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

    Chalmers benifits a lot from playing next to Wade. He would not be the answer for this pacer team, in all reality. Hes a good backup or borderline starter. We already have one of those in Jarret Jack.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      There is only so long a person can hide under JMOAA. The only place that Ford is worse than Chalmers is in stealing, and maybe 3 point shooting. Chalmers plays against one of the best wing defenders in the game, a top 3 player in the game, and great defenders which helps his above average defense. He doesn't have to create offense and doesn't have to initiate as much as Ford or almost any other PG in the league. Put him on the Pacers and you'll really see how good he is. It's not hard to see why he slipped to the 2nd round.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Although it's a matter of opinion from NBADraft.net....but they guy writing the profile of AJ Price compares him ( last year ) to Tinsley
        That's probably a fair comparison. It would be nice to have Tinsley-caliber player coming off the bench (by Tinsley-caliber, i mean his game in his prime, not all the baggage that comes with him). But now that I think about it, theres no way Bird picks up Price with his past off-court issues. I really dont think we're gonna get a PG in this draft.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Although it's a matter of opinion from NBADraft.net....but they guy writing the profile of AJ Price compares him ( last year ) to Tinsley .

          I don't know if that is a good or bad thing

          But given that he's coming from one of the top College Basketball programs in the country, hopefully the analogy isn't entirely accurate.

          I've been reading his profile on DX and it mentions a serious Knee injury that he suffered last year. Is there any concern there?
          I started keeping tabs on Price last year when he caught my eye during a hot streak, noting him as a nice steal early in the 2nd. I've backed off him somewhat since then however. He's got bursts of leadership and as PGs go you could do worse, but he fades way to often for me to feel comfortable relying on him at the NBA level.

          OTOH I like him A LOT more than Maynor or Lawson (don't even put Flynn into this list), or Curry for those desperate enough to make Dell Curry into a PG (which IMO would be about what would be happening, way more like his dad than not). As a PG Price does control the floor pretty well, can score for himself when needed and usually doesn't dominate the ball. Usually.

          But I also wonder if he wasn't also getting by with experience at this point more than talent and instinct. He does NOT have Tinsley's repitoire of passes, and really his handles aren't that close at this point either.


          To be fair I wondered the same about TWill (experience), but in his case he was making passes on the fly that Price just never showed me.


          Bird's comment about the PGs in this draft being too small is true except that Jrue Holiday might still be out there (or TWill if you go with my point SF idea). Jrue isn't the defender TWill is, but he's decent enough considering his age.



          Chalmers - well I thought he'd be a solid PG and was going to be a steal based on projections. I've seen nothing to change my mind on that. Beasley is on that same freaking team and Chalmers has moved ahead of him when it comes to being relied upon, so it's not just as simple as "well Wade is there". Chalmers is a far more traditional PG and he was at KS too. If anything his miracle 3 tainted the view on him because so many people thought he was being hyped for that, when the fact is that it was the 15 games prior to that where he kept making really smart, unflashy passes that moved the offense along.

          Chalmers and Rush were the best guard combo in college when it came to spacing and working off each other to open things up for the offense. Yes, better than the Rose-CDoug combo (I liked CD but thought he was overrated hitting the draft).

          The other 3 guys I liked as much that late in the draft were Arthur, Weaver and Lee. And as much as I liked Rush even then, part of me was wishing the Pacers had turned his spot into 2 spots to get Chalmers and Weaver/Lee instead, doubling their draft haul.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-23-2009, 11:43 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            I'm still not done with it because I've been so busy, but I got to rewatch the AZ/AZ St game I have on Tivo and it's a fantastic game for this draft. You have this perfect 2 on 2 thing going with Harden vs Chase and Pendergraph vs Hill. P'graph and Hill are virtually going at each other all game (at least as much as I got to watch), and often Harden and Chase face off.

            From that I'd put them in the order of:
            Harden (top 5)
            Chase (top 10)
            Hill (top 10)
            Pendergraph (top 20)

            That's my placement, not my prediction of actual selection.

            I like Chase a bit more than Hill despite Hill having the size because Chase is at times dominating both ends of the court in a way that Hill can't. Harden gets the nod over Chase for his athletic bursts.

            I'd misread Harden a bit the first few times I saw him and I think I see why now. He almost lies in wait at times, not really involved, not showing much speed or ability, and then all of the sudden he makes these really athletic, savvy plays that put him ahead of everyone on the court.

