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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

    I had Brooks listed as my 1B choice in the other "Who do I want in the draft" thread.......mainly because I am sure that his ability to score was the one "sure thing" that he was more then capable of doing. However, I have had concerns about his ability to "play off the ball" and be effective without the ball in his hands since he was such a ball dominant Player....but after reading TBird's analysis....he pretty much confirmed my concerns about him and pushed him further down my list of Players to draft.

    I do not doubt his ability to score....but I'm really concerned about his ability to learn to play "we ball" ( which he doesn't appear to be good at ) as opposed to "me ball" ( which he appears to be good at ).
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      I don't think he will have to be encouraged to try and score. :-)
      Getting him to submit to what is best for the team will be the challenge.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

        Man I'm kind of at a loss on who could even be a solid rotation guy at #15, now. Burks can't shoot, Jimmer can't guard, Morris' aren't very big, Singleton is offense limited, Klay isn't athletic, Biyombo is horrific offensively, Tristan Thompson is bad offensively, Tobias Harris who is 'good' at most things, great at none, Faried is the size of a shortish, strong Small Forward, basically. I just can't think of where they should go.

        I'm guessing Singleton would be who I'd want, who won't even be there. Side note, I saw an article where Singleton was measured 6'7" then a few months later I guess, 6'8 1/2" IIRC.

        I still wonder if Jonas will get an out to his contract, if he doesn't it'll be hard for teams to take him with the Rubio deal so fresh in peoples minds.

        I suppose the Pacers will do what Bird tried to do back in Feb, trade the #15 pick.

        Side Note: Morway was on a couple of Sunday night local sports deals and said they have a couple of deals in front of them to consider. Also, he said he didn't expect Jimmer to be there at #15.
        Last edited by Speed; 06-20-2011, 12:24 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

          To everyone who reads these analyses, I just want to make a comment, I'm sure TBird would agree with what I'm about to say:

          The important thing to remember after reading these analyses is the last statement: "As always, the above is just my opinion."

          TBird, I know your analysis is sorta taken as gospel around here, so I don't want you to think this is any disrespect to you, I appreciate your effort that you give.

          A lot of verbiage don't make a truth, it's still an opinion. Don't get caught up in the fact that a post is a mile long, and take it as "this must be the truth". It's someone's opinion. Just like TBird himself admitted in a recent post, he completely neglected to give thorough analyzation on Tyler Hansbrough after running out a bunch of analysis on other guys. That's not to discredit the analysis he did on other players, but even TBird is making an educated guess. It's an imperfect art.

          Too many people flip-flop too easily based off the most recent article they just read. You gotta keep an even keel to this. You can't expect a perfect player at 15 in a relatively weak draft. If you overanalyze *anyone* you're going to find a bunch of negatives about them. Finding negatives about a player doesn't mean they should not be selected.

          There are a lot of things about Brooks that TBird did not mention in his analysis, like intangibles... the fact that he improved significantly each year, the fact that he's known as a extremely hard, Kobe-like worker off-the-court. The fact that he *was* able to take on multiple defenders in defenses built entirely to stop him and he was still able to get his shot off or get someone else a shot, to a somewhat surprising amount of success. That is extremely crucial in the NBA. It's something this current Pacer team lacks sorely.

          The negatives that were focused on were things that *we don't need*. We have versatility on this team. We have spot-up shooters. We have rebounders. We have defensive guys. What we *don't* have is a killer-instinct, isolation offensive player that we can dump the ball off to and get us a bucket against a tough defense as the game is on the line. It was the most glaring weakness this team had in the playoffs... as evidenced by the fact that we dominated the Bulls for the first 3 quarters of almost every single game, and lost it in the fourth quarter (to, you guessed it, a guy who could isolate and more importantly, draw additional defenders) when we couldn't generate a bucket within our team offense. I know people frown upon isolation plays as selfish, but it's a very necessary part of the game to incorporate in spots. The problem occurs when you *depend* on it. But you don't want to ignore it completely, either.

          This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 06-20-2011, 11:51 AM.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.
            Given those situations I really don't want to watch a rookie try to learn the NBA game. Isolations are important and I personally would rather sign a vet like Crawford than watch Brooks try to get his own shot in an important game like the playoffs in 2012.

            I like Brooks over Klay because I want a better defender at the 2 but I would rather trade back and get Selby at 17 if thats an option. With this much money I would rather us sign FAs/trade and rely on them than drafting ones to fullfill a role that you suggest.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

              1) Brooks is cheaper.
              2) Crawford is 31 and likely not going to be reproducing his past performances on a regular basis.

              I daresay that Brooks has a better isolation game now than Crawford anyway. Crawford does a lot of deep shots 1-on-1, almost like desperation hail mary's (which he's pretty good at, but they are becoming a lot less frequent than a few years ago). Brooks works anywhere on the court, against any # of defenders, scoring anywhere from the rim to out past the 3-point line.

