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

2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

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

  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

    Didnt Jaiteh have an awful workout i remember reading something like that and he's raw as hell so he would be a stupid draft choice.
    Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

    Comment


    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

      I have watched a game in a half of Jackie now still getting a feel for his game. He has made some plays especially in PnR defense that has me excited. He gets switched on to a guard no problem. He is a very good defender in space and going from Tyler (one of the worst in space to Jackie would be a huge upgrade). PnR defense is such a big part of the game I think this will be my favorite asset of his game. He really does remind you of a Jeff Pendergraph at Ariz St. Or Haslem in his prime kid plays hard and smart great combo. I personally loved Jeff at Arz st. It is a shame he got injured he really is not the same player anymore athletically. I know Prichard loves Jeff so I think he is back next year. I hope he gets to play he is a much better player than Tyler. Back to Jackie I love him on defense and he is playing out of position. He is already 23 so not much growth left athletically and game wise. I love how hard he rim runs on offense. He makes his man run and that can be something that gets overlooked. He also played in a ton of PnR in the system he plays in. He is bacilly the PnR roll man almost every time down. He isnt overly physical with screens and tends to slip early, but he is advanced compared to a younger big in PnR play. He is a bit undersized and will get out manned at times in the NBA IMO, but no doubt there is a lot to like. He looks the part of a solid rotation big from day one. I will add more once I get through more tape.
      Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-07-2013, 07:58 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

        Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
        Didnt Jaiteh have an awful workout i remember reading something like that and he's raw as hell so he would be a stupid draft choice.
        I wouldn't be surprised if he had a 1v1 workout and lost. He will still be drafted 18 yr olds who have his frame don't grow on trees. I really wouldnt mind the pick if the team keeps him overseas for 5 years. I would of said the same thing about Jeremy Tyler. But guys like him and Tyler who can't play, but have the size and what not being given a contract, and you have to cut him(can't keep a guy that raw on your roster for 3 years and hope he has progressed to a 5th big by then) and lose his rights isn't worth it. That is the reason Tyler wasn't on my draft board. If he planed to stay in Euro for a few years I would of put him on my board.

        EDIT: I know I would take a Richard Howell or a guy like Carmicheal over him in the 2nd a guy who can be a solid role player from day one. I would much rather take that. Then hope in 5 years we have an good role player who has the upside of a starter. Just with the state of the team I will take the Howell or Carmichael and for this particular player even in rebuild mode. I may draft him, but I wouldn't expect he will ever come over to play. I would take him if the scouts think he has a Ibaka like work ethic. Then just hope he proves me wrong. That is when scouts earn their pay check. whoever got in Ibaka's head and figured out he was a gym rat really did their homework, same with Roy Hibbert. Most players don't have that great work ethic. Most have good work ethics but to be great you need to live basketball.


        another swingman I think could be solid as a D and 3 guy is James Ennis. He guarded OJ in the games I scouted him and he really impressed me. I think he ends up as a solid role player if he gets the chance. He really impressed me with his D on Orlando last year. The wing spot is so deep this year. I would be shocked if we don't get a solid wing out of this draft or UDFA period.
        Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-07-2013, 12:30 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

          Dario Saric officially out of the draft

          Comment


          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

            Originally posted by XLevel View Post
            I don't understand why more people aren't talking about trading up for a lottery pick that could help push us over the "championship hill" right away. Full disclosure: Many of you know from speaking with me during the season or reading my tweets (at XLevelOnline) that I'm a huge IU and Oladipo fan.

            That being said, I don't think many could argue that the Defensive Player of the Year, a high % shooter from 3, FG, & FT, a Hoosier (ticket draw), high energy, athletic freak, who could start and eventually be a star in the NBA would be a bad fit. Even if we didn't go after Oladipo, Trey Burke would also be a perfect fit. Most importantly, he's a true point. He shoots a decently high % from 3, FG, & FT, and can play or even possibly start right away.

            If we couldn't get high enough to get either of those guys, we could move up slightly to snag my third choice in Shane Larkin. Shane Larkin is like a mix of Oladipo and Burke in that he's still a true point, defends well, and shoots a high percent. While he doesn't get to the line like the other two, he still has a great upside and can learn that part of the game. Especially, if he has Reggie Miller to guide him in the art of picking up fouls. (More on this in another thread.)

            Before anyone starts talking about how difficult or expensive it is to move up in the draft, take a look at recent history. Also remember that this is considered to be a "down" or "weak" year in the draft which should make it easier/cheaper. I think we can pull it off without losing any major stars.

            I think we could also address shooting very cheaply by signing a guy like Jordan Hulls who will not be drafted and can be our "Kyle Korver." He comes in and fills it up from 3 & shoots FTs both at an extremely high % all for league min.

