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

Westbrook or Augustin

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

  • #31
    Re: Westbrook or Augustin

    Yeah, this is definitely the guy we should draft! He reminds me of Penny Hardaway before his knees went bad.


    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Westbrook or Augustin

      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
      Oh, I think we'd take Love easy, but he'd have to fall to us first.

      And I've gotten to the point where I just don't believe these mock drafts. We'd trade down into the mid-20s and Rush and CDR would have been taken 15-20.
      Agreed. He's not getting to 11, too many GMs and other sources have commented on his game in a way that matches stuff I've thought too. Meaning that I think the read I've had on him is the one a lot of people get when they see a lot of his game action, rather than just me being on his jock or something.

      Mayo, EJ, Love, Westbrook - when I watched them I thought they clearly stood out. And typically the commentators of the game were agreeing at the time. They aren't slipping off radars. If anything they might be overvalued, though I don't think that's true either.

      Of the "past 15 or so" SG types I think CDR has the best set of offensive moves, but I haven't thought much of his defensive ability. Rush isn't quite the scorer CDR is but he really plays smart and like Westbrook he finds his way into lots of plays, more of a glue guy than a focal point. Lee also has some pretty nice scoring moves, maybe not CDR, but he seems to give you more defense.

      Keep in mind that Lee went straight up against Westbrook in the tourney and basically handled him fine. Considering that he can be had in the 2nd round allegedly that might be a nice bargin.

      I'm calling Bill Walker a SF. He's so Jackson it's not funny (physical tweener SG/SF with really streaky offense and a habit of getting overly emotionally charged). Technically you could use him at SG, certainly a better fit there than Dun is.


      DJ quick as Best? Hmm, I guess but I never saw that myself. To me Collison seems much quicker than DJ. To me DJ is like the smaller version of Bayless and honestly I think Bayless also has the better passing game. How DJ is the pure PG and Bayless is a combo is beyond me. DJ often took over and called his own number, especially in the tourney. That's not "pure PG" to me.

      That type of improvement takes a serious work ethic
      So did Love, and in both cases it wasn't work ethic directly that made that happen, as in "used to suck but he got a lot better". This was simply where a guy was projected and then people got to see what his actual game is and views changed. I don't think EJ dropped a bit because he doesn't work at it, people just got to see him with prime time NCAA minutes and saw the flaws that were already there.

      To me a drop or climb in cases like this have more to do with mocks guessing at a player's talent rather than their own in-season improvement. Now a 4th year guy might drop or flatten out from year 3 and hurt his stock (Hibbert), but Westbrook was never a guy people thought "he stinks". More like "haven't thought about it".

      First game I saw of UCLA this year he was noticeable. Same with Love. I was watching for Collison only at the time, didn't even know about the other two. Same with KS and Rush/Chalmers, Memphis and CDR/Dorsey, and so on.

      This isn't to say that Brook didn't work at it, it's just saying that his climb doesn't directly indicate "gym rat" status or something.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-22-2008, 04:19 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Westbrook or Augustin

        Originally posted by Speed View Post
        Anytime I hear gym rat, I'm interested.
        That's great and all, but I think it's something I'd expect more than something I'd get excited about. The majority of NBA players work hard in the gym, come to practice on time, listen to their coaches and don't slack during the offseason.

        Austin Croshere and Troy Murphy are a couple examples of bigtime gymrats. For some reason, their work ethic gets reported more than others, but there are plenty of other guys like that in the league.

        And I'd take Westbrook, FTR.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Westbrook or Augustin

          be careful with those highlight videos...a highlight video can be edited to make anybody look like a future all-star. what you see in that video from westbrook is not really indicative of his game for the full 40minutes...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Westbrook or Augustin

            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
            be careful with those highlight videos...a highlight video can be edited to make anybody look like a future all-star. what you see in that video from westbrook is not really indicative of his game for the full 40minutes...
            James White, anyone?
            ...Still "flying casual"
            @roaminggnome74

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Westbrook or Augustin

              Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
              IMO, who the Pacers draft will depend greatly on three primary factors:

              1) who Bird/O'Brien views as the core players. (We'll get to that in a moment);

              2) what position they feel is in need of an upgrade; and,

              3) whether they feel a desperate need to upgrade said position now or if they believe they can afford to wait a year or 2 for the draftee to develop.

              Of course, there is a forth option if you will:

              4) picking the best players available @ #11 and trading him to get the more experienced player(s) you want.

              Now, let's talk about each of the above factors.

