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 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

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

  • Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

    As draft night rapidly approaches, the rush is on for teams to finalize their draft boards, work out players, and try and flesh out their own trade possibilities. One of the players many teams are looking at and considering is the crafty point guard from Virginia Commonwealth, Eric Maynor.

    Maynor is flying a bit under the radar on this draft board and in draft chatter in general, as teams and scouts continue to try and quantify how his game will translate to the next level. Judging point guards is somewhat an art form anyway, so Maynor is likely one player there will be some disagreement on throughout the league, and perhaps on this board.

    I've spent some extra time getting prepared for this analysis, as I had only 2 games of his from this past season prepared to watch. Thankfully, I had some good help from a couple of friends in the coaching world who helped me get some extra film of him. For those 2 guys, who by request are remaining anonymous (but will be reading this sometime in the next few days), I say thank you!

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

    I want to share with you some of the things I look for when evaluating point guards in order to explain to you properly how I feel about Eric Maynor.

    1. Does he have legitimate size to play the position defensively, and if he doesn't does he have overwhelming quickness or some other attribute to offset a lack of size?

    2. Does he understand how to play the position the proper way? Does he "get it"?

    3. Is he truly a point guard, or a shooting guard in a point guards body? How does he THINK on the court?

    4. Can he fit in to different styles, and what style would best fit him?

    5. Can he give you what I call "opportunity points"? Not necessarily looking to score, but able to score when an advantage exists or the situation calls for him to do so?

    6. Does he make his teammates better, and do players like playing with him?

    I'll try to hit on those points as I continue this analysis.

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

    Athletically, Maynor is not a physical freak of nature like a Rajon Rondo with his length and quickness, or Derrick Rose with his athleticism, or Chris Paul with his blinding speed.

    Maynor seems to have average quickness, straightline speed, mediocre reach, and pedestrian leaping ability. He doesn't appear to me to be a guy who is going to overwhelm anyone in a workout situation, and I can see where teams would think he has a lack of extreme upside. In fact, I think that is exactly right, likely Eric Maynor will not be a top 5 NBA point guard in his career, due to some athletic limitations.

    This doesn't mean he can't play an athletic game however. It just means he isn't a candidate for XMen like some of the truly stud specimens playing the position currently. He will be somewhere between slightly above average athletically overall to right at the median of all the NBA point guards currently playing.

    The one concern I do have with him is his slight build. Weighing in at 165lbs or so is about 15 too few for him to successfully play in the league long term at, so a team will need to fill him out some with a nutritionists and diet probably. In this case playing at a small school like VCU hurts him a bit, as he wasn't exposed to all the opportunities for stuff like that the way a player from North Carolina or Kentucky would be.

    But athletically, I think it is clear that Maynor hits the prerequisites in being able to play the game from a physical and athletic standpoint.

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

    Analyzing a point guard is more art than science, particularly when you add in the circumstances that Maynor played under at VCU, playing basically by himself against good teams. VCU didn't have much talent to work with, yet still managed to win 20 plus games and make the NCAA field, largely due to Maynor.

    Maynor largely stood out to me on film with his ability to already understand the nuances of playing the position. Maynor did so many things as a point guard well that coaches who really emphasize the minute details stress.

    In point guard play, "pace of play" is something you always talk to them about. Many young guards have only 2 speeds: Super fast, or walk it up. In this draft, guards like Jonny Flynn and Ty Lawson look great when the pace is furious, and they had the teammates to run with them! Lawson particularly had a bunch of weapons to choose from, with Wayne Ellington being an outstanding shooter and Tyler Hansborough being an exceptional college big man running the floor. Lawson and Flynn are extremely good when pushing the tempo, attacking the defense with their speed. But, when the game slows down, the effectiveness goes away, particularly as a true half court lead guard. Their gas pedal was always pushed to the floor.

    Usually you can somewhat teach a guard who plays too fast to play somewhat slower if you want to. But there are other guards who play too slow, walking the ball up, letting the defense (and themselves) rest. This tendency is exactly why, even though he was drafted high, that I never thought Bobby Hurley all those years ago would be a good pro. Hurley liked to walk the ball up the floor, a bad indicator of future abilities. There are others who have this tendency as well, usually a team struggles when these type players are at your helm.

