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 #8: Andrew Nicholson

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

    Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

    For the Father’s day edition of my NBA draft profiles, we take a look today at the lanky power forward from St. Bonaventure, Andrew Nicholson. This is the 8th written preview this year, you can find the draft analysis profiles of Arnett Moultrie, Fabricio Melo, Moe Harkness, Jeff Taylor, Marquis Teague, Royce White, and Tyler Zeller elsewhere on this site.

    Measuring out at 6’9” ½ and weighing 234lbs, Nicholson also possesses great wingspan, with a 7’4 wingspan and 8’11” standing reach being measured at the NBA combine. Nicholson easily fits the parameters for a prototypical NBA 4 man from a physical standpoint. Some draft gurus also think he will be able to slide over and play some minutes at the center position,though I am not among them. To me, he is a pure 4 man, with no ability to playeither up or down a position.

    From a typical Indiana Pacer point of view, Nicholson fits some of their typical draft checkpoints. He is a 4 year player, a very smart kid (he was a physics major) and a player with one clearly defined position. But does he fit us with his style of play? Let’s put the big man under the microscope below:
    ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………..>

    Nicholson is a very refined player with his back to the basket offensively, and that is where I think he stands out as a player.

    He has much more variety in his game than most college bigs do, which made guarding him for most teams in the Atlantic 10 Conference a major problem. He seems comfortable on either block with the basketball, and does a really nice job of reading his defensive man and almost always making the appropriate move. He possesses a nice turnaround jumper over either shoulder, and has already developed a little fadeaway move when he turns to his right shoulder. He can execute a jump hook with either hand, and in fact I think is a little beter technique wise with his left hand than his right when making this move. Nicholson has a nice little baseline spin he can make when pushed away from the block (which happens often to him), and he can make the face up jumper when he catches the ball already facing the rim. He has a good up and under move as well. Someone has taught Nicholson well.

    Nicholson is a shooter/scorer type 4 man. What he lacks in strength and physicality, he seems to make up for with above average touch and shooting ability. As I stated above, he gets pushed off his spot pretty easily inside, but he compensates for that by being able to make difficult shots with no feet inside the lane, showing more range with his post moves than most bigs in college have.

    Nicholson is definitely a black hole when he gets it inside with his back to the basket, which can be looked at in a variety of ways. Ast he Bonnies’ best player, he pretty much was their number one option at all times to score, so he felt like he had to take some tough shots. On the other hand, when he was double teamed and had to play in traffic, Nicholson was really poor, turning it over a lot with either weak moves against 2 defenders or just failing to make strong, smart passes out of the double team. Playing out of a double team was a real weakness for him on tape. But of course, he likely won’t be good enough to merit double teams in the NBA level initially at least, so this weaknesses can somewhat be mitigated with less of a role.

    Despite his ability to play with his back to the rim well,Nicholson showed an alarming tendency to want to either face up once he caught the ball and take jumpers, or just abandon the post entirely to drift outside.I am sure the scouting reports their opponents had on Nicholson were to play him physically and beat him up as much as possible, and if you did so he’d start to head to the perimeter. Playing on the perimeter gave you as an opponent a chance to at least stop him or slow him down.

    That is not to say that he isn’t skilled with the ball on the perimeter as a scorer, because he is. And you can tell that he really probably prefers being out there, away from the rough and tumble world of the painted area…..people don’t realize this, but in fact the college game is way more physical than the NBA game in the paint. Nicholson not being overly aggressive, likes playing facing the goal in space. He moves well without the ball, and reads his man well in terms of how to cut. So much so that StBonaventure occasionally ran plays for him coming off baseline screens, plays you’d typically only run for 2 guards or elite shooters.

    Since he likes being outside so much, you’d like to see him shoot the ball with more accuracy than he does. He seems to have good form,holds the ball high, and has a nice follow through on his jumpshot. I bet that Nicholson shoots the ball extremely well in workouts and impresses executives in that type of setting.

    But in tape I watched, I just didn’t see him actually make all that many. I assume he CAN make them, or his coach wouldn’t let him shoot so many, but I just didn’t see it. I thought I saw a big flaw in his jump shot when he was actually guarded, in that it was pretty easy to intimidate and effect his shot by stepping into him when he shot, playing into his chest and messing with his space. He didn’t like guys walking into him when he was airborne at all, and he’d start fading or even retreating to the other end during his shot, causing him to miss. Crowd Nicholson, and his concentration and accuracy falls off quite a bit. And because St Bonaventure had to have him score, and because Nicholson is a lousy passer, he took way too many tough jumpers than he probably should have.

