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 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

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

    Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

    Like all draft rooms for an NBA team, I put together a bigboard each year of all the NBA prospects, mostly based on my own filmwork in my case, though sometimes I can only go on research and opinions of others.

    Anyway, instead of doing a pointless mock draft that won’t have any chance of being correct, I instead am going to list my top 41 NBA bigboard, with an emphasis on making it “Pacers- Centric”….in other words, I have put our current roster, needs, strengths and weaknesses, contracts, coaching staff, and every other factor together along with my evaluations of the players to put them in this order.

    I am listing 41 players on my big board, which will exclude all foreign players since I basically haven’t seen them at all and have no real opinions on them….so please factor that in. And I know I’ll have lots of disagreements on my order, so feel free to discuss all of that in the comments.The number I have is 41, because that is how many players (excluding foreigners) that I considered to be good enough players to make the league directly from the draft. I included many players who are undersized for their positions, but only if I considered them elite enough of players to make the league despite whatever their limitations. 2 notable exclusions are Jae Crowder from Marquette, and Robbie Hummel from Purdue, 2 really good college players who I consider to not be sure NBA guys despite their collegiate careers due to their lack of size or injuries. The 41 guys I listed I think all can make a roster at some point.

    Having said all that, this is my Tbird Pacer 2012 draft big board:

    1. ANTHONY DAVIS. Obviously the gem in the draft, Isee a lot of Tim Duncan in him.

    2. DAMIAN LILLARD. I think he projects as a top 6player at a critical position in the NBA. The only current NBA point guards I wouldn’t
    trade for Lillard are Rondo, Westbrook, Rose, Parker, Paul, and maybe Nash, if you disregard his age.

    3. TYLER ZELLER. A big with a high motor andcharacter who will play 15 years in the league, perfect fit for us as a 4/5 “player x”, with Indiana ties and in a critical position. Can immediately play starters minutes for us as our first big off the bench and can be a franchise cornerstone for the next decade….I think he can play half his minutes playing besides Hibbert, which is why I rank him so high.

    4. BRADLEY BEAL. A perfect compliment long term toPaul George, I think Beal will play in multiple all star games down the line.Not a superstar, but a fine player who scores a ton of points at this level ifused properly.

    5. MICHAEL KIDD-GILCHREST. A guy who play sextremely hard and is tough minded. I think he is a 14-15 point a game guy inthe league with a high motor who is physical and tough as a rebounder and defender.Kind of a Gerald Wallace type.

    6. THOMAS ROBINSON. While I don’t think he is an All Star ever, I think he has a nice long term career as a 4 man in this league. Lunch pail guy as a starter for 10 years, a lot like a Horace Grant type.

    7. MOE HARKLESS. I think he is 95% as good as Kidd-Gilchrest. Love his aggressiveness, swagger, and size for his position. Ithink he will become a good shooter in time if he is developed properly.Projects to be a dynamite rebounder and defender. He reminds me a ton of Paul George,maybe just a half a rung under him as a player but still a clearly coveted player.

    8. JOHN HENSON. Skinny and I am not sure of theupside, but I think a defensive minded, rangy big man who is athletic couldpotentially be a good fit for us alongside Hibbert. He definitely needs todevelop his body, but I like him as a rim protector and I would be willing togamble to see if he can become a Serge Ibaka type, though Larry Sanders is morewhat I expect.

    9. TERRENCE ROSS. I haven’t studied him as much asothers, but it appears as if he can clearly score the ball and well respected guys I know really like him.

    10. DION WALTERS. I love his physique and the factthat he swallowed his pride and came off the bench at Syracuse. He is athletic as hell and can really get to the basket, and seems like a potential good fit next to Paul George long term.

    11. JEFF TAYLOR: He is such a superior defender thatI have to rate him here, above some other more highly touted guys. To win longterm, you need guys who can guard the Rose, Rondo, Wade, Westbrook kind of guys, and Taylor I think can be a defender of elite types like that. If you value defense like I do, you have to put him high on the list of guys you like.

