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.
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
-
@Pacers24Colts12 -
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
ESPN.com: Draft 2012 http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/prin...955&type=story
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Mock Draft, Version 3.0
By Chad Ford
ESPN.com
Now that the NCAA's date for underclassmen to withdraw from the draft (and retain college eligibility) has passed, it's time to check back in with our third mock draft of the season. Remember, however, that the NBA allows players to declare for the draft up until April 29, so the NCAA can't do anything to stop a player from changing his mind and declaring in the next few weeks. But we have our first clear look at who's in and out of the draft. What follows is our best stab at a first-round mock draft after taking into account team needs.
(If you want to see what your team would do with the No. 1 pick, play our Lottery Mock Draft, which has more than 2,000 scenarios. Also check out our Top 100 list, which is a reflection of the consensus of NBA scouts and GMs about a player's relative draft value.)
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Charlotte
Anthony Davis
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-10
Weight: 220 pounds
Age: 19
School: Kentucky
(The Bobcats have a 25 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: How bad do the Bobcats want Anthony Davis? They have lost 12 straight and got blown out of the water at home by the second-worst team in the league, the Wizards, on Monday night. Of all the players in the draft, Davis is the only one who could make a dramatic impact in Year 1. No team needs him more than the Bobcats
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Washington
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Position: SF
Height: 6-foot-7
Weight: 210 pounds
Age: 18
School: Kentucky
(The Wizards have a 19.9 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: Kidd-Gilchrist, like the other Kentucky players, still hasn't officially declared for the draft, but he will. The Wizards desperately need MKG's leadership, toughness and work ethic. But I hear they also may be tempted by Brad Beal's shooting and the upside of Andre Drummond. I think the Beal vs. Kidd-Gilchrist scenario is a toss-up. But after the Kwame Brown and JaVale McGee experiences, I would be surprised if Washington chased Drummond.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
New Orleans
Thomas Robinson
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-9
Weight: 237 pounds
Age: 21
School: Kansas
(The Hornets have a 15.6 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: The Hornets have to consider Drummond here. He's bigger and probably better defensively than Robinson. But if they're trying to build a team around winners, then Robinson is their guy. He would bring toughness, physicality and energy to the paint for the Hornets.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Sacramento
Andre Drummond
Position: C
Height: 6-foot-11
Weight: 275 pounds
Age: 18
School: UConn
(The Kings have an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: The Kings have plenty of players who can score the basketball, but they could use some help on the defensive end. While Drummond has a long way to go offensively, he was an effective defensive player at UConn and seems like an ideal fit alongside DeMarcus Cousins.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Toronto
Bradley Beal
Position: SG
Height: 6-foot-5
Weight: 195 pounds
Age: 18
School: Florida
(The Kings have an 8.8 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: The Raptors already have DeMar Derozan in the backcourt, but I doubt they'd pass on the chance to land Beal. The Florida 2-guard has the ability to play point guard and would give Toronto a shooter with deep range -- an ability that DeRozan lacks.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Cleveland
Harrison Barnes
Position: SF
Height: 6-foot-8
Weight: 210 pounds
Age: 19
School: North Carolina
(The Cavs have a 5.4 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: Last year, the Cavs were praying that Barnes stayed in the draft so they could select him with the No. 4 pick. But Barnes decided to stay in school. This year, things may still work out for Barnes and the Cavs, who could really use a shooter and another scorer on the wing.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Portland (via Nets)
Damian Lillard
Position: PG
Height: 6-foot-2
Weight: 185 pounds
Age: 21
School: Weber State
(The Blazers have a 5.3 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: The Blazers grabbed this pick from the Nets as part of the Gerald Wallace trade. It's top-3 protected, so the pick could revert to New Jersey if the Nets keep losing. The Blazers need help at both backcourt positions and at center. They could go a number of ways here, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them grab Lillard. He's quick, he can score and distribute and he can play both backcourt positions.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Detroit
Jared Sullinger
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-9
Weight: 280 pounds
Age: 20
School: Ohio State
(The Pistons have a 2.8 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: The Pistons need a center. They could reach a little and bring in Tyler Zeller. Or they can be content with Greg Monroe at the center position and add Sullinger to the mix. Sully doesn't play above the rim, but he does rebound and has great hands. At this point, I think the Pistons would pass on trying to hit a home run and just get someone who could help a little.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Utah (via Warriors)
Kendall Marshall
Position: PG
Height: 6-foot-4
Weight: 188 pounds
Age: 20
School: North Carolina
(The Jazz have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: The Jazz are set with talented young players at every position on the floor except point guard. Enes Kanter is the center of the future. Derrick Favors is set to take over at power forward. Gordon Hayward is doing his thing at small forward and the team is high on Alec Burks at the 2.