    Nicholson becomes a little more intriguing if he can develop an ability to put the ball on the floor a little bit. He has shown some sign sof being able to do that in short spaces, and I think that is where his potential as a driver begins and ends…..I don’t see him being able to be a guy you’d clear out for, but I could in theory see him develop into a guy who can take one or 2 dribbles to make a move and get a shot off, as long as his launchpoint was around the elbow or short corner area.

    Projecting ahead, he has a possibility into becoming a nicepick/pop player, fading back after setting ball screens and making jump shots against second unit level defenses. His range to me appears to be about 18 feet with defense on him, though I suppose that in enough time he could develop into a potential 3 point shooter for you with enough practices and reps. Of course,you have to ask yourself if that is the kind of power forward you really want. I also think he shows some intriguing potential as a guy who can fake this pick/pop type jump shot and put the ball on the floor some, but until he gets more consistent in making that shot defenses won’t be rushing at him hard. And he will have to learn to pass better once he is attacking off the dribble, as defenses adjust to him.

    ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… …………………………….>
    Nicholson gets rebounds, averaging almost 8.5 per game this past year. However, I feel like when watching him that he doesn’t get as many as he should, and I felt like his motor on the glass was pretty inconsistent. He definitely is a guy who“floats” after the ball, slicing thru crevices and lanes and getting balls, but his effort is low and he is not a good blockout type of guy, in fact he rarely blocks out. That wouldn’t bother me much if he was more relentless in his pursuit, but alas he isn’t relentless at all…..it seems to me that he only gets rebounds that are mostly uncontested and that come near him, and rarely gets a tough board in traffic or fights off a blockout to hunt a critical offensive rebound.

    9 rebounds per game in 30 minutes isn’t nothing though, so Ill be careful not to undersell his rebounding totals. He does have really big hands and really long arms, and he can jump pretty well when so inclined. But because he floats so much on the perimeter and seems to not like physical play,I think his upside on the offensive boards at the next level are severely limited, and because he blocks out poorly he’ll get beat more than you’d like on the defensive glass.

    ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………….>

    I have concerns about Nicholson from the defensive perspective as well.
    Nicholson may have good size, but he doesn’t PLAY big. He definitely lacks strength and toughness as a post defender. It is pretty easy to post Nicholson up on the block, and because he plays very flat to his man,he gives up a lot to easy post flashes and “duck ins” inside. Teams pretty much could do what they wanted to do against Nicholson in terms of attacking him and getting the ball to his own man. Nicholson does have really good length,agility, and footwork though, so even though college bigs could work for and establish position on him fairly easily, they couldn’t necessarily score over him.

    He shows more potential as a weakside help defender, as he is mobile and athletic enough to block shots from the weakside at the pro level. He shows good timing and instincts as a helper, and I can see him being a nice off the ball shot blocker/changer potentially at the next level.

    He didn’t put forth a bunch of effort in screen/roll defenseat all. In fact, he played really really soft, normally staying back in the lane area, leaving his teammate out there on an island to try and deal with the screen on his own. This was clearly a strategic decision by the St Bonaventure coaching staff, but what I can’t tell for sure is the thinking behind it. The Pacers also play it this way as well, but the reason is that both Roy Hibbert and David West are extremely slow laterally. If Nicholson is as slow as those guys, he will be exploited a ton with the screen/roll at the next level. I am guessing though that the Bonnies played it this way to try and keep him out of foul trouble, and in knowing that Atlantic 10 big guys mostly couldn’t hurt you with pick/pop types of shots. Still, his screen/roll defense is a major problem and is a question I am assuming everyone who looks at him studies about him in their workouts.
    ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………..>

    So, what do we have in Andrew Nicholson?

    I think we have a somewhat skilled big man with a lot of physical tools, but that who plays a soft, perimeter oriented type of game that I typically don’t like from players of his size. He will definitely be a guy who the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as some teams will love his flexibility, mobility, and shooting potential, others will think he isn’t physical and tough enough for their taste.

    My best guesses are that Nicholson is a first round talent,and that somebody in the second half of the first round will put aside their questions about his defense and motor and toughness and fall in love with the potential really good offensive game he possesses.

    ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ……………………..>
    So where does he actually end up on draft night?

    He would fit better with a team with a great point guard whohe could run pick and pops with, and a team with a really tough interior rebounding center.

    Nicholson makes sense to me for Oklahoma City at #28, and Chicago at #29, but ultimately I think heends up a Cleveland Cavalier at pick #24. Playing next to Anderson Varajeo and setting high ball screens for Kyrie Irving would be the ideal scenario for Nicholson.

    For Indiana, picking #26, if I am right about Cleveland taking him then he won’t be there. But if he is available, should we take him?

