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 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

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

  • Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

    As time marches on past Memorial Day and nears June, it is time once again to begin writing this years version of my NBA draft profilesfor Pacersdigest. Though the actual writing is beginning today, the evaluationsstarted for me back in March, right after my own high school coaching season ended. As always, these previews will be based on actual game tape and film,obviously I have seen none of these players in person, nor have I interviewedthem or been to any of their workouts…..I am basing everything on video that Imyself have watched. >
    Like always, I am concentrating only on players that I feelhave a realistic chance of being Pacers, therefore you will see no preview ofAnthony Davis on here. Nor was I able at this point to obtain any film ofanyone playing overseas, though I am still working on one European prospectstape availability. With the Pacers currently picking at #26, I tried to earlyon focus on players I feel either will be chosen around that selection, onplayers who I feel SHOULD be chosen around there, or who perhaps are within range of a potential trade up scenario if the Pacers should choose to do so.
    For those of you new to my scouting reports, you can read mypre draft previews of several current Pacers elsewhere on this site in the archives, including Roy Hibbert, Tyler Hansbrough, Darren Collison, and PaulGeorge. You can judge for yourself what type of trust to put into my tape analysis.
    With all of that being said, my first draft preview of 2012 is of the athletic power forward from Mississippi State, Arnett Moultrie.



    Moultrie is an athletic 4 man with nimble feet, and has thesize to someday I think play both the 4 and 5 spots in the NBA. He measuressomewhere around 6’11, and while skinny still should weigh in at around 235LBS.He definitely needs to add some strength to be able to play a traditional 5spot, as he would struggle to hold his ground against the few remaininglegitimate centers left in the NBA, but for most matchups from a size point ofview he should be fine.

    Moultrie is a junior who is already 21 years old, he will turn 22 in November near the third week of theNBA season. He has been in college 4 years, as he began his career at theUniversity of Texas El Paso before transferring to the SEC playing Bulldogs.While sometimes kids who transfer colleges can be a red flag, keep in mind thatour own Danny Granger followed a similar career path in a similar area of thecountry (Bradley to New Mexico), so that to me should not be a factor in his evaluation.



    From merely an athletic point of view, Moultrie is fun to watch. He runs the floor effortlessly, with his long strides covering a ton of ground. He should excel in the NBA as a “rim runner”on an up tempo team, as he can when so inclined beat his own man down the floor. I am going to guess that in the individual workouts that are nobeginning, that Moultrie would impress people in sprints and in footwork typedrills that teams put him through without a basketball. Moultrie moves withgood balance and fluidity, and in general passes the eye test with flying colors just from watching him move around. If picked by Indiana, heautomatically becomes our best big man athlete, and it wouldn’t even be close.


    This athleticism also helps him as a rebounder, where Moultrie excels. He goes harder to the offensive glass than he does the defensive glass ,as he definitely smells an opportunity to score if he can get a putback opportunity. He averaged just under 11 rebounds per game for Mississippi State, which is animpressive number no matter how he may have gotten them. He is very much afinesse rebounder, as he is not a guy who blocks out others really, instead hekind of floats in and out of creases in the lane and pursues the ball well. Heis light on his feet and often the first man in the air, always a good sign fora young big man. He also is good at tipping balls to himself to get them on thesecond hop, something that again shows his good balance. I would also say he isone of the best rebounders in this class at getting balls outside of his area,showing great “range” of rebounding.

    Sadly though, because he doesn’tblock out or play particularly physically, sometimes he will struggle to getrebounds in big spots, or in major traffic. When others are able to put a bodyon him he doesn’t like that at all, and often will just give up on the play ifhe himself is checked out physically. In other words, he is very much a finessetype rebounder, who relies on athleticism and pursuit of the ball more thantechnique and strength. I don’t consider him a monster rebounder at the nextlevel, but he should be able to very much hold his own. I just don’t know thatI see that kind of nasty or tough streak you’d get out of an elite NBA level rebounding big man.


    Offensively he is a big man who can score a little, but isn’ta true “plant your flag” type scorer with his back to the basket. He is more of a guy who needs to catch the ball on the move, which on the right team will begood enough for him to contribute early on as a ballscreening/roll to baskettype guy. He definitely to me is betterwhen he catches the ball facing the basket, instead of catching with his backto the rim. As a guy who grew fairly late, he definitely shows the typical tendencies of guys who fit that profile, who played out on the perimeter early in their development.

    Again, his balance is outstanding offensively, and he is able to catch the ball on the move in traffic and do something with it. But one thing you will likely NOT see him do is pass it, as Moultrie very much has tunnel vision in scoring chances….he gets it inside, likely it is going up. Still that isn’t all bad, as he is a big guy who can finish with either hand inside, and actually might be a bit better with his left hand than the majority of NBA bigs right now.

