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 #10: Marshon Brooks

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

  • Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

    Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks
    Written by thunderbird1245

    Link

    Less than 100 hours away from NBA, I present the 10th write up in this 2011 draft series, and in depth profile of Providence high scoring wing man Marshon Brooks. Previously 9 deep analysis pieces have been written this year, among them Alec Burks, Tristan Thompson, Chris Singleton, and Marcus Morris…..you can read those articles plus the 5 additional breakdowns elsewhere on this site.

    Brooks has moved up draft boards during the workout season, after having a very good statistical year playing for the doormat of the Big East Conference, the Providence Friars. Certainly Brooks put up gaudy numbers, scoring huge amounts of points against some of the countries best teams….including scoring over 50 points in a 2 point loss the Mike Brey’s Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

    Measuring in at the NBA combine at 6’5″ 1/4, Brooks has legitimate NBA wing size, especially when you factor is his freakish wingspan of 7’1.* He weighs a rather spindly 195lbs, though he looked stronger just with the eye test than some of his other wing counterparts in this draft. Likely however he will need to gain a few pounds, and he appears to have a frame that will be able to do that as time goes on. Brooks clearly passes the eyeball test, and looks the part of an NBA basketball player.

    One interesting tidbit: To my knowledge, Brooks will be the only player in the NBA whose mother is a professional referee……his mother is a long time basketball official, now employed by the WNBA.

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

    As the second leading scorer in NCAA basketball, Brooks clearly proved that in his senior season at Providence than he can score the ball, averaging 24.5 ppg. However, as with all scorers, it is important to breakdown just how those points were achieved, so we can try and figure out how his game will translate at the next level.

    Providence gave Brooks more responsibility and freedom on offense than any player I have ever broken down in my years of doing these draft profiles for Pacersdigest. Providence loved to just clear a side or the top, give Brooks the basketball, and spread the floor and let him do his thing. Certainly little to no complexity in the Friars attack, the just dumped the ball to Brooks and hoped for the best.

    That didn’t lead all that often to a “blow by” situation even at the college level. More often than not it led instead to some very difficult contested jump shots off the dribble, some of which Brooks made but more often than you’d like he would miss, as he actually didn’t seem to be that accurate off the dribble as a pull up shooter. His mechanics in this situations were somewhat amiss, as he had a very difficult time getting his upper body and lower body in synch with one another. That led to alot of spectacular looking makes but led to even more misses….and let me tell you, when Brooks missed he was missing badly. No player probably tossed up more bricks this season that Brooks. When he misses, he misses horribly. Yet, he does have a nice touch on his shot and a good high release, so the problem isnt isn’t upper shot form, instead it is a matter of really bad balance with his legs and the fact that he takes an extraordinarily high number of really bad shots that he never will be allowed to shoot at the NBA level. So clearly the way to guard Brooks was to force him outside his comfort zone, make him bounce it, then work hard to stay in front of him and make him take a tough pull up jumper…..which he was anxious to do. Those misses often led to fast break points the other way, as Providence was really bad defensively in transition and often had bad floor balance when Brooks would take all of those ill advised shots…..one of the main reasons that their coach got fired after going 4-14 in conference.

    Brooks has speed with the basketball in open court situations, but he isn’t quick or that explosive on his first step in an attack dribble move….he is like a car with really high top end speed but that takes a while to get started. That usually leads to not being able to clear his own man enough to get all the way by him, especially against high level athletes. And he is not a high flyer, we won’t be a guy who dunks alot or flies high above the rim on drives. Instead, he will have to rely on more savvy moves, being able to put up little floaters and off balance running shots to get by. He is good enough to make those shots at Providence, but can he make them at the NBA level? That will be the question.

    You rarely see Brooks coming off a hard cut to get the basketball, nor did you see him receiving alot of basic basketball screen actions….he wasn’t asked to come off pin downs, staggered screens, cross screens, flare screens, or anything else that would be considered basic basketball at most programs. And despite being considered a really good off the dribble player, you also rarely see Providence set any ball screens for their best player, an oddity considering that the ball screen has made a huge come back at the lower levels of basketball in the past few years. Now, despite getting fired, the Providence coaches had had success at other levels and at other schools, so they aren’t stupid people. I think the question has to be asked about why they used Brooks the way they did. It did help him put up good numbers, but it didn’t help them win……..so what were the reasons they used him so clearly as a pure isolation guy?