    12. ARNETT MOULTRIE: A long, big, athletic 4 man in a position of need. I’d be hoping long term that he could gain some strength and play some backup center for us as well. If he hits his total potential hecould be a great fit next to Hibbert, but I admit I have doubts, still I put him here. Hopefully he can learn to defend.

    13. ANDRE DRUMMOND: A low motor, inconsistent raw big man who didn’t do much in college. Still, at worst I think he projects to be a decent to good backup center, and that isn’t a bad thing. And if he would happen to hit his potential, he could eventually be better than anyone in this draft other than Davis.

    14. QUINCY MILLER: I like his body type and overall game, and think he has potential to be a high quality starter, though not an All Star. The fact that you have to wait on him knocks him down to here,because he clearly isn’t ready yet.

    15. HARRISON BARNES: Obviously I am not as high onhim as some teams, but he will be a nice player, maybe even become very similarto Danny Granger. Still as a fit long term next to Paul George I am looking forsomething different, and the fact that he can’t get his own shot off thedribble concerns me. Still I bet he averages 17 points a game eventually andmaybe more, but he just leaves me cold.

    16. FAB MELO: I think he is a physical, defensive minded backup center. While he sucks on offense and likely will never be good in the low post, a big who can defend the rim for cheap money has value….I put him here.

    17. FESTUS EZELI: Raw big man with size, similar in potential to Melo. A role player for cheap money, rim protectors have high value in my book.

    18. JEREMY LAMB: Maybe I have him too low, but hejust doesn’t light my fire. I know he will go much higher than on my big board,but he just plays so lethargic sometimes, and I don’t like his body language.Maybe I need to watch more UConn tape. Still, a high quality shooter than at worst can be a scorer off the bench, and maybe can start someday on the right team.

    19. ORLANDO JOHNSON: I love his attitude and game,and love that he can make tough shots. Great chemistry guy, plays with guts and intelligence, will be a nice role player for someone as a scorer off the bench with a chance to be a plus defender as well.

    20. KENDALL MARSHALL: probably an average to slightly above point guard in the NBA, very good passer. His horrible defense probably bothers me more than all of you reading this, but this is where I put him.

    21. ANDREW NICHOLSON: A nice back to the basket guy with some skill, seems like a back up 4 man to me on a decent team. Is ready more or less to play right away, which moves him up some.

    22. AUSTIN RIVERS: Gunslinger with irrational confidence in his own game. I think he is selfish and a lazy defender, but his pedigree and crossover dribble are top notch. Has potential as an instant offense guy off the bench but not sure he’d accept that role.

    23. MARQUIS TEAGUE: Lots of holes in his game but heis an explosive athlete with a great first step. I think he may grow into a really good point guard defender someday if he works at it. Never going to be great but can be good if he has time to develop.

    24. PERRY JONES: nice guy off the court, and way too nice on the court. Lots of sizzle, not much steak. Strikes me as immature and goofy, doesn’t play hard all the time. Still a lot of raw material to workwith, but he reminds me of the underachieving Tim Thomas.

    25. JERED SULLINGER: I see him as a backup, 18-20minute backup power forward who might be able to score for you some but will be a defensive liability. Somewhere between Clarence Weatherspoon and Ike Diogu.
    26. JOHN JENKINS: A sniper. Mostly a one trick pony,but it is a hell of a trick! Kyle Korver, JJ Redick kind of guy and career.

    27. ROYCE WHITE: A unique kid with a different personality, a lot of baggage there, still has some talent but he just doesn’t excite me that much. I don’t see who he guards well at the NBA level. Has a lot of Boris Diaw to his game, and that isn’t a compliment.

    28. TERRENCE JONES: I know he will go higher than this, but he just seems like a jack of all trades type of guy to me, with no one great skill. Who does he guard, I don’t know. Kind of reminds me of Devin Eubanks, but he went as a second rounder I think.