    But Maynor plays exactly the way you want a point guard to play in terms of pace....he plays at varying speeds! It is so difficult to fathom how important that is to a teams overall play, but it is a crucial thing in a true lead guard, and Maynor does it naturally. He pushes the ball when it is available, slows it down when situation dictates, and seems to be able to react well to the game situations.

    It isn't so much that Maynor has quickness....in fact he is slower than some other guards in this draft with the ball.....but Maynor has "burst" with the ball....the ability to go quick in short areas to get where he needs to go. Maynor is the type of guard who doesn't blow by you, but he does beat you nevertheless. You don't see many false steps, and he plays with excellent balance. He isnt the strongest, but he is wiry and his excellent balance helps him finish plays when you don't think he will.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maynor on film showed me some other positive attributes as an offensive point guard that I really like, and that are more rare than you think.

    One of those is that Maynor seems to understand the rhythm and flow of the game. How many times have you seen a Pacer player hit 3 or 4 shots in a row, and really begin to get in a groove, only to see our point guard take 2 or 3 quick jumpers of their own in the upcoming possessions for no good reason? A teammate getting "hot" from the field is something a player like Maynor instinctively understands and doesnt need to be taught. Maynor understands things like "we havent gone inside for three straight possessions, this time I'm going to call a set play and make sure we get it to the mismatch in the post". These are types of things I see from Maynor that I don't think yet cross the minds of some of the other more gifted athletically point guards available to be picked.

    Maynor had almost no help at VCU from teammates, but you can tell he has been coached very well. His coach at VCU, Anthony Grant, is widely considered to be one of the best in the country, and you can see some of the solid fundamentals and maturity that he helped Maynor develop.

    Maynor seems to have the ability to make very accurate passes. This may seem like a small thing, but it isnt. It isn't enough to just make a great decision on where to pass the ball, you need to deliver the ball to your teammates in rhythm, on time, and where they want it. Maynor takes that further even and is able to read his teammates cuts, and how his teammates are being defending coming off screens earlier than most, so he makes passes AWAY from the defender better than any point guard in this draft EXCEPT for Stephon Curry, who is probably even better than Maynor at this skill.

    Accurate passes are so key. Let's say you have a player spotting up and is open on the right wing, as your point guard drives to the lane. Some point guards in this draft will see where to pass, and yet lack the concentration or body control to throw it perfectly....they will throw it slightly too high or too low, messing up the rhythm of the shooter perhaps, or allowing the defender to recover that extra split second. Maynor is better at this little nuance than other point guards he is competing against, with the possible exception again of Stephon Curry.

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

    I've profiled alot of point guards already it seems in this point guard deep draft. Many of them will be really good players either as starters or as off the bench energy types, I think that is fair to say. But ALL of Teague, Lawson, Flynn and the like will be much much better in a more uptempo system. Currently, the Pacers do play a pretty fast tempo (3rd I think last year in "pace factor", someone can correct me if I am wrong), so any of these uptempo point guards might be fine right now.

    But I am of the opinion that Larry Bird sees the game in a much more traditional way than Jim O'Brien does. I think it is likely that Larry will value a point guard who can actually play better in the HALF COURT, traditional play calling style than some of the waterbug guards. Now, Bird I assume will always want to be opportunistic to be able to run, but I suspect he will long term want us to be more "efficient" than "explosive".

    Maynor ranks high to me in his ability to play the half court game. Another great skill I see Maynor having more than many young guards is the ability to "take the ball to the action". In coaching perlance, this means having the ball in your hands, reading the entire floor, then taking the ball to the side where you have the best offensive stuff happening. Maynor isn't Mark Jackson in this (the best I've ever seen in this one skill) but he is very good at this.

    Here is an example of "taking it to the action": Your best shooter is on the baseline (Granger), and your best screener (Hibbert) is coming down the floor to his side getting ready to deliver a quick downscreen. On the other side you have Marquis Daniels cutting out gimpily to the wing area, and Jeff Foster trying to post up early.

    Obviously, you'd want your point guard to take the ball from up top and get it in a position to where he can feed Granger off a screen in rhythm. But do you realize how many guards can't think like that? In our current guards, Ford would probably drive and try to score himself, Deiner would see the play but be unable to get the ball there while being guarded tightly, and Jack would see it too late and get the ball a half a heartbeat too late to Granger.

