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 #8: Jimmer Fredette

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

    Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette
    Written by thunderbird1245

    Link

    Tonight we head to Utah, to put the sharp shooting point guard from Brigham Young, Jimmer Fredette, under the scouting microscope. Already in this series we’ve taken an in depth look at 7 prospects: Nikola Vucevic, *Alec Burks, Chris Singleton,* Tristan Thompson, Klay Thompson, Marcus Morris, and Jordan Hamilton. Fredette makes the 8th in the series, and has long been thought of to be a target for Larry Bird at pick #15. With this examination, I am trying to go study him hard and try and clarify how good he will be at the pro level. You can read my breakdown, and then decide for yourselves.

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

    Measuring in at 6’2 1/2, and around 195lbs, Fredette measures in about average in terms of height and weight. He has a wingspan of 6’4 1/2, which isn’t freakish at all but is a respectable number for an NBA point guard.

    His athleticism is a major question mark, just from a pure God given talent aspect. In terms of the natural gifts of sheer quickness, height, and leaping ability, he probably is just average at best for an NBA point guard. But he has several hidden talents athletically that help him…..he is very quick and tight with the dribble, his technique and footwork are above average, his anticipation and awareness are very good as well. He has quick hand/eye coordination, doesn’t waste alot of steps offensively, and plays the game very smartly when his team has the basketball. His effort and energy are above average, and he has a charisma and flair that is hard not to appreciate.

    Fredette is coachable it appears, and has been taught the fundamentals well. He has had definite high quality training during the draft process, and that has given him the ability to impress in these workout type settings more than most originally thought he would. He oozes confidence, and has the sort of personality that makes people like him, both with his teammates and especially with his fan base, which is considerable. Fredette probably is one of the most popular players for young kids in whatever community may select him.

    His quickness defensively in college is his biggest knock, and he clearly didn’t defend well at all at BYU. Mostly, he gave poor effort, not naturally bending his knees and getting in the most basics of a defensive stance. He definitely saved his legs for the offensive end at BYU, but won’t have that kind of luxury in the NBA.* Still, I think he possesses the prerequisite athleticism and speed to play the position, so in my judgement he will be a better (not great by any stretch) defender at the pro level playing fewer minutes with less responsibility.

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

    Since I mentioned some of this above, let’s talk defense first with Jimmer Fredette.

    Fredette was poor in college no question. He gave poor effort guarding the dribbler, stood straight up away from the ball, didn’t fight hard thru screens, didn’t contest jump shots well…..basically the entire litany of defensive coaching checkpoints Fredette would have to be rated “below average”.* He was a guy the BYU coaching staff had to hide defensively to keep him fresh, and a guy the opponent tried to attack if possible.

    Fredette has poor balance on this end, which makes him slow. He reaches with the wrong hand often, and gets his weight out on his toes making him unable to move with a quick twitch. His total inability or willingness to bend his knees and get in a stance when in an off ball position makes him slow to drop his hips and close out on people. By standing straight up too much he struggles to get around screens, and he lacks the athletic talent to be able to offset that bad habit. When guarding the ball he is better than advertised, but as soon as his man gets rid of it out of his stance goes Jimmer, making him very vulnerable to face cuts, follow/screen situations, or for quick flare screens directed at him.

    The question you have to ask yourself as a front office guy, scout, or coach is: can this be fixed, and are we the people who can do it? Because if Fredette can’t play better defense than he has in college, then he can’t play. So by taking him, you have to be confident that you have the motivational skills, teaching ability, right system, and right personnel and style of play that will help him hide his defensive flaws.

    I think Fredette can be coached up to an average NBA level defender, in my judgment. Being in better condition, playing fewer minutes, and becoming more focused on that end is what he needs to be able to do to get better. The ideal team will somewhere on the floor at one of the other 4 positions have some way above average defender to pair with him, to help balance out his flaws and making all the parts fit together in an optimum way. If you can use him correctly, I think Fredette’s defense could be decent enough to make him a legitimate NBA starting point guard in time, but right now he isn’t there yet.

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

    While his defense will likely get better as an NBA player, it is also likely that his offensive game will get a little worse as he plays much higher competition.

    He was a dynamic offensive weapon at BYU, scoring in a variety of ways. He has every combination of dribble moves you’d want….he can cross you over, he can step back dribble, he can use the in/out bounce, he can go between his legs, he can go behind the back, and he can do any of these moves in any combination. The question a fine offensive player in the league has to answer is: “Can he get anywhere he wants to go with the dribble?”. In Fredette’s case, he can. The question is, can he score or dish once he gets there?

