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 Will Galen View Post
    I agree! Which is one reason I don't really want to trade anyone but maybe Tinsley by the trade deadline this year.

    Say we finish the year in the vicinity of where we did last year. (11th) If we finish 9th, 10th, 11th, we might be able to trade up to get a Rose or Gordon by offering that pick along with players.
    If it costs us Granger and the other Lottery pick....would you still do it?
    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 CableKC View Post
      The only tradeable asset that we would likely be willing to part with that another GM would want is JONeal....and I seriously doubt that he would get us a top 3 or 4 pick since any team with a top 3 or 4 pick would not want JONeal and his injury prone body.

      The only way that we could possibly get a top 3 or 4 pick is if we offer up Granger to get the pick. If Granger himself could nab us that top 3 pick to get Gordon...then I would definitely consider it.

      But I'm pessimistic enough to think that any GM with half a brain would ask for more ESPECIALLY if the target is Gordon and the GM that is asking is from Indy ( a team that not only needs a future SG but the is desperate for the much needed additional PR that comes from drafting one of the top stars to come out of IU in a long time ).

      Besides....I'm not very confident in the Pacers FO ability to make the right moves. For all I know....they may swing some deal to trade our stars for a bag of magic beans or something.
      I'm more inline with what Will is talking about, packaging players with our current pick or future picks to get them that day. Because while I am in the Tank club for sure, you can't gurantee someone else is going to get the pick you want. Once you trade for a pick, if that team all of the sudden gets better because of the trade then you are screwed. Although on the other hand if it does remain a good pick they may ask a lot more for it once the lotto has been assigned...blah

      Maybe we just trade for an asset we can get a good deal with on draft day to go with our allready decent choice.....is that being to positive on that whole situation?
      Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        If it costs us Granger and the other Lottery pick....would you still do it?
        No. I think that would be dumb.

        For example, who would you rather have Gordon, or Granger and Hasheem Thabeet, a 7'3 center, or Granger and Chase Budinger a 6'7 guard?

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by jmoney2584 View Post
          I'm more inline with what Will is talking about, packaging players with our current pick or future picks to get them that day. Because while I am in the Tank club for sure, you can't gurantee someone else is going to get the pick you want. Once you trade for a pick, if that team all of the sudden gets better because of the trade then you are screwed. Although on the other hand if it does remain a good pick they may ask a lot more for it once the lotto has been assigned...blah

          Maybe we just trade for an asset we can get a good deal with on draft day to go with our allready decent choice.....is that being to positive on that whole situation?
          The only tradeable assets that this team has is Granger, Shawne, Foster and MAYBE Ike. No one would want anyone else on this roster while giving up a 1st round draft pick.

          If we do this on Draft day.....I'm totally guessing here.....but I'm thinking like this:

          Granger by himself maybe able to get a 5 to 10 pick.
          Shawne or Foster by himself maybe able to get a 15 to 25 pick.
          Ike by himself maybe able to get a 25-30 pick.

          All of this is dependant on the team that is drafting. If a team at the 5th pick needs an upgrade at the SF spot....they may consider swapping the 5th pick for Granger. But it they already have a quality SF...then they won't consider Granger as valuable.

          Either way....unless Granger can nab us Gordon by himself....or Shawne or Foster can somehow nab us a pick that would allow us to draft a solid Defensive Big Man like Thabeet...then I just don't see us making a draft-day trade that would reallly benefit us in the long run.
          Last edited by CableKC; 01-29-2008, 07:08 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 Will Galen View Post
            No. I think that would be dumb.

            For example, who would you rather have Gordon, or Granger and Hasheem Thabeet, a 7'3 center, or Granger and Chase Budinger a 6'7 guard?
            That's what I'm thinking too. Unfortunately, it goes back to what I was saying about our current situation. On Draft Day, every GM knows that we are desperate to make a move after a ( more then likely ) failed 2007-2008 season.

            If it was a straight up Granger for #3 pick to get Gordon....I would do it. But I get the sense that we would have to overpay in order to get a much needed draft pick.....which obviously would not be worth it.
            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 CableKC View Post
              That's what I'm thinking too. Unfortunately, it goes back to what I was saying about our current situation. On Draft Day, every GM knows that we are desperate to make a move after a ( more then likely ) failed 2007-2008 season.

