you draft for need or for the best player available? -- and it's no surprise the draft can be so volatile. Many teams take into account holes at certain positions (i.e., the team has no small forward) or coaching/system preferences (i.e., the Knicks draft players who can fit into coach Mike D'Antoni's system) when making their decisions.



                          To make sense of disparate rankings and debates over team needs, the past few years I've chronicled a draft ranking system employed by several teams that have been very successful in the draft, what I call a tier system. Instead of developing an exact order from one to 60 of the best players in the draft, these teams group players, based on overall talent, into tiers. Then, the teams rank the players in each tier based on team need.



                          This system allows teams to draft not only the best player available, but also the player who best fits a team's individual needs.



                          So what do the tiers look like this year? After talking to several GMs and scouts whose teams employ this system, I put together these tiers. (Because the teams do not want to divulge their draft rankings publicly, the teams will remain anonymous.)



                          Players are listed alphabetically in each tier.






                          Tier 1

                          None

                          Note: This category is usually reserved for guys who are surefire All-Stars/franchise players. Last year, John Wall was the only guy in this tier. In 2009, Blake Griffin was the guy here. This year, Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams are at the top of the draft, but neither guy is projected as a franchise player or a surefire All-Star.





                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                          Tier 2
                          Kyrie Irving (draft range: 1 to 2)
                          Derrick Williams (1 to 3)



                          Note: Irving and Williams are the two top players on the boards of the teams I spoke with, regardless of team needs. Both players are projected to be starters and potential All-Stars. While it looks like Irving has the best shot of going No. 1, there's still an outside chance it could be Williams.





                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                          Tier 3

                          Enes Kanter (2 to 6)
                          Brandon Knight (3 to 7)
                          Kawhi Leonard (5 to 9)
                          Jonas Valanciunas (3 to 8)
                          Jan Vesely (3 to 10)
                          Kemba Walker (3 to 9)



                          Note: This is a larger-than-usual Tier 3, which says something about how NBA GMs are seeing this draft. They believe the six players above all have NBA All-Star potential, but all six have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it. All six players were consensus Top 10 picks. Leonard and Walker barely squeaked into this tier. A number of teams have them in Tier 4. Some teams believe Knight, Kanter and Valanciunas could all end up as Tier 2, or even Tier 1, players over time.





                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          Tier 4

                          Bismack Biyombo (8 to 20)
                          Alec Burks (10 to 17)
                          Jimmer Fredette (7 to 15)
                          Marcus Morris (9 to 15)
                          Chris Singleton (10 to 18)
                          Klay Thompson (9 to 17)
                          Tristan Thompson (6 to 16)



                          Note: This is a smaller-than-usual tier and it was difficult to find a real consensus here. Teams are saying that these seven players will likely fill out the rest of the lottery. This is where the real depth of the draft is. Biyombo, Burks, Singleton and both Thompsons each got one or two Tier 5 votes. Since we've listed 15 players, one of these eight will likely slip out of the lottery.





                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                          Tier 5

                          Davis Bertans (17-29)
                          Marshon Brooks (13-20)
                          Kenneth Faried (13-21)
                          Jordan Hamilton (11-19)
                          Tobias Harris (14-22)
                          Tyler Honeycutt (18-30)
                          Reggie Jackson (17-31)
                          Nikola Mirotic (20-30)
                          Darius Morris (21-35)
                          Markieff Morris (13-19)
                          Donatas Motiejunas (12-20)
                          Josh Selby (17-28)
                          Nikola Vucevic (14-21)



                          Note: These players look like locks for the first round, but most likely won't make the lottery. A few teams had Brooks, Harris, Markieff Morris and Vucevic in Tier 4, but not quite enough for them to make the cut; they were very close, though. Bertans, Honeycutt, Jackson, Mirotic and Darius Morris were borderline picks here. Every one of these players dropped out of the top 30 on at least one NBA team's draft board.