    I think he will struggle scoring against help once he gets into the paint. Though he has the skills to shoot the floater and the teardrop shot, he isn’t going to be able to pull up and shoot over long armed athletic guys in the NBA at a high enough level to merit doing so. Instead he is going to need to be able to draw those people to him and then make the proper pass. At BYU, Jimmer often made the extraordinary pass…..but then he’d turn it over the next time trying to make another highlight play instead of just making the simple play. His judgment wasn’t always the greatest as a passer, but then again he didn’t have alot of talent playing with him either.

    His calling card will be his range, ability to space the floor, and the ability to create a shot for himself and others up against the shot clock. But how good are those skills really?

    Maybe Jimmer can shake and bake his way to shirk his man and get off a 28 foot jump shot whenever he wants….but I am not sure that is all that important a skill. In fact I think it is just as likely that when he fires one of those up that you’ll be shaking your head instead of clapping for him as a fan of the team he ends up on. So I see his ability to free himself off the dribble for a wild jump shot alot like I view being able to juggle, or say the alphabet backwards………a neat skill to be sure but one that doesn’t necessarily help me win.

    But he will be deadly in a catch and shoot situation for sure as a spot up guy. And no one in the league will double off him to help dig the post, or to defend a driver. A creative coach can run offensive sets for his team to use Fredette in a way that really puts the defense in a tough spot. Any ball screen for him has to be carefully defended, and you can arrange the chess pieces on the floor to get him catch and shoot opportunities. He can be a great post feeder, as any 2 man game with him on the same side as your post guy is going to require alot of defensive planning.

    Speaking of the ball screen, he does have very nice quick feet technically speaking coming around the corner. He gets low with his dribble, and is able to turn the corner and rise quickly into his shot. He does at times shoot the ball slightly after the apex of his jump, but that seems to be especially when he is tightly guarded and/or tired.* Like I have talked about before, he does a nice job of making that last dribble a hard bounce,letting him rise and flow with good rhythm. And because he gets low with the dribble and has a tight handle, he can split the trap on ballscreens as well, something some point guards hize cannot do well. And his crossover is good enough that he is always a threat to “turn down” the ballscreen, and instead refuse it and take it himself for a bounce or 2. At the NBA level, I think the way to guard him best in ballscreen situations will be to force him away from it and try and make him a driver, hoping his lack of elite athleticism gives him trouble trying to finish in traffic.

    Many many people think he would be best served playing in a really up tempo system, but I totally disagree with that. I think* a team that plays half court oriented defense would help protect him best, and then a team would need to be creative offensively to take advantage of his outstanding shooting skills.

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

    So what do we have in Jimmer Fredette?

    I think Fredette is a below average defender currently, who is likely to improve in that area but never be better than average in that regard. Offensively I think his range is a major weapon, but not so much his ability to create his own shot off the dribble….in my view he will be much better in a slower set play type of situation that maximizes his ability to space the floor. Hopefully a team might have an extra ballhandler, which will let you play him off the ball some. And if a team has a wing capable of being able to “cross matchup” with him……. (in other words, a wing who can guard a point guard so he can guard a weak wing if the matchup lets you do that)……. that is even better.

    I think eventually in the right situation and personnel groupings that Fredette can be an NBA starting point guard someday. But, chances are IF he is your starting point guard, you might not be that good of a team and your front office will always be looking for someone better to replace him.

    In the perfect world, I think Fredette should be a back up point guard with a really creative coach and good defenders around him, playing 16-20 minutes a contest to begin with as an offensive boost type spark.

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

    What does Indiana do at #15 if Fredette is still on the board? I think they probably would take him. But should they?

    As most of you know, I highly value defensive point guards…I think in my view of basketball that defense begins at the point of attack, so in my way of looking at the world Jimmer Fredette isn’t a “Tbird” kind of point guard.

    Having said that, I do think overall he will help us more than AJ Price probably. Plus, if Stephenson ever panned out, Fredette would be an interesting player to play with him. And, the tremendous defender that I think Paul George can/will be does let you have some leeway, as I mentioned above. For instance, if we were playing Chicago again, you could put Fredette on one of their wings (Watson, Korver, Bogans etc) and let Paul George guard Rose. Most teams don’t have that kind of flexibility, but we do. So, I can see an argument to be made for taking Fredette, and if all the guys I like better are gone at that point I won’t be complaining as I watch the draft next Thursday. I just won’t be jumping for joy.

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

    Current NBA comparable: in prime Mike Bibby.