              Brooks is a 4-year player, so it's not like he's 18 and fragile, mentally. He's not a raw guy who needs a ton of development as say, Biyombo. He has a polished and versatile offensive repertoire. I understand that Brooks likely won't be winning us any championships this year, but next year, the year after, he could be a real isolation force. And whos to say that he wouldn't be a significant playoff contributor, anyway? Would anyone have imagined that Paul George (mostly unknown and with a lot of question marks, but a lot of "upside" that needed to be developed) would be "locking down" Derrick Rose in his rookie season playoff run? You just never know.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 06-20-2011, 12:15 PM.
              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


              • #22
                Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Man I'm kind of at a loss on who could even be a solid rotation guy at #15, now. Burks can't shoot, Jimmer can't guard, Morris' aren't very big, Singleton is offense limited, Klay isn't athletic, Biyombo is horrific offensively, Tristan Thompson is bad offensively, Tobias Harris who is 'good' at most things, great at none, Faried is the size of a shortish, strong Small Forward, basically. I just can't think of where they should go.

                I'm guessing Singleton would be who I'd want, who won't even be there. Side note, I saw an article where Singleton was measured 6'7" then a few months later I guess, 6'8 1/2" IIRC.

                I still wonder if Jonas will get an out to his contract, if he doesn't it'll be hard for teams to take him with the Rubio deal so fresh in peoples minds.

                I suppose the Pacers will do what Bird tried to due back in Feb, trade the #15 pick.

                Side Note: Morway was on a couple of Sunday night local sports deals and said they have a couple of deals in front of them to consider. Also, he said he didn't expect Jimmer to be there at #15.
                Love this post, Speed! I've been on the same wave length (but didn't hear Morway, so thanks) and am currently thinking trade down. There are half a dozen players I'd love to have in the 20s (e.g., Vucevic, Shumpert/Jackson). If we can get a veteran and one of them, then much better than what we may be looking at with #15.
                Last edited by DrFife; 06-20-2011, 12:21 PM.


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

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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                  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.
                  I think this is one reason Bird may very well like him. Bird tends to like players who can bring some swagger and attitude.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    1) Brooks is cheaper.
                    2) Crawford is 31 and likely not going to be reproducing his past performances on a regular basis.
                    Ya I still would rather go the veteran route than rely on a young iso talent. With 4 seconds left on the clock Crawford is still making around 44% of his shots.

                    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                    I think this is one reason Bird may very well like him. Bird tends to like players who can bring some swagger and attitude.
                    Lance being the most recent example.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                      this is off topic but its not letting me post a new thread, did the pacers print a 2010-11media guide this year? ive been trying to get one and can't find one. i've looked on ebay, amazon and the pacers homecourt 1 and 2, please help

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        To everyone who reads these analyses, I just want to make a comment, I'm sure TBird would agree with what I'm about to say:

                        The important thing to remember after reading these analyses is the last statement: "As always, the above is just my opinion."

                        TBird, I know your analysis is sorta taken as gospel around here, so I don't want you to think this is any disrespect to you, I appreciate your effort that you give.

                        A lot of verbiage don't make a truth, it's still an opinion. Don't get caught up in the fact that a post is a mile long, and take it as "this must be the truth". It's someone's opinion. Just like TBird himself admitted in a recent post, he completely neglected to give thorough analyzation on Tyler Hansbrough after running out a bunch of analysis on other guys. That's not to discredit the analysis he did on other players, but even TBird is making an educated guess. It's an imperfect art.

                        Too many people flip-flop too easily based off the most recent article they just read. You gotta keep an even keel to this. You can't expect a perfect player at 15 in a relatively weak draft. If you overanalyze *anyone* you're going to find a bunch of negatives about them. Finding negatives about a player doesn't mean they should not be selected.

                        There are a lot of things about Brooks that TBird did not mention in his analysis, like intangibles... the fact that he improved significantly each year, the fact that he's known as a extremely hard, Kobe-like worker off-the-court. The fact that he *was* able to take on multiple defenders in defenses built entirely to stop him and he was still able to get his shot off or get someone else a shot, to a somewhat surprising amount of success. That is extremely crucial in the NBA. It's something this current Pacer team lacks sorely.

                        The negatives that were focused on were things that *we don't need*. We have versatility on this team. We have spot-up shooters. We have rebounders. We have defensive guys. What we *don't* have is a killer-instinct, isolation offensive player that we can dump the ball off to and get us a bucket against a tough defense as the game is on the line. It was the most glaring weakness this team had in the playoffs... as evidenced by the fact that we dominated the Bulls for the first 3 quarters of almost every single game, and lost it in the fourth quarter when we couldn't generate a bucket within our team offense. I know people frown upon isolation plays as selfish, but it's a very necessary part of the game to incorporate in spots. The problem occurs when you *depend* on it. But you don't want to ignore it completely, either.

                        This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.