    A guard like Maynor would see it BEFORE it happens, and read Grangers man as Granger was cutting, and deliver an accurate pass to an in rhythm shooter. And if Hibberts guy would hedge hard and leave Roy open, Maynor would see that too and deliver a strike to the big fella. Our other guards might be dribbling with their heads down, or already circling the ball back out since their first option was thwarted.

    This is true in fast breaks as well. For years, the Pacers point guards have been terrible on 3-2 fast breaks. Tinsley had no timing at all here, either keeping the ball and taking it way too deep, or more often passing the ball way too early and/or passing it to the wrong lane filler. How many times have we seen Foster or someone like him get the ball way too early, have to dribble, and end up missing the shot/charging/turning it over. Maynor seems to stop in exactly the right place in this situation, which is right at the foul line to slightly above it. He will never wow you with a great spectacular pass, but he usually will make the simplest one.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maynor scored alot in the college game, but I don't see him as a high volume scorer in the NBA. He does have the one signature move of being able to hit the little "teardrop" in the lane. Maynor isn't a guy who gets overly deep into the paint in penetration, instead he smartly stops a few feet further than other guards in this class to keep his passing angles available to him. He lacks the blow by speed to get all the way to the basket, so he developed a very nice in between floater shot that is probably his biggest weapon to score. He also will shoot free throws pretty well.

    To be as good in the NBA as I think he might end up being, he will have to learn what a really good shot for him is and what it isn't. He already is a very smart player, so I don't see that being a problem. Maynor doesnt have text book form as a perimeter shooter, and I bet the NBA three pointer is a problem for him early in his career. His release is a bit slower than you would like, his hand position isn't ideal, and he doesn't get much elevation....he isn't going to rise up and shoot over anyone even remotely close to him.

    Having said that, I think he can develop as a shooter, especially with a team who is good at developing shooters, which we happen to be. Billy Keller seems to be a good teacher of shooting and is on staff, and many Pacer players on this roster seem to be becoming much better in this area to my eye. And I also have in my mind how much improvement Mark Jackson had as a shooter later in his career when "coached up" by Larry Legend. Clearly, to ever be an effective starter and truly maximize his potential, Maynor needs to develop as a three point shooter, and I think he likely will in time, although it isn't a sure thing.

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

    Because of all the positive attributes he brings to the table, I do think a point guard like Maynor is a really good weapon to have on a team. Offensively he really helps his teammates. He plays at great rhythm, understands the game, is a leader, is vocal, and seems to be very coachable. He also has the little extra bonus of seemingly rising to the occasion in the biggest moments, and making big shots. His best signature games were in the tournament this year against UCLA, and against Duke in the tournament a couple of years ago. Maynor shows the coolness and mojo to take big shots when he has to, and is able to deliver in the bigger moments, at least he was at the college level. He didn't shrink from the moments, he shined.

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

    I mentioned way up above that I think Maynor does have the requirements physically to play defense at this level, if he is able to put on some weight without losing quickness and speed. But let me say that I worry about Maynor as an individual defender somewhat. He clearly saved himself for offense at the college level, and at the stick like frame he has now he can be just engulfed by screens. Currently, I think he will be able to stay in front of most NBA point guards, but clearly as they do to everyone else, the elite ones will be able to score on him. Also, currently he would have a tough time muscleing up against the Chauncey Billups/Deron Williams types.

    I think eventually Maynor will develop into an average individual defender, but one who plays well within a team concept. I think he will become the type of conservative, "keep you in front" , don't gamble defender that you at least can rely on to be where he is supposed to. I of course wish he would be come a Heywoode Workman like ballhawk pressuring attack dog, but that isn't in the cards here I don't think. I don't think Maynor ever really HELPS you defensively a great deal, but I don't think he KILLS you either. His value to me is most certainly on the offensive end and in the lockerroom and huddle.

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

    So how does he fit with us?

    Maynor in some ways gives some flexibility to you in the future. I think he can play well in multiple systems under different coaches. I think he can play up tempo, and play even better as a half court "medium tempo" point guard. I think Maynor can play as a backup to either Ford OR Jack, as he doesn't exactly duplicate either one.....I think he fits BETTER as a back up to Jack, but it isn't a major issue either way.

