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 2014 NBA Draft Analysis #6: Nick Johnson

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

    Tbird 2014 NBA Draft Analysis #6: Nick Johnson

    On the Sunday before the 2014 NBA draft, today we examine the pros and cons of taking guard Nick Johnson from Arizona. This is the 6th in this years series of profiles, you can examine the previous players scouted at this link:

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...-2014-Pointers


    Johnson is the reigning 2014 PAC-12 player of the year, scoring 16ppg for the highly ranked Arizona Wildcats. If not for a horrendous offensive foul call in the NCAA tournament against Johnson on their last possession, the Wildcats may very well have made it to the Final four.

    In addition to being named the best player in the PAC-12, Johnson also made their first team all defensive team, which was very well deserved. Johnson is undersized for a 2 guard at just 6'3, however his extreme athleticism and solid 6'7 1/4 wingspan somewhat mitigate that, as does his solid 200lb strong body. Johnson has been well coached by Sean Miller and has been brought up around the game at a young age.....his father was a playground basketball legend with (supposedly) a 52 inch vertical and his uncle was Hall of Famer (and ex Larry Bird teammate) Dennis Johnson.

    Playing in big time environments will be nothing new for Johnson, as Arizona was a national power playing elite competition throughout his 3 years for the Wildcats. But how will his game translate to the next level? That is the question we try to answer today.

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

    Johnson is a NBA pro athlete, a world class leaper with good body control and explosive hops. He even gives you at 6'3 some element of rim protection, as he is one of the best fast break defenders in this draft, excelling at blocking shots from behind in trail situations or as a help defender. He isn't as athletic as Thanasis Antetokounmpo......but then again, few would be.

    Defensively is where Johnson stands out to me as a pro prospect, because he is a 2 guard who I think can defend multiple positions, including point guards. I think he is even better at defending bigger wings, as he excels at contesting shots, keeping the dribble in front of him, and he is extremely good at sliding around screens and refusing to be cut off from his man. I believe he would be a guy who could defend bigger players like J.J. Redick or Bradley Beal, and yet have the quickness to guard the Teague type explosive point guards, at least better than anyone we currently have. He is quick in his slide, and he also seems to be very aware of the scouting report and overall team defensive structure.

    He can be a plus perimeter defender of players his size and slightly bigger, I don't think there is any question about that. I don't think he is Tony Allen level because Allen can guard small forwards, and I think Johnson is too small for that, but if you want a guy who can guard opponents point guards or shooting guards for stretches off your bench Johnson can do that. That type of defensive flexibility is handy when trying to form lineups and put a roster together of complimentary pieces.

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

    Johnson is described by almost everyone as a "combination" guard, and to me that means that he can play spot minutes at the point guard offensively for you. I DISAGREE with that notion though, as I believe Johnson is a small 2 guard who can defend 1's, but cannot be your point guard/best ballhander/distributor type.....you'll have to play a point guard with him, or at least someone who handles the ball and starts your offense for you.

    Johnson may have been the only 6'3 guy who played the bottom of the floor against zones, and who routinely got lob plays called for him. Johnson is a slam dunk machine who has big value in a more up tempo, open court game offensively. Currently that isn't our style of play, but I don't think in the 2nd round #57 you can be as choosy about that as you might be earlier....at this point, you just need guys who can play and have talent enough to stick.

    As a wing type offensive guy, Johnson has some strengths and some weaknesses.

    As a catch and shoot guy, he has pretty good history. If he is spotting up for you, his results tell you that he is a pretty good shooter. However I don't love his shooting form from his lower body, and I do question whether his marksmanship will continue at the high level it was at Arizona. For the Wildcats, he shot a robust 38% from deep....yet because I think he relies on his legs more than most, and because he is a guy who shoots straight up and down on his jumper, which new school thinking on shooting isn't in favor of. I worry about his shooting numbers over an 82 game season and as he ages.

    He is reasonably good coming off a ballscreen, but I doubt he would be so good at it that it will be a big weapon at the NBA level. He is much more of a scorer in these situations, and seems to lack the wherewithal and creativity to make the difficult pocket passes or more sophisticated reads than NBA guards coming off a ballscreen would need to make.

    Off the dribble, I think he has some potential as an iso type point guard who can get his own shot off....this is where his top notch leaping ability and good first step can translate, as he can gain an advantage on some defenders and simply shoot over some others who are somewhat similarly sized as he is. He needs to really drastically improve his stop and pop shooting form though, because at this point he is inaccurate shooting off the bounce. He will need to really learn I think to "pound" the ball on his last dribble, so he can get more spring and rhythm into his pull up jumper. I do think that can be coached up, so I expect that to improve somewhat....but how much will it improve? I am not sure.

    His major strengths offensively going forward I think are:

    1. As a transition guy. He runs the floor like a deer, can push it himself if he gets opportunities, and can get to the rim in transition and finish thru contact. The more up tempo the game is, the better it is for him.

    2. He runs plays well. In the complicated NBA world, if he gets to a team with a hugely thick playbook such as Minnesota or Dallas or Chicago, I think he is experienced and intellectual enough to understand a system and run plays correctly. He didn't look all that good to me when Arizona ran it's motion based "Chin" offense, but when they ran memorized sets and specials I think he was better. He won't break plays or mess things up often.

    3. He feeds the post well. Johnson gets low with the ball, patiently waits on bigs to get position, and then feeds into them consistently, on time and to the proper hand. Feeding the post is a lost art at all levels of basketball, especially at times for our own Indiana Pacers.

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

    So what do we have in Nick Johnson?

    I think we have a player with a good pedigree and resume of success who is a high character kid. But we also have a very small shooting guard who may be stuck in between positions, and who's style of play may not exactly fit our current method of operation.

    I think he likely fits better in Phoenix or Philadelphia.....and one of those is where I think he may end up. Phoenix at pick #50 seems like a good spot to put him.

    BUT.....if he is there at #57, and we haven't moved up at all, and he is available.....he wouldn't be a bad selection at all. I would expect in that case though for Indiana to pick a player with a more clear cut position or perhaps take a player they can stash overseas, but you never know. We know Indiana seems to like Arizona players, having seen them reach perhaps a year ago for Solomon Hill. With that connection and with the kid's family being so deeply connected to Larry Bird, I'd say he has much of a chance to be our pick as anyone else. I do expect almost 100% that Indiana will take someone at #57 they've worked out.....but we don't know how many of these guys that Indiana has looked at in private, though we do know that he isn't listed as one of their public workout guys yet.

    We shall find out soon, I suppose.

    This time until next time......

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2014 NBA Draft Analysis #6: Nick Johnson

    Interesting player. Can feed the post which is very interesting. Can play "D" on both guards which is a positive. He has speed and can finish too. In mocks I've seen, he won't be available at #57. I firmly believe Bird will move up in the 2nd rd to get a player he likes.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2014 NBA Draft Analysis #6: Nick Johnson

      Love this kid, sucks that he is only 6'2 for him, give him a few more inches and I am betting he is pushing to be taken in the lottery. I agree he does not really fit our style of play but I would not complain if we drafted him.
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2014 NBA Draft Analysis #6: Nick Johnson

        This is the player I want most at 57. I'm an Arizona homer, but regardless of that I think he's the type of guy that could be a huge asset off the bench.

        Comment

        Previous template Next
        Working...
        X