Enter Marshall. While I think the Jazz might prefer Lillard, in this mock he's no longer on the board. Marshall is the best pure point guard in the group. He's not a great shooter, nor is he an elite athlete, but he makes everyone around him better.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
New Orleans
(via Wolves)
Tyler Zeller
Position: C
Height: 7-foot
Weight: 235 pounds
Age: 22
School: North Carolina
(The Hornets have a 1.1 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: With their first pick we have the Hornets taking a power forward. Here they can add some help in the middle. Zeller doesn't project to be a star, but he's big, he runs the floor well and he has a soft touch around the basket. The Hornets can certainly use him.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Portland
Perry Jones III
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-11
Weight: 235 pounds
Age: 20
School: Baylor
(The Blazers have a 0.8 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: Jones may be a risk if selected with one of the first picks in the draft. But later in the lottery, he becomes a bargain. His size, athletic ability and skill level are all sky-high. He doesn't always play hard and really wants to be a wing more than a big, but at a certain point the reward outweighs the risk. A Portland team in rebuilding mode could be a really nice situation for Jones.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Milwaukee
Terrence Jones
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-8
Weight: 244 pounds
Age: 20
School: Kentucky
(The Bucks have a 0.7 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: Jones is one of the more unique talents in the draft. He can play multiple positions, can rebound and block shots and can step outside and hit a 3. The Bucks have always liked versatile players like Jones. If he matures and plays with more consistency, he could be a steal this low in the draft.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Utah
Jeremy Lamb
Position: SG
Height: 6-foot-5
Weight: 185 pounds
Age: 19
School: UConn
(The Jazz have a 0.6 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: Lamb has elite talent, but his laid-back demeanor has given scouts pause. Higher in the draft, he's a bit of a risk. But down here he would be a good bargain for the Jazz as they continue to rebuild their backcourt.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Phoenix
Austin Rivers
Position: SG
Height: 6-foot-4
Weight: 199 pounds
Age: 19
School: Duke
(The Suns have a 0.5 percent chance of winning the lottery.)
Analysis: The Suns need a little bit of everything, but what they really need is star power. With Steve Nash possibly on the move this summer, someone has to sell tickets. If Rivers ever lives up to his potential, he could be a great get this low. He's going to have to rein in his game and get comfortable with who he is at the NBA level, but the talent is definitely there.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Houston (via Knicks)
John Henson
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-10
Weight: 210 pounds
Age: 21
School: North Carolina
Analysis: The Rockets lack long, athletic bigs, and Henson would give them a defensive presence who can guard both forward positions. He's still raw offensively, but he has a little Andrei Kirilenko in his game.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Philadelphia
Terrence Ross
Position: SG
Height: 6-foot-6
Weight: 190 pounds
Age: 21
School: Washington
Analysis: Jodie Meeks is the closest thing the Sixers have to a great 3-point shooter. Adding Ross would be an instant upgrade at the backup shooting guard spot.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Denver
Meyers Leonard
Position: C
Height: 7-foot
Weight: 240 pounds
Age: 20
School: Illinois
Analysis: Leonard is a bit of a project, but he's big and athletic and he'll play defense. He won't be a stud in Year 1, but he brings quite a bit of upside at this point in the draft.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Dallas
Tony Wroten Jr.
