Tweet
Just saw this on ESPN, Chad Ford is breaking down NBA Prospects in the tournament by region. Wanted to see what he had to say about all of the prospects, but it's Insider material. If anyone could post it here that would be great.
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.
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
-
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
I hate insider.
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
East Region NBA prospects
1. Jared Sullinger, PF, Ohio State
The good: Sullinger has been the most productive freshman in the country. He's a monster in the paint -- both as a scorer and rebounder. He has long arms, boasts a very high basketball IQ and will surprise you with his play on the perimeter.
The bad: He's undersized. If Sullinger were 6-foot-11, he would be, hands down, the No. 1 pick in the draft. He's a solid athlete, but not as explosive as scouts would like.
The upside: Sullinger has drawn comparisons to everyone from Elton Brand to Paul Millsap. He has led Ohio State to a No. 1 ranking in the country and does it without flash. If he has a huge tournament, he could end up going No. 1 overall -- especially if a team such as the Sacramento Kings, Washington Wizards or Detroit Pistons gets the No. 1 pick.
2. Harrison Barnes, SF, North Carolina
The good: Barnes is a skilled wing who can do a little bit of everything. He's been especially dangerous in the clutch this season. Barnes has ice water running through his veins and has killed a number of teams late with some great shooting. His high basketball IQ, smooth athleticism and even-keeled demeanor are all pluses.
The bad: He hasn't lived up to the hype. Barnes really struggled out of the gate and lost his place as the consensus No. 1 pick in the draft. Too often, Barnes settles for jump shots instead of taking the ball to the basket. His athletic abilities don't pop the way they do for other top prospects.
The upside: Barnes has been a different player since hitting a game winner against Miami in late January. Since then, he's been averaging 19 points per game for North Carolina, and the team is 12-2 in that stretch. If Barnes can have a few more big games in the tournament, he could move himself back into the conversation for the No. 1 pick in the draft.
3. Terrence Jones, F, Kentucky
The good: Jones is one of the most versatile players in college basketball. He can play multiple positions. He can score inside and outside and is a good ball handler, rebounder and passer. Combine that with Jones' 7-2 wingspan and terrific athleticism and you have a terrific NBA prospect.
The bad: Jones is streaky. He has struggled with his shot in the second half of the season and has stumbled in some critical games for Kentucky. At times, he doesn't display the greatest body language or motor.
The upside: When Jones gets things rolling, he's one of the most dangerous players in the country. Early in the season, there was talk about him as a potential No. 1 pick. The past month, he has struggled to stay in the top 10. If he can help take Kentucky deep, he'll be a very high lottery pick this summer.
4. John Henson, F, North Carolina
The good: Henson is one of the most unusual prospects in the country. Defensively, he's a nightmare for teams because of his great mobility, length, athleticism and motor. He can change the game with his defensive presence inside and out.
The bad: He's thin as a rail and still a major work in progress offensively. He doesn't have the strength to post up, and his jumper is still shaky.
The upside: NBA scouts have been debating Henson's pros and cons the past two years. Henson lacks strength and a discernable offensive repertoire, but he's a long, athletic bundle of energy who plays hard on both ends of the floor. Scouts believe the offense eventually will come, and his defensive abilities should make him a lottery pick.
5. Brandon Knight, G, Kentucky
The good: Knight is a quick, athletic guard who can play both positions in the backcourt. He has really good range on his jumper and can be a lockdown defender on the defensive end.
The bad: He's a tweener. Knight struggles to see the floor as well as other elite John Calipari guards, and he seems more comfortable as a scoring guard.
The upside: Knight isn't Rose, Evans or John Wall. But he has had a terrific freshman season and, in many ways, has been Kentucky's steadiest player. If scouts can get over what he's not and focus on what he can do, he has a chance to move back up into the lottery conversation with a great tournament.