            Chase shows more of a full-on engine, never slowing down and finally making good on his talent. He's really come a giant step forward this season and has to be the most improved NCAA player last year. Brent Barry with real defense.

            Hill's thing is that he's a big who's thin enough to be quick and agile. He's got nice moves around the post at both ends. He's a bit like Camby perhaps, but without that level of shot blocking.

            Pendergraph is more of a workman big with more talent than the average kid. He's not Blair in size and power, but if you're in the 18-22 range he's not too bad a pick. He might not quite have enough to make it, but he's lower risk than your typical pick that late.


            I need to make a project goal to rip 10-20 good example plays from all these various games and get them up on the Tube. I'm going to try to knuckle down on that this year before the draft. Stuff off ball or long before the highlight finish of a play that tells you jack that most reels give us.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-24-2009, 12:18 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              Although it's a matter of opinion from NBADraft.net....but they guy writing the profile of AJ Price compares him ( last year ) to Tinsley .

              I don't know if that is a good or bad thing

              But given that he's coming from one of the top College Basketball programs in the country, hopefully the analogy isn't entirely accurate.

              I've been reading his profile on DX and it mentions a serious Knee injury that he suffered last year. Is there any concern there?
              The knee recovery seems to have gone fine, certainly as well as Brandon Rush's own injury recovery (ie, no one was worried about it). It's Price's role in the laptop theft with Marcus Williams that haunts him more than anything. Bit of a roughneck background.

              Like I said, I was something of a fan and I just don't see him coming here. Doesn't do more than what they already have and has character issues that make it a moot point.
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-24-2009, 12:18 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/...draftyear=2009

                From ESPN (I took out the ones who won't be in this year's draft):

                1. Ricky Rubio
                2. Stephen Curry
                3. Brandon Jennings
                4. Eric Maynor
                5. Tyreke Evans (ESPN thinks he's a 2, but others say he's a 1)
                6. Jrue Holiday
                7. Jeff Teague
                8. Ty Lawson
                9. Jonny Flynn
                10. Nick Calathes
                11. Patrick Mills
                12. Darren Collison
                13. AJ Price
                14. Scottie Reynolds
                15. Greivis Vasquez

                After that you're getting into a bunch of undrafted guys.
                In bold are the guys I'd say are good picks at these rankings. Evans I think is going to see PG duty in the NBA personally, at the very least as much as the converted Westbrook got in OKC. Teague has promise but isn't ready yet (did I miss him getting an agent, I've lost track this last week)

                Curry is a pure SG if ever there was one, he only played PG because his team needed him to which is the same reason Jose Conseco once pitched for the Texas Rangers (ie, doesn't mean it's a great idea).

                Collison is quick and Travis Best thinks he's a ball hog, no freaking thanks. Maynor, Lawson, Flynn, Mills are all so limited IMO, I don't see any of them doing much more than a guy like Acie Law was doing in college. I watched all of them in detail, especially Lawson, and to me they all play like good college kids who rely on a style that gets crushed in the NBA.


                Brandon Jennings, as much as I like his game, is still a huge wildcard himself thanks to his disasterous Euro stint. Did it prove he doesn't have it? Did it help him mature? Did he learn Euro tricks and get better overall? Did he get tougher? Did he pick up the zero defense Euro style?

                There's been a few clips available of extended play, not just highlights, and in them you see him making both bonehead plays (rookie green IMO) and great plays, not simple athletic moves but high quality PG plays. His hops also get you a lot of dunk highlights, but with a PG that's just gravy and doesn't sell you on drafting him.

                If you take Jennings you really have to be in a spot that you can miss on the pick.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-24-2009, 12:17 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                  I like the sound of Holiday from what I have read. I guess he is a stud defensively and has good size, and better PG skills than people originally thought. His college production has been pretty inconsistent though and this is a reason he has fallen. In the early mocks he was considered a top 10 prospect but now projects to fall down in the late teens/twenties in most mock drafts.

                  Might be one of those late round steals, sounds like the kind of big athletic point guard we might be looking for.
                  I wouldn't say he's a great defender. If anything I'd flip your comment, he's a stud offensive PG and better defensively than people originally thought.