    With his back to the basket his game is raw. He does a poor job of establishing and keeping low post position and is rather easily pushed out off his spot. I think he does a bad job also of “feeling” the defender withhis rear end, therefore he is forced to guess sometimes what move to make, and often he gets himself in a tougher situation than he should be. He is far too upright in the low post, and that makes him lose valuable real estate inside…..whatshould be a simple drop step move ends up having to be a much more difficultshot for him simply because he is too upright before he gets thebasketball. Still, his athleticism andtalent means he makes a higher percentage of those shots than you’d think, so it isn’t without hope that he can continue to develop as a low post scorer inside as time goes on.

    He will need to score, becausehis passing right now is poor out of the post, as he seems to either not see the floor or is just unwilling to throw it out. Of course, some of that couldhave been the lack of talent around him at Mississippi State, or it could havebeen scheme related, but for now I’d rate Moultrie as a below average passerout of the post.


    I am sad to report that Moultrie is an absolute atrociousdefender away from the ball as a helper. More than anyone that I have studiedthese last 4 years, Moultrie “hugs” his man away from the ball and simply doesn’tsee or recognize what is happening around him. He is extremely man oriented, amajor defensive flaw. This flaw is part of the reason why his reboundingnumbers are inflated somewhat, as he never leaves a rebound opportunity toactually play help defense. While hisown man may not score a ton, your team defense will be poor with Moultrie inthe game playing the way he does now.>
    As athletic and quick on his feet as Moultrie is to averageas few of shot blocks and alter as few of shots as he does is a majorindictment of him in my view. In my opinion this is not necessarily an effort thing, but it is a selfishness thing…..we call this selfish defense where I come from, and it will have to change for Moultrie to stick in the league. Heplays extremely close to his man and very flat on his man, essentially leavinghis perimeter defending teammates on an island to prevent drives on their own. He just seems uninterested in blocking shotsor even contesting them on players other than his own man. Most big guys loveto block shots to their own detriment, but Moultrie seems content to stay onthe ground and not exert the sweat needed to jump to the ball and get in help. It isn’t necessarily lack of hustle, but it is a gigantic lack of awareness that is troubling.

    Having said that, it isn’t all bad defensively. On the perimeter he guards the ball screenvery well. He has the quickness and balance to hedge very hard and stillrecover to his man, and his length and athleticism really help out here in thissituation. He will be able to trap ballscreens, something really none of ourcurrent bigs can do or are asked to do. And if he does create a deflection orturnover, he will be an asset running the floor in transition.

    And on the ball itself, whether it is in the low post or on the perimeter, Moultrie can hold his own. Inside he shows better effort on his own guy, and he has the dance stepsdown to be an effective defender either in a total front situation or onplaying a guy straight up. While some of the very powerful players will be ableto back him down, 95% of NBA guys will not be able to do so, and his better than average feet will let him slide and contest a shot pretty well.

    I do believe that he will be an interesting guy to possibly guard perimeter type 4 men, which we really don’t have on our roster. He wont be worth much in help, but against these ballhandling or shooting stretch 4guys, he will be athletic enough I think to guard them on the floor in spurts.

    So, you can basically say that defensively for Moultrie it is a mixed bag of potential and skill with one gigantic major flaw……but flawed guys are what you typically get at pick #26. The thing that will either make or break his career will be his capacity to improve his weaknesses at the next level.
    Admittedly, that worries me about Moultrie. I tend to prefer big guys with a higher revving motor thatMoultrie has, whose effort on tape seems to ebb and flow from possession to possession. Now part of this may have been fatigue and him pacing himself (Moultrie played almost 36 minutes a game for the Bulldogs), but it also may bethat he doesn’t always concentrate and play his guts out for his teammates andcoaches. This conundrum is why the interview and personality tests that these guys will go through for each team will be so critical, as it will be important to find out just what exactly it is that makes Moultrie tick.


    It is a very tough call for Indiana on Arnett Moultrie, inmy view. If he is there for us at 26, his upside and athleticism would be adefinite upgrade for our current rather unathletic back up big guys. However,his inconsistent motor and one major defensive flaw make him a risky choice, orat least as risky as a draft pick can be at this point in the draft.

    If you trust your coaches to develop him, and if you trust your culture of accountability and toughness that we have to improve him, thenI think the risk is worth taking him here…..but of course that depends on whoelse may be available……and we will get into other potential choices to comparehim to as this series continues from now until draft day.

    Moultrie could of course be long gone by 26. Houston at #14 or #16 is in play for him I think, as are the Celtics at #21 or #22. ……my best guess is that Moultrie is wearing Celtics colors on draft night, but we will see what happens as the draft gets nearer.