SLEEPER: Tu Holloway, PG, Xavier
The good: Explosive guard who can put it in the basket and get his teammates involved. Thrives putting the ball on the floor and getting to the basket. He is a good, tenacious on-the-ball defender with a high basketball IQ.
The bad: Holloway can get enamored with having the ball in his hands. His jump shot is a bit streaky, and he's small for the NBA.
The upside: Holloway hasn't gotten a lot of press, but he's been the most important player on a very good Xavier team this year. He has many of the pluses of Jordan Crawford without some of the personality issues that scared teams with Crawford. If he can lead Xavier to a few upsets, he could rocket up the board.
Others to watch: Tyler Zeller, C, North Carolina; Travis Leslie, G, Georgia; Trey Thompkins, PF, Georgia; Kris Joseph, F, Syracuse; Doron Lamb, G, Kentucky; William Buford, G, Ohio State; Mouphtaou Yarou, PF, Villanova; Rick Jackson, F, Syracuse; Isaiah Thomas, G, Washington; Matthew Bryan-Amaning, F, Washington; Maalik Wayns, PG, Villanova; Fab Melo, C, Syracuse; David Lighty, G, Ohio State; Deshaun Thomas, F, Ohio State; Jimmy Butler, F, Marquette; Vander Blue, G, Marquette; Kevin Jones, F, West Virginia; Justin Holiday, F, Washington; Terrence Ross, SG, Washington; Kendall Marshall, PG, North Carolina; Corey Stokes, G, Villanova; Corey Fisher, G, Villanova; Dominic Cheek, G, Villanova; C.J. Wilcox, SG, Washington; Darius Johnson-Odom, G, MarquetteThe West Region is stacked with NBA draft prospects. I count an impressive five potential lottery picks (six if Duke's Kyrie Irving plays) and a few other potential first-rounders in the group.
If you're a GM and need to pick one region to scout, this would be it.
1. Derrick Williams, F, Arizona Wildcats
The Good: Williams is, along with Kenneth Faried, the most efficient player in college basketball. He's a proven low-post scoring threat, especially off the dribble. But he's added a killer 3-point shot to his arsenal this season. (He's shooting an insane 60 percent from 3.)
The Bad: Not much. He's a bit of a tweener. He's going to have to be a 3 in the NBA. He's a solid athlete, but not an elite one.
The Upside: Williams was not a blue-chip recruit coming out of high school, which means the NBA has been a little slow on the uptake. But not anymore. Every NBA team I've spoken with has him in the top five on their board. While no one thinks he'll be a superstar, they think he's going to be a terrific pro in an otherwise so-so draft.
2. Kemba Walker, PG, Connecticut Huskies
The Good: Walker may be small in stature, but he has a HUGE heart. He has taken UConn on his back this season and has become one of the most prolific scorers in college basketball. He has great quickness, speed in the open court and has really improved his jump shot this season.
The Bad: He's probably closer to 5-foot-9 or 5-10 than the listed 6-1 height. Is he really a point guard? He doesn't seem to have the same feel that other top point guards do.
The Upside: I wouldn't bet against Walker, especially not after his heroic performances at the Maui Invitational and Big East tournament. He's fearless. If there was one guy you'd put your money on to have a big tournament, it's him. The rest of his team may let him down, but Walker has earned the respect of everyone, including NBA GMs. A likely top-10 pick.
3. Kawhi Leonard, F, San Diego State Aztecs
The Good: A long, athletic forward with huge hands, a great motor and the ability to score from just about everywhere. He's a great rebounder too.
The Bad: Another player without a well-defined position. Ideally he'd be a few inches taller. He's not a great shooter yet. Can disappear sometimes in big games.
The Upside: Last year we had Leonard listed as a sleeper. Now that he plays on the No. 6 team in the country, that sort of talk has died down. But now the expectations may be almost too high for him. He's still developing his game offensively, but when you watch him, it's hard not to see what makes him special. NBA scouts love guys with intangibles, and Leonard appears to have them.
