Tweet
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
What's the recent scuttlebutt?
What's the recent scuttlebutt?
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
"I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Blake Griffin is still disappointing to me.
Yes, he is a great low post scorer and rebounder, but there is still so much more to be desired. No face up game, doesn't put the ball on the floor, defense is, well, there is none. (Standing with your arms straight up as soon as your man catches the ball, doesn't cut it.)
Earl Clark=meh. I like Terrance Williams a hell of a lot more from that team. He doesn't do one single thing extremely well, but does everything well above average. Very athletic, good wing defender, and just an overall stat stuffer. I don't know if he would completely translate to the next level, but he just has a feel for the overall game that a big majority just don't have.
Tonight's Duke game will be very entertaining and a good gauge on both team's prospects.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
this draft sucks, that opinion will not alter. harden is still my favorite in the draft, but based on where we're picking, i still prefer demar derozan or patrick patterson.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I watched some of the Kentucky game last night and Patrick Patterson looked good, playing 36 minutes, going 8-12 and scoring 24 points. Jodie Meeks was heavily defended all 40 minutes he played, and scored 21 points but on 4-15 shooting. But he did go 10-10 at the charity stripe.
Jodie Meeks #23 G
2008-09 STATS PPG APG 3P% RPG BPG SPG 25.8 1.7 .445 3.7 0.1 1.4
Birth Place Norcross, GA Height 6-4 Weight 208 lbs. Position G Experience 3 years Class Junior
"I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
The games that I have seen Blake play have been good. He does pass well out of the post, has considerably good perimeter D for a big man (he can hedge screens in the NBA), runs the floor well, and has a command for the ball.
He doesn't have a face up to the basket yet, but Al Jefferson just got his this year finely tuned. He does play defense but does not risk it all blocking shots like Thabeet. He will not be an elite shot blocker. But he does have a hard nose defense streak that is underrater (ala Foster).
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Still, even in a weak draft, there are bound to be a couple players picked 15 or higher that become solid starters and a couple picked in the 2nd round that do the same. There may not be a ton of top shelf talent, but there will be good picks to be made no matter where you're drafting. I never really buy the weak draft/strong draft stuff.Originally posted by croz24 View Post
I think Griffin has a very high ceiling, but it will ultimately be up to him whether or not he reaches it. He's got the athletic ability and skills to do just about anything you want. If he commits to becoming a complete NBA player, he has the potential to be great. I don't think there's a player in this draft who's less hindered by physical abilities than Blake Griffin."A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman RushdieComment
-
@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I am about done hoping for the playoffs at this point... It would be nice to actually score a top 10 pick this time around.
Honestly with young prospects like Hibbert and Mcbob, I am not nearly as obsessed with Bigs as some... although Blake Griffen would be amazing. I am much more interested in an upgrade in the PG position because I just don't feel that TJ is the PG of the future. If the pacers hold their current position, they actually have a decent shot at scoring Brandon Jennings, who isn't getting a ton of attention due to playing in Europe, but has a huge upside.
Skipping college sort of made me wonder if he had attitude problems, but after reading his blog, he actually seems like a pretty good kid and not dumb at all. Funniest thing in the blog is how he was really excited when he got to go up against Travis Best of all people... who I didn't even realize was still playing.
If Jennings isn't there it seems like Ty Lawson could be a more durable better defensive version of TJ. Hopefully without the overdribbling. There are actually some decent PG prospects in the 8-11 range.Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 02-12-2009, 11:15 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."
- ilive4sportsComment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Ty Lawson was nice yesterday, I like Hill, Monroe, Derozan and Curry. Either one would be O.k for me.Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I would just love it if the Pacers found a way to get Harden.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I havent gone thru the entire thread but if we land a top 10 pick, what do guys think of Jeff Teague from Wake to run point for us. Ive seen only a few Wake games this yr but he looks like a nice prospect.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Not sold on Teague yet, but I'd like to watch him some more. I'm crossing my fingers that we get a pick high enough to sneak Jennings back out of Europe.
Two guys I'm really down on now - Earl Clark and Blair. Now Blair was never set to be top 10 so this probably isn't fair, but after having some interest in him as a big, strong PF with wingspan to cover his shortness, I've lost it after watching him some more.
To me Blair is just too disinterested half the time. One game is one thing, but I've seen it over several games. He's looking more like Tractor Traylor now, using size to get by rather than being a truly great player. The one part of his game I still like is his screens and picks. Just not sure if that's enough now.
And for anyone to still show Earl Clark as a top 10 pick blows me away. The guy is just totally not involved in most of his team's plays. If a guy like Rush or Westbrook seemed to always find their way into a play last year, Clark is just the opposite. Very passive, always out of the loop and just zilch for team basketball instincts.
However if by a miracle Henderson is still on the board when the Pacers pick you must go get him. He's been doing it game after game, showing a great shooting touch, huge hustle into plays, big-time NBA hops at the rim to finish. He'd be a nice compliment to Rush as the team's 2 true SGs. At that point you'd really have to move Dunleavy though, but Henderson has too much talent to pass on just because of roster makeup.