    Maynor to me looks like a solid backup in years 1 and 2 perhaps, growing into a starters role at about age 24 or 25, much like Jarrett Jack has here. He isn't strong enough to play big minutes as a starter yet, and he will need some time to get adjusted to the pace/travel/jump in competition/athleticism that he will experience.

    So short term, an excellent back up who makes your team better. Long term, an excellent but limited starting point guard who may not have great highlights or big numbers, but who can really help your team win games in the regular season and into the playoffs. Eric Maynor is going to be an important player on some really good teams I think into the future, whether it be with us or elsewhere.

    Maynor makes a ton of sense for teams lacking point guards, like Philadelphia, Minnesota, Atlanta, etc. But I think it would be better for Maynor to go to a team where he can back up a really good player for year or 2 and develop his game, size, and strength. I don't think he is an immediate starter, more of a 2 year, work him in slowly type. I think Detroit is a good fit for him at #15 perhaps, and Utah would be a nice fit as well as an upgrade to caddy for Deron Williams.

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

    The paragraph right above that assumes the Pacers aren't taking him at #13 of course, which I do not necessarily think you can assume at this point. In fact, I'll go ahead and say that IF THE PACERS CHOOSE TO TRADE FORD somewhere and don't get a point guard back, that Maynor will very possibly be our selection. 4 year starter, solid character guy, plays more of a half court oriented game that I think Larry Bird covets, plays with a smoothness and maturity....I can definitely see Maynor being a Pacer. If the Pacers don't trade a point guard and DO bring Jack and Ford both back, then picking Maynor probably doesn't make any sense.

    In an ideal world, you would trade down just a few spots, gain a big guy/extra pick and pick Maynor slightly below our current selection. If Maynor is truly your guy, you'd need to drop no further than Chicago's selection at #16, as the teams all right below them all are likely Maynor fans.

    Some trade with our hated rival Detroit might make sense, involving players like Aaron Afflalo and Amir Johnson and the #15 in exchange for the #13 and something else. In fact, I would love a move like that.

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

    So who can we compare Maynor to?

    Currently playing in the NBA I think are 2 very good comparables to how I think Maynor projects long term if he pans out like I think he will.

    ANDRE MILLER is a non spectacular point guard who seems to really help his team win while not compiling giant statistics, although he is a bit better defender and a bit worse offensive player than I think Maynor will be.

    I think the best NBA comparable to Maynor's long term possibilities is:

    JAMEER NELSON. Both small school kids, without alarming athleticism. Nelson is very popular with his teammates and is an excellent offensive player. He is tough minded, heady, and smart although not supremely talented. He rode his teammates to an all star berth this year, so he is probably being overrated a tad at this point. But irregardless, he is a really good point guard who inspires his teammates to play well, who plays smart, and who scores when the opportunity presents itself. A pass first, heady, winning player.

    Maynors career path looks pretty clear to me. Effective back up early as he learns the game and gets stronger. Good NBA starter on very good teams for a few years, then a fine back up and mentor and savvy veteran as his athleticism fades in his early thirties.

    The Pacers could do a whole lot worse in this draft....Eric Maynor is going to be a very good selection for someone in the mid to late first round I think. Don't be surprised if someway somehow that Eric Maynor is a Pacer in a couple of weeks.

    .................................................. ................................................


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-09-2009, 05:33 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

    I love your post man. I have a feeling we end up taking maynor and are able to salvage some more talent like we did last year by moving down and getting our guy. Hes a tall, smart, and experienced guard that I feel we would covet in this draft. Again I love your analysis and think your contributions here are fantastic. Keep up these posts man but they are definetly appreciated and are a great read

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

      Maynor just seems like a winner to me. It's hard to put my finger on exactly who he reminds me of (maybe Chauncey Billups in that regard), but I think whoever drafts him is going to get a guy who can lead and really understands the nuances of the PG position.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

        Maynor has always intrigued me a great deal and I'm pretty excited to see your post on him. I know I loved what I saw in the very limited action available out west. I would be very pleased to land him in this draft.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

          ANDRE MILLER is a non spectacular point guard who seems to really help hsi team win while not compiling giant statistics, although he is a bit better defender and a bit worse offensive player than I think Maynor will be.
          On this one we don't agree. Maynor is a poor defender IMO and far more limited in his creativity as a playmaker for others. He doesn't see the possibilities that are out there for his teammates, he doesn't see the pending cuts, holes, places to make a pass that aren't overtly obvious.