    29. MEYERS LEONARD: I know he might belong a little higher in most people’s eyes, but he just doesn’t strike me as a dedicated player who loves the game to work and improve. Measures out better and plays against chairs in workouts well, but he wasn’t that good in the big 10. Still he is a big body and possibly can become something if I am wrong.

    30. MIKE SCOTT: veteran guy from Virginia. Reallynice numbers playing in their slowdown style. I bet he ends up being a nice player for someone, he is fundamentally sound but not really athletic and explosive, plus he is older than most everyone else in the draft.

    31. WILL BARTON: I know Indiana is considering him,and he isn’t bad but he needs some major added strength to be able to play.Slinky, wiry, awkward looking player who is strangely effective. Still, skinny wings who aren’t explosive are a dime a dozen, and I don’t see that one awesomes kill that he needs to make it.

    32. MILES PLUMLEE: Plumlee sucked at Duke most ofthe time, but he will stick in the league as a scrub back up center for somebody because he is athletic enough to play and run the floor, and set somegood screens. As scarce as backup bigs are, he should find a niche for a few years.

    33. DARIUS MILLER: I think sticks in the league as a high character guy who can make mid range jump shots, but won’t be a major contributor to a winning team.

    34. DRAYMOND GREEN: I think sticks in the league as a high character, low risk undersized backup 4 man, but that is all he is.

    35. DREW GORDON: I think makes the league as are bounding specialist with enough upside to merit working with.

    36. TYSHAWN TAYLOR: I think sticks in the league as a backup point guard…..though I admit he might be underrated in this list. Still a point guard who turns it over as much as he did in college scares the hell out of me.

    37. JORDAN TAYLOR: I think he is way underrated andcan easily make a roster. I’d love to take him in the second round somehow as a3rd point guard and see if we can develop him. I think that Wisconsin system severely limited him.

    38. DORON LAMB: I think sticks in the league as ashooter, but I have doubts whether he can crack the rotation on a good team.

    39. KIM ENGLISH: yet another high quality shooter int his draft, English can stroke it, but his release to me is a bit slower than Jenkins was, and I don’t think he can guard well. I still think he makes a roster though.

    40. TONY WROTEN: All potential with no real game, I need to study him more. Nice NBA frame, but in the little I have seen from him he is a turnover waiting to happen and he can’t shoot. Just a project at thispoint.

    41. JON SHURNA: He sticks in the league due to hisability to shoot from deep as a pick/pop guy. Lots of those guys have longcareers.

    Depending on the price, I think any of the guys in the top 8 are worth trading up to get for us if possible. The realistic targets to get up high enough for are Zeller, Harkless, and Henson. Lillard is worth it too, but I don’t think we have the ammunition to get there to #6, which is where I think he goes.

    Harkless I think could be available in the mid to low teens,and if he is I’d be very happy to move up 10 spots or so and snag him, and if Henson slides I’d be ready to go after him as well.

    If you are staying at #26, just follow my draft board to figure out who I would take as they come off. I think Taylor and Miller are the highest rated guys on my board with a chance to actually be there at #26. Picking that late, I think it is important to stick to your draft board as the picks happen, and be opportunistic if someone slides to you.

    This should generate some interesting discussion. I know I am off a little with the normal draft gurus, but this is how I see things froma Pacer point of view.
    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

    Even though he's not on your board, I think there is something special about Jae Crowder. I'd love to have him on my team as a backup SF. If he loses some weight, I think he'll gain some speed. Just a tough physical defender who can shoot a little.

    I like Royce White, Jeff Taylor and Quincy Miller. I seem to like a lot of SF it seems cause I think a guy like PJIII has the best chance to reach his potential here cause of the Pacer environment with hard working players who would challenge PJIII and our excellent coaching staff.

    Lillard is my 1st choice, just wish there was a way to get Lillard and one of the SF I like.