4. Tristan Thompson, PF, Texas Longhorns
The Good: Thompson is, in the words of our David Thorpe, "a beast." He's one of the better offensive rebounders in the country, has developed a solid offensive game, plays his heart out and is a terrific athlete with long arms.
The Bad: He's still a bit raw offensively. He's undersized for his position. Still working on a perimeter game.
The Upside: Thompson got off to a bit of a slow start, but he's often been Texas' best player down the stretch. Jordan Hamilton is a much flashier player, but it's the dirty work that Thompson is willing to do in the paint that pushes him ahead of Hamilton on many draft boards.
5. Mason Plumlee, PF/C, Duke Blue Devils
The Good: Plumlee is a terrific athlete. He runs the floor well and can jump out of the gym. He's a very good rebounder and shot-blocker.
The Bad: He's still really raw offensively. He doesn't have much of a low-post game yet.
The Upside: Plumlee was supposed to have a breakout season for Duke this year, but it hasn't really happened. He's not featured in their offense and has really relied on putbacks for his offense this season. Still, scouts are undeterred in their belief that he's a potential lottery pick. You just don't find many players with his size and athleticism.
SLEEPER: Keith Benson, PF/C, Oakland Golden Grizzlies
The Good: Benson is another great athlete who runs the floor well and shows excellent quickness and athletic ability for a big man. He's a very good shot-blocker, rebounder and even has a face-the-basket game out to about 15 feet.
The Bad: He lacks strength to play in the post. He can get a bit lazy at times and doesn't always engage every play. He struggled to defend stronger players in the paint.
The Upside: Scouts have wanted to write him off for two seasons, but Benson has been too good to ignore. Oakland has played a number of tough opponents, and Benson has produced. If he can do it on the biggest stage, he could easily move into the first round. There just aren't many big men in this draft.
Others to watch: Jordan Hamilton, F, Texas; Tobias Harris, F, Tennessee; Nolan Smith, G, Duke; Kyle Singler, F, Duke; Darius Morris, PG, Michigan; Scotty Hopson, SG, Tennessee; Alex Oriakhi, PF, UConn; Cory Joseph, PG, Texas; Yancy Gates, PF, Cincinnati; J'Covan Brown, G, Texas; Wesley Witherspoon, F, Memphis; Roscoe Smith, F, UConn; Seth Curry, G, Duke; Talor Battle, G, Penn State; Tim Hardaway Jr., G, Michigan; Lavoy Allen, PF, Temple; Will Barton, G, Memphis; Will Coleman, PF, MemphisThe Southeast Region is the weakest region in the NCAA Tournament as far as NBA draft prospects.
I count only one potential lottery pick and just one surefire first-round pick in the entire group. It doesn't mean it won't produce the NCAA champ. But as far as NBA scouts are concerned, if they're going to skip a region, this would be the one to skip.
1. Jimmer Fredette, PG, BYU Cougars
The Good: Fredette is a scoring machine who can fill it up from anywhere on the floor. He has crazy range on his 3-point shot and also is adept at finishing around the basket. He's tough and he's a winner. He's unafraid to put his team on his back. When he's double- and triple-teamed, he shows that he can be a willing passer as well.
The Bad: He's not an explosive athlete. He's not a stiff, but he's not in the same league with the ultra-quick point guards the draft has produced the past few years. He's also undersized if he projects as a 2 in the pros. His defense is as bad as his offense is good.
The Upside: There's no player in the draft who can divide NBA scouts the way Fredette does. Some see his toughness, shooting ability and basketball IQ and are convinced he'll find a way to be a serious NBA player -- either a point guard like Steve Nash or a big-time shooter like Ben Gordon or Stephen Curry. Others see an undersized 2-guard who lacks lateral quickness and doesn't have a position. They scream Adam Morrison at worst, Eddie House at best. Fredette has been awesome on the big stage in the past. If he can take an undermanned BYU team deep, he's probably a lottery pick.