          Not only does he not see them, he can't imagine how they could be there if only he took some action or directed others.

          Maynor has handles. Maynor has an NBA floater that he 100% can score with in an NBA game. But while he's not the chuck-tastic PG some of these guys are, I just didn't see the kinds of passes that you see out of just a single game played by T Williams. - see the Earl Clark thread for just one.

          That's my issue. If he was making at least some of those TWill passes, or even some of the passes Holliday showed in PnR situations, or some of the flair Jennings brings, then I'd be all for him. He has the potential, but he's a 4th year guy and strikes me more as a player getting by on maturity level than overall basketball awareness.

          He's learned to be pretty good with his skills, but given his competition level and age he should be much further along than that. He easily could have just dominated people by year 4.

          instead he smartly stops a few feet further than other guards in this class to keep his passing angles available to him.
          Angle, singular. He likes to dump to the corners from his tear drop point. That's his play, go right often, get to about the FT line, and if the tear drop is there let it go, otherwise kick to the corner man coming along the baseline.

          Certainly he made other plays, but to me that just blatently dominated his game and his mindset and turned me off to him in a hurry. I like his POTENTIAL more than Lawson, Flynn and maybe Mills. Between he and Teague I'm torn because Teague has more growth ahead of him and isn't so far behind him to make that seem out of reach.

          He might be one of the more reasonable guys left on the board when the Pacers pick, but I don't see how he's really even as impressive as Bayless was last year.

          but he usually will make the SAME one.
          Fixed for my view on him. 2 months in they have the book on him, deny the floater and camp on the corner dump. His man breaks out on the pass, baseline steal on the step between by the SF, throws it ahead to that PG breaking out, dunk the other way.

          He got lucky not to be challenged more, but unless he finds other plays at the next level I think he could struggle. The fact is that outside of Holliday, UCLA was a train wreck. I picked VCU to win that game in my bracket specifically because of this, and in big part because while I don't see him as a great prospect he is one of those great one on one college guys that can barely be denied his go-to shot at that level.

          That said, he had the ball in his hands at the end of that game with his team down by 1 and they went home. Shortly after that so did UCLA. Neither were random events.

          His UCLA game was not that good were it not for the FTAs he got, some of which you credit to him but some of which was also sloppy defense by a confused team.



          * this does not mean that Holliday was beyond Maynor at this point, just that Holliday was a FR who had to beg to get to play a few minutes of point while Eric was long ago handed the keys as THE man on his smaller school's team



          VCU didn't have much talent to work with, yet still managed to win 20 plus games
          People said this for Maynor, Curry and Mills. Problem is these guys all had problematic games even when playing other teams at their level, ie teams no better than them and without an NBA prospect on the other side. It's not like VCU and Davidson got nothing but Duke, UConn and Pitt every game. That actually was what Duke, UConn and Pitt had to face.

          If Maynor was all 12-18 with 13 assists vs those schools of the VCU caliber and only slipped to just okay against great teams then okay, but he had some duds against guys who won't play a lick of professional basketball. I mean UNC-Wilmington shouldn't force you into 7 of 23 and 0 for 11 from 3.

          When they played OK he was 5 for 19 with 3 assists. 10 of 26 with 3 assists vs flipping Nevada. LOTS of FGAs in his game. Lots.

          Meanwhile double digit assists TWICE in 34 games. 2 times despite a steady dose of Townson, Delaware, Hampton, et al.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-09-2009, 01:51 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

            In that I don't follow VCU at all, I am just making a guess based on TBird's post about the VCU coach. If their coach is a high quality coach at the collegiate level, wouldn't he possibly have a tendency to run a structured offense? If so, might that explain Maynor's tendency to be seemingly regimented in what he does as a player?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

              His "cold-bloodedness" and offense-first demeanor as well as confidence reminds me of Sam Cassell, who was a much better NBA player than a college player. People also doubted Cassell's PG skills since he shared the role in college with Bob Sura, and his size, concerns about D, and slim body build helped him slide to the bottom of round 1 for the Rockets to get him.