    Brooks clearly didn’t play well without the ball at all. He stood, failed to move, didn’t set up cuts well, and seemed to always read screens pretty poorly, on the rare occasion he received one. Providence also didn’t seem to run very many complex set plays in order to make Brooks harder to guard, or to try and improve his judgment or their floor balance or to get others involved.

    My theory is, and it is only a theory based on how they played on tape and how Brooks seemed to play in general, is that he has a tough time processing information, struggles to remember complex plays or systems, and basically isn’t an overly smart and savvy basketball player. Instead, I am guessing their coaches used him they way they did because after he had been on campus for 4 years, they knew that was the only way he’d be successful…..and as their best player they chose to plan around him rather that their younger guys….a decision that led them to last place and got them canned, though it also apparently will prepare Marshon Brooks to the first round of the NBA draft.

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

    I would like to give you a breakdown of all of the great reads, great passes, or great decisions Marshon Brooks made that I saw on tape. However, the words “pass” and “Marshon Brooks”, don’t go together that well. When he drove, Brooks was going to take a shot of some kind, there was just no doubt about it. He was capable of getting incredibly hot at times, but for a guy who drove that often you’d think at least a few times he would’ve drawn defenders to him and dished to another player for an easy basket….but you certainly don’t see that on film. Now I realize Providence might not have been that good, but what I saw is a player with total tunnel vision with the basketball, who had a tough time seeing and planning for secondary defenders when they helped to him….a guy who didn’t understand where his teammates would be and how to get the ball to them. I don’t know if it was complete selfishness on his part, I just thought I saw someone who didn’t quite understand the best way to attack a defense in a 5 on 5 situation. Again, not saying Brooks wasn’t good enough to score anyway sometimes, because he did….but his missed horrible shots and bad decisions cost his team as many points going to the other end just as much as he scored himself. Brooks turned it over more than he assisted in college, and as scouting gets more intense and the defenders more athletic, I question whether that will improve any at the next level.

    I did like the short memory he had, and the willingness to always take shots no matter what had happened before. His self confidence oozes out of him, and he clearly is a kid who doesn’t get down on himself. But I didn’t see alot of togetherness on his college team, not alot of huddling or talking to his teammates or encouraging them or whatever, another symptom of a team who struggled. He wasn’t willing or didn’t seem capable of doing whatever it took to win a game, instead I saw a guy who much of the time played like “Me-Shon” instead of “Marshon”. Keep in mind that Brooks was a senior leader on this team, not a young freshman or sophomore…..and I do have to factor that in my evaluation.

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

    Brooks will need to make a major adjustment to his way of thinking and playing at the NBA level offensively, but he clearly has 2 major NBA ready skills.

    One his ability to catch and shoot in a spot up situations. Brooks was good in transition just rising up and taking the quick 3 point shot, and I also believe that if/when he plays with better talent that he can be a very good spot up guy in halfcourt draw and kick situations.* I don’t think he will be a player, despite all the reports we are reading, that you can ever run plays for to score…..I just don’t see the complexity in his reading screens, the ability to play the screen/roll game, and I have questions that his one on one game will be good enough at this level. But I do believe he can be a very good shooter for someone, as long as all he is asked to do is get in position and be ready to fire. To me he clearly needs a creator around him to help him get those type of shots more often. If he does, I think he can score in this league, but I don’t see him being to score points THE SAME WAY he did at Providence…..his game is going to need to morph into something else entirely. But his ability to shoot can’t be questioned….love the high release, footwork, and follow thru especially. Add those good fundamentals to a guy who clearly has no conscience and you might have something there eventually, as long as he plays within his own skill set.

    The other skill that is NBA ready I think is his ability to rebound from the wing position, IF he dedicates himself to being that good at that in the league. He has really good hands, and his amazing length should make him a very good defensive rebounder for his position in the future. Now keep in mind that his numbers are somewhat inflated at Providence, due to the lack of any one else they had with any talent, and also the fact that their pace of play was so really fast. There were more rebound chances and opportunities in a Providence College game than 95% of the teams you’d see play. Still, his gifts are too good to be ignored on the glass, and as long as his effort level stays the same on the boards when he doesn’t get to dominate the ball offensively, then he should be above average as a rebound guy for a “2″ in this league.

