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

    Originally posted by LOCBLB613 View Post
    RD1
    Earl Clark
    or
    Jeff Teague
    DeJuan Blair
    RD2
    Stanley Robinson!!!!!!!!!!
    or
    Dominic James
    Danny Green

    Thinking of these names, it pretty exciting actually. I like all of 6 of these guys to be able to contribute on a team.

    Is the general thought that this draft is weak, but crazy deep?

    As for someone will to trade up, I be there will be. Someone almost always falls in love with a player and is willing to deal.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      I was looking at he Clippers roster and I noticed they have Baron Davis listed 3rd on the depth chart behind Mike taylor and Fred Jones. If Baron is having problems staying healthy, wouldn't the Clippers be looking to trade their pick to possibly land a point guard? They have Randolph and Skinner now at PF. We could give them a combination of either Foster and our 9th for their 3rd or Ford and our ninth for their 3rd. Would they bite? Unless we trade down for depth shouldn't we be looking at Jordon Hill. He is what we need and we should do whatever it takes to get him.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Earl Clark was the only Louisville player who could do much offensively against Michigan St. yesterday. I haven't been a huge fan of his, but yesterday you could see why scouts like him.

        Williams, on the other hand, was rendered fairly ineffective by Walton's excellent defense. This scares me a little bit.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
          Earl Clark was the only Louisville player who could do much offensively against Michigan St. yesterday. I haven't been a huge fan of his, but yesterday you could see why scouts like him.

          Williams, on the other hand, was rendered fairly ineffective by Walton's excellent defense. This scares me a little bit.
          Clark has an nba body. He is althetic and has some decent post moves. It will be interesting to see if he gets drafted above Patrick Patterson or not. I like Patterson more on the defensive end but have not seen enough of each to make the call.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            or the accuracy on his passes. He also has a knack for leaving his feet while passing a-la Jack (which is easily correctable).
            I don't agree on this part at all Imawhat. This is what I like most of all about his game in fact. While he will go in the air to make a pass it's almost always predetermined and done in order to create that passing lane.

            Contrast this with Eric Maynor (or Fred Jones) who will go lane and up for a shot, find that denied and then turn to make the wild salvation pass to the corner. Twill sets up passes with his motion, dribble, fakes and jumping.

            I need to put together a vid package though I don't know why because dude ain't making to the Pacers pick IMO. But again one specific example was an in-bounds pass (and he ALWAYS in-bounds and for good reason) where the cutter came down the lane. The in-bounds defender had that path blocked with his arm, so TWill did a hard bounce pass under that and right into the hands of the cutter.

            The guy makes crafty, brilliant passes and I consider passing a more fundamental part of "point" than handles, though I will agree that handles can become critical when it's Eddie Gill trapped in the backcourt with his dribble picked up. I haven't really seen that happen to Twill much, but as others have said you typically get Sosa bringing it up and then going to Williams, or Williams is coming up against a SG/SF or even a big depending on the rebounding. He is good at getting up court from his own defensive board.

            If Ford wants to be a scoring guard then Williams is a great match for him.


            Did the MSU game hurt? Well I had to Tivo and only got to see bits live so far so I can't address specific playing style. I do know that MSU has said they went out of their way to make him the guy they shut down. Respect from opponents tells you a lot, and add to that how effective they were at beating L'ville when they did shut him down.

            It's a tough call because it can be a knock to say "you were the man and you didn't step up", but as UNC showed (a game I did watch), it's about role players just as much in games at this point. MSU has too much for it to just be the Twill show. This is why OK is done and UNC is not. Griffin was clearly better than Hanbrough, but OK was not better than UNC. By attacking and limiting Griffin they shut all of OK down.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              No doubt Clark is silky smooth and a strong shooter. The tools are there, its just a case of how well he's going to use them. I've warmed to him the last month, but if you take him you have to prepare for possible disappointment, maybe 40% chance in fact.


