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

Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

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

  • #16
    Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

    I hate this whole "He will be good enough to start on most NBA teams" crap. It's simply not true. Of course your prediction is as good as mine, but if you ask me: if you take what Tyler will look like at his absolute peak and compare it to today's NBA (from a power forward perspective), he could not start on: Toronto (Bosh), Boston (KG, Sheed), New York (Lee), Detroit (Vill), Orlando (Shard), Atlanta (Smooth), Washington (Jamison), Spurs (Duncan), Mavs (Dirk), NO (West), Memphis (Randolph), Denver (KMart's D is what Den needs and is at a level Tyler will never reach), Utah (Boozer), LA (Pau), Clippers (Kaman/Griffin TBD), Phoenix (Amar'e).

    The rest are mainly toss ups. As has been said being on Scola's level would be a nice surprise. I doubt he will ever be as good as Noah is doing this year, his college champion comparison, because he lacks the defensive shot-blocking presence and the seven foot height. He could be as good as Aldridge (doubtful), Thaddeus Young (maybe) and Anderson Varejaou (probable). I'm predicting I would always much rather have Jeff Green, who is also still growing. He will never be as smooth around the rim as, and have the touch of, Kevin Love (all else being ~equal in their primes). He doesn't have the scoring ability of Beasley and never will, but he has some upsides Beas doesn't. He will probably be of around equal importance to a team like Charlotte with Diaw. Hell, I don't think Tyler will ever be good enough to even start over what Murphy is now.

    Point being, Tyler Hansbrough will most likely never be anything more than a reserve in this league. But he has the potential to be a very valuable reserve. I like him a lot and I think he can be a solid part of our franchise, but if he's starting then I'm shaking.

    P.S. Comparing him to Zach Randolph at all makes no sense, because Randolph has incredible touch and an uncanny ability to put the ball in the hole. Regardless of all the rest of Randolph's game, Tyler will never be even a fraction of the scorer Randolph is. Most NBA players won't. Can he be a better player? Maybe in other areas he will be a more efficient player, but you can't say that the man who masters in jumping into his opponent's and flipping up a shot will ever be on ZRandolph's scoring level. Hate Rand all you want but the dude can flat out score the rock.
    Last edited by quinnthology; 11-28-2009, 02:06 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

      I'm shocked with how high some of ya'll are on him.

      I love Psycho T, I really do. I am also a die hard Tar Heels fan and have loved Hansbrough since his first game in Carolina Blue. However, I don't think this guy will get anything close to All-Star level. I see him as a great bench player for years to come. I don't know that he will ever be good starter, but I could see him being in the running for 6th man of the year a lot.

      Maybe its moreso the fact I could never see an NBA Championship team with him as the starting PF. If he can become a defensive force and a rebounding machine - that could change, but I didn't see enough of that at Carolina to make me think he will become that player. I love him as a high energy guy off the bench who just terrorizes the other team and wears them out. I will be happy with that.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

        Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
        P.S. Comparing him to Zach Randolph at all makes no sense, because Randolph has incredible touch and an uncanny ability to put the ball in the hole.
        Those are the exact reasons I choose Randolph as a comparison - Tyler posses the same attributes. They both have ungraceful but effective post games, complimented by a nice shooting touch.



        This is Randolph at his peak, and yet he shows nothing in his arsenal that Hansbrough can't do right now. Hell, Randolph even has a little baby hook that's remarkably similar to the one Hansbrough's used recently.

        Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
        Regardless of all the rest of Randolph's game, Tyler will never be even a fraction of the scorer Randolph is. Most NBA players won't. Can he be a better player? Maybe in other areas he will be a more efficient player, but you can't say that the man who masters in jumping into his opponent's and flipping up a shot will ever be on ZRandolph's scoring level. Hate Rand all you want but the dude can flat out score the rock.
        Hansbrough's already put to rest the idea that his offensive game is nothing more than jumping into opponents and hoping for the foul. He's got post moves and a soft shooting touch. His knack for getting to the line like a beast is just the icing on the cake. As for Randolph, you make him out to be an elite scorer, yet this just isn't backed up by the data. Randolph has career averages of 16.8 points per game on .467 shooting - good, but a level unattainable by the ACC's all-time leading scorer? Hardly. Even during his peak scoring years Randolph has fluctuated between the high teens and low twenties - not exactly the Wilt Chamberlain-like production you're making it out to be.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

          Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
          I hate this whole "He will be good enough to start on most NBA teams" crap. It's simply not true. Of course your prediction is as good as mine, but if you ask me: if you take what Tyler will look like at his absolute peak and compare it to today's NBA (from a power forward perspective), he could not start on: Toronto (Bosh), Boston (KG, Sheed), New York (Lee), Detroit (Vill), Orlando (Shard), Atlanta (Smooth), Washington (Jamison), Spurs (Duncan), Mavs (Dirk), NO (West), Memphis (Randolph), Denver (KMart's D is what Den needs and is at a level Tyler will never reach), Utah (Boozer), LA (Pau), Clippers (Kaman/Griffin TBD), Phoenix (Amar'e).

          The rest are mainly toss ups. As has been said being on Scola's level would be a nice surprise. I doubt he will ever be as good as Noah is doing this year, his college champion comparison, because he lacks the defensive shot-blocking presence and the seven foot height. He could be as good as Aldridge (doubtful), Thaddeus Young (maybe) and Anderson Varejaou (probable). I'm predicting I would always much rather have Jeff Green, who is also still growing. He will never be as smooth around the rim as, and have the touch of, Kevin Love (all else being ~equal in their primes). He doesn't have the scoring ability of Beasley and never will, but he has some upsides Beas doesn't. He will probably be of around equal importance to a team like Charlotte with Diaw. Hell, I don't think Tyler will ever be good enough to even start over what Murphy is now.

          Point being, Tyler Hansbrough will most likely never be anything more than a reserve in this league. But he has the potential to be a very valuable reserve. I like him a lot and I think he can be a solid part of our franchise, but if he's starting then I'm shaking.

          P.S. Comparing him to Zach Randolph at all makes no sense, because Randolph has incredible touch and an uncanny ability to put the ball in the hole. Regardless of all the rest of Randolph's game, Tyler will never be even a fraction of the scorer Randolph is. Most NBA players won't. Can he be a better player? Maybe in other areas he will be a more efficient player, but you can't say that the man who masters in jumping into his opponent's and flipping up a shot will ever be on ZRandolph's scoring level. Hate Rand all you want but the dude can flat out score the rock.
          As for the phrase "most teams in the NBA", I suppose that's a bit of a stretch based on what we know at this point. However, I would definitely not wrap Charlie V and David Lee into the "unattainable" group. They are in a tier that T-Hans is capable of entering. Also, I disagree completely that he cannot be as good or better than Troy Murphy.

          David West is probably better than he will ever be, but I would not make that conclusion during the first month of his NBA career.

          Anyway, players develop and I think preconcieved notions are running absolutely wild with Tyler.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

            Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
            I hate this whole "He will be good enough to start on most NBA teams" crap. It's simply not true. Of course your prediction is as good as mine, but if you ask me: if you take what Tyler will look like at his absolute peak and compare it to today's NBA (from a power forward perspective), he could not start on: Toronto (Bosh), Boston (KG, Sheed), New York (Lee), Detroit (Vill), Orlando (Shard), Atlanta (Smooth), Washington (Jamison), Spurs (Duncan), Mavs (Dirk), NO (West), Memphis (Randolph), Denver (KMart's D is what Den needs and is at a level Tyler will never reach), Utah (Boozer), LA (Pau), Clippers (Kaman/Griffin TBD), Phoenix (Amar'e).

            The rest are mainly toss ups. As has been said being on Scola's level would be a nice surprise. I doubt he will ever be as good as Noah is doing this year, his college champion comparison, because he lacks the defensive shot-blocking presence and the seven foot height. He could be as good as Aldridge (doubtful), Thaddeus Young (maybe) and Anderson Varejaou (probable). I'm predicting I would always much rather have Jeff Green, who is also still growing. He will never be as smooth around the rim as, and have the touch of, Kevin Love (all else being ~equal in their primes). He doesn't have the scoring ability of Beasley and never will, but he has some upsides Beas doesn't. He will probably be of around equal importance to a team like Charlotte with Diaw. Hell, I don't think Tyler will ever be good enough to even start over what Murphy is now.

