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

Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

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

  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    With all due respect to Stephen Jackson who is a good player, Granger is the better player...if some disagree fine...in a year or two it will be no contest. As for Al Harrington, he was not helping to lead this team anywhere. A highly paid backup he is.

    Yep, I like this team. I think as long as JO can stay on the floor and fits into the offensive scheme...that is where he is not the focal point...and plays strong D we will be in the playoffs next year.
    This was never the issue though, it's that Jackson as a more true SG defender made a better match with the strong 3pt shooting Danny. Without a doubt Mike is a better scorer, far more efficient due to his FG%. But it's Jackson that's consistantly had more assists.

    The more Danny comes on the more it proves out that adding an SF forced to act like a slow SG with weak SG defense was a mistake. I know we all love his scoring and I certainly wouldn't suggest Jack is a better shooter, but dang, wouldn't you rather see Jack/Danny defending the 2-3 spot and then perhaps Jackson deferring a bit to DG at the other end, and all for a million or two less?


    Anyway, that can't be undone. However as heretical as it sounds to some I'd move Dunleavy ASAP while he's coming off this great year and earning his deal. This team needs defensive improvement and I don't fully believe in him as the final SG answer.

    If you could move Mike for a #20 pick and get an Arthur or Thabeet I'd be happy to have Westbrook come be the new SG if he fell to that pick. Or Love and then perhaps Rush as the less athletic version of W'brook. You take a slight hit, but in the long run I think the team gets healthier in it's overall structure and financials.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

      Clark and T Smith. I think both are okay, but neither blow me away with next level talent or smarts. Contrast to the guys I just mentioned, W'brook and Rush. W'brook appears to have tons of NBA level ability and Rush has enough NBA level smarts mixed with talent to find his way into a solid role.

      Those guys are stronger than Taj Gibson, but by how much?



      Tinsley - I've already assumed he's gone. I'm not rebuilding instantly for next year. As I've said, I don't think they make the playoffs next year. I'm building for the year after that.

      I move Tins for equal contract space and expiring as soon as or sooner. I'd prefer two cheaper deals that are easier to repackage actually.

      And as I just said I'd also move Dun. Ultimately my vision of the team features Danny, Foster till he retires, probably JO till his deal ends or during it's final year, and then the kids you add this and next year.

      That's the team I want to see them try to win with. So I draft and trade in order to fill ALL those spots, not just PG for next year as if that's all it's going to take.


      This is why I don't draft W'brook to "learn" PG. He doesn't have the vision, doesn't have that PG sense, and just is a huge risk away from SG/combo status I think. There you are counting on that HR attempt at a PG solution and you haven't solved any other issues. However I do take him if you are moving Dunleavy.

      That would mean that technically I'm passing over the PG spot with that pick. But then if Mike gets you Chalmers at say 22 or so then you just turned Tins/Mike into Chalmers/Westbrook and they fit much more naturally with what Granger does. Both those guys would work off Danny better than Dun because in many ways Dun is a duplicate of Danny on offense.

      I mean for all his faciliating of offense Mike's assists aren't exactly through the roof. I don't see Westbrook as a PG, but I do think he could see 3-5 assists from the SG/combo to match Mike's output. The defensive improvement would be drastic.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-14-2008, 10:33 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

        I do not see the Pacers blowing up the current roster. We will draft the best player available. Larry Bird will not take EJ at 11 just because he is from Indiana; he will take him if he thinks he is the best player available. I have no idea what will happen in the draft till we know the exact order. This is a very interesting draft b/c some decent players might slip to us in the second round ie DJ White, Lester Hudson, Tyler Smith, we also might see a Chris Lofton/ Mike Green/ Jaycee Carroll not get drafted and work his way onto our summer league team.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

          Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
          I do not see the Pacers blowing up the current roster. We will draft the best player available. Larry Bird will not take EJ at 11 just because he is from Indiana; he will take him if he thinks he is the best player available. I have no idea what will happen in the draft till we know the exact order. This is a very interesting draft b/c some decent players might slip to us in the second round ie DJ White, Lester Hudson, Tyler Smith, we also might see a Chris Lofton/ Mike Green/ Jaycee Carroll not get drafted and work his way onto our summer league team.
          No "Blow-up" but there will be changes. I know there has been talk about building around Dun & Granger from LB, but Dun had have earned enough value that we might make a move w/ him if we can. If we did, I could see (hope) for a C.Lee in rd. 2.
          Lets just pray for a Top 3 pick!!!
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

            I am just not in the mindset of drafing a PG at 11 because we need a PG. We have several holes in our roster. Lack of perimeter defense, dribble penetration, and toughness. I feel if you can go out and acquire a decent FA at PG we are better off for the future than taking DJ Augustine because he is the popular choice. What if Batum, Randolph, & Speights all turn into 20/10 guys and Augustine turns out to be a bust?