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

    Was Brooks a lockdown defender at Providence? Clearly not. But he does have enough athletic gifts that he should be better than he has proven so far. Providence played little defense in general, and when they did you saw alot of attempted full court pressure and halfcourt zone defense. So they clearly played a style that wasn’t conducive to winning.

    I saw a guy in Brooks who has really good top end speed, but not super great lateral quickness. Can he be improved in that area, time will tell. My guess is that Brooks will do fine defending the ball when his man isolates against him, but will struggle to get around screens, struggle in help defense and in more complex defensive systems. He will be a guy who gambles alot and gets some steals, and his length should let him be above league positional average in blocks per minutes. I can see him having some good stats, but when digging deeper I am not sure I see the consistent effort or aptitude to make his team any better defensively when he is on the floor. He really seemed to struggle to “defend his gap”, and screens really bothered him. And when his man screened someone else, Brooks didn’t show any real energy or desire to hedge out, bump cutters, or do anything but play individual defense. Whether that shows a lack of effort or lack of sheer basketball understanding (that is my guess from afar) is hard to say.

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

    So what do we have in Marshon Brooks?

    What I think we have is a player with a scorer’s mentality, who takes bad shots and doesn’t always play the game with intelligence and savvy. But he also plays with a striking self confidence and short memory, which is appealing in its own right. I think we see a player who will have one of the bigger learning curves and adjustments to the league than the other perimeter players likely to be drafted in the first round. I think we have a kid whose main strengths won’t be as good with the upgrade in competition, but who has enough talent and charisma to re invent himself in the right situation as a creative second unit scorer, scoring in a multitude of ways if he is willing to put the work in and change his game somewhat.* I severely* question his overall basketball IQ and vision/awareness levels, and the fact that he put up alot of numbers as a chucker on a bad team goes against him in my scouting mind….especially when he did it as a senior playing against mostly underclassmen. I see a guy who has some serious adjustments to make in his level of concentration and in his preparation and overall knowledge of how to play and win and be a professional. When you listen to an interview and hear him constantly refer to himself in the third person ( a trait I absolutely hate when people do it), I wonder if he will ever “get it”.

    The big scouting debate you hear going on right now is the huge battle between players who play the same position…guys like Alec Burks, Klay Thompson, and Marshon Brooks. Rumor is that Brooks is killing those other 2 in workouts in each city, a major reason why his stock is rising all over the league.

    But to me, those 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or 3 on 3 workouts are very misleading. I don’t have much doubt that in a scrimmage situation where there is no crowd, no teamwork, no plays to remember, no scouting reports, and no referees that Brooks likely is the more impressive player than Burks or Thompson. He is more athletic and more aggressive than both of them at this point. But while I believe those 2 kids can play the same style of basketball they played in college (and just need to improve their weaknesses and get stronger), Brooks will need to be much more adaptable than they will. I just don’t see that as anywhere near as likely to happen.Plus, when you consider that he is quite a bit older than those 2 players, to me picking Burks or Thompson over him seems to be a no brainer.

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

    So what will Indiana do at #15 with Marshon Brooks?

    Despite what the pundits are reporting, I believe Indiana will pass on Marshon Brooks. I just have a hard time believing that one of the most savvy, intelligent, best passers, and player with maybe thew best anticipation and court vision of any player in the history of the game will select a player like Marshon Brooks. Brooks has talent and I think he will stick in the league for a few years, but I think Indiana should and will pass. We will find out if I am correct on Thursday night. Of course, in the unlikely event that every other single player I like better is gone, then I’d go ahead and take him…..but I think there will players in this draft available that I like better when we are on the clock.

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

    So where does Brooks end up instead?

    To me, he would fit best in the high tempo, open court style of play. That to me is just screaming 2 locations for him to be selected, which are Minnesota at #20 and Denver at #22.* I think Chicago at #28 would love to have him as well, and might even package #28 and #30 to move up a little bit to try and snag him. My guess is he ends up with one of those 3 teams.

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

    Current NBA comparable: slightly bigger and longer armed Jodie Meeks

    Past NBA comparable : Any thoughts?

