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

2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

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

    2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

    Once again for this year's draft I have decided to put out my ranking of draftable players for the NBA Draft, 2013 edition.

    A couple of notes to remember as you read this:

    1. I have taken the following players off the board, due to my lack of being able to watch enough film of them to properly rate them. As such, they do not appear on this list, as I don't want to take others opinions or internet chat as a substitute for actual scouting:

    -Giannis Adetokumbo
    -Dennis Schroeder
    -Livio Jean-Charles
    -Alex Abrines
    -Marko Todarovic
    -Rudy Gobert
    -Sergey Karasev
    -Nemanja Nedovic
    -Norvell Pelle

    2. I've taken the follwing players off my board for serious character issues in their past:

    -Glen Rice Jr
    -Ricky Ledo

    With all of that said, that means there are perhaps 6-7 potential first round picks that will not appear on my board at all for those 2 reasons. Keep in mind that I am strict with character issues on my big boards, I didn't have Lance Stephenson on my list in his draft year either for similar concerns, so obvously I am potentially very wrong to eliminate guys like Ledo and Rice....but that is how I see it.

    3. This is a PACERS big board, so I am keeping in mind who we already have on our roster when I put this together. Positional need and "style fit" do play a big role for me when I do this exercise.

    That means that for the TBird big board this year, I have 41 potential "draftable" players. Your order is below:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. ANTHONY BENNETT: I think he will be an absolute stud if he stays healthy. He gets number one for me barely because of his positional versatility, though I see him as pretty much a pure "4" as he gets older. I think he is a more explosive David West, and I don't see how he can miss.

    2. VICTOR OLADIPO: Extremely explosive, hard working, high character kid with great upside still. He will hit his ceiling, whatever that may be, due to his almost obsession with getting better. You can win championships with this guy as your second best player probably, and he is the kind of guy other players gravitate to and want to play with.

    3. CJ MCCOLLUM: I think he will be an offensive stud. I see him as a scoring point guard, and extremely high character kid who makes others better. Prolific scorer with a high drive to get better. He can play off the ball for you too when you bring in another point guard to play with him. Another kid who lives in the gym, plays with a chip on his shoulder, and who "gets it". He might win rookie of the year if he gets in the right situation.

    4. OTTO PORTER: Perfect role player as a 3 man type, he will guard, make shots, be extremely versatile, and be a great teammate. He will be able to score 15-17 a night and guard somebody's best player at the same time. Maybe a rich man's Shawn Marion, or an Andre Iguodala type effect on a team. To me, he fits perfectly for Cleveland and if I were the Cavaliers I'd try and end up with him on draft night, and if I had to pick him number one to do it, I would. Fits great for the Wizards too next to John Wall.

    5. KENTAVIOUS CALDWELL-POPE: A really nice 2 way player. Does everything well, no superstar elite qualities but he has a high floor. Easily a starter in the league, fits in in many locker rooms and styles of play. Plays hard, defends, knocks down shots, and can put it on the floor some, though that needs to improve.

    6. TREY BURKE: Another high character, driven kid who plays with both great talent and great guts. Tough minded leader who has worked hard to become a high level player. Pure point guard, not the biggest kid but he clearly is big enough to function. Great NBA skills that translate well I think....a kid with leadership skills. Great character kid.

    7. BEN MCCLEMORE: I think he is a dependent scorer, but he also is a kid with a great/elite NBA skill with enough upside to give him alot of potential. I dont see him as a superstar or anything, but he will have a nice career I think. Came from an extremely tough background to make it this far and you have to admire that. I think Joe Johnson is a good comp for him, remember it took Johnson a while to get acclimated to the NBA game, but when he did he was outstanding.

    8. ERICK GREEN: Yes, I know this is higher than anyone else in the universe. Yet, I see a point guard who is an NBA starter by year 3 of his career, a complete gym rat who can score in a myriad of different ways and who will only look better surrounded by better teammates. Add 20 lbs of strength to him and I think he can be Tony Parker/Devin Harris. No question to me he will work extremely hard, and like I keep saying, is a high character kid.

    9. CODY ZELLER: Yet another super high character kid who will reach his ceiling, whatever that is. No question to me that he is a pure "4" in the NBA game, so he will need to learn how to make the 15-17 pick and pop be his friend, but I think he will. Runs the floor hard and is more athletic than you think. He is probably a 12 point, 7 rebound guy with high character for someone, like a better Nick Collison.