    Zeller is really the only PF/C guy I like other than Moultrie, and I'm not that big on Moultrie myself (although I was a few weeks ago).
    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

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
      5. MICHAEL KIDD-GILCHREST. A guy who play sextremely hard and is tough minded. I think he is a 14-15 point a game guy inthe league with a high motor who is physical and tough as a rebounder and defender.Kind of a Gerald Wallace type.
      sextremely? lol

      I know i know... I do that too sometimes when typing something out lol... just thought it was funny
      Last edited by Kemo; 06-27-2012, 06:46 PM.
      "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

        Taylor or Miller would be great for me if we stay at 26. If neither of them, O. Johnson or Jenkins. Just not Draymon if we keep the pick.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

          TBird,

          Just wanted to thank you for all of the work you put in on all of these articles. During the summer I go into sports hibernation, especially after a painful playoff exit. I didn't watch another playoff game after our game 6. Your updates and insight keep me coming back to PD in the offseason to get to know our potential draft picks without spending countless hours following college ball. Appreciate your help in making this an informative, intelligent sports forum. You, and many of the other PD contributors, make me a smarter fan. Keep up the good work.

          maragin

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

            I too enjoy reading your stuff, especially with your background. Thanks for your effort.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
              KENDALL MARSHALL: probably an average to slightly above point guard in the NBA, very good passer. His horrible defense probably bothers me more than all of you reading this, but this is where I put him.
              Don't be so sure...

              People love his superb passing, but at the end of the day I think he's going to be surrendering more points than he scores or facilitates most of the time against NBA point guards.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                Lol @ zeller over Kidd-Gilchrist
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                  I feel similar with Kendall Marshall. Which is why I haven't said much. He can have an elite skill in passing, but when his other weaknesses make it difficult to keep him on the court, it's rather useless from the bench.

                  I'm just not all that interested.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    Lol @ zeller over Kidd-Gilchrist
                    Did you read the intro, or just look at the rankings?

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                      Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                      Did you read the intro, or just look at the rankings?
                      I did. MKG would help the Pacers more than Zeller
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                        I'm not nearly the fan of Zeller that Tbird apparently is, but I can see how well he could fit in for Indiana. It would be really nice to have a 7-footer who is so quick and can play PF and C.

                        I would rate Jeremy Lamb much higher. He needs to get stronger, but I think he does a lot of things quite well.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          I did. MKG would help the Pacers more than Zeller
                          So MKG for 15 minutes per game behind Paul and Danny would help more than having a competent backup PF/C?

                          I'm not seeing that one. In the playoffs (and all year it seemed) we got murdered when Hibbert was on the bench. If Zeller can play PF and keep Tyler on the bench that's even better. Tyler looked more lost than a KKK member in Compton this year.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                            Zeller is a guy I hadn't really thought much about for the Pacers, but if TPTB swing a deal for him, I'll be very happy. He'd be an immediate improvement over the treacherous back-up rotation in our front court. Plus, I wouldn't want to be anybody who went to Duke trying to drive the lane against Zeller and Hans.
                            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2012 NBA draft analysis: My own big board for this year's draft and some draft strategy discussion

                              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                              So MKG for 15 minutes per game behind Paul and Danny would help more than having a competent backup PF/C?

                              I'm not seeing that one. In the playoffs (and all year it seemed) we got murdered when Hibbert was on the bench. If Zeller can play PF and keep Tyler on the bench that's even better. Tyler looked more lost than a KKK member in Compton this year.
                              Always go with talent. If we somehow landed MKG, I suppose we'd be thinking of moving Granger for a PF/C.

                              On the one hand, I do agree that this year's top rated talent (MKG, Beal, T-Rob, Barnes) doesn't have great upside, so I can understand why TBird may like a lower ranked player (like Lillard for example) more. Zeller, though - it strikes me that his main selling point is that he has solid skills at a rare position. TBird obviously sees more than that in him, and he's earned the benefit of the doubt on this board, so we'll see.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X