    In my mind, the answer is no. I don’t see him being a particularly good fit next to the more offensive minded Roy Hibbert, and he isn’t big enough to play as his backup any. I don’t see Nicholson being as good as David West, like some comparisons I’ve seen, and in fact I still like Hansbrough better…..and I am starting to sour on him too. Those guys play with a force and mean streak that Nicholson doesn’t possess.

    I think the Pacers should pass, but I am not sure that they actually would…..I am personally hoping he is gone so I don’t have to worry about it.
    ………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… …………………………….>
    Present NBA comparable: a homeless man’s Charlie Villanueva (one of my least favorite players in the league), maybe a poor man’s Ryan Anderson

    Former NBA comparable: Kirk Haston, and Indiana University kid who never really made it. I think Nicholson is better than Haston was, but not by a lot.

    I realize most others are higher on Nicholson than I am, and maybe I am underestimating him….but I just don’t see it. His game just doesn’t fit my eye. For his sake, I hope I am wrong….and I certainly have been wrong before.

    As always, the above is just my opinion

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

    I deeply appreciate the time you take to put these together for us.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

      Wonderful stuff.

      That darn point position again. If only we had a quality point guard, everyone is better on the team.
      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

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

        That's too bad, i had hoped for more from nicholson.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

          I agree with almost 100% with this while I watched him I really question his desire and on defense he is so limited. He needs to hit a weight room but even if he does I never see his defense being better than awful. My comp for him was Ike Digou especially in the post will wow you with moves but double him or just play him physically like Temple did and you can expose his flaws really easily.
          Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-17-2012, 04:11 PM.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

            Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
            Wonderful stuff.

            That darn point position again. If only we had a quality point guard, everyone is better on the team.
            Yeah, no kidding. Honestly, if we could package DC+26 to move up to draft Kendall Marshall, I would do it. He has warts all over the place in his game, but that guy is an elite table setter, which is exactly what this team needs.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Yeah, no kidding. Honestly, if we could package DC+26 to move up to draft Kendall Marshall, I would do it. He has warts all over the place in his game, but that guy is an elite table setter, which is exactly what this team needs.
              Just stay at 26(trade up if you feel he will go sooner) and take Machado he is better than Marshall and staying at 26 and taking a better player just makes sense.

              If Machado went to UNC he would of been a 15 and 12 guy last year and would be going in the lottery.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                I like Machado also, It would be nice if the Pacers picked up a second rounder and snagged him.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                  Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                  Just stay at 26(trade up if you feel he will go sooner) and take Machado he is better than Marshall and staying at 26 and taking a better player just makes sense.

                  If Machado went to UNC he would of been a 15 and 12 guy last year and would be going in the lottery.
                  Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that Marshall set that UNC team up for success, and when he went down, they were a mess offensively. He has one truly elite skill set that this team needs. That's enough for me.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                    Just stay at 26(trade up if you feel he will go sooner) and take Machado he is better than Marshall and staying at 26 and taking a better player just makes sense.

                    If Machado went to UNC he would of been a 15 and 12 guy last year and would be going in the lottery.
                    Even though I am not the biggest fan of Machado, I would rather wait around and grab him than trade up to get Marshall, he is really not all that special in my view to me Marshall lacks too much to really give up that much for him. He did show some shooting ability late in the season, but him not being able to get his own shot, and basically being only a facilitating guard who is not that good on defense seems like a waste of the 12-15th pick.
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                      As far as Nicholson for the analysis it sounds like think he is pretty talented, besides some glaring weaknesses, but some of those things can be fixed, the motor issue will probably always be there, but he could turn out to be not so bad of a pick, we could do much worst at 26 in my view.
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                        We have a lot of players who are good at a lot of things but not great at anything. Marshall would offer us a player who is great. Marshall will be an elite passer. For all of his flaws, if we can trade up and grab him without giving up a starter, it's an easy decision. I am with P4E on Machado though. I'm a big fan.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                          Homeless man's Charlie V.? Kimpossible.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                            Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                            We have a lot of players who are good at a lot of things but not great at anything. Marshall would offer us a player who is great. Marshall will be an elite passer. For all of his flaws, if we can trade up and grab him without giving up a starter, it's an easy decision. I am with P4E on Machado though. I'm a big fan.
                            I could see if he was great at one thing and good at the others, but with him that is not the case, he would almost be a guy who would be a liability to have on the court in late game situations. One thing, among others, with facilitating PG, I feel they should at least have one offensive weapon they can be a threat at, if only for the sole purpose to draw defenders to open up passing lanes, unless he gets one I do not think he will ever be anything more than a average nba PG at the most.
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2012 draft analysis #8: Andrew Nicholson

                              Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of important for a point guard to be quick and reasonably athletic? Some of the biggest thorns in the Pacers side have been athletic, stronger point guards. I don't think this is the draft that can provide us with the answer at the point guard position.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X