              I wouldn't be too disappointed with Maynor at #13
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-09-2009, 10:06 AM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                I like Maynor, but only if we get him later and added assets with that.

                If he is the sole backup this year, he is going to struggle mightily. He is not ready to contribute right away. Maybe a Rush emergence later in the season. But not right away.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                  The only way I see the Pacers taking Maynor is that they have to get rid of 2 of their existing PG's. Granted Tinjury won't be here, but drafting Maynor puts Jack and Diener exactly where?

                  If they draft a PG, are the Pacers trying to force Diener to opt out? What if he says no. If they draft Maynor, are they not going to re-sign Jack? If a PG if drafted, Jack re-signed, Diener doesn't opt out, and Ford isn't traded, then the Pacers are PG poor with 4 PG's. B4 anyone says anything, I know in the past the Pacers have carried 4 PG's, but the Pacers need wings and bigs to b/u those positions more than a 4th PG.

                  WHAT IF, the Pacers manage to not have to buyout Tinjury and can't trade him? 5 PG's!?!? Can't see drafting another PG, unless 2 existing PG's are gone. The question is, which two. It's going to be an interesting draft, and one that Bird has to make the best make of!

                  On Maynor, at the present I'm a fence rider, but never at #13. Trade back and pick up assets plus Maynor could work depending on the other assets.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                    I am telling you guys that Maynor SEES the game. He understands the game. Its an innate ability he has.

                    He was coached by Jeff Capel and Anthony Grant. Two excellent young coaches. He has always been a mature player, even as a freshman. I have lived in Richmond for his college career. I have seen him on local television. I wouldn't scoff at the CAA as a conference. No it isn't the ACC, but those teams are capable of playing with some of the larger schools. George Mason did alright against those bigger schools a couple of years ago. They have started getting teams in as at large bids. This conference is a solid basketball conference and I trust the top tier talent coming out of this conference.

                    Eric Maynor will be a very good point guard in the NBA. He fits the NBA game. It is a smarter game than what they play in the ACC. Jeff Teague will not be a good fit for the NBA. He is a scorer. That's it. He needs to become a more well rounded player and he is making a MOSTER mistake by coming out of school. He is a "shooting guard in a point guards body" to quote Tbird. Eric Maynor averaged 22 points and 6 assists on a team that RELIED on his offense. They needed him to score more than pass. He is an excellent passer. I completely disagree with Naptown in that he only can make one pass. That is completely inaccurate IMO. They had a guy by the name of Rodriguez who was literally 5'9" playing shooting guard. The guy can shoot, but he is ineffective doing much else. If the defender closes on him in the corner Rodriguez had to make a play to get the ball back to someone else. Chris Paul lives and dies on making that same pass to the corner (except theres a big difference between a 5'9" shooting guard and Peja). And you wouldn't disagree that he is a top five point guard in the NBA. Paul also relies on the alley oop pass as well. He becomes largely ineffective when his teammates don't produce. Those circumstances are eerily similar to the way that Eric Maynor plays. I would say that Paul has some of the best vision in the NBA. Chris Paul is not as tall as Eric Maynor, but is obviously stronger. I am comparing Maynor to Chris Paul in the way they see the game.

                    Maynor ran a terrific pick and roll with their best front court player in Larry Sanders. Sanders has NBA athleticism, but like Maynor needs to bulk up some for the next level. They ran a terrific pick and roll together. The problem with Sanders is that he really struggled against bigger, stronger players and was completely ineffective against UCLA (which most of you saw). It made it difficult for Maynor to utilize Sanders rolling to the basket when Sanders couldn't complete his half of the play. Maynor will be able to utilize an NBA front court player in the pick and roll. I have no questions about it. He consistnetly made excellent and creative passes to hit the man rolling to the basket. He knows where to put the ball and how to utilize a correct screen.

