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 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

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

  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

    The draft is extremely weak this year. We always seem to try harder than all the other non playoff teams and there is a legit debate about doing so.........but in the end it always moves us three or four spots further back than the talent suggests.

    Ive seen us taking Stef Curry at 9 on Hoops HYpe.......I too am somewhat intrigues by T Williams' talent but doubt I would go that direction. I would love to be in position to get Thabeet or Aminu or possibly Monroe who I haven't seen very much of. Aminu is a beast in three years and would be my likely first choice based on where we will pick. I like him better than all the guards and Jordan Hill:

    I also love Jonny Flynn mid to late in round 1 so if we could move Ford for a late first or simply acquire a mid to late pick than that would be fine with me and Im sure the Simons as well.

    Murphy, Dunleavy and Ford all should have at least a little bit of trade value this offseason but with Rasho and Quis coming off the books I can see us keepig all three wih Ford being the most likely to be moved in a dump.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      I know Cable. He's actually faded the last few weeks but I hadn't noticed. I sort of set Duke aside for now being satisfied that I'd seen enough. Singler has come on more while Henderson's slipped a bit.


      I'm with Croz on Johnson. I love Purdue, but the UConn game showed what Johnson is ready to do in the NBA, which is not very much. He's so thin he just gets easily knocked around. Can you imagine what a Blair hip-check would do to him?

      He's got very little low-post game and frankly that's okay. Be a Camby. Kill guys with the middy, block 2-3 a night with hops and you can find your way into the NBA.


      Frankly I thought the Purdue game was yet another sign that Thabeet kinda stinks. He was pretty poor most of the night. Yes we all know he's a shot block master, but frankly when 5'9" (or whatever) PG's drive right at him and then some 6'8" (or whatever) guy posts him up in the lane you can see the shot block from freaking Mars.

      Hands up, who thinks most NBA PGs would be dumb enough to try that? When will you ever see Danny Granger post up Thabeet?

      Purdue had tons of chances to exploit him and just didn't do it. But his game has massive holes in it. Basically asking him to do anything but play on the low block as as shot blocker is a mistake.

      Didn't you love when he tried to dribble in traffic and ended up getting tied up for a jumpball by a guy much shorter than him? This is his problem, he's still more freak of nature than ball player. Mureson comes to mind.

      I had said before that I liked him as a pairing with Hibbert as the help defender/rebounder while Hibbert works the post offense and blocks out on the other end. I guess I still feel that way, but you would need some really strong playmakers at the other 3 positions if that's your offensive bigs.

      I don't think Thabeet will flop, I just don't think he's going to be Ewing or Hakeem either, maybe not even Dikembe.



      I still kinda like AJ Price as an early 2nd round pick. Inconsistant, not carrying quite the full arsenal of passes or handles, but still crafty and smart as a pure PG.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        I wonder what his "off-putting on-the-court behavior," has been?
        I like how Ford cites his "play in the tourney". Um, dude, the guy started ripping it up months ago and that includes a much improved shot. If anything he shot a poor jumper in the Big East tourney and is just now shaking that off.

        But assists and rebounds have been huge for some time now. I'm not trying to ride his jock, I didn't know the dude existed earlier this season. I was watching for Clark and here's this other guy making play after play. So you notice and then he keeps doing it for months.
        But he'll have to continue to dominate in the tournament to change the feeling that many NBA executives have about his seriousness to the game.
        Oh Chad, don't you need to move Monroe and Rubio to the top 2 spots of your 2009 mock. Hell, throw in a HS player too while you are at it.

        "What, they don't let HS players go straight to the NBA? Since when?"

        I mean here are the Williams numbers from JANUARY (was that the start of the tourney? I had the winter blues, but that's not the same as march madness I'm pretty sure)...
        50.5% FG
        38.7% 3P
        14.2 PPG
        9.9 RPG
        4.2 APG
        1.46 A/TO
        2.4 STL/G

        That included games against Villanova, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, W. Virginia, N Dame and KY.