    10. ALEX LEN: Len is obviously really big, and seems to play better when he gets to play against guys near his own size. I think he projects to be a starting NBA center, but not a rim protector, more of a Ilgauskus type.....because of that I lowered him on this board, because I believe as the game continues to change these types will have a harder time finding the floor, and because I have foot injury concerns with him going forward.

    11. NERLENS NOEL: I see his absolute complete ceiling as Jermaine O'Neal. Unfortunately I have a tough time seeing him hit that ceiling, as his troubled knees and body build scare me. I can see him being a nice player, but not a difference maker, because I think he is a "4" at this level and I dont see him staying healthy. On top of that, I think he is a hard guy to figure out how to build around....he doesn't "fit" well if he can't play center, and I don't think he can gain enough weight on those balky knees to do so. So, I rank him way down here.

    12. ISAIAH CANAAN: another super high character kid at a premium position with an NBA body. To me he reminds me alot of Jameer Nelson, and I think he will hit that ceiling or come very close. A kid who others seems to want to be around, a leader. Makes big plays and helps you win games somehow, whatever it takes. Mature, smart, tough.

    13. GORGUI DIENG: I rank him here due to his rim protection, defensive prowess, ability to play 2 positions (center for sure, and I think back up minutes at the 4 spot early in his career). Yet another super smart, very high character kid from a championship program. Mature but still inexperienced and has room to get better.

    14. REGGIE BULLOCK: Yet another kid with a tough background who has overcome it to get this far. I think he is the best "3 and D" guy in the draft, and I think he can play some small ball 4 for you as well as be a 3. Best attribute is that he plays with a ton of passion and toughness, and he looks to be an outstanding spot up 3 point guy. If he can improve his handle some at this level that will make a big difference for him offensively, but even if he doesnt he is extremely helpful as a role player. Every team needs a guy like this,

    15. SHABAZZ MUHAMMED: You know what? This kid can score somehow when he is on the floor, and he is left handed which for some reason I usually like. I dont care about the age lie really, and I think he is better than some other guys below here. I mean, why can't he end up being a left handed JR Smith? Not a franchise guy or anything, but in the right situation off your bench he can be pretty helpful.

    16. ARCHIE GOODWIN: Archie can't help you win yet, but I love his motor and potential. 4 years from now, he might be better than a few guys above him on this list. He is long and plays hard and with passion. Needs a total rebuild of his jump shot, but he is only 18 years old and seems to me to have the drive to get better. D league guy for now and he might bust altogether, but I don't think so. I think he is a Lance Stephenson, but slightly better if he hits his ceiling. He is a little risky which is why he will fall some in the actual draft. Coachability concerns from Kentucky don't bother me at all, being that I think Calipari himself had a bad year and doesnt have a particularly good developmental staff in my opinion.

    17. JACKIE CARMICHAEL: Hard not to like him when you watch tape. He is a big, hard hitting, screening interior tough guy. He rebounds all over the place, plays physical and tough, and while he isn't overly skilled he shows some potential there to improve his game. Well coached in college and seems to be driven to get better. NBA body from day 1. You can go to war with him on your bench I think. Reminds me of Taj Gibson, he will be in the league for sure I think for a while. Needs to expand his game a bit offensively and get in the right situation.

    18. JAMAAL FRANKLIN: The kid plays with such swagger and toughness it is hard not to root for him. He can't shoot a lick and I dont think it can be fixed, but if I thought it could he would jump a bit up this list. Athletic and explosive, rebounds like a maniac, but cant hit from outside 10 feet reliably as of now. Fun to watch play, but limited. I think he is Dahntay Jones or something like that.

    19. TIM HARDAWAY JR: Plays hard, does everything ok but only real above average skill is shooting, and even that is somewhat inconsistent. Has a clear position which is good, and he has a swagger and confidence that he obviously inherited. I think he makes the league as a role guy but nothing special, maybe like a Martell Webster.

    20. DESHAWN THOMAS: He can score. I think he is close to Shabazz in skill level but slower than him and a bit more limited. Not sure who he can guard at the NBA level but I think he can somehow produce points at the pro level. Reminds me of a Clarence Weatherspoon type.