    CURRENT NBA COMPARABLE: A poor man's JASON THOMPSON
    FORMER NBA COMPARABLE: A rich man's ACIE EARL

    As always, the above is just my opinion

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

    Chad Ford just raved about him in his chat, apparently he looks very impressive in his workouts so far. The first time I hear about him actually, intriguing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

      Ah, it's Tbird time!

      Tbird, this year in particular, I think many of us would enjoy reading your considered opinion on what type of player, if added, would benefit the current roster the most. Does our long-coveted athletic 4-5 "Player X" remain #1 on the wish list? Or would you prefer to see the improvement gained from a top-flight pass-first point guard? Or maybe just notable improvement in drive-to-the-basket ability by our own Paul George? Knowing how you prioritize the team's needs will add to the fun of "cheering" for certain individuals to be selected.


      "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


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

        Originally posted by ballism View Post
        Chad Ford just raved about him in his chat, apparently he looks very impressive in his workouts so far. The first time I hear about him actually, intriguing.
        He will be a workout riser but anyone who watched his tape knows he doesn't play nearly as athletic as he looks. Plus the quitting on his team this year rubbed methe wrong way. It is one thing to call out your teammate if you play hard. But IMO he doesn't and when he checked out on his teammates and called them out it was a huge red flag for me. I said on the draft thread he will go way higher than he deserves based on workouts and IMO the team will regret it in 3 years. He reminds me in many ways of A Randolph on my phone will go on once I get home

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

          I think we need multiple pieces to improve to the next level.

          We need a high quality athletic big who can defend 2 positions....somewhat who can back Hibbert up AND play along side him. "Player X" was my term for that kind of guy long ago.

          We could use some perimeter guys who could more consistently make shots, maybe someone you could run plays for off the bench.


          But more than anything I think we need a "creator", someone to get shots for others and that makes the game easier offensively for his teammates. It doesn't have to be a point guard either, though that makes the most sense probably to most fans.


          Tbird

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

            Thanks for the write up Tbird. Much appreciated. I'd take a Jason Thompson type player. Much better than Hans who just looks lost on D most of the time, imo.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
              I think we need multiple pieces to improve to the next level.

              We need a high quality athletic big who can defend 2 positions....somewhat who can back Hibbert up AND play along side him. "Player X" was my term for that kind of guy long ago.

              We could use some perimeter guys who could more consistently make shots, maybe someone you could run plays for off the bench.


              But more than anything I think we need a "creator", someone to get shots for others and that makes the game easier offensively for his teammates. It doesn't have to be a point guard either, though that makes the most sense probably to most fans.


              Tbird
              I concur.
              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


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                He's not going to be there imo..

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                  Glad to see you back, tbird.

                  From what you and p4e says, Moultrie doesn't seem to be the kind of player that the Pacers would go for. Though I do agree that at pick 26, Pacers are basically picking which flaw they can live with or think they can correct.

                  That said, if we want to get that elusive Player X, might as well use free agency to go after the real Jason Thompson or a similar player in Mareese Speights who are both RFAs. Both guys at least have had a couple of years to mature in the league. Speights in particular seems attainable, since Memphis is up near the tax and it seems unlikely that they can keep all 3 of their RFAs (Mayo, Arthur, Speights).

                  Are you taking requests, tbird? I'd like to suggest Andrew Nicholson and Drew Gordon, if they were already on your radar anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                    Great article.

                    Is there any chance that he falls to us?
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Great article.

                      Is there any chance that he falls to us?
                      moultrie was a guy that i wanted the pacers to draft if they could. after reading t-bird analysis, i'm less interested. nice size, nice athleticism, but lot's of questions.

                      if the pacers take him, great. if not, that's ok too.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                        Heeeeeee's Baaaaaaaack!!!

                        YES!
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                          TBird,

                          How much of a drop off is this kid from Drummond or Sullinger? Bigs that are in the second tier of prospects. It seems to me that there are a lot of bigs in this draft and we might get more talent there at 26 because of the depth in this draft.
                          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                            Damn good write-up. Not sure how I feel about him, but he sounds better than Hansbrough.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #1: Arnett Moultrie

                              I finally took a look at Moultrie after seeing he gained the Tbird Seal of Approval™. I like him, he plays similarly to Perry Jones III (my dream draftee, in case no one has noticed), with less of PJ3's higher qualities (finishing ability, incredible handle, etc.). However, Moultrie seems like he could be a very valuable pick at 26, if he falls that far.

                              However, I have a feeling that after more workouts and pre-draft measurements start rolling in, a lot of these players will start coming out of the woodwork, and Moultrie will be one of those who jump up the list. He's versatile, as it appears, and he might get selected higher than 26. I wouldn't mind having him, though.
                              witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                              Originally posted by Day-V
                              In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                              Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X