        Then they played UConn the next game, FEB 2 and all he did was go 11-19 for 26, 5 boards, 1 assist, 1 steal and 3 blocks. Oh, but scouts were concerned with those 2 TOs. The dude only played 28 minutes, so that means he damn near went at a point per minute rate!


        But then that was the Big East and it's trash and no one was paying attention to UConn, Pitt or L'ville back in FEB. At least not Chad Ford.


        Then again I can go conspiracy on this and suggest that Ford is intentionally downplaying him for some GM's benefit. I mean if I was GM this is the guy I'd draft, and if Ford was my buddy I'd beg him to trash him out as much as possible.



        Originally posted by Edub
        I think this would be a good year to have multiple 1st round picks.
        Sorry man, I can't agree with that. I can see how I would use a 2nd pick if the right guys fell to spots I could get a pick in, but for the most part this crop is really sketchy. Compared to last year it's downright putrid. I'm still in my "trade out of the draft" stance, even though I obviously would love to see Williams on the team.

        I can get behind several of these prospects, sure, but there's a lot of risk in play too. Guys like Harden, Curry, Mills and Teague didn't exactly give us reassurance for draft night with their tourney play.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          He was never slated to go well after the Pacers' pick. I swear some of you people make stuff up just to try and support your arguments.
          Yes. That's my MO alright. Quis, I wouldn't expect that of you. You really think I'm just going to make something up?
          (thx Anthem btw)

          I might be wrong on something, but I won't intentionally lie or make something up. That goes against the very reason I debate so hard on things.

          I know Love was slated after the Pacers pick because when I made up my list of top 15 prospects he wasn't even on it. Collison was the ONLY UCLA guy listed in that range (think I sourced NBADraft.net and then a couple others, HHype maybe or Express?). None of the KS players were there and Rush, Chalmers and Arthur were slated for late first/2nd round (some had them mid-2nd round no less) or not even coming out last year.

          When I first stated saying I liked Kevin Love there were a few posters that ripped on the idea of the Pacers "reaching" for him with a 9-11 area pick and that he'd never make it because he was slow, too short, bad wingspan, what have you.

          Those kinds of debates tend to shove the information into your head and then bitterness locks it up for later.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-26-2009, 11:59 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            I was searching for some posting about Love's original mock in last year's thread when I stumbled on this from early Jan.
            I haven't watched much Lopez yet but I just don't see a PF as the pick. A star pure C like Hibbert, maybe Love or White if a move can be made, but for the most part I don't know why quality shooters that can defend at the SG spot would be overlooked.
            Add to it repeated calls to trade back into the draft and you can see why I was pleased with their draft night effort.

            BTW, I also stumbled on Speed and I having a Westbrook discussion and Speed calling for them to get JJack back in a trade. Don't recall if others did or not so sorry if more props need to go out, but good one from Speed for sure.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Frankly I thought the Purdue game was yet another sign that Thabeet kinda stinks.
              Wait, I thought you were a pro-Thabeet guy?

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                It's tough to find stuff that stays on the same page and just gets edited rather than locked in. I didn't use RealGM, but at least I can find a page dated well before June there.
                http://www.realgm.com/src_feature/1146/20080215/2008_nba_mock_draft_version_40_(all_star_weekend_e dition)/


                And from a Syracuse story on Greene I found a reference to NBADraft.net
                http://blog.syracuse.com/orangebaske...doesnt_mo.html
                The folks at NBADraft.net updated their draft board for the 2008 NBA draft and Greene's name is nowhere to be found. As recently as a month ago, Greene appeared in the top 10 on most mock boards. Now, obviously, Greene would be drafted at some point if he entered this year's draft. But when? It stands to reason that NBAdraft.net had to find a point where if Greene wasn't going to drafted by a certain pick they figured Greene would remain in school. But where does that happen?
                If you're looking for clues, how about this: The last freshman in the latest mock draft is Vanderbilt center Andrew Ogilvy, who is listed as the No. 22 pick. Kentucky freshman Patrick Patterson is the No. 20 and UCLA freshman Kevin Love is the No. 18 pick.
                And a site the references DraftExpress back in Aug, 2007 with Love at 16th. Look at this board they had, it's not even close to how the draft was even projected by the end of May.

                http://www.hoopsvibe.com/nba/nba-dra...t-ar41659.html

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  Wait, I thought you were a pro-Thabeet guy?
                  Keep reading...