                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                          Tier 6 (All First-Round Bubble)

                          Bojan Bogdanovic
                          Jimmy Butler
                          Norris Cole
                          Justin Harper
                          Charles Jenkins
                          JaJuan Johnson
                          Malcolm Lee
                          Travis Leslie
                          Jon Leuer Shelvin Mack
                          Chandler Parsons
                          Kyle Singler
                          Iman Shumpert
                          Nolan Smith
                          Trey Thompkins
                          Jeremy Tyler
                          Jordan Williams

                          Note: This is what I would call the first-round bubble group, and this is where the consensus started to break down. A few teams had Harper, Jenkins and Tyler in Tier 5, but many did not. Overall, there are just two spaces left in the first round ... so most of the players on this list are falling to the second round.




                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                          So how does the tier system work?


                          A team ranks players in each tier according to team need. So, in Tier 4, if point guard is the biggest need, a player like Fredette is ranked No. 1. If shooting guard is the biggest need, Alec Burks or Klay Thompson is ranked No. 1.



                          The rules are pretty simple. A team always drafts its highest-ranked player in a given tier. Also, a team never takes a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So, for example, the Bucks are drafting No. 10 (Tier 4 territory); if Kawhi Leonard (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of positional need. If the Bucks have Klay Thompson ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Leonard, even though shooting guard is a more pressing need.



                          This system protects teams from overreaching based on team need. The Bucks won't pass on a clearly superior player like Leonard to fill a need with Thompson. However, the system also protects a team from passing on a player who fits a need just because he might be ranked one or two spots lower overall.



                          Last year, I gave you my all-time favorite historical example from the Atlanta Hawks. Because of team positional needs, former GM Billy Knight took Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and Shelden Williams ahead of guards such as Brandon Roy and Rajon Rondo in 2006.



                          Here's another one: The Raptors selected Rafael Araujo with the eighth pick in the 2004 NBA draft because they needed a center desperately. Most teams had Araujo as a Tier 4 player, but the Raptors selected him in a Tier 2 category because there were no centers available in their tier.



                          If the Raptors had employed a tier system, they would have ranked inside the tier based on team need and fit, rather than just ranking the prospects from 1-30.



                          In that case, the Raptors likely would have grabbed a player like Andre Iguodala instead.



                          Like every draft system, the tier system isn't perfect. But the teams that run it have found success with it. It has allowed them to get help through the draft without overreaching. Compared to traditional top-30 lists or mock drafts, it seems like a much more precise tool of gauging which players a team should draft.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                            Hummm I am starting to think go big with the first round pick, and possibly try to trade up to early in the 2nd, late in the 1st and take a shot at Malcolm Lee... plays point and hearing a lot of good things about him especially on the defensive end... plus he is 6'6" and extremely fast...

                            Especially if Reggie Jackson is off the board... which is most likely possible..
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I think he's getting way too hyped this year (much like Channing Frye once was when he was a Knick, too, btw), but Landry Fields comes to mind. I'm not high (or low, really) on him, but maybe Larry likes him better than Brandon and would be willing to do that trade. Just a thought.
                              Couldnt agree more on Landry Fields

                              I mean what other options did the Knicks have at SG?

                              I would rather, gulp, have Rush
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Chad Ford's Mock draft 5.0

                                I didn't like my first response, sorry.

                                Comparing the tiers should be around what production they will have in the league, not comparing them to a pre-draft expected production of a player already in the league and actually producing.

                                I don't care what tier Oden was predicted to fall in, I care what tier he's actually in NOW.

                                That's how you compare players, and their projected impacts in the league, by actually comparing them to something tangible. Instead, he's just comparing them to nothing.

                                Why in the world do I care that BRush was predicted as a tier 4 player, before the draft, if he turned out to be a tier 6 player?

                                Telling me Brush was a tier 4 prospect and then saying Jimmer is a tier 4 prospect makes me think that Jimmer will perform like Brandon has been producing, and doesn't make me think of what he was projected as to be.

                                EDIT: I guess the best way of saying is that he's comparing projections against projections, when he should be comparing projections with actual production.
                                Last edited by Since86; 06-16-2011, 01:00 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X