            Point being, Tyler Hansbrough will most likely never be anything more than a reserve in this league. But he has the potential to be a very valuable reserve. I like him a lot and I think he can be a solid part of our franchise, but if he's starting then I'm shaking.

            P.S. Comparing him to Zach Randolph at all makes no sense, because Randolph has incredible touch and an uncanny ability to put the ball in the hole. Regardless of all the rest of Randolph's game, Tyler will never be even a fraction of the scorer Randolph is. Most NBA players won't. Can he be a better player? Maybe in other areas he will be a more efficient player, but you can't say that the man who masters in jumping into his opponent's and flipping up a shot will ever be on ZRandolph's scoring level. Hate Rand all you want but the dude can flat out score the rock.
            Outside of Duncan and Gasol, no one on your list of "He'll never be as good as this guy" produced more than 13 and 7 their rookie year. Given the kind of minutes that some of those guys got, I'm fairly certain that he could.

            I think its a little earlier to be talking about his ceiling like we've got it all figured out. He's shown promise and shortcomings. He's never going to jump out of the gym like Amare, but he is strong on fundamentals, and if he settles down his jumper, learns to use the glass a little more, and tunes in to the mental game more by using more pump fakes and things like that, I see good things.

            Big guys can develop. Sure, Tyler has more college under his belt than the above list (nearly combined ), but lets give him some more quality minutes before we write him off as only a 6th man.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

              Murphy and Hans stats as rookies. I would give Hans the edge on his better rebounding numbers and points scored...even with less minutes. Percentage-wise, the variance here is actually pretty significant. Also, I am sure players would prefer to be defended by Murphy.

              Murphy
              17 minutes
              42% FG%
              3.9 rebounds
              .9 assists
              1 turnover
              .4 steals
              .3 blocks
              2.7 fouls (wow, Murphy must have tried to defend as a rookie...his fouls are worse than Hans!)
              5.9 ppg

              T-Hans
              15 minutes
              38 FG%
              4.7 rebounds
              1.1 assists
              .7 turnovers
              .3 steals
              .4 blocks
              2.2 fouls
              7.6 ppg

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                I can't see him ever being a starter on a playoff team. But he certainly has a spot on a roster.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                  Originally posted by judicata View Post
                  Outside of Duncan and Gasol, no one on your list of "He'll never be as good as this guy" produced more than 13 and 7 their rookie year. Given the kind of minutes that some of those guys got, I'm fairly certain that he could.
                  To me it's irrelevant what all the dominant bigs got their first years and then grew in to. That's the point of Tyler: what we see is what we get. We drafted the player who we will have for his whole career, with very limited but steady growth. That's why it wasn't a gamble. He's going to come in, produce, and steadily produce for 10 years. That's why what he does this rookie year is a huge indicator of who he will be.

                  Like I said, I'm not trying to act like I know everything. Your guess is as good as mine, but this is just what I think of Tyler's future.

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                  Those are the exact reasons I choose Randolph as a comparison - Tyler posses the same attributes. They both have ungraceful but effective post games, complimented by a nice shooting touch.
                  I didn't mean that Randolph is an elite scoring big man, but rather that he possesses an elite ability to score for a big man, if that makes sense. We all know that Randolph is a guy who will never live up to his potential as a player, but to me you are hard-pressed to find too many guys who can score as consistently as Zach inside and outside of the paint.