              Blair - I still like him and thought he was normal vs Villi, but again if you watched him in that game you saw that he rarely plays away from the ball. If he's off the play his hands are at his sides and he's just watching the game. He doesn't impose himself on the game at all times like a guy like Griffin does, or TWill or T Evans. Some guys make the most of every part of every play, even if it's to fake a cut or screen for a screener or whatever. Remember how Randy Moss wouldn't run hard if the play wasn't for him? Good defenders quickly pick up on that and know what that means for the actual play.

              Having said that, Blair's strength is rebounding position. He's Foster-like in how well he slips under guys when he knows he'll have a shot at a board. He's quicker than they think and with his strength you aren't regaining that spot. His wingspan helps offset their hops, especially when he puts a body on them. He usually sets strong picks though I saw him pull out early on a few vs Villi. He also brings toughness when motivated. A fired up Blair can cause a lot of problems for people, more than top end Thabeet does.


              Warren - man, I just don't see him coming out this year, he's not ready. He's a SG with good handles and not much else. He wasn't looking to shoot at all vs UNC and was for the most part a non-factor in that game. I don't know why he's rated so high at this point. I have zero interest in him right now, he doesn't seem even as strong as Josh Shipp.


              Lawson - still zero interest. Rarely changes hands and will go out of his way to awkwardly dribble around someone if pressed on his dribble hand. Doesn't really make any strong lateral moves. He's basically a curl off screen dribbler that will speed down the lane or stop and pop. Great college player, really perfect in that element, pretty much the PG version of Hansbrough IMO. I like both at the NCAA level and don't think either apply very well past that.

              There is something to be said for success, coaching, smarts, and a will to win, but other players have had that and done well in the tourney only to go nowhere in the NBA.


              Griffin - good lord, who do we have to maim or kill to get that dude on the Pacers. It's ridiculous how good his handles and hops are for a PF that strong. He's the PF version of SF Lebron.


              Too bad the Pacers don't really need Sam Young.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Adrien 2nd round, that is interesting. He's strong and aggressive. He's been a good team player the last 2 years as well.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Is the general thought that this draft is weak, but crazy deep?
                  I don't feel that way. I can see where only 7-8 guys in this entire draft hang on more than 4-5 years. There are lots of decent gambles out there but all seem more risky than last year. Getting a Weaver or Lee or Chalmers as late as they went seems highly unlikely, let alone the massive front loaded depth where many guys have snuck into the ROY discussions despite Rose himself having a brilliant year. Rose, Mayo, Westbrook, Love, Lopez right off the bat. Crazy.

                  You think the Spurs are finding another George Hill this year and giving him serious minutes next year? Go look at the rookies only leaders by minutes played, just for starters.

                  My mood on draft night is that it's worth caring because there will be SOME interesting opportunities, but I would be more interested in trading totally out of the draft than back in a 2nd time. Last year I wanted them to trade back in badly, and really would have loved to see them trade for 3-4 total picks instead, even from the 20-40 range for the other 2.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Danny Green in the second round would be intriguing. Has anybody else noticed that Granger and Green have very similar physical features? I think they're related somehow, but I could just be crazy.




                    "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

                      Originally posted by DanGrangerPwrRanger View Post
                      Danny Green in the second round would be intriguing. Has anybody else noticed that Granger and Green have very similar physical features? I think they're related somehow, but I could just be crazy.
                      My first guess is that you are crazy. LOL

                      I see similarities.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        I have a few questions about Danny Green. I know he can shoot, but can he create his own shot? How is he on the defensive end and on the glass?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          IMO MSU is the most skilled team still playing. Their athleticism isn't much - in fact it's well below any of the other teams still playing (you could say the same about the talent level of individual players) but in terms of having basketball skills - people who play the game of basketball in a sound, skillful manner, know how to handle the ball, pass, hit the open shot, finish layups, set screens, communicate and switch defensively, rotate to cover open spaces on the floor, etc. - they're head and shoulders above anyone else left.
                          Got to totally agree with that.

                          For anyone to say that they play "playground basketball", they either are very misguided or just not watching the games.