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

              Thoughts on what I'm reading:

              I don't want T.J. Ford, unless I can trade Tins + not much for him. Ford's played 251 games in 4 seasons for an average of ~63 games/year. Tinsley has played 398 games in 7 seasons for an average of ~57 games/year. In short, Ford is not any less of an injury risk than Tinsley.

              I think we can trust Bird to draft the best available player within reason. I think he'll draft the best player that's not a 3. I think that's a very reasonable strategy. We need help at every position other than SF. The only other concern I have would be taking a PF with JO, Ike, Shawne, and Foster still on the roster. If we draft a PF, we better have a plan to move at least one of those guys. It won't do us any good to draft Arthur or Speights or Love to have them competing with Ike and Shawne to be the 4th wheel behind Foster, O'Neal, and Murphy. And don't kid yourself into thinking that we can find a way to move Murphy.

              I like Dunleavy a lot, but I can certainly see plenty of reasons to trade him. If I got offered a PF/C or guard of equal or slightly lesser ability than Dun, I'd take them provided they could bring qualities to the table that this team is missing: rebound and shot-blocking from a PF/C and strong perimeter defense from a guard.

              In looking at who we might draft this year, we should look at Bird's stated vision for the team and the qualities he's liked in players in the past. I think that Larry looks for effort first and foremost in a player. I have a very hard time seeing him take a player like Jordan who has a questionable heart/work ethic.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                What if Batum, Randolph, & Speights all turn into 20/10 guys and Augustine turns out to be a bust?
                That's not a good argument. You could turn it around and say the same thing, what if the three above are run of the mill and Augustin is a 15ppg, 9apg, 3spg, point guard? You never really know.

                You make what you think is the best move possible at the time.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  And as I just said I'd also move Dun. Ultimately my vision of the team features Danny, Foster till he retires, probably JO till his deal ends or during it's final year, and then the kids you add this and next year.

                  That's the team I want to see them try to win with. So I draft and trade in order to fill ALL those spots, not just PG for next year as if that's all it's going to take.

                  This is why I don't draft W'brook to "learn" PG. He doesn't have the vision, doesn't have that PG sense, and just is a huge risk away from SG/combo status I think. There you are counting on that HR attempt at a PG solution and you haven't solved any other issues. However I do take him if you are moving Dunleavy.

                  That would mean that technically I'm passing over the PG spot with that pick. But then if Mike gets you Chalmers at say 22 or so then you just turned Tins/Mike into Chalmers/Westbrook and they fit much more naturally with what Granger does. Both those guys would work off Danny better than Dun because in many ways Dun is a duplicate of Danny on offense.

                  I mean for all his faciliating of offense Mike's assists aren't exactly through the roof. I don't see Westbrook as a PG, but I do think he could see 3-5 assists from the SG/combo to match Mike's output. The defensive improvement would be drastic.
                  Why is moving Dunleavy a requirment to picking a SG/Combo-Guard like Wesbrook in the upcoming draft?

                  Looking at our upcoming roster for the 2008-2009 season, we only have 1 SG that has a guaraneteed Contract in Marquis. If Marquis is moved in the offseason as an Expiring Contract , Rush and Flip aren't resigned, Shawne isn't moved for PR reasons ( all of which I think is a possiblility ), and Tinsley and Dunleavy are still on the roster ( both likely to remain given the length of their contract ), we could have enough minutes at the Guard rotation to play a rookie SG/Combo-Guard for the next season or two.

                  PG - Tinsley / Diener
                  SG - Dunleavy / "SG or Combo-Guard that we draft"
                  SF - Granger / Shawne

                  If a Guard had to be chosen in this draft, my preference is to draft Westbrook at the 12th spot ( as opposed to Collison or Augustine ) and have him fill the backup SG role or even the role that Flip is filling now ( doing a poor-impersonation of a PG ) IF Tinsley goes down with yet another injury.

                  The good thing is that Westbrook can be brought in as a backup SG off the bench behind Dunleavy and net a consistent 10-15 minutes a game in his rookie season while filling the role of SG while possibly learning how to run the point without significant pressure behind Tinsley and Diener.

                  I'm speculating here....but I think that is one of the reasons that Bird wanted Marquis and why he ultimately pursued Flip....he likes to have those Combo-Guards that can score ( frustratingly inconsistently at times for both Flip and Marquis ) the ball like a SG while handling limited PG duties ( which I don't think either of them can effectively do at the level that we need them to do it at ).