                  I had said before that I liked him as a pairing with Hibbert as the help defender/rebounder while Hibbert works the post offense and blocks out on the other end. I guess I still feel that way, but you would need some really strong playmakers at the other 3 positions if that's your offensive bigs.

                  I don't think Thabeet will flop, I just don't think he's going to be Ewing or Hakeem either, maybe not even Dikembe.
                  At the party last winter I did talk up what I mention above, but I've said all along that apart from shot blocking he's really raw. I like him, but if that's what you get from winning the lottery (top 3 spot I mean) then no thanks.

                  The problem is we were talking about PF solutions and there's just not a ton of legit PFs out there. Blair has tons of flaws too and he's one of the top PF guys to get at this point. It's just a thin draft.

                  I feel the same way about Harden, though Croz hates me for feeling that way.


                  Apart from Griffin and T'Will I can't think of anyone off-hand that I feel really excited about. Lots of interesting guys, but all with questions too, and I mean questions by draft standards. ALL draft picks have questions by NBA standards, even Rose and Beasley, but those guys were clearly the guys you take in that range.

                  This year it's tough for me to feel great about most guys in the draft going where they are going, except that there is no one else any better off to fill that void. Hill I suppose, seems like a decent 4-5 pick. Henderson at 8-9 seems not too bad. Earl Clark in that same range is something I'm warming up to (but I'd take TW instead obviously).

                  Budinger at 12-13 seems good, Sam Young at 15-16 seems okay. Curry around 18-20 fine.

                  But a lot of these other guys just seem "expensive" by the standard of what pick you had to use to get them.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                    sorry if i don't consitute wide open layups and dunks as "low post". johnson's post game consists of an attempt to back his man down, after he has failed, he either spins left or right (usually left), uses a hook in the middle of the paint, or he utilizes a turnaround j. just because a player stands around down low doesn't make him a low post presence. i love johnson and went to many of his games when he was at franklin central, but he is a ways away from being an nba power forward.
                    Duh. I've said that repeatedly in this thread. However he's strong enough for the kind of player he'll be. He's never going to be Shaq, Karl Malone - or even Jason Maxiel. His game's gonna be athleticism - he'll go around people, not through them. That's why he needs to work on his shot and his ballhandling - he'll be able to take most people off the dribble if he can get them there.

                    As for what he needs to do in the post - he'll need to be able to establish position and go around folks - but he'll need to be able to absorb some contact while he does it. He's already able to do that in college on a regular basis as a sophomore - for the kind of player he'll be his strength is fine. He's not some sort of wimpy player who gets shoved all over the floor by Pee-Wee Herman.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Thabeet didn't impress me all that much - he had a good game last night but we made it easy for him to have a good game. We never really went at him and when we did we went at him with soft layups and floaters - the kind of shots a shot-blocker loves. Through the season he's shown that he's susceptible when you go right at him - we didn't.

                      That said, IMO there's no mystery here - Thabeet will probably be a very good pro defender and very mediocre on offense. His footwork inside is poor at best and his athleticism his decent, but not special. Same for strength - not a wimp but nothing spectacular either. And he can't shoot. He's what everyone thinks he is - unless we discover he's never had a lick of post instruction and someone can work miracles with his footwork.