My guess is that Henderson is playing his way above the 8th pick already, just like Westbrook did last year. He was ranked much lower (as were Love and Rush) early in the season and just kept improving his stock with each outing till he was way outside the Pacers reach.Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-13-2009, 03:13 AM.
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I do think he is Fred Jones 2, but I never said he was as limited in his game as Fred. The comparison was Fred-like in who he is on court, but that he had more talent than Fred. He isn't the jump-passer Fred was, he could always go both directions with his dribble.Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post
I loved Westbrook as a pro. I did not like him as a pure POINT GUARD. That was my only hang up. I liked him as an energy SG who finds his way into every play. I said he'd get you those scrap boards and makes lots of hustle plays for you. Basically Fred Jones if Fred was more talented.
So far I think that's still valid. He's getting assist numbers at times, but that's partly a factor of putting the ball in his hands to start out. He's not been anything like a DJ pure PG creator type.
I didn't want him as the Pacers PG solution, but I always ranked him higher than Rush, but below Mayo. And considering the fact that plenty of other picks are kicking butt this year, it's not like W'brook doing fine means he was the best pick for the Sonics.
Better to have W'brook shooting 40/30 for his 15 ppg or Gordon shooting 45/37 for his 14.7. Or DJ shooting 41/41 for his 12.8. Or the PG I loved as a bargain, Chalmers shooting 37% from 3 and getting just as many APG as Westbrook but doing it for a winning team? Not to mention Chalmers having the superior A/TO ratio (2.33 to 1.57).
The Sonics literally could have taken a true big in Lopez or Love, and still gotten "Westbrook" for PG by taking Chamlers later on.
W'brook is fine, but so are a whole ton of guys drafted after him. The fact is the class as a whole was insanely deep
If anything I took the heat for saying Love could play inside at the NBA level, and there he is getting tons of boards, scoring and playing solid defense. Plenty of people thought he was undersized and wouldn't cut it.
If I missed on a guy it was perhaps wondering if Gordon was going to translate for sure, and on Hibbert's awkwardness being too much to overcome at the NBA level. I also thought DJ was too small but he's coming along okay so far.
The main guy I saw as overranked was Joe Alexander. Still don't get that one.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Some quotes from last year by me
Brandon Rush, April 2008
Hmm, sounds familiar.And Rush...well he was anti-addicted to taking over at times. Passive to a fault.
Chalmers, April 08
Kofi on Chalmers just before this postBut Chalmers showed nice fundamental passing, that true PG attitude, that suggested he got it far more than DJ and Collison often did as they fell into taking over way too much.
Excellent call.Mario Chalmers lacks size and the skills to be anything better than a below average backup in the NBA.
My deal with Westbrook as not to take him as a PG, but make him the SG and trade Dun - April 15th
and this stomach turner...same postWestbrook as the DEFENSIVE SG with a knack for loose balls/rebounds and at least the Fred Jones ability to drive to the rim for a score is fine with me. Move Dun for another pick (say PORT if possible) and let Westbrook see as much time as possible right away. Maybe he goes behind Quis or Rush or something to start, but ultimately you are placing him into this system.
and why trade Dun if you draft Westbrook?Look, here's the hard fact on it, Mike looks great NOW. But consider the times when we wouldn't have traded JO or Tins and look where that ended up.
A few days before those posts...Because a top 15 pick needs more than 8 minutes in his main role. JOB is still coach and if Mike is here he's the SG. The only reason you take W'brook with Mike here is because you plan to move him (Dun) during the year or at the latest prior to the next draft.
And in MarchAs stated endlessly by me I have zero faith in Westbrook as a true PG. He is an energy guy and I do agree he's one of the elite athletes in the draft. He'll defend, he will get tons of loose balls and scrap rebounds, and he will drive to the hole for his own score. But stopped in a half court set he's yet to show the awareness to space the floor for a play (other than feeding the post, and even then he doesn't move well to adjust the feed lane). If he had the outside shot then you could bring him in for the 2, but he hasn't shown that yet. He seems certain to stick in the NBA and if the Pacers didn't have Dun/Granger then I could see it a lot more.
Yeah, I sure didn't like him.Westbrook will pick up all scraps on his pure energy, but he doesn't play any traditional role. He has a jumper, he has handles, he can pass okay, but mostly he wins his battles on energy. I like him a lot but he really doesn't add the right things to the Pacers.
Beats the heck out of someone telling me Love would never make it in the NBA.
I was by far hardest on Hibbert of any of the picks, even though I liked him as a person and wished for him to have success (prior to the Pacers drafting him). And I wasn't the only one crushing him in the recruiting thread. I did give him the out as being smart and perhaps working his way back in ala Brad Miller. I do think that's been part of what's helped Roy, being smart and having a good attitude toward improving.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
It will be interesting to see where we pick in the draft. I think it will be a top ten pick.
Cole Aldrich should get some strong consideration.Comment
Comment