    Bibby was a poor defensive starter, but a high quality offensive player for some really good teams in Sacramento. I wasn’t a fan because I didn’t think he guarded well, but Bibby has had a nice career no question.

    Former NBA comparable: this is too easy: a smaller Danny Ainge

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

    *beeps*
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

    wow he stole my comparison Mike Bibby in his prime


    so question for TBird is Reggie Jackson your kind of pg? ( i would think so but don't want to put words in your mouth)
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-16-2011, 08:46 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

      I have no desire to see Fredette in a Pacers uni. I can only continue to hope he's drafted prior to the Pacers.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

        And watch Jimmer get burned by Korver, Bogans, and Brewer because they can shoot right over him?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

          Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
          And watch Jimmer get burned by Korver, Bogans, and Brewer because they can shoot right over him?
          Any shot Brewer or Bogans takes is one less shot taken by Derrick Rose.....that would be the theory anyway.

          Didn't say it was a perfect plan, but if you have Jimmer playing for you that is what you would have to match up like.....Rose would make him look silly.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

            But it's back where we started with Collison, if it wasn't for Korver and their shooters we could have possible won that series.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

              Unless #15+BRush moves up high enough to get him....Jimmer will not be on the board when we draft.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                I have a few guys in mind, and Fredette is one of them. He'd be a massive fan favorite, and bring revenue into the Pacer franchise via ticket sales and television exposure, so I'll forgive him if his defense isn't up to snuff... which I'm not entirely sold that he's going to be all that bad anyway.
                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

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                  Fredette sort of reminds me of a taller Billy Keller. I watched Keller destroy many teams in the fourth quarter of close games.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Unless #15+BRush moves up high enough to get him....Jimmer will not be on the board when we draft.
                    I hope you are right.

                    For those that say he would be a huge fan draw, why? Wasn't the same thing said about Tyler? Tyler had a much better college career than Jimmer and he didn't fill up Conseco.

                    I think Jimmer has a place in the league. The guy can simply shoot. He will instantly become one of the best shooters in the league and there is a need for that. With that said I think that there will be better options for the Pacers at 15.

                    I agree with Tbird that your point guard needs to be good on defense. The number of point guards who can score has increased over the past 5-10 years. You have to be able to defend them and I just don't believe Jimmer can do that.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                      Originally posted by Young View Post
                      I hope you are right.

                      For those that say he would be a huge fan draw, why? Wasn't the same thing said about Tyler? Tyler had a much better college career than Jimmer and he didn't fill up Conseco.
                      Why? Hansbrough has *already* become a fan favorite. He's not "filling up Conseco", but our ticket sales did go up. Our merchandise sales went up. We made the playoffs with Hansbrough providing the kick in our pants down the stretch.
                      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

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                        Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
                        And watch Jimmer get burned by Korver, Bogans, and Brewer because they can shoot right over him?
                        I don't think it's that simple. Usually shooters don't like to be crowded, so unless Jimmer is running out at them, I don't think this is a huge concern.

                        Plus, what tbird said. One less shot D Rose is taking.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                          It's a moot point because he apparetly has a promise from Utah. If he's there though, it should be a no-brainer (although maybe Marshon Brooks).

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                            If the draft sites are accurate, the Pacers are torn between Burks and Brooks.
                            Brooks is instant offense with hopes of becoming a lockdown defender. Even without defense, Brooks could be another Jamal Crawford. With defense, Brooks very well could be Josh Howard in his prime.

                            Burks is a playmaking SG with an inconsistent jumper. At worst, Burks could be Marquise Daniels. If Burks develops a consistent jumper, he could be just as good as Evan Turner.

                            That's why I think the Pacers would target Jimmer as the safe pick. When compared to Brooks and Burks, Jimmer is the least risk because of his range.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #8: Jimmer Fredette

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Why? Hansbrough has *already* become a fan favorite. He's not "filling up Conseco", but our ticket sales did go up. Our merchandise sales went up. We made the playoffs with Hansbrough providing the kick in our pants down the stretch.
                              But did most of the tickets/merchandise sold go up because of Tyler?

                              I'm sure that some people would come out just to see Jimmer. I just don't think it would be enough to be a valid reason to draft Jimmer. I can see that if it was someone who grew up in Indiana or played at one of the universities. I just don't see it happening with Jimmer. I think most people know that he won't be a star in the NBA and most people won't buy tickets just because of a bench player.

                              Again i'm sales would jump some just because of Jimmer. I just don't believe it would be a significant jump.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X