2. Patric Young, PF/C, Florida Gators
The Good: Young has the body of an NBA All-Star. He's a tough, physical player who can dominate the paint as a rebounder and shot blocker.
The Bad: He's been one of the least effective offensive players in the country. He's averaging just 3.3 ppg in 18 mpg.
The Upside: How can a player averaging 3.3 ppg be considered a first-round pick? NBA scouts are convinced Young has the potential to be a dominant defensive big man whether he gets his offensive game going or not (think Ben Wallace). His body is NBA-ready, as is his defense. If he shows he's a game-changer on the defensive end the next few weeks, the lottery is not out of the question for him.
3. Tyler Honeycutt, F, UCLA Bruins
The Good: Honeycutt isn't flashy, but he's the sort of player who is a jack of all trades. He can be a solid shooter, decent rebounder, handles the ball well, sees the floor and has a nice basketball IQ.
The Bad: Honeycutt doesn't really stand out in any one area. He's not a great athlete, has struggled with his shooting at times this season and his numbers, across the board, have been pretty pedestrian.
The Upside: There were high hopes for Honeycutt coming into the season, and he's shown flashes of being an NBA prospect. But for the most part, he's been a disappointment. If NBA GMs take any solace, it's in the fact that UCLA prospects in Ben Howland's system come out the other side pretty NBA-ready. Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Darren Collison and Jrue Holiday all have been better in the pros than their college stats indicated they would be.
4. Jon Leuer, PF, Wisconsin Badgers
The Good: The big man has been one of the most efficient players in college this season. He's an excellent shooter for a big man who can stretch defenses all the way to the 3-point line. He's also a pretty good ball handler for a big and can create his own shot off the dribble.
The Bad: Leuer isn't a great athlete. He doesn't have great strength for an NBA 4. And, to top it off, he's not a great rebounder for a player his size.
The Upside: There are a number of NBA teams who need stretch 4s in their offensive schemes, and as far as big-men shooters go, Leuer is one of the best in the draft. Despite playing in the Big Ten, Wisconsin always goes a bit under-scouted. Leuer and teammate Jordan Taylor are probably a bit underrated right now. A big tournament will change that.
5. Elias Harris, F, Gonzaga Bulldogs
The Good: The versatile forward can be an explosive scorer both inside and out. He runs the floor well, can create his own shot and can be a good rebounder.
The Bad: He's really struggled this season. His numbers are down across the board. He will have to shake the label of a tweener.
The Upside: Had Harris declared for the draft last season, he likely would've been a mid-first-round pick. But he's having a terrible season. Scouts are scratching their heads a bit -- especially because Harris is already 21 years old. A great tournament could re-establish him as a legit first-rounder, but it's going to take a lot of work.
Sleeper: Shelvin Mack, G, Butler Bulldogs
The Good: Mack is a big-time shooter with deep range on his jump shot. He's tough, physical and built like a tank. Despite his size, he's deceptively quick and a good floor leader.
The Bad: He's struggled a bit with his jump shot this season. Scouts see him as a tweener. Does he have the requisite vision to be a point guard in the pros? If not, he's undersized.
The Upside: Mack helped his stock quite a bit last season playing alongside Gordon Hayward. He's struggled to make big improvements over his sophomore season, however. Another big tournament from Mack and Butler could put him back on the first-round bubble.