                  That's why I can see Bird choosing Westbrook if Love or some other top Prospect ( a la Granger ) falls to him. Westbrook has the potential to become a better player, he fills a positional need that we have ( assuming that we don't resign any of our current FA Guards and move Marquis in the offseason ) and is the type of Combo-Guard that Bird likes to have on his roster. More importantly, Westbrook apparently can do a decent job at defending the perimeter and effectively pressuring the opposing PG.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 04-14-2008, 05:28 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                    I just want to ask - and this is no offense to CableKC - I liked your post a lot---

                    Has there ever been a good "combo-guard" that has really ever done much as a point guard? Again Fred Jones, Marquis Daniels, Jalen Rose and such names come to mind and these guys really aren't cut out to translate into point guards.
                    "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                      Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                      I just want to ask - and this is no offense to CableKC - I liked your post a lot---

                      Has there ever been a good "combo-guard" that has really ever done much as a point guard? Again Fred Jones, Marquis Daniels, Jalen Rose and such names come to mind and these guys really aren't cut out to translate into point guards.
                      You can ask that question to Bird as well He seemed to think that Flip was either a PG or ( at the very least ) a Combo-Guard when he signed him

                      I'm not saying that Westbrook can become the next Wade or AI ( the closest players that I can think of that remotely resembles a Combo-Guard...which I can completely be off base about ), I'm just thinking that this is the type of player ( specifically a Guard that is more of a SG that can score while being capable of handling some PG duties ) that Bird seems to like having in his roster.

                      As many have suggested here....if we had to draft a PG....I would much rather draft Westbrook at the 12th spot then draft Augustine or Collison. I don't like to draft players that only popped up on people's radar during the NCAA Tourney ( as opposed to more established players that have played well all year long as welll as in the Tourney, ie Brandon Rush ), but I can honestly say that I would prefer taking a risk on Westbrook ( something that I do not want to do ) then picking Augustine or Collison.

                      At worst, we would have a decent backup SG and continue to look for a PG....at best...we have a solid Guard that can primarily play SG and provide some solid minutes at the PG spot.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 04-14-2008, 06:04 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                        Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                        I just want to ask - and this is no offense to CableKC - I liked your post a lot---

                        Has there ever been a good "combo-guard" that has really ever done much as a point guard? Again Fred Jones, Marquis Daniels, Jalen Rose and such names come to mind and these guys really aren't cut out to translate into point guards.
                        a bit tough to answer because once a guard proves he can play the point, he'd lose the "combo" tag.

                        one example that comes to mind is kirk hinrich. another is delonte west. heck, anthony johnson probably qualifies as well. other names - leandro barbosa, louis williams. but perhaps they don't play pg all that much.

                        i like westbrook (or weaver for that matter) because i think our perimeter defense really needs a boost. if either could learn to play the pg position then that would be a bonus.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          a bit tough to answer because once a guard proves he can play the point, he'd lose the "combo" tag.

                          one example that comes to mind is kirk hinrich. another is delonte west. heck, anthony johnson probably qualifies as well. other names - leandro barbosa, louis williams. but perhaps they don't play pg all that much.

                          i like westbrook (or weaver for that matter) because i think our perimeter defense really needs a boost. if either could learn to play the pg position then that would be a bonus.

                          It seems like with a guy like Dunleavy on the team we could afford to run a combo type at the point. Someone like westbrook who would be great in transition would do great in Obie's system, than you could always have dunleavy run the offense in the half court set. Meanwhile Westbrook plays excellent defense on the perimeter.

                          As somebody mentioned, Randy Foye is another guy who could fill this role, he is also a better jumpshooter than westbrook. If westbrook was gone when we pick I would like to see what combo of williams, diogu, and the #11 pick could fetch him. Minny getting Rose would make this more feasable.

                          you know playmaking is not a huge problem on this team, we are 7th in the leauge in assists per game.
                          Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 04-15-2008, 12:33 AM.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                            I guess I have disdain for the term "combo" guard. I don't get it. Any guard should be able to handle the ball, but it takes a different type of player to actually "see" the floor and set people up for shots.

                            I agree wintermute with your point about losing the tag once they prove pg skills.

                            I think that maybe that is what the term is used for then - a guy who teams would like to play point guard if he is able to develop the skills. So far the guys I've seen try have all failed.

                            Now a couple guys who were bonified superstars could play point - guys like Pippen, TMac, Penny Hardaway and such players.
                            "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              That's not a good argument. You could turn it around and say the same thing, what if the three above are run of the mill and Augustin is a 15ppg, 9apg, 3spg, point guard? You never really know.

                              You make what you think is the best move possible at the time.
                              Do you see the Pacers being able to move Tinsely & JO7 in the off-season? Here is my logic you have Jeff Foster, IKE, & JO7. If the Pacers make a move at the trading deadline next year it will have to involve Foster (expiring contract, quality player). You already have a replacement in the wings.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                                When I hear "combo guard" I think of a shooting guard with a body of a point guard and who has at least one person convinced he has even a small chance of learning to be a point guard some day through coaching.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X