                          Heck, even an MSU cheerleader (and her parents) that I ran into 1-1/2 hours before the game had more insight.

                          I made the statement that, considering Louisville's overall athleticism and talent, that perhaps MSU might have an uphill battle.

                          She immediately responded that MSU had 3 capable guards that Louisville could not successfully press... and that these same 3 guards would do a pretty good job of preventing Louisville's fast break. BINGO.

                          She then added that "if Goran handles the top of the triangle without committing many errors, hit a few shots from the free throw line or even get a few threes, then she thought it would be Louisville that would have an uphill battle. BINGO #2.

                          Of all coincidences, I ended up sitting in the same section as her parents. We struck up another conversation before the game. I joked that their daughter seemed to have a lot of confidence about her team going up against the #1 seed in the tournament. The mom told me that their daughter informed them that MSU would probably win by 10 or 12. BINGO #3.

                          All I can say is that I wish this gal could help me fill out my bracket next year.

                          But, in my book, MSU had a plan that they executed almost flawlessly, and was able to gradually build a lead in the second half. It was about as opposite from playground basketball as one can get.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            I don't feel that way. I can see where only 7-8 guys in this entire draft hang on more than 4-5 years. There are lots of decent gambles out there but all seem more risky than last year. Getting a Weaver or Lee or Chalmers as late as they went seems highly unlikely, let alone the massive front loaded depth where many guys have snuck into the ROY discussions despite Rose himself having a brilliant year. Rose, Mayo, Westbrook, Love, Lopez right off the bat. Crazy.

                            You think the Spurs are finding another George Hill this year and giving him serious minutes next year? Go look at the rookies only leaders by minutes played, just for starters.

                            My mood on draft night is that it's worth caring because there will be SOME interesting opportunities, but I would be more interested in trading totally out of the draft than back in a 2nd time. Last year I wanted them to trade back in badly, and really would have loved to see them trade for 3-4 total picks instead, even from the 20-40 range for the other 2.
                            I thouht that too at first glance.........but hen if you really start breaking down last years prospects at this time vs. this years class............. I think this class is significantly better.

                            Last years class had two.........maybe three potential All Star type players with Rose being close to a lock and Beasley and Mayo having the potential to be that.

                            Persoanlly I doubt either reaches that level unless their top 3 draft status gets them there. No one else makes you think All Star potential when you watch them.......Lopez, Randolph, maybe one or two others have an outside shot but the lottery was filled with lots of Cutino Mobley types..........nice careers.........but little impact on teh win-loss column players.

                            This years class has one bona fide hall of Famer which surpasses Rose's status in Blake Griffin.

                            In Thabeet .....you have a potentially dominant 7-3 athletic center in a league that is desperately thin in teh middle. He may be an Olajuwon or a ewing type or he could become a Samuel dalembert..........but he's worth the gamble from the 2nd pick on. My guess is that he goes #2 to the Wiz.

                            Harden is a much better guard prospect than Westbrook from a year ago. Atletic, rangy, solid intangibles.................future all star performer seems likely.

                            Aminu to me has a ton of upside and I would draft him in a second if he was around at 8-11 wherever we wind up picking. The kid has a tremendous basketball IQ and is only 18-19 yrs old.

                            Seth wants to say there are no Chalmers types in this draft. (guys who can start to be found late in rd 1 or beyond ) ..........to which I respond by saying...............have you seen Ty lawson, Jonny Flynn, Patty Mills, Scottie Reynolds, terrence Williams, AJ Price, Dominic James, Tyreke Evans and on and on it goes............and those are just some of the guards. All of whom are/were better prosects at this stage of their careers than Chalmers who had a nice rookie season ...........but playing next to a healthy d Wade makes things a little easier. Even Delonte West looked good playing PG for the Cavs a year ago and so did the little kid from Texas............but they aren't necessarily Tony parker and Chauncey Billups.

                            Gerald Henderson, Steph Curry , Jeff teague and others can score the ball better than last years crop of Gordon, Bayless, and Rush IMO. I like Henderson quite a bit............I think hes the best Dukie since Boozer and Battier and will have a solid career at the next level. Potentially a paul Pierce type player which there were none close to that from a year ago.