              If it was a straight up Granger for #3 pick to get Gordon....I would do it. But I get the sense that we would have to overpay in order to get a much needed draft pick.....which obviously would not be worth it.
              You have to keep something in mind about these scenarios where very high picks get traded around.

              Typically, the team with such a high pick (top 5 pick) is going to want the player they like most that they can get with that pick. So in most scenarios, they will keep the pick, make the selection, and keep that player.

              The scenarios where teams are willing to trade down typically only happen when said team STILL GETS the player they want most from the draft even after trading down a few spots.

              For example, in 2004 the Clippers picked at #2 and wanted Shaun Livingston more than Okafor (they had Brand). But they figured they could still get Livingston even after trading down 2 spots and getting a 2nd round pick from the Bobcats while dumping a bad contract on them. That was a prearanged deal, so the Clips got exactly who they wanted while gaining a pick and dumping a contract.

              In a theoretical world where the Clips didn't already have Elton Brand and wanted Okafor, there's no way they would have made that trade. The price to pry the #2 pick off their hands in such a case would have been much, much higher.

              My point is that a team picking really high generally doesn't want to mess around by trading down unless they can still get the player they like most. So if a team is picking at #4 and Eric Gordon is there and he's the guy they like, they'll most likely just keep the pick and keep Eric Gordon. The only way they'd trade the pick is if they could trade down while still getting Gordon.

              I would guess that in most scenarios, Granger + the #9-12 pick probably wouldn't be enticing enough to land a top 4 pick in return.
              Last edited by d_c; 01-29-2008, 08:35 PM.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                Thabeet is very raw and will take time to develop. I don't claim to have a crystal ball but I agree with the poster who said that his worst case scenario would be Adonal Foyle. However, he could also turn out to be a Dikembe Mutumbo type player. There is a risk and reward with every player in the draft and Thabeet is no different.
                I'd love to get Thabeet, don't get me wrong. I just want to get a big man coach first. That way we can actually develop him rather than have him learn from JO or Murphy and become a young mold of them.
                I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by indyman37 View Post
                  I'd love to get Thabeet, don't get me wrong. I just want to get a big man coach first. That way we can actually develop him rather than have him learn from JO or Murphy and become a young mold of them.
                  I wonder if Dikembe would be available...not much on the offensive side, but he'd teach him how to be a rebounding and shot blocking ninja. Mount Mutumbo was a physical player, he'd do some young big talent good by teaching them the ropes.

                  Not many people probably think about it, but Dwight Howard has Patrick Ewing as his big man coach down in Orlando, don't you think that has SOME part in Dwight's vast and quick improvement?
                  Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

                  Comment


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

                    I do not want Chase. I do not want Thabeet. I do not want Mayo.

                    Give me:
                    Gordon
                    Donte Green
                    Bayless
                    Batum
                    Gallinari
                    Collinson
                    Ibaka
                    Rush

                    Seriously I would rather Batum and Rush (trading to get this pick) than trading pick and Granger for Gordon.

                    Comment


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

                      Memphis plays the Zags.

                      Important game for Rose. If he struggles his stock could drop. Janero Pargos bro (Jeremy) is a decent prospect. I can see him as a solid backup in the NBA.

                      Comment


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

                        http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...2=stateChanged

                        Draft Watch: Patience paying off for some sophomores

                        By Chad Ford
                        ESPN.com

                        Updated: January 30, 2008

                        Last year, a record eight college freshmen went in the first round. And a handful of other promising freshmen would have been first-round picks if they declared for the draft.

                        Did they make a mistake by forgoing the riches of the NBA lottery for a sophomore season or have they improved their game and their draft stock? And which other sophomores have improved their play to the point that they are getting first-round mentions?

                        After talking with numerous NBA scouts and executives, here's a look at a group of college sophomores who look like they could make some noise come June.

                        The Fab Five


                        Brook Lopez, C, Stanford
                        At the end of last season, Lopez ranked as the eighth-best prospect in our top 100 for the 2007 draft, but he decided to return to school for his sophomore year. That quickly backfired when he was suspended indefinitely from the team for not attending classes earlier this season. He ended up missing the first nine games of the season and slipped down to No. 15 on our board.

                        Scouts everywhere were asking the same question? How can a guy with such a bright future turn down the NBA for college and then quit going to class?