Position: PG
Height: 6-foot-5
Weight: 205 pounds
Age: 18
School: Washington
Analysis: The Mavs are going to have to start rebuilding this summer and could use some star power next to Dirk. Wroten has the ability to be one of the top five players in this draft if he matures and gets a passable jump shot. His size, scoring ability and court vision are NBA-caliber.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Nets (via Rockets)
Arnett Moultrie
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-11
Weight: 225 pounds
Age: 21
School: Mississippi State
Analysis: The Nets could use size and athleticism in the frontcourt, and Moultrie could be one of the sleepers of this draft. He's got an NBA body and athletic ability, and he produced for Mississippi State this past season. If he were a year or two younger, he'd be 10 spots higher on the board.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Boston
Royce White
Position: SF
Height: 6-foot-8
Weight: 240 pounds
Age: 20
School: Iowa State
Analysis: White has as much talent as nearly everyone else in this draft. But there are questions about some off-court issues and an anxiety disorder that includes a fear of flying. I think Doc Rivers might be the perfect coach for him.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Orlando
Fab Melo
Position: C
Height: 7-foot
Weight: 274 pounds
Age: 21
School: Syracuse
Analysis: It looks like Dwight Howard may be leaving sooner or later and, at some point, the Magic have to start thinking about his replacement. Melo is miles away from being Howard, but he is big, can block shots and can rebound. If he stays focused and in shape, he could be good value here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Memphis
Jeff Taylor
Position: SF
Height: 6-foot-7
Weight: 225 pounds
Age: 22
School: Vanderbilt
Analysis: Taylor is super athletic, can guard three positions and finally found a long-range jump shot this season. He's a bit older than teams would like, but his potential on the defensive end would justify his selection here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Atlanta
Dion Waiters
Position: SG
Height: 6-foot-4
Weight: 215 pounds
Age: 20
School: Syracuse
Analysis: The Hawks traded away Jamal Crawford and lost that instant spark off the bench. Enter Waiters. He's a pure scorer who always plays in attack mode. He could easily come in and average 15 points per game.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Boston (via Clippers)
C.J. Leslie
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-8
Weight: 206 pounds
Age: 20
School: NC State
Analysis: Leslie is still trying to figure out if he's going to stay in the draft. If he does, the Celtics could use a player like him, with both size and upside. He's still a little raw, but Leslie is an elite athlete who is really starting to put things together.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Indiana
Marquis Teague
Position: PG
Height: 6-foot-2
Weight: 178 pounds
Age: 19
School: Kentucky
Analysis: Not only do the Pacers need more help at the point, but Teague is an Indy native who would be a great get here. He's not the pure point guard the Pacers really need, but he can push the ball effectively, get to the basket and create problems as a defender.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Cleveland (via Lakers)
Moe Harkless
Position: SF
Height: 6-foot-8
Weight: 190 pounds
Age: 18
School: St. John's
Analysis: Harkless reminds me a little of Trevor Ariza. He's a terrific scorer and defender who needs to get a more settled jump shot.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Miami
Draymond Green
Position: SF
Height: 6-foot-6
Weight: 235 pounds
Age: 22
School: Michigan State
Analysis: The Heat need players with experience who excel in bringing out the best in their teammates. Green can be a point-forward type who does a little of everything. Think of him as a better-passing Udonis Haslem.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Golden State
(via Spurs)
Andrew Nicholson
Position: PF
Height: 6-foot-9
Weight: 222 pounds
Age: 22
School: St. Bonaventure
Analysis: Nicholson has gotten dramatically better every season and has some David West to his game. He would be a good fit in Golden State as a backup to David Lee.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Oklahoma City
Evan Fournier
Position: SG
Height: 6-foot-7
Weight: 206 pounds
Age: 19
School: France
Analysis: This draft is pretty thin on international players, with Fournier the only player with a serious shot at landing in the first round. He's a scorer who is putting up impressive numbers in Europe at a young age, making him a nice pick-and-stash prospect for the Thunder.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Chicago
Doron Lamb
Position: SG
Height: 6-foot-4
Weight: 195 pounds
Age: 20
School: Kentucky
Analysis: The Bulls are always looking for shooters and would have a tough decision between Lamb and Vandy's John Jenkins here. Both are lights out from long range, but I give Lamb the nod because he has a little more versatility than Jenkins.