                      In a strong draft he's mid to late-lottery but this year he'll go top 5. There's not a lot of star power in the draft but a whole pile of guys who should be "solid" (substitute serviceable if you like) pros. When you're deciding which out of that pool of solid players to draft you might as well take the guy who's 7'3". Somebody from that pool will turn into a star but I couldn't pick him out - not definitively. After Griffin, everyone has holes in his game.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                        Frankly I thought the Purdue game was yet another sign that Thabeet kinda stinks. He was pretty poor most of the night. Yes we all know he's a shot block master, but frankly when 5'9" (or whatever) PG's drive right at him and then some 6'8" (or whatever) guy posts him up in the lane you can see the shot block from freaking Mars.
                        . Basically asking him to do anything but play on the low block as as shot blocker is a mistake.

                        Didn't you love when he tried to dribble in traffic and ended up getting tied up for a jumpball by a guy much shorter than him? This is his problem, he's still more freak of nature than ball player. Mureson comes to mind.

                        I had said before that I liked him as a pairing with Hibbert as the help defender/rebounder while Hibbert works the post offense and blocks out on the other end. I guess I still feel that way, but you would need some really strong playmakers at the other 3 positions if that's your offensive bigs.

                        I don't think Thabeet will flop, I just don't think he's going to be Ewing or Hakeem either, maybe not even Dikembe.
                        .
                        Thabeet does not stink @ all. He is going to be a top six pick in this year's draft easily. Nobody is drafting Thabeet and askinig him to be a franchise savior. His game is rebounding & defense. He is not that bad of a free throw shooter for a big man either. If Diop has made a carrer in this league Thabeet will.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Frankly I thought the Purdue game was yet another sign that Thabeet kinda stinks. He was pretty poor most of the night. Yes we all know he's a shot block master, but frankly when 5'9" (or whatever) PG's drive right at him and then some 6'8" (or whatever) guy posts him up in the lane you can see the shot block from freaking Mars.

                          Hands up, who thinks most NBA PGs would be dumb enough to try that? When will you ever see Danny Granger post up Thabeet?

                          Purdue had tons of chances to exploit him and just didn't do it. But his game has massive holes in it. Basically asking him to do anything but play on the low block as as shot blocker is a mistake.

                          Didn't you love when he tried to dribble in traffic and ended up getting tied up for a jumpball by a guy much shorter than him? This is his problem, he's still more freak of nature than ball player. Mureson comes to mind.

                          I had said before that I liked him as a pairing with Hibbert as the help defender/rebounder while Hibbert works the post offense and blocks out on the other end. I guess I still feel that way, but you would need some really strong playmakers at the other 3 positions if that's your offensive bigs.

                          I don't think Thabeet will flop, I just don't think he's going to be Ewing or Hakeem either, maybe not even Dikembe.
                          I understand at anywhere from the 2nd to 5th spot, Thabeet could be considered a high for a Player that appears more like a slightly athletic version of Shawn Bradley.....but if ( speaking hypothetically ) Thabeet were to drop to the Pacers in the draft at the 9th to 11th spot.....would you consider drafting him?
                          Last edited by CableKC; 03-27-2009, 11:52 AM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            IMO thabeet does stink and won't ever live up to his draft position. he plays with little to no passion and plays as though he could care less whether his team wins or loses. sure he blooks shots, but the majority of those come from him being allowed to roam the paint. he won't be allowed to do that in the nba. not many can match his length and athleticism, but that's all he has to his game. thabeet still does not understand how to play the game of basketball on either end of the court and i don't think he has the desire to ever attempt to.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              I understand at anywhere from the 2nd to 5th spot, Thabeet could be considered a high for a Player that appears more like a slightly athletic version of Shawn Bradley.....but if ( speaking hypothetically ) Thabeet were to drop to the Pacers in the draft at the 9th to 11th spot.....would you consider drafting him?
                              oh god please we dont need thebeet, hibbert is in my eyes better and will become better than him

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Don't worry, the Pacers won't get Thabeet. We'll pick way after.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X