    21. TONY SNELL: The kid has nice physical atributes and seems athletic. Completely didnt rebound at all in college, and I have some footwork issues with how he was coached there. Seems to have better tools than he actually plays to me. Still, length is good and he shows an ability to shoot, but I also dont think he plays hard all the time. He is a nice player if he hits his ceiling.....but I have some doubts on his ability to actually hit it....kind of guy who looks better working out vs a chair than he does on tape probably. Potential gets him to this ranking. I am less sure about him than maybe anyone else on this list....others seem to see more than I do. If we end up with him Ill do a much more thorough study for this site, as I will with all of these guys who havent been profiled yet if they end up in Indianapolis.

    22. MICHAEL CARTER WILLIAMS: I think he has to get on the right team with the right kind of teammates around him to succeed, otherwise he could bust. To me he fits a very specific set of circumstances, and that is it. He cant shoot, and I dont think he can guard point guards all of the time either. I guess we will see. I liked DARIUS MORRIS a lot better coming out of college, and he is buried on the bench in Los Angeles as a non factor for the Lakers at this point....how is MCW any different?

    23. SHANE LARKIN: I have major concerns over his size and length, or his lack of it to state it better. Plays the screen/roll well offensively but I think defensively he is going to struggle. Can he become a TJ Ford type? Maybe, and that is about his ceiling I think, which I guess isnt bad....but I have doubts he makes it. Athleticism is useful but I didnt think he was a freak athlete while watching him play.

    24. ALAN CRABBE: He can shoot off screens very well, moves without the ball, and has some length. Ability to get shot off while not totally set is an NBA skill. Totally guarded no one in college and his attitude on the floor was questionable, and why would it be any different after you pay him big money? I can see him fitting in and making it in the right system and situation, but I can also see him busting. I dont think he can put it on the floor in the NBA, and I dont see teams running a ton of plays for him just to get him open either.

    25. NATE WOLTERS: He has good size, a good handle, and I think he can shoot the ball well at this level possibly. I have no idea who he will be able to defend, and I dont think his ceiling is very high. He might make it on the very end of a bad teams bench, but I cant see him being a meaningful NBA player for 2 contracts. At the very top of his ceiling maybe he is Dan Dickau.

    26. KELLY OLYNYK: He has some moves and some offensive skill, which means he will stick in the league for a while but I dont see him making much impact. Seems like a Bill Wennington type, which I guess isn't that bad.

    27. ERIK MURPHY: if he gets on the right exact fit I think he can stick in the league due to his one outstanding skill, which is shooting. He has been coached up extremely well in college, and I think what you see is what you get with him. Seems like a Steve Novak kind of specialist, maybe up to a Matt Bonner if he gets on the right team....and San Antonio would be a good fit for him to take Bonner's place actually.

    28. ANDRE ROBERSON: he is an undersized rebounding specialist.....history shows that these guys can make it in the league if they get in the right situation. Not sure if he is as tough minded or strong as Reggie Evans though, I know he isnt as athletic or tough as Kenneth Faried.

    29. STEVEN ADAMS: yes, I know he will go in the top 15 probably. But if you actually watch him play in games on tape, he basically sucks. I see him as a huge project, and one that quite frankly I dont think will pan out. I wouldnt touch him. Thabeet is mostly a bust and he is way better than Adams I think. Still, the outside chance he makes it puts him here. He seems like a Greg Dreiling/Greg Kite stiff to me.

    30. PEYTON SIVA: I dont think he is anything more than possibly your backup point guard, but I think at worst he is a great 3rd point guard to have to try and develop. Very tough minded, high character kid who can defend and pressure the ball. Winning attitude and toughness. Reminds me of Heywood Workman in that way though not as physically strong.

    31. MIKE MUSCALA: He isnt tough enough or strong enough to make it right now, but he'd be an excellent guy to pick and send overseas and see how his body develops. Smart with good character.

    32. MYCK KABONGO: Had to dig deep on this guy. Character concerns yes, but an NBA build at least. I think he can stick as an alternative to Siva as a cheap 3rd point guard, but I dont think he plays hard or all that smart, and he lacks Siva's toughness and grit.