Others to watch: Durrell Summers, G, Michigan State; Malcolm Lee, G, UCLA; Josh Smith, C, UCLA; Jordan Taylor, G, Wisconsin; Keith Appling, G, Michigan State; Kenny Boynton Jr., G, Florida; Chandler Parsons, F, Florida; Kalin Lucas, PG, Michigan State; Dwight Hardy, G, St. John's; Jacob Pullen, G, Kansas State; Draymond Green, F, Michigan State; Jamar Samuels, F, Kansas State; Gilbert Brown, G, Pittsburgh; Brad Wanamaker, G, Pittsburgh; Adreian Payne, PF, Michigan State; Robert Sacre, C, Gonzaga; Dante Taylor, PF, Pittsburgh; Matt Howard, F, Butler; Curtis Kelly, F, Kansas State; Alex Tyus, PF, Florida; Vernon Macklin, F, Florida.http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?...aft&id=6219681The Southwest Region has a lot of talent but not many NBA draft lottery prospects. While the East Region had as many as five potential lottery picks and a few other potential first-rounders, this Southwest group really only has one or two.
1. Marcus Morris, Markieff Morris and Thomas Robinson, Fs, Kansas Jayhawks
The Good: Kansas has the best front line in the NCAA. Marcus Morris is the best offensive prospect of the group. His ability to be equally effective with his back to the basket and on the perimeter is special. Markieff Morris has improved his offensive game, though it's not quite equal to Marcus' yet. Markieff, however, is an inch taller and has proven to be a better rebounder and shot-blocker. Robinson comes off the bench for Kansas, but on most teams he'd not only be a starter but a star. Robinson is the most athletic of the group. He has a crazy motor, plays terrific defense and is an emerging offensive player in his own right.
The Bad: Scouts are worried that Marcus may be a tweener in the NBA. His natural position in college has been at the 4, but teams feel he may need to switch to the 3 in the pros. Is he quick enough? Markieff is still a bit rawer than Marcus offensively. Will he be a consistent enough threat in the pros to warrant a lottery pick? Robinson has the most physical tools, but he's the rawest of the three with the ball in his hands. He has talent, but it's still emerging.
The Upside: This may surprise Kansas fans, but most of the NBA execs and scouts I speak with have Robinson ranked as the best pro prospect of the Jayhawks. His elite athleticism and NBA-ready body have scouts drooling. If he declares this year, he's a likely lottery pick. Scouts debate about whether Marcus or Markieff will be the better pro prospect. Marcus is more polished, while Markieff has a physical advantage that matters in the pros. All three will hear their names in the first round if they declare for the draft.
2. Kenneth Faried, PF, Morehead State Eagles
The Good: Faried is the best rebounder in college basketball. He has a crazy motor and is a terrific athlete. His offensive game has been slowly coming along, too.
The Bad: Faried is a bit undersized for his position. He also lacks the strength NBA teams are looking for at the 4. Can he get anything going offensively in the NBA?
The Upside: For the past two years, we've listed Faried in the "sleeper" category. No more. NBA scouts know him well, and many believe he'll be a lottery pick on draft night. His energy and knack for grabbing rebounds is elite -- some go so far to say Dennis Rodman-esque. A big game or two for Morehead State should be the icing on a terrific career.
3. Jeff Taylor, F, Vanderbilt Commodores
The Good: Taylor is one of the best athletes in the game. He's an explosive leaper who excels out in transition. He has dramatically improved his jump shot over the past three years.
The Bad: Taylor still hasn't had that breakout year that scouts predicted he'd have. He still struggles to dominate offensively (he rarely takes guys off the dribble), and even though his shot is much better it still needs work for the next level.
The Upside: His athletic ability alone makes him a legit first-round prospect. If he were to land on the right team (think one that gets out in transition a lot) he could have a great pro career. He has wilted a bit in big games over the past few years. If he can take over in the tournament, he could rocket up the draft board.
4. JaJuan Johnson, F, Purdue Boilermakers
The Good: Johnson is a long, athletic and big with a surprising face-the-basket game. He has improved every year in school, is a proven shot-blocker and has dramatically increased his free throw percentage.
The Bad: Scouts are still figuring out exactly how his game translates at the next level. He lacks the strength to mix it up inside but doesn't quite have the perimeter skills to dominate at the next level.