              1. Both Bird and coach O'Brien agree that Granger, Dunleavy and JO make up the core players. (For Bird's assessment of the core players, see the question from the linked article herein that inquires about the nucleus of the team right above JO's picture; for Jim O'Brien's perspective, listen to his last radio show; link provided below.)

              Key reserves: Diener, Graham (recently signed new contract w/the Pacers), Shawn Williams and Jeff Foster

              Looking at this list of seven players, the one position that cannot easily be changed by one of the inner-changeable players is PG.

              2. In an April 17th interview w/Conrad Brunner, as well as coach O'Brien's last radio show of the season, coach was very specific about the need to "shore up the PG position" with "defensive toughness". The question then becomes how desperate are they to upgrade this position? Which leads us to item #3.

              3. The Pacers used five different players at the Point last year: Tinsley, Diener, Flip Murray, Quis and Owens. It's clear that neither Owens nor Murray will be back next year - Owens moreso because he lacks overall skill at the Point, and Murray because he's not a true PG and because the Pacers already have a unique "combo-Guard" in Quis, but in truth he didn't run the Point very well either. That leaves Tinsley and Diener as the Pacers only two viable PGs. Odds are Tinsley won't be back next year (per the radio show link above), but if he does return, it's likely he'll lose his starting role because of his lack of dependability (health wise, but there are obviously other factors that go along with his dependability issues). So, how desperate are the Pacers to upgrade at the Point? I'd say very, but they're not in panic mode just yet. Which leads me to item #4 - picking the best player available and trading him to get a more experienced player (or players). I doubt that will happen, but it remains a plausable option.

              Admittedly, the Pacers haven't faired very well when trying to pick up a PG through FA. They had a solid backup in Darrel Armstrong, but let him go due to his age and lack of quickness (though you had to admire the defensive effort he put forth, as well as his seemingly tireless energy; I'd have kept him myself, but I'm not the team's decision maker...). Over the years, they've played "patch-work" at the Point continuously seeking out a viable backup for Tinsley. But in recent years, it's become more and more apparent that despite Tinsley's talents at running the offense, he's not very durable and, thus, can't be relied on for extended play throughout any given season. So, now TPTB are re-thinking their approach to the PG position. Instead of finding "patches" to fill the reserve PG spot in case Tinsley goes down, they want to find a reliable PG for the near future who can defend, score and create shots for himself. And that leds us to where we are now trying to guess who the Pacers might take in the draft.

              Among the three leading candidates, D. J. Augustin, Russell Westbrook and Eric Gordon, it is my opinion based on details as outlined above that the Pacers will select Westbrook. NBADraft.net describes Westbrook as follows:

              "Attacks the basket with a lethal first step and crossover ability … Can handle the rock well and gets into the lane effortlessly … Huge wingspan allows him to play much bigger than his 6-3 height … Solid passer with unselfishness, always looks for the open man … Has an excellent mid-range game … A gym rat, really works hard to improve … Has a great attitude, extremely coachable … Has the potential to be a big-time scorer when given the chance … Really excels defensively and has a chance to develop into a great defender …Must become better at handling ball pressure at the point guard position."

              The only negative on this guy seems to be that he gets alittle rattled when pressed hard (either in the half-court or when doubled). In time, this is something that he can overcome. The key selling point, obviously, is his ability to play solid defense which is what Bird and JOB have both stressed as vital from this position. Now, I'd love to get Augustin because this guy he's a bonafied play maker (based on the scouting report and what I've seen of him), but we've got Granger, Graham and to a limited degree Dunleavy and Quis for that. What the Pacers need is a solid, all-around PG who can pass, shot well from the field, has the ability to finish at the rim AND defend well. Westbrook seems to have all those traits. Of course, the debate will continue until draft night. So, let the debates go on...
              Good explanation of your thinking. Very logical, and probably the way management is thinking. The question is will Westbrook be available? One thing though, they didn't sign Graham, they picked up his option.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                  we WILL be drafting a Point Guard...
                  If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                  [/center]
                  @thatguyjoe84

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    Good explanation of your thinking. Very logical, and probably the way management is thinking. The question is will Westbrook be available? One thing though, they didn't sign Graham, they picked up his option.
                    I stand corrected. Still, the point is we retained him as a key component to the team's immediate future. The question TPTB have to answer is, "How many above the rim players can this roster handle?" Granger has ups, but Graham can really throw down. Should they draft Westbrook they'd certainly be adding another "above the rim" type player into the mix. Bird/Morray will then need to decide if it's improved perimeter defense w/playmaking they want at the Point or playmaking with ball distribution and the ability to run the offense?