            Here's my depth chart.

            1 Hill / (Burke/Larkin/Oladipo) / Hulls
            2 George / Stephenson / Johnson
            3 Granger / Young / Green
            4 West / Pendergraph / Marion
            5 Hibbert / Mahinmi / Plumlee

            Yes, I have Oladipo as a 1. He has proven he can learn and adapt to anything. We're not really running a true point now anyway. Any of those guys have the potential to be starters or even stars within the first or second year.
            Not as crazy as many think I am. "Jordan Hulls works out for Pacers, Bulls" It won't let me post the link, but it's an article on Inside the Hall.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

              Originally posted by XLevel View Post
              I
              Yes, I have Oladipo as a 1. He has proven he can learn and adapt to anything. We're not really running a true point now anyway. Any of those guys have the potential to be starters or even stars within the first or second year.
              Oladipo is not, and will never be a point guard. He can bring the ball up the court on occasion, but his handle is his biggest weakness. Making him a point guard would be putting a huge magnifying glass on that wart.

              You are trying to fit square pegs in round holes. I've never been a fan of trying to mold a guy into a role he isn't suited for just because it fits the team's agenda better. I'm sure there are cases of success, but mostly in regards to role players. Forcing guys into playing point guard is not an experiment that has been met with much success in the NBA.

              Comment


              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                Originally posted by XLevel View Post
                I don't understand why more people aren't talking about trading up for a lottery pick that could help push us over the "championship hill" right away. Full disclosure: Many of you know from speaking with me during the season or reading my tweets (at XLevelOnline) that I'm a huge IU and Oladipo fan.

                That being said, I don't think many could argue that the Defensive Player of the Year, a high % shooter from 3, FG, & FT, a Hoosier (ticket draw), high energy, athletic freak, who could start and eventually be a star in the NBA would be a bad fit. Even if we didn't go after Oladipo, Trey Burke would also be a perfect fit. Most importantly, he's a true point. He shoots a decently high % from 3, FG, & FT, and can play or even possibly start right away.

                If we couldn't get high enough to get either of those guys, we could move up slightly to snag my third choice in Shane Larkin. Shane Larkin is like a mix of Oladipo and Burke in that he's still a true point, defends well, and shoots a high percent. While he doesn't get to the line like the other two, he still has a great upside and can learn that part of the game. Especially, if he has Reggie Miller to guide him in the art of picking up fouls. (More on this in another thread.)

                Before anyone starts talking about how difficult or expensive it is to move up in the draft, take a look at recent history. Also remember that this is considered to be a "down" or "weak" year in the draft which should make it easier/cheaper. I think we can pull it off without losing any major stars.

                I think we could also address shooting very cheaply by signing a guy like Jordan Hulls who will not be drafted and can be our "Kyle Korver." He comes in and fills it up from 3 & shoots FTs both at an extremely high % all for league min.

                Here's my depth chart.

                1 Hill / (Burke/Larkin/Oladipo) / Hulls
                2 George / Stephenson / Johnson
                3 Granger / Young / Green
                4 West / Pendergraph / Marion
                5 Hibbert / Mahinmi / Plumlee

                Yes, I have Oladipo as a 1. He has proven he can learn and adapt to anything. We're not really running a true point now anyway. Any of those guys have the potential to be starters or even stars within the first or second year.
                Question - where did Marion come from?
                Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                  I have a draft-related idea for discussion. Assuming that re-signing David West essentially is a done deal, there is a player I believe worth considering at #23 who MIGHT be a prime candidate to develop into West's replacement, and perhaps even could become our Player X. The operative word is DEVELOP, because like most draftees, he certainly needs strength (particularly in his legs). He's very coordinated, but not quick, so perhaps added strength would improve that a bit as well.

                  "Mr. West, please incorporate some tutoring into your schedule, because we might be interested in having you teach your "old man's game" to Mike Muscala." While I love the fact that Tbird endorses Dieng (even as a 5/4), I do hope he covers this possibility as well.


                  "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


                  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                    CJ Leslie is so F'in frustrating. He will make a play only he can make, but most of the time follows it up with key missed boxs outs or an over play on defense. I think he would be to much of a headache for my liking. Mental midget and not enough skill to make up for it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                      Anyone of a mind that we might sell the pick for $3mill?
                      "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                        Originally posted by Willbo View Post
                        Anyone of a mind that we might sell the pick for $3mill?
                        Na, If we sell it it will be for GG contract off the book. I think to good of a player will be there. A player that we need will be on the board, I dont want to sell the pick for just $$$.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                          I was surprised by this



                          He didn't take many jump shots in Europe but it's nice to see that he may develop that part.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                            Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                            I have a draft-related idea for discussion. Assuming that re-signing David West essentially is a done deal, there is a player I believe worth considering at #23 who MIGHT be a prime candidate to develop into West's replacement, and perhaps even could become our Player X. The operative word is DEVELOP, because like most draftees, he certainly needs strength (particularly in his legs). He's very coordinated, but not quick, so perhaps added strength would improve that a bit as well.