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

    *beeps*

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

    I agree i do not want Brooks he reminds me to much of Flip Murry or JR Smith. Doesn't play good defense is actually poor from everything i hear. The key point is he needs the ball in his hands to be successful i don't want that type of guy unless he is an excellent defender.

    Pass
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-19-2011, 04:06 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

      I think Brooks is the decoy this year. Just my feeling.

      That said, I have NO CLUE who he could be a decoy for. I usually have a guess, but I can't even think of one now. I think we may trade back for Rick Jackson, but that's not based on anything except a hunch. We'll see.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

        Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
        I think Brooks is the decoy this year. Just my feeling.

        That said, I have NO CLUE who he could be a decoy for. I usually have a guess, but I can't even think of one now. I think we may trade back for Rick Jackson, but that's not based on anything except a hunch. We'll see.
        Rick should be there in the 2nd round he might even go undrafted

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
          I think Brooks is the decoy this year. Just my feeling.

          That said, I have NO CLUE who he could be a decoy for. I usually have a guess, but I can't even think of one now. I think we may trade back for Rick Jackson, but that's not based on anything except a hunch. We'll see.
          I am trying to remember the last time we used a decoy and I can't come up with anything. Certainly they like to keep things under raps but Bird did say he's tartgeting 3 players at 15 and I would have to think Brooks is on of them along with Jimmer. If anything I think Jimmer is the decoy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

            I go back and forth on Brooks. I have no strong opinion of him because I haven't seen him play, but I love his stat efficiency in the given situations. Not many chuckers shoot that well, especially when asked to do all of the shot creation.

            I agree that his stock's rising because the workouts cater to his strengths. And the Pacers need someone that can create their own shot. I'd argue that he'll be able to do it in the NBA if he's using his craftiness to get shots. It's like Kevin Love; different position and type of craftiness but he wasn't getting by on his size or athleticism in college either.

            I think I'd pass but I think there's a 70% chance we pick him. Bird picked Hansbrough, who isn't exactly the most aware player on the court. He also traded for Collison, so I wouldn't put a scorer like Brooks past him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              Rick should be there in the 2nd round he might even go undrafted
              Holy cow. Im shocked to see that he isn't on some mocks. I swear I saw him in some early 2nds for a while. Granted I don't watch them that closely.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                If anything I think Jimmer is the decoy.
                He was given a promise by Utah at #12. There's nothing for us to decoy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  He was given a promise by Utah at #12. There's nothing for us to decoy.
                  Where are you getting that information from?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Where are you getting that information from?
                    It was on twitter from unknown sources on Hoophypes rumor page which could or could not be true. Sources also said that they wouldn't take 2 guards in the first round so I think we will all know by the 3rd pick what Utah will do with the 12th.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                      I like Brooks better for AND1. I like Burks better for the NBA, as he has potential to help make his teammates better and can pass the ball around. I don't care much for Brooks and haven't understood the love affair some around here seem to have with him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                        I got really carried away by the Brooks hype, but the closer we get to the draft the less I want him, especially after reading this review. I just think there are other players who will help the team more.
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                          Marshon is a high-risk, high-reward pick. If he pans out, he'll provide us with a lot of the qualities we need in a SG right now. I mean, why trade for a Crawford-level player when we can just draft him? Worst-case, I take him for trade bait to upgrade the SG position now by giving back a potentially excellent one in return.

                          Brooks is basically the anti-Rush. Take that for what you will.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            Marshon is a high-risk, high-reward pick. If he pans out, he'll provide us with a lot of the qualities we need in a SG right now. I mean, why trade for a Crawford-level player when we can just draft him? Worst-case, I take him for trade bait to upgrade the SG position now by giving back a potentially excellent one in return.

                            Brooks is basically the anti-Rush. Take that for what you will.
                            Speaking of Jamaal Crawford , all indications point to Atlanta letting him walk to become a free agent..



                            .
                            "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


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              I agree i do not want Brooks he reminds me to much of Flip Murry or JR Smith. Doesn't play good defense is actually poor from everything i hear. The key point is he needs the ball in his hands to be successful i don't want that type of guy unless he is an excellent defender.

                              Pass
                              I totally agree here on the comparison to Flip Murray when it comes to dominating the ball.....I just kept on remembering that once Flip got the ball......he kept it and you pretty much knew that he would try to score the ball on his own.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X