The Upside: Sometimes scouts overscout seniors. Johnson has improved so much and he has the athleticism scouts are always looking for. He just needs to show he can fit into a role in the pros. If Purdue goes deep, he may finally convince them he's a legit first-round pick.
5. Khris Middleton, G/F, Texas A&M Aggies
The Good: Middleton has a great midrange game. He can get his shot off against just about everyone.
The Bad: He's thin. He's not always aggressive hunting for his shot. He could improve his 3-point shooting.
The Upside: Middleton is ranked No. 39 on our board, but it's a bit deceptive. A few teams have him ranked much, much higher and think he could be a Richard Hamilton-type player in the NBA. If Middleton and Texas A&M get it going the next few weeks, he's going to rise. He seems like the type of prospect that is going to succeed at the next level.
Sleeper: Justin Harper, F, Richmond Spiders
The Good: Harper is a face-the-basket 4, who has been on fire from the 3-point line this season, shooting a red-hot 46 percent from 3. His length and athleticism are also big pluses at the next level.
The Bad: He's fallen in love with the jumper and sometimes becomes a bit one-dimensional. For his size, he should be a better rebounder and shot-blocker. Some scouts think he's a bit on the soft side.
The Upside: Harper really didn't get much NBA buzz until his breakout senior season. Now he's all the rage. He is No. 33 on our Big Board, but all he really needs is a big performance to boost him safely into the first round.
Others to watch: Josh Selby, G, Kansas; Chris Singleton, F, Florida State; Jereme Richmond, F, Illinois; Demetri McCamey, PG, Illinois; Tyshawn Taylor, PG, Kansas; Festus Ezeli, C, Vanderbilt; E'Twaun Moore, G/F, Purdue; Ben Hansbrough, G, Notre Dame; Nikola Vucevic, F, USC; John Jenkins, G, Vanderbilt; Xavier Gibson, PF, Florida State; Jon Kreft, C, Florida State; Peyton Siva, PG, Louisville, Terrence Jennings, PF, Louisville; Michael Snaer, SG, Florida State; Brandon Paul, SG, Illinois; Mike Davis, PF, Illinois; Elijah Johnson, PG, Kansas; Austin Freeman, G, Georgetown; Alex Stepheson, PF, USC; Chris Wright, G, GeorgetownComment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
Which translates into this being a pretty weak draft.Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
Fixed.The Southeast Region is the weakest region in the NCAA Tournament by far.
Derrick Williams is a joy to watch. Hopefully he'll get a matchup against Hamilton in the second round.Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
I'm really interested in see what happens to Shelvin Mack. There are sometimes he is just lights out, and other times completely invisible.You can't get champagne from a garden hose.Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
JimmerComment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
I wonder if Jimmer fell into the Pacers laps at 15 would they take him? They can get a veteran big in free agency that could help sooner than any draft pick. So a shooter like Fredette might come in handy.{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
Fredette is more than a shooter he would be the purest pg on the roster.(which isnt saying much)Originally posted by owl View PostComment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
For a team drafting in the top 10, yeah this is a weak draft. But for a team drafting where we are......I think that we can draft a solid player ( assuming Bird and the Scouts do their job ).Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
Jimmer a pure PG? He's practically the opposite.Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
I see Jimmer as maybe a..middle class man's Ben Gordon.
I'm sure Bird would take him.Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
I don't want Jimmer. Great shooting but definitely not a great athlete, and I think his ballhandling could be better. I want a point guard who is great at running a team much more than I want a great shooter. I'm not convinced he can score like that at the pro level, and I'd be pretty concerned about his defense. I'm sure others would like him much more than I do.Comment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
name a pure pg on the teamOriginally posted by judicata View PostComment
-
Re: NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
Darren Collison, AJ, and your boy Stephenson might be as well.Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
Lets not forget that Darren has ran the offense decently in the last 3 games. But Jimmer could never guard a NBA PG. That is why he may be the next Steve Kerr.
Comment
Comment