                  As for Tyler possessing everything he needs to reach Zach's level of scoring, it simply isn't true. Zach can get into the lane with smoothness: crossovers and between-the-legs, reverse pivots and jab steps. Tyler can put his head down and dribble hard into the rim. Zach's jumper is awesome, and we simply don't know how Tyler's will develop. It could grow to the level of Zach's, but I doubt Ty will ever be able to create his own shot as well as Zach, either off the dribble or being able to shoot with a man right in your face. This is one of the reasons why Zach is a great scorer, he simply doesn't care if he's shooting too much. He has an extreme level of confidence and wants to score the ball no matter what. I think Ty recognizes and will continue to recognize that that's not his role in this league.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                    Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
                    To me it's irrelevant what all the dominant bigs got their first years and then grew in to. That's the point of Tyler: what we see is what we get. We drafted the player who we will have for his whole career, with very limited but steady growth. That's why it wasn't a gamble. He's going to come in, produce, and steadily produce for 10 years. That's why what he does this rookie year is a huge indicator of who he will be.

                    Like I said, I'm not trying to act like I know everything. Your guess is as good as mine, but this is just what I think of Tyler's future.



                    I didn't mean that Randolph is an elite scoring big man, but rather that he possesses an elite ability to score for a big man, if that makes sense. We all know that Randolph is a guy who will never live up to his potential as a player, but to me you are hard-pressed to find too many guys who can score as consistently as Zach inside and outside of the paint.

                    As for Tyler possessing everything he needs to reach Zach's level of scoring, it simply isn't true. Zach can get into the lane with smoothness: crossovers and between-the-legs, reverse pivots and jab steps. Tyler can put his head down and dribble hard into the rim. Zach's jumper is awesome, and we simply don't know how Tyler's will develop. It could grow to the level of Zach's, but I doubt Ty will ever be able to create his own shot as well as Zach, either off the dribble or being able to shoot with a man right in your face. This is one of the reasons why Zach is a great scorer, he simply doesn't care if he's shooting too much. He has an extreme level of confidence and wants to score the ball no matter what. I think Ty recognizes and will continue to recognize that that's not his role in this league.
                    Zach Randolph has all-star level talent and I seriously doubt Tyler will ever have his ability to post up, or even his perimeter shot.

                    However, I think Tyler is more aggressive than McDyess (post injured version) and might develop into that type of player...but with more offense and a little more activity. That would make him a fairly solid starting PF...but I do think that's his best-case. Worst case as a veteran, Tyler is a very effective guy off the bench. Once he gets some experience and learns where and when to pick his spots, he will kill some teams. He's simply not going to be that prototypical 6'10-11" PF who blocks shots and rebounds.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                      The answer is:

                      He'll start for us for many years. Doing the little things. Being the energy guy. Setting killer picks. Maybe not an all star, but a solid starter that is a perfect compliment to Roy.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                        I think he's going to be a very solid rotational player. He could start on teams in need of forwards (Indiana is therefore a good fit). I don't think he'll ever be a star, but that would be an unfair expectation to put on him anyway. I think ideally he'd be the first or second forward off the bench.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                          Good enough to justify being the 13th pick in the draft.

                          Although to most of the sporting world, he'll just be known as "the guy picked 3 spots after Brandon Jennings".

                          -- Steve --

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                            Star? Maybe...maybe not. Love his energy. Love the way he'll come flying into a pile chasing a rebound. Love the way he chases almost every loose ball, anywhere. Love the way he's not afraid to knock someone on there a$$ once and a while...

                            Don't like the fact that he doesn't jump sometimes when he's in the lane rebounding or shooting. Don't like the fact that sometimes he tries to draw a foul instead of power finishing. Don't like the fact that once and a while, he forgets how to shoot free throws (LOL).

                            He's a work in progress. Check back in a few years...
                            http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
                            "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                              Good enough to be a long-time starter in the NBA.

                              Best Case: Zach Randolph with double the IQ
                              Worst Case: Ikechukwu Somtochukwu Diogu
                              Median: Luis Scola
                              Think more along the lines of Antonio Davis with a better shot...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tyler Hansbrough, how good?

                                My biggest question at this moment is can Hansbrough play with the intensity he needs to play with to be sucessful and stay healthy.

                                82 games with the kind of physical play he has to have to play at a high level will be tough to not be injured often.

                                I think his advantage is that high intensity level. You can do it in 30 games over 5 months in college. I am concerned that you can't over 82 games against bigger stronger faster guys.

                                His skillset, athleticism, and B ball IQ don't conern me, it's his required style for sucess that I'm not sure about.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X