                    Maynor could be the best point guard in this draft IMO. I think if you will knock Maynor for not being strong enough, then you ABSOLUTELY must condemn Rubio twice as much for being even weaker. I think Rubio, Evans, and Holiday have more upside and are flashier. I don't care for flashy, because I see right through it. But with most players with potential, the bigger question is their work ethic. If Rubio, Evans, and Holiday work as hard as Maynor they will be better, but Maynor has all the tools to be a solid point guard in the NBA. I think with a bit more strength and NBA coaching around him, Maynor will excel and we will be looking back at a Granger-like steal in the teens of this draft. I am confident that Maynor will have a better NBA career than Lawson, Flynn, Teague, and Mills.

                    PS - I have said this before, but I went to the U. of Richmond and am not being a homer in my analysis of this guy. I feel as strongly about Maynor as I did about Speights and Rush last year.
                    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                      From the Pacers perspective, I think you are spot on Justin. I would hate to see us draft a PG if our roster does not change. I think our roster absolutely has to change and there needs to be a Ford for backup front court player trade this summer. And we need to figure something out with Tinsley. I pray for Tinsley for Cardinal or Blount. Absolutely positively pray for that.

                      And if we are to take a serious look at Maynor, I would love to see us move down a couple spots with the frenzy there will be on Clark/Blair/Johnson and even Mullens because there will be so many PGs available. I think we would be remissed if we made the necessary roster moves to select a PG and didn't trade down a few spots to take him. I would love to see Maynor in a Pacers uniform, but I don't know that we will see it happen.
                      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                        His "cold-bloodedness" and offense-first demeanor as well as confidence reminds me of Sam Cassell, who was a much better NBA player than a college player. People also doubted Cassell's PG skills since he shared the role in college with Bob Sura, and his size, concerns about D, and slim body build helped him slide to the bottom of round 1 for the Rockets to get him.

                        I wouldn't be too disappointed with Maynor at #13
                        Cassell, interesting. I could see that as an upside maybe.

                        My main concern, the same one I have with AJ Price and even a tiny bit with TWill, is that some guys benefit from being the oldest kid in the gym. A kid like Holliday is playing almost at Maynor's level in his first year while Maynor is wrapping up his 4th. By my standards Maynor should be much better than Holliday if he is simply an equal talent.

                        When I watch him (and Price) I get the "nice, but feels maxed already" reaction. It's just the aesthetics of his game.

                        I suppose it could be that he's come to the system, but I guess my point would still be "what do you actually see from him" that makes you see this potential. I mean whatever the reason for his style, that is his style, so why would you assume some other game is just lurking underneath.

                        It's not the same as a Holliday who has these flashes that seem to almost counter the restrictions he's under and suggest that more is there. Maynor just felt like the oldest kid on the playground beating up on the youngsters, though Curry felt even more that way.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          The only way I see the Pacers taking Maynor is that they have to get rid of 2 of their existing PG's. Granted Tinjury won't be here, but drafting Maynor puts Jack and Diener exactly where?

                          If they draft a PG, are the Pacers trying to force Diener to opt out? What if he says no. If they draft Maynor, are they not going to re-sign Jack? If a PG if drafted, Jack re-signed, Diener doesn't opt out, and Ford isn't traded, then the Pacers are PG poor with 4 PG's. B4 anyone says anything, I know in the past the Pacers have carried 4 PG's, but the Pacers need wings and bigs to b/u those positions more than a 4th PG.

                          WHAT IF, the Pacers manage to not have to buyout Tinjury and can't trade him? 5 PG's!?!? Can't see drafting another PG, unless 2 existing PG's are gone. The question is, which two. It's going to be an interesting draft, and one that Bird has to make the best make of!

                          On Maynor, at the present I'm a fence rider, but never at #13. Trade back and pick up assets plus Maynor could work depending on the other assets.
                          Of course, they could trade Ford, give Jack a 3-4yr contract, and let Diener expire... which would place Maynor in a good position to be starting PG in a couple of years, if he outplayed Jack.

                          Diener has certainly not proved he's anything more than a decent backup, and my guess is that the decision to keep Ford off the bench the latter half of this year is a stronger indicator of his future here than people are acknowledging at this point.

                          Jack strikes me as the only one who made the case this year for having a long term role with the team, and he's the only one that has been solidly acknowledged by the team as a whole, as having a comfortable place.
                          Last edited by docpaul; 06-09-2009, 02:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Cassell, interesting. I could see that as an upside maybe.