                        Now that he's back, Lopez has been on fire. He's averaging nearly 18 points per game and 8 rebounds in just 26 minutes per game. Offensively, Lopez has shown the ability to score both inside and outside. He has good athleticism for a big guy, long arms and a good motor.

                        Although scouts wish he was a more dominant rebounder and shot-blocker, the truth is that his brother, Robin, often takes care of that for him.
                        Right now Lopez is ranked No. 7 on our big board, but he has the potential to be a top 5 pick in the 2008 draft.


                        Chase Budinger, SG, Arizona
                        Budinger finished last season ranked No. 9 in our Top 100 and has used this season to solidify his ranking in the top 10.

                        Budinger has all the tools to be a dominant swingman in the NBA. He is tall, athletic, has a killer jump shot and can jump out of the gym.

                        But after a good freshman season, scouts are currently scratching their heads a little as to why Budinger isn't more dominant. He has all the tools to be the man in Arizona, but he's often overshadowed by freshman Jerryd Bayless.

                        Part of Budinger's problem is that he still lacks a solid in-between game. He takes a lot of 3s and gets it going to the basket ... but he lacks the ballhandling skills to create more for himself. And although he's a freak leaper, he doesn't always use his athleticism in his game.

                        Still, scouts say Budinger has a chance to be special as a pro. He looks like a lock to be a top 10 pick in the draft.


                        Darrell Arthur, PF, Kansas
                        Arthur is another player who, on paper, should be dominating. He's long, athletic and skilled, but he continues to be inconsistent on both ends of the floor.

                        Arthur has a lot of talent around him at Kansas and at times he seems content to let his teammates do the work. When he gets it going, he looks like a top 5 pick. When he doesn't get it going, he looks more like a first-round bubble guy.

                        "I'm scared of him a little," one NBA director of player personnel told me. "You see the tools, but as a sophomore you want him putting it together more on a regular basis. You watch him disappear sometimes and wonder what you're getting."

                        Arthur came into the season ranked No. 5 in our Top 100 and has slowly dipped to No. 11. He could dip lower if he doesn't get more consistent or he could rise back up the rankings if he has a dominant run in the NCAA Tournament.

                        It's still too early to tell.


                        D.J. Augustin, PG, Texas
                        After Memphis' Derrick Rose, scouts continue to debate who the second best true point guard in the country is. Right now, two sophomores, Augustin and UNC's Ty Lawson, are at the center of the debate.

                        Augustin is a super-quick point guard with excellent ballhandling and penetration skills and a very good 3-point shot. He draws some comparisons to Steve Nash for his ability to keep his dribble, then find a seam for a perfect pass.

                        Augustin's size and lack of rebounding are the biggest strikes against him right now. But when you look at his production and what he's doing for Texas, you can see why some scouts see him as a better version of Damon Stoudamire.

                        Right now Augustin is ranked as the 12th best prospect in the draft.


                        Ty Lawson, PG, North Carolina
                        Lawson is one of the quickest guards in the draft. He is a steady floor leader, stays away from mistakes and has become a dependable shooter in the backcourt.

                        Some scouts feel strongly that Lawson could be a better version of the Bobcats' Raymond Felton. Others aren't nearly as sold on him, saying he's more likely to be a marginal starter to solid backup than a starting point guard in the league.

                        The fact that he's leading one of the best teams in the country means he's getting a ton of exposure right now. That's been both good and bad for his draft stock.

                        If he leads North Carolina deep into the tournament, his stock is bound to rise. Otherwise, he's probably somewhere between 10 and 15 in the draft.

                        Up and coming

                        While the top five sophomores coming into the season have held their positions in the lottery, several others are quickly rising up the charts. Here's a look at five others who could make an impact in the first round. Marreese Speights, PF/C, Florida

                        Speights averaged just 6 mpg on last season's championship team, but when he played, he had a surprising impact at the offensive end. This season he has turned into one of the most efficient scorers in the NCAA. He averages 14 ppg, 8 rpg and 1.4 bpg in just 22 mpg. He shoots 64 percent from the floor and has, along with freshman Nick Calathes, been the leader of a Florida team that is surprising a lot of people right now.

                        Speights has great size and strength and good athleticism for a power forward. He has impressive low-post moves for a sophomore, shows excellent quickness with the ball in the paint and has a good motor. He needs to improve his conditioning and his jump shot, but there's a lot to love about Speights right now. He's got a chance to be a Top 10 pick this year. Currently, he's ranked No. 9 in our Top 100.