                            But what do I know..............I'm the dumb one who thought the Hawks and Blazers would win 20 games more than the Pacers.........and that the Heat and Bulls would both make playoff runs ........oh wait...........guess I had that one pretty much pegged as well.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                              Got to totally agree with that.

                              For anyone to say that they play "playground basketball", they either are very misguided or just not watching the games.

                              Heck, even an MSU cheerleader (and her parents) that I ran into 1-1/2 hours before the game had more insight.

                              I made the statement that, considering Louisville's overall athleticism and talent, that perhaps MSU might have an uphill battle.

                              She immediately responded that MSU had 3 capable guards that Louisville could not successfully press... and that these same 3 guards would do a pretty good job of preventing Louisville's fast break. BINGO.

                              She then added that "if Goran handles the top of the triangle without committing many errors, hit a few shots from the free throw line or even get a few threes, then she thought it would be Louisville that would have an uphill battle. BINGO #2.

                              Of all coincidences, I ended up sitting in the same section as her parents. We struck up another conversation before the game. I joked that their daughter seemed to have a lot of confidence about her team going up against the #1 seed in the tournament. The mom told me that their daughter informed them that MSU would probably win by 10 or 12. BINGO #3.

                              All I can say is that I wish this gal could help me fill out my bracket next year.

                              But, in my book, MSU had a plan that they executed almost flawlessly, and was able to gradually build a lead in the second half. It was about as opposite from playground basketball as one can get.
                              I had said that I thought Izzo was/is a great coach. What I said in referring to both MSU and Missouri was that neither possessed any NBA type players and that there style of bruising and banging reminded me of playground basketball..............you are right that that they are disciplined which is teh opposite of playground ball I admit...........but I was really referring to their style of play and their overall level of skill.

                              Watch a North Carolina game (who I don't like much) or a UConn(who I really don't like much) and then watch a MSU or a Missouri...............a totally different looking game. I like to watch basketball played at a high level of skill..........Duke for instance will always present an interesting version of play because Coach K teaches them how to play the game the right way. Izzo does the best he can with what he can recruit and plays to win as many games as he can for MSU which is fine and commendable........but not as visually pleasing as a Duke-UNC game or a Pitt-Nova game where much more skill is on display.

                              I guess I should have made my point a little differently as I stand corrected on the playground reference. But I'll leave the Mich St- Missouri games for others to watch.................apparently most of America agrees with me however judging from the ratings.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                                I had said that I thought Izzo was/is a great coach. What I said in referring to both MSU and Missouri was that neither possessed any NBA type players and that there style of bruising and banging reminded me of playground basketball..............you are right that that they are disciplined which is teh opposite of playground ball I admit...........but I was really referring to their style of play and their overall level of skill.

                                Watch a North Carolina game (who I don't like much) or a UConn(who I really don't like much) and then watch a MSU or a Missouri...............a totally different looking game. I like to watch basketball played at a high level of skill..........Duke for instance will always present an interesting version of play because Coach K teaches them how to play the game the right way. Izzo does the best he can with what he can recruit and plays to win as many games as he can for MSU which is fine and commendable........but not as visually pleasing as a Duke-UNC game or a Pitt-Nova game where much more skill is on display.

                                I guess I should have made my point a little differently as I stand corrected on the playground reference. But I'll leave the Mich St- Missouri games for others to watch.................apparently most of America agrees with me however judging from the ratings.
                                Jumping high is not a skill. Neither is making a monster windmill dunk - well, actually that is a skill but it's no more of a basketball skill than hitting a layup off a backdoor cut. MSU displayed more skill than any team in the Sweet 16 and are well above any other final four team.

                                Doesn't mean they'll win - they may get out-athleticized by Carolina or even UConn (though I think they'll make the final before losing). But then they'll have lost because they couldn't match up with a team athletically, not because they lack basketball skill.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X