                            My main concern, the same one I have with AJ Price and even a tiny bit with TWill, is that some guys benefit from being the oldest kid in the gym. A kid like Holliday is playing almost at Maynor's level in his first year while Maynor is wrapping up his 4th. By my standards Maynor should be much better than Holliday if he is simply an equal talent.

                            When I watch him (and Price) I get the "nice, but feels maxed already" reaction. It's just the aesthetics of his game.

                            I suppose it could be that he's come to the system, but I guess my point would still be "what do you actually see from him" that makes you see this potential. I mean whatever the reason for his style, that is his style, so why would you assume some other game is just lurking underneath.

                            It's not the same as a Holliday who has these flashes that seem to almost counter the restrictions he's under and suggest that more is there. Maynor just felt like the oldest kid on the playground beating up on the youngsters, though Curry felt even more that way.
                            Naptown... I completely understand your assessment on these "type" of players. I completely agree. I think when assessing AJ Price, you are looking at a different player than Maynor. I think Price hasn't fully recovered yet from his ACL surgery and got better as last year progressed. I don't think Price is an NBA point guard. I just don't think he has the skill set to be a starter in the league. I think he could serve a role as a backup throughout his career, but his ACL surgery took away a lot of the athleticism he relied on and he wasn't an effective player without that athleticism. He doesn't have point guard skills when it comes down to it. He has solid value as a second round though.

                            I agree with your point though that the "mature" players you see can generally get by on experience much the same way that veterans in the NBA get by on maturity and gamesmanship. I like veteran role players, not rookies that will be nothing more than role players. That I believe is your sentiment and I cannot disagree. I just see something completely different in assessing Maynor than I guess you do. To each his own. I really think Holiday could be magnificent, I just really am concerned with his mental makeup. I don't know enough about that to really say he will or won't be good at the NBA level. I just hate the idea of taking 19 year olds on potential. I would love to get a talent like Evans or Holiday, but I largely have issues with their ability to become a mature NBA player. When looking at a guy like Maynor, you are seeing the other side... where is this guys athletic potential to become an NBA player?

                            Many people condemn Bird/Walsh for the Shawne Williams experiment. I think it is the same rationale behind people liking Holiday and Evans. Loads of talent, but trying to project the unknown of how they will mature. The same people that want the high potential guys don't inherently assume that risk with their lack of emotional maturity. I like "safer" draft picks, as I believe Bird does as well. He wants more mature players that can grow their skills through practice and hard work, even if their upside isn't as high. Their downside isn't quite as bad as "train wreck", which is how I would describe Williams' time here.

                            PS - I can hit home runs in baseball, but I choose to hit the other way and for average. Maybe that says something about me in my assessment of talent.
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #7: Eric Maynor

                              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                              Many people condemn Bird/Walsh for the Shawne Williams experiment. I think it is the same rationale behind people liking Holiday and Evans. Loads of talent, but trying to project the unknown of how they will mature. The same people that want the high potential guys don't inherently assume that risk with their lack of emotional maturity. I like "safer" draft picks, as I believe Bird does as well. He wants more mature players that can grow their skills through practice and hard work, even if their upside isn't as high. Their downside isn't quite as bad as "train wreck", which is how I would describe Williams' time here.

                              PS - I can hit home runs in baseball, but I choose to hit the other way and for average. Maybe that says something about me in my assessment of talent.
                              The Shawne Williams pick in retrospect was a #18 pick in a weak draft that didn't pan out. No big deal.

                              This is what I don't understand: Everyone mentions the catastrophe of guys like Kwame and Shawne and other "unknown" quantities.

                              Well, how come it's not as big of a deal when Adam Morrison is a washout? Or Shelden Williams? Or Ed O'bannon? Or Shawne Respert? Or Mateen Cleaves? Or Todd Fuller? (FYI, Fuller led the ACC in scoring when Duncan was still playing in that conference).

                              When guys like Kwame bust, everyone considers it an example of why not to draft a guy straight from HS. They serve as "cautionary tales" about drafting these unproven guys. Yet when supposedly "proven" guys like Ed O'bannon bust, why does nobody consider it a cautionary tale to drafting the next 4 year college player?

                              Shouldn't Ed O'bannon be every bit the example as Kwame Brown? Why the double standard?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X