    33. WILL CLYBURN: Athletic wing with super long arms, developmental potential for your Dleague team. Worth a gamble I think, has positional flexibility to play both wing spots, came from an NBA system at Iowa State. I think he can defend his position, he is hungry, and he has been coached well. Kind of a questionable background as he bounced around in college.

    34. JAMES ENNIS: Similar to Clyburn, worth a flyer as an excellent NBA athlete, just not that good a player. D league guy if we take him.

    35. SOLOMON HILL: Similar to the above guys, maybe not as athletic but maybe a better overall player immediately. Not good enough to play yet but could develop.

    36. CJ LESLIE: Similar to the above guys, he is a positional tweener who I dont think can play, but athletic enough to keep as a Dleague project if you pick him. Never got better as his career went along, underachieved I think. Cant shoot free throws even, doesnt always play hard.

    37. GRANT JERRETT: stretch 4 candidate, but I dont think he can guard his position well enough to play in the NBA. Worth a Dleague flyer if you want to. Might have a bit of upside and improvement left to do yet.

    38. CHRISTIAN WATFORD: Similar to Jerrett, a high character kid who lacks a position he can guard I think. He did shoot 48% from three last year playing the stretch 4 spot, and the IU system is very NBA like in terms of how they practice.....I dont think he can defend enough to stick but if he could he might be useful to someone.

    39. JAMELLE HIGGINS: long term 4 man project, probably could sign him as an UDFA if you want, but he has great length and is super smart and athletic. I kind of hope we end up with him and give him a chance in the summer league at least.

    40. PIERRE JACKSON: I know others have him much higher than this, but I think at 5'10 he is just way too small to be anything better than a 3rd point guard, and for that role I'd rather have Siva or Kabongo. Nate Robinson is a freak athlete to be able to play at that size, and I dont see that in Jackson, though I know others seem to.

    41. COLT RYAN: He can move around screens and shoot the rock extremely well. Doubtful, extremely doubtful in fact, that he can guard anybody close to good enough, but he is a good character kid who would be a nice Dleague fit maybe, and definitely someone to invite to the summer league.


    Feel free to compare this list to others, including the one on IndyCornrows by Evan Sidery, and see what you think. Draft is now 25 hours away as I post this!


    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

    So Tbird, you're saying the Pacers should stay at #23, try to buy a late 1st pick. Draft Green, Goodwin and Silva. Call it a day and start working on Free Agency.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

      I'm gonna assume you forgot Tony Mitchell.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

        Originally posted by Jukeb0xHero View Post
        I'm gonna assume you forgot Tony Mitchell.
        Did you get a chance to read T-Bird's scathing analysis of Tony Mitchell? He may have left him off just on general principle.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

          I must have missed but I am reading now. Must say I found myself agreeing with him in large part but disagree strongly in his assessment of Mitchell. I have Mitchell 10 on my board and he's probably my 3rd favorite prospect in this draft after Bennett & Oladipo.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

            I am so glad TBird is on this site. It keeps me from having to follow college basketball.

            Edit: I've found that these articles leading up to the draft are a way better use of my time than scanning the national media headlines for what their experts think. Thanks TBird.
            Last edited by maragin; 06-26-2013, 11:15 PM.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

              Originally posted by Jukeb0xHero View Post
              I must have missed but I am reading now. Must say I found myself agreeing with him in large part but disagree strongly in his assessment of Mitchell. I have Mitchell 10 on my board and he's probably my 3rd favorite prospect in this draft after Bennett & Oladipo.
              How on earth do you come to Mitchell in the top 10?
              Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                I'm absolutely a fan of KCP and would love if he was in our range. I think he's one of the sleepers of this draft.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                  Originally posted by Jukeb0xHero View Post
                  I must have missed but I am reading now. Must say I found myself agreeing with him in large part but disagree strongly in his assessment of Mitchell. I have Mitchell 10 on my board and he's probably my 3rd favorite prospect in this draft after Bennett & Oladipo.
                  A player’s character is of the upmost importance to the Pacers. They currently have a roster full of stand-up guys both on the floor and in the community. Coming off a season where the chemistry was the best it’s been in over a decade, Pritchard said character remains No. 1 in their book.

                  “If you’re not a good kid, you’re not going to be an Indiana Pacer,” he said.