                            "Mr. West, please incorporate some tutoring into your schedule, because we might be interested in having you teach your "old man's game" to Mike Muscala." While I love the fact that Tbird endorses Dieng (even as a 5/4), I do hope he covers this possibility as well.
                            I have my doubts on his defensive mobility-- can he get out on pick and rolls to cover PFs? But the size, attitude, and offensive skill set is intriguing. 23 may be a little early for him though

                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              I have my doubts on his defensive mobility-- can he get out on pick and rolls to cover PFs? But the size, attitude, and offensive skill set is intriguing. 23 may be a little early for him though

                              Yes, he is awful defensively. He has a terrible frame and no strength. He is already 23 which is old for a spect(I mean if he was 20 his frame might be fixable). I don't think his frame takes weight. He is going to be a punching bag at the NBA level. he is just to small. It is sad to he is pretty skilled. He is a 4th-5th big IMO. I don't think he plays much at the next level no way he plays the PF IMO. I would pass on him. I bet he sticks around a little bit though. Jon Leuer. Although I think Jon was much quicker coming out. Anthony Tolliver is another guy I liken him too. I just think he is to small and to soft to play a major role in the NBA. His jump shot comes out nice even though he shots from a low slot. I don't think he doesn't anything in the low block he is just a PnP player at the next level. I dont like him as a roll man he just doesnt have the mobility or strength to finish as a role man. I will give him this. He is a much better passer and rebounder than Tolliver and I like how unselfish and skilled he is overall. If he was on the floor at the NBA level. I would basically attack him every time down. I would PnR him to death or just feed the post he can't guard either scenario.


                              I don't agree with DX on him at all. His Physical tools are not a strength IMO, and his D being a strength is laughable. Although I would say he is so crafty and skilled. He could carve a niche for himself like a guy like Luis Scola did. He does reimnd me skill set wise of Louis. (I just fear the lack of strength won't let him show that skill at the next level, and he will be just an outside PnP guy) If he was physical like Louis maybe I would be all for him. I just think that is what he lacks that will keep him as a 3rd-5th big not a crafty starter like Louis became. I like Mike better than Kelly O in terms of value that is for sure. I think Mike in the 2nd is much better than Kelly in the 1sd.

                              EDIT: I cant believe I left out Andrew Nicholson. They do have the same type of body and skill level. Andrew is much much longer though which is a huge difference for the NBA (insert Roy Hibbert favorite joke here)

                              reason why Andrew went late teens in a good draft and Mike will go 30s-40s in a meh draft at best. That extra 4-5 ins of length is massive for the NBA.
                              Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-09-2013, 11:48 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                Yes, he is awful defensively. He has a terrible frame and no strength. He is already 23 which is old for a spect(I mean if he was 20 his frame might be fixable). I don't think his frame takes weight. He is going to be a punching bag at the NBA level. he is just to small. It is sad to he is pretty skilled. He is a 4th-5th big IMO. I don't think he plays much at the next level no way he plays the PF IMO. I would pass on him. I bet he sticks around a little bit though. Jon Leuer. Although I think Jon was much quicker coming out. Anthony Tolliver is another guy I liken him too. I just think he is to small and to soft to play a major role in the NBA. His jump shot comes out nice even though he shots from a low slot. I don't think he doesn't anything in the low block he is just a PnP player at the next level. I dont like him as a roll man he just doesnt have the mobility or strength to finish as a role man. I will give him this. He is a much better passer and rebounder than Tolliver and I like how unselfish and skilled he is overall. If he was on the floor at the NBA level. I would basically attack him every time down. I would PnR him to death or just feed the post he can't guard either scenario.


                                I don't agree with DX on him at all. His Physical tools are not a strength IMO, and his D being a strength is laughable. Although I would say he is so crafty and skilled. He could carve a niche for himself like a guy like Luis Scola did. He does reimnd me skill set wise of Louis. (I just fear the lack of strength won't let him show that skill at the next level, and he will be just an outside PnP guy) If he was physical like Louis maybe I would be all for him. I just think that is what he lacks that will keep him as a 3rd-5th big not a crafty starter like Louis became. I like Mike better than Kelly O in terms of value that is for sure. I think Mike in the 2nd is much better than Kelly in the 1sd.
                                He wasn't all that impressive against Butler in the tournament. Smith and Marshall shut him down for the most part.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X