                        JaVale McGee, PF/C, Nevada
                        McGee is a super-athletic big man who oozes potential. He is already an elite shot-blocker and runs the floor incredibly well for his size. He has some face-the-basket skills, can put the ball on the floor and even shoot the college 3.

                        He's also very raw and desperately needs to add muscle to his frame if he's going to have any chance of holding his position in the paint. With that said, scouts love his potential. He's a likely late first-rounder if he declares now. Another year of development in college could make him a lottery pick.

                        Ryan Anderson, PF, Cal
                        Anderson has turned into a big-time scorer for Cal with a polished inside-outside game that is very tough to stop. He has deep range on his 3-point shot and he's turned himself into an excellent rebounder.

                        The question about Anderson is his lack of athleticism. Some scouts look at him and see another Troy Murpy -- a solid pro, but not a star. Anderson is a first-round bubble guy right now.

                        Tyler Smith, F, Tennessee
                        Smith is off to an excellent start at Tennessee after transferring from Iowa last year. He's been a do-it-all small forward who has excellent athleticism and energy. He doesn't have a great jump shot, but he has just about everything else. Not sure where he falls in the draft right now ... but he's a potential first-round sleeper.

                        Wayne Ellington, SG, North Carolina
                        Ellington is one of the best shooters in college basketball. He has deep range on his 3-point shot and has developed a great midrange game as well. He's become a more efficient scorer this season and has been great as the outside threat to compliment Tyler Hansbrough's inside presence.

                        Ellington's biggest NBA issues have to do with lack of size and inability to finish around the rim. Ellington needs to continue to add strength and find ways to get to the line. He's probably another year away from the NBA right now ... but he would garner looks in the late first round if he declared this year.

                        Others to watch: Scottie Reynolds, PG, Villanova; Jordan Hill, PF, Arizona; Hasheem Thabeet, C, UConn; Sherron Collins, PG, Kansas; Earl Clark, F, Louisville; Gerald Henderson, SG, Duke; Greivis Vasquez, G, Maryland; Robin Lopez, C, Stanford; Raymar Morgan, F, Michigan State; Stanley Robinson, F, UConn; Taj Gibson, F, USC; Paul Harris, G/F, Syracuse

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                          I do not want Chase. I do not want Thabeet. I do not want Mayo.

                          Give me:
                          Gordon
                          Donte Green
                          Bayless
                          Batum
                          Gallinari
                          Collinson
                          Ibaka
                          Rush
                          Green is a 6'7 SF, Batum is a 6'8 SF, Gallinari is listed as a 6'9 SF.

                          We have to many SF's now! (It's just a guess if they could play SG in the NBA)

                          Collinson is interesting though. We could use him right now!
                          Draft Projection:
                          Mid to late first round

                          Similarities: T.J. Ford.

                          Positives: Super quick point guard. Incredible bursts of speed. Excellent floor vision. Good perimeter shooter. Tenacious on-the-ball defender. Long arms make up for lack of size. Good floor leader. Has turned himself into an excellent perimeter shooter.

                          Negatives: Probably closer to 5-10 or 5-11 than the listed height of 6-1. Not a great ballhandler. Slight.

                          Summary: Scouts love his speed and his floor leadership. As the NBA turns more up-tempo, Collison's strengths may end up trumping his weaknesses. If he continues to play well, he could end up as a mid-first rounder in 2008.

                          Comment


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

                            Take the best player available, barring a trade. If you draft solely for need you will more than likely get burned. Soooooo...., if the best player at your pick is OBVIOUSLY a small forward,
                            you pick small forward and figure out what to do later. Hopefully need and talent match at your pick and that tough decision does not have to be made/
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


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

                              I'd like to see us land Mayo with our own pick, and trade for a mid-first to pick up a point guard like Collison, Augustin, or Lawson, or Thabeet or Hibbert, in the unlikely case that one slips out of the lottery.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                                I'd like to see us land Mayo with our own pick, and trade for a mid-first to pick up a point guard like Collison, Augustin, or Lawson, or Thabeet or Hibbert, in the unlikely case that one slips out of the lottery.
                                I've read that Hibbert may have the skills of a low-post scorer.....but he's really slow.....he wouldn't be able to keep up with our running.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X