                    As I said, if it's between Westbrook and Augustin I think they'll go with Westbrook, but I'd rather they took Augustin instead.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                      James White, anyone?
                      Exactly. As soon as you see 20 dunks and oops you know the reel is basically worthless for seeing a guy's game. I went on YouTube looking a bit last night and watched some reels on guys I'd seen in plenty of full games. Kevin Love's reel had ZERO outlet passes, and when you grab it baseline, toss it 3/4 court for the zero dribble layup by a teammate, that's a highlight. Yet his real suggests he is an undersized PF who either takes dunks or spots up for jumpers. None of his clever post work, none of his steals or quality inside defense since he rarely gets a shot block...the reel showed nothing that would make you draft him.

                      This was true for all these guys. I need to see Bayless dunking on an oop maybe once just to show his in-traffic hops. Show me some stop and go's, pivots, hand changes, cross-overs and a variety of the passes he can make, not just the same behind the back or oop assist over and over.

                      Worst is this no-brainer stuff like the previously mentioned open dunks. Really, a quality NCAA player can dunk it when left wide open. Wow, you sold me on the kid.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                        Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                        I stand corrected. Still, the point is we retained him as a key component to the team's immediate future. The question TPTB have to answer is, "How many above the rim players can this roster handle?" Granger has ups, but Graham can really throw down. Should they draft Westbrook they'd certainly be adding another "above the rim" type player into the mix. Bird/Morray will then need to decide if it's improved perimeter defense w/playmaking they want at the Point or playmaking with ball distribution and the ability to run the offense?

                        As I said, if it's between Westbrook and Augustin I think they'll go with Westbrook, but I'd rather they took Augustin instead.
                        I don't necessarily think this is true. I think they picked up Graham's option because (A) we're tax-strapped, so we're going to need guys at or around the min to fill out the last three or four roster spots, (B) Graham's option is right there (@ about $800k), and (C) Graham is a known quantity.

                        I think he showed enough to get another shot as bench fodder, but I have a hard time believing that anyone is really considering him a key component of the team's immediate future.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Exactly. As soon as you see 20 dunks and oops you know the reel is basically worthless for seeing a guy's game. I went on YouTube looking a bit last night and watched some reels on guys I'd seen in plenty of full games. Kevin Love's reel had ZERO outlet passes, and when you grab it baseline, toss it 3/4 court for the zero dribble layup by a teammate, that's a highlight. Yet his real suggests he is an undersized PF who either takes dunks or spots up for jumpers. None of his clever post work, none of his steals or quality inside defense since he rarely gets a shot block...the reel showed nothing that would make you draft him.

                          This was true for all these guys. I need to see Bayless dunking on an oop maybe once just to show his in-traffic hops. Show me some stop and go's, pivots, hand changes, cross-overs and a variety of the passes he can make, not just the same behind the back or oop assist over and over.

                          Worst is this no-brainer stuff like the previously mentioned open dunks. Really, a quality NCAA player can dunk it when left wide open. Wow, you sold me on the kid.
                          It showed off his fantastic transitional game. He's unguardable in the open-court. We also saw some very nifty ball handling, strengthening the argument that he's capable of being a Devin Harris-type point guard in the NBA. I think Westbrook will be even better, as he's clearly more physically gifted than Harris and seems to have a that fiery competitiveness to him that few players can match. With what I've seen, I don't think 20 ppg, 6 apg, 4 rpg is out of the question by his 3rd or 4th season. Of course, like I've previously said, once he wows teams during workouts, he's gone long before #11. I could see him going as high as Seattle at #5.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            I don't necessarily think this is true. I think they picked up Graham's option because (A) we're tax-strapped, so we're going to need guys at or around the min to fill out the last three or four roster spots, (B) Graham's option is right there (@ about $800k), and (C) Graham is a known quantity.
                            And the league pays a good part of that.

                            Even if we didn't think he was a key piece, picking up the option was a no-brainer.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                              Originally posted by jcouts View Post
                              Neither of these players are going to excel at the NBA level. They will both be career backups. The temptation for Bird to draft another 6'7 guy who can play multiple positions (Brandon Rush) will prove too tempting.
                              I disagree that both of these guys are destined to be career backups. Especially with the way the NBA is setup rules-wise. These guys are both lightning quick, and Westbrook could excel on defense alone. If Larry opts for a 6'7 guy though, I'm hoping it's CDR. I really, really, really want thig guy in a Pacers uni!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Westbrook or Augustin

                                Westbrook hands down.. I don't even want Augustine.. I think he will be a flop.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X