                  From a Pacers.com article.
                  "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                    Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
                    How on earth do you come to Mitchell in the top 10?
                    I'm pretty sure my take would be more common than him being out of the top 40 (or 20 for that matter)


                    tbird mentions Josh Smith in the article (though not in a positive light to Mitchell), I think he has Josh Smith+ upside, + mostly because I think he can be a great defensive player with consistent effort - I won't say he doesn't need improvement there but tbird goes to some ridiculous levels of hyperbole in describing Mitchell (Homeless destitute Tyrus Thomas, really?)

                    Unlike Smith he has an impressive ability uncommon in most all non-C's, the ability to block his mans shot as opposed to being just a weakside blocker like a Josh Smith (or Ibaka). He's a legit rim protector at the 4. Does need work on awareness on D.


                    Also think tbird undersells his rebounding ability, guy crashes glass pretty hard and is especially good on the offensive glass.


                    He needs to figure out what he wants to be offensively (then again has Josh Smith yet?) and play with more motor when the going gets tough (it needs to be noted Mitchell has admitted and openly talked about struggling with his effort level last season, I think this is worth something), but on talent alone he's arguably #1 in this draft and has as high a ceiling as anyone. And at 23, we would make a excellent value pick if we selected him.
                    Last edited by Jukeb0xHero; 06-26-2013, 11:52 PM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                      Once again for this year's draft I have decided to put out my ranking of draftable players for the NBA Draft, 2013 edition.


                      6. TREY BURKE: Another high character, driven kid who plays with both great talent and great guts. Tough minded leader who has worked hard to become a high level player. Pure point guard, not the biggest kid but he clearly is big enough to function. Great NBA skills that translate well I think....a kid with leadership skills. Great character kid.

                      Tbird
                      This is the best evaluation of Burke I've seen. Exactly what I think of him and if he doesn't go top 10, he'll be a steal for someone. Hearing OKC at 12 could be a possibility. Burke and Westbrook is scary
                      Smothered Chicken!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                        This will make it all the funnier when Len goes number 1 to Cleveland. I might die.


                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          This will make it all the funnier when Len goes number 1 to Cleveland. I might die.
                          Post Mortem on Trader Joe by the EMT - Found Pacer fan on the floor from apparent heart attack caused by the stupidity of the Cavs FO.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                            Originally posted by Jukeb0xHero View Post
                            I'm pretty sure my take would be more common than him being out of the top 40 (or 20 for that matter)


                            tbird mentions Josh Smith in the article (though not in a positive light to Mitchell), I think he has Josh Smith+ upside, + mostly because I think he can be a great defensive player with consistent effort - I won't say he doesn't need improvement there but tbird goes to some ridiculous levels of hyperbole in describing Mitchell (Homeless destitute Tyrus Thomas, really?)

                            Unlike Smith he has an impressive ability uncommon in most all non-C's, the ability to block his mans shot as opposed to being just a weakside blocker like a Josh Smith (or Ibaka). He's a legit rim protector at the 4. Does need work on awareness on D.


                            Also think tbird undersells his rebounding ability, guy crashes glass pretty hard and is especially good on the offensive glass.


                            He needs to figure out what he wants to be offensively (then again has Josh Smith yet?) and play with more motor when the going gets tough (it needs to be noted Mitchell has admitted and openly talked about struggling with his effort level last season, I think this is worth something), but on talent alone he's arguably #1 in this draft and has as high a ceiling as anyone. And at 23, we would make a excellent value pick if we selected him.
                            I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing, but my take on Mitchell is this...If someone has great talent, he DOMINATES at a school like North Texas thats within a 3rd tier, maybe 4th tier conference, consistently playing against inferior players/talent. Idc what type of offensive system you run

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: 2013 NBA draft analysis #13: Tbird's Big Board

                              There are a good amount of examples of guys in smaller conferences not dominating and becoming awfully good in the NBA. Paul George, for one. Not that I'm trying to apples to apples George & Mitchell.

                              There were a lot of extenuating circumstances last year in North Texas effecting Mitchell. It doesn't excuse away all of his poor play (or effort especially) but I wouldn't judge him on it solely.

                              I think he's pretty comparable as a prospect to Anthony Bennett whom both tbird & I have at #1. Probably the two premier boom/bust, high risk high reward guys in the draft in my mind. But the bust would hurt a lot less with Mitchell when he's going somewhere between 14-24 and not 1-5.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X