Next Five In: John Jenkins, Festus Ezeli, Josh Smith, Tyshawn Taylor, Scott Machado
**I'm sure someone could post one far more aesthetically pleasing but this is the best I can. Idk what to think about Teague. I'm intrigued by him falling this far to us and for him to be back in Indy. But I don't think he'd handle it well. Dunno whyReggie Miller is a God. Period.
Passion. Pride. Pacers.
It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
#31 & Only
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
I can't imagine they'd take Teague over Lamb. Teague doesn't solve the PG issues and might be making the same mistake Jeff did in coming out a year too soon.
Maybe you can or would resign Barbosa for a little money, but you also need to stock your team with rookie deals to keep payroll down for resigns like Roy or Paul. A rookie deal bench SG helps more than a rookie deal PG to I guess replace Price who is already a cheap deal (way cheaper than Barbosa will be).
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
Wouldn't mind Lamb before Teague.
Lamb shoots almost 50% from 3 for his college career. Damn! That could be a huge spark off the bench.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
Really want White or Moultrie though.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
I know, not really our need, but I really, really like Draymond Green. Problem is he's stuck between the 3 (size) and the 4 (athleticism), and probably about Paul Millsap sized at best.
Still think he can be a quality 7th man type guy in the league. Top end a solid 6th man."man, PG has been really good."Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
I'm gun-shy to part with anyone from this team.. I really like how its built. But obviously we have needs and if this draft holds true to form even somewhat.. We have pick 25. Fab melo at 21 or whatever and Tony Wroten JR at 18 or 19 seem like REALLY quality later round selections and id love to move up a few spots to snag either of them. Not sure how though.Reggie Miller is a God. Period.
Passion. Pride. Pacers.
It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
#31 & Only
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
I think Teague is a steal there. I mean if his brother is the starting point guard for a good playoff team, where does Marquis project? You take him, resign George Hill, let GHill man the PG spot next year, bringing Teague along, slowly, then GHill can play the back up 2 spot as he progresses.
I think GHill can play the back up 2, is the main reason you can see what Teague turns into.
I like Teague upside, he has the quickness and athleticism, I doubt he'll ever be a pass first PG, but who is anymore.
I'd take Teague and not look back.
Side note: I'd love to keep Barbosa, but you have to sign GHill and Roy, imo, so it might not be in the cards. Teague is a nice plan at a very low salary hit, as an alternative, imo.
If Teague stays in, which if he's projected late first, I wouldn't, but I bet he goes long before the Pacers pick.
As for Lamb, he can shoot and there's always room for shooters, but he's not a PG. I thought he was terrible running the point at Kentucky when Teague went out. I do like Lamb's unafraid though, he'd attack in crunch time, at Kentucky, when he was surrounded by other guys he could have deferred to. I just think Lamb projects as an off the bench shooter in a limited role (he's young so who knows), but Teague could be a starting caliber Point Guard down the line, again, look at his brother.Last edited by Speed; 04-11-2012, 01:36 PM.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
Teague wouldn't be anything I'd be interested in for the Pacers.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
Why have one DC when you can draft nother one? .....Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
Its a good point. Although at 25, I'd take a DC caliber player in every draft, though.Originally posted by Hicks View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
I'm the same way. There's no one single attribute of his that's exceptional, but he's very good at EVERYTHING. He's just, plain and simple, a basketball player. Would love to have a guy like him on the Pacers, but he doesn't fill a need on the current roster.Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
One of the things he has over some of the other players is that this son-of-a-gun just knows how to play the game, and play it well, and play it "the right way".Originally posted by Smits Happens View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 3.0
Can we please drop the idea of GH as a Point Guard?? he and the team are way better at SG, that much is clear.
Yes he can play spot minutes there, but it is not his strength and not in the best intrest of the team.So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.
If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!
Comment
Tweet
Comment