                        I agree with your post. I love reading T-Bird's evaluations, but as you said it's just one person's opinion. Working up to the draft I was in favor of trading out of the draft, and then I got caught up in the draft hype. This draft to me is a weak draft but not w/o some talent in it. Is the talent better than trading for an established quality PF? I'm not a big fan of Milsap, but what PF in this draft at #15 is better? I'm not advocating to trade for Milsap, just making a point.

                        The Pacers need a a good quality PF, a b/u Center, a scorer, and a big PG. This draft might produce a scorer, and it definately has numerous big PG in it. Most of the scorers I believe will be gone by the time the Pacers pick, but not all the Big PG. Maybe it would be best to either trade back in the draft to around 20-25 get a Big PG like Darius Morris, and another pick/asset as well. So I'm wanting to either trade out or trade back in the draft. I don't see much possibility in being able to trade up in the draft.

                        If the Pacers could trade the #15 to the Bobcats for their #19 & #39 or to Houston for the #23 and #38, they maybe able to garner a player or 2 either equal or better than what they can at #15.

                        If Bird traded out of the 1st round for a good quality player, I wouldn't be unhappy at all. It still leaves a player like Leuer, Malcom Thomas, or T-Bird's Joseph or Lighty to choose at #42.

                        Whatever Bird decides to do JUST DO IT RIGHT!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                          Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
                          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.
                          Haven't understood the love affair? Really?

                          "Marshon Brooks reportedly dominated Alec Burks one-one-one today in front of the Milwaukee Bucks. According to sources, "It wasn't even close.'" --nbadraft.net, June 14, 2011
                          "Reggie Miller is the hardest player to guard." --Kobe Bryant

                          "Playing Reggie Miller drives me nuts. It's like chicken-fighting with a woman." --Michael Jordan

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                            Originally posted by Reginald View Post
                            Haven't understood the love affair? Really?

                            "Marshon Brooks reportedly dominated Alec Burks one-one-one today in front of the Milwaukee Bucks. According to sources, "It wasn't even close.'" --nbadraft.net, June 14, 2011
                            Burks struggles shooting. I think that should rule him out for us. If we are drafting a SG, we are probably going to want a scorer. We already have Dahntay Jones for the "can't shoot" stopper.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                              Burks struggles shooting. I think that should rule him out for us. If we are drafting a SG, we are probably going to want a scorer. We already have Dahntay Jones for the "can't shoot" stopper.
                              Burks actually can pass the ball which makes him better IMO.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                To everyone who reads these analyses, I just want to make a comment, I'm sure TBird would agree with what I'm about to say:

                                The important thing to remember after reading these analyses is the last statement: "As always, the above is just my opinion."

                                TBird, I know your analysis is sorta taken as gospel around here, so I don't want you to think this is any disrespect to you, I appreciate your effort that you give.

                                A lot of verbiage don't make a truth, it's still an opinion. Don't get caught up in the fact that a post is a mile long, and take it as "this must be the truth". It's someone's opinion. Just like TBird himself admitted in a recent post, he completely neglected to give thorough analyzation on Tyler Hansbrough after running out a bunch of analysis on other guys. That's not to discredit the analysis he did on other players, but even TBird is making an educated guess. It's an imperfect art.

                                Too many people flip-flop too easily based off the most recent article they just read. You gotta keep an even keel to this. You can't expect a perfect player at 15 in a relatively weak draft. If you overanalyze *anyone* you're going to find a bunch of negatives about them. Finding negatives about a player doesn't mean they should not be selected.

                                There are a lot of things about Brooks that TBird did not mention in his analysis, like intangibles... the fact that he improved significantly each year, the fact that he's known as a extremely hard, Kobe-like worker off-the-court. The fact that he *was* able to take on multiple defenders in defenses built entirely to stop him and he was still able to get his shot off or get someone else a shot, to a somewhat surprising amount of success. That is extremely crucial in the NBA. It's something this current Pacer team lacks sorely.

                                The negatives that were focused on were things that *we don't need*. We have versatility on this team. We have spot-up shooters. We have rebounders. We have defensive guys. What we *don't* have is a killer-instinct, isolation offensive player that we can dump the ball off to and get us a bucket against a tough defense as the game is on the line. It was the most glaring weakness this team had in the playoffs... as evidenced by the fact that we dominated the Bulls for the first 3 quarters of almost every single game, and lost it in the fourth quarter (to, you guessed it, a guy who could isolate and more importantly, draw additional defenders) when we couldn't generate a bucket within our team offense. I know people frown upon isolation plays as selfish, but it's a very necessary part of the game to incorporate in spots. The problem occurs when you *depend* on it. But you don't want to ignore it completely, either.

                                This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.
                                My thoughts exactly.

                                Here's a question for you... if Klay Thompson and Brooks are both available at 15, which one do you take? Brooks looks like he could turn into a solid iso guy, while Thompson seems to be in that Reggie Miller/Ray Allen mold where you could run him through a wall of screens and get him quick shots off the curl... both seem to potentially possess that killer mentality...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X