                  I mentioned him last year as a reason why Westbrook wouldn't want to stay at UCLA. W'brook wanted to play some PG and Collison kept that from happening. With Jrue set to come in as yet another stud PG prospect (when it looked like Collison would come out) it put W'brook out of the PG spotlight yet again.

                  So he came out and OKC put him at PG all year long, with better results than I thought they'd have though I still contend he's a SG who just starts off with the ball, which given his pure talent is all OKC needs, especially with Durant out there too.


                  As I said earlier in thread, picture the lanky upright style of Vern Fleming and that's kinda what you see Jrue doing. He runs a tight PnR and he's good going to the lane. He plays tall so he sees the floor fairly well and adds in the high passing lanes because of that too. He also has a nice pull up jumper that really gives me that Vern flashback.

                  (just went to NBAdraft.net to check his size again and what a waste their card on him is...nice no update in a year and comparison is Delonte West??? Hardly. Not the same physical style at all)

                  (I like JGray's Rondo comment a lot more, it's not quite perfect but hella closer in style than West)
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-24-2009, 12:17 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    his slashing and explosiveness offensively is greater, his position in college is different from TWills, he had to do a lot more whereas Louisville had a bunch of good defenders.
                    Look, I really like Henderson and he is explosive but...

                    Louisville may or may not have had a bunch of good defenders, it's hard to be sure because it was obvious every single game that TWill was the guy running the defensive show. You see him game after game calling guys out and making adjustments to their zone assignments or occasional man switches.

                    Much of the time you've have TWill in one corner and Clark in the other. Clark was dreadful at staying with his zone, protecting against overloads and denying backdoors. You could see TWill calling out to him time after time and Clark adjusting because of it. You also saw TWill coming over to cover his butt when he got burned by drifting too far from his zone or losing track of what was going on.

                    Clark was always one step behind the play, TWill was always one step ahead. He was the smartest player on the court every single time I watched them play. He is a playmaker, a guy that just gets the game itself and what's trying to be done. A typical steal for TWill would be of the instant read variety, not sniffing the slow developing passing lane, though doing that against him was certain failure, but rather reading things that were happening to the split second and reacting 2 steps before everyone else.

                    Contrast that with Clark's shot blocking which was basically always of the running start timed variety that foolish college guards let happen to them inside. It's a lot tougher to get wind-up style shot blocks in the NBA.


                    Now I really do think Henderson is also a playmaker, clearly a better shooter, and not too shabby on defense (but Singler was better than him). But Henderson is your scoring guard offensive ace, better than the pure shooter Curry due to power going to the rim and athletic ability, but in no way a big facilitator for others.

                    TWill is just the opposite, he's just relearned his shooting form, he loves to D up like a madman and he's probably the best passer coming out this year. It's beat to the ground I realize, but he's so classic point foward it's silly.


                    They are just two different players for two different needs. I know I'm on his jock, but I can be fair here. The fact is the Pacers just got Rush and are likely to lose Quis. If it were reversed then getting Henderson over TWill would make a lot of sense. But as it stands Twill fits in perfectly to what they have and need and Henderson finds himself either holding back Rush or being held back by Rush.

                    I'll go as far as to say that no player coming out this year is more like Rush than Henderson, though even that's not quite a perfect match. Henderson is more powerful but less cerebral.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      TWill is just the opposite, he's just relearned his shooting form, he loves to D up like a madman and he's probably the best passer coming out this year. It's beat to the ground I realize, but he's so classic point foward it's silly.
                      If TWill wows them in the draft workouts.......I am pretty sure that Nellie is going to try out his Point-Forward experiment again. He could care less that he has a million GFs in his lineup.....his offense ( and ours ) works best with ball movement and unselfishness.

                      I just pray that Nellie goes after Jennings or falls in love with some other Tweener Forward like Clark.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Thats fine and all, but I still worry where he gets his offensive scoring from- from what it seems like all you need to do is dare him to shoot from midrange and he's in trouble.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by flox View Post
                          Personally, it seems that quick PG's are very hard to guard unless you put someone like a 2/3 with long arms on them..I think we should just give up on the idea of finding someone who can guard parker and instead find a parker.
                          we could find a way to move back in the draft and get Patty Mills. dude has speed like Parker and can take it to the hoop.

                          maybe trade our pick and someone else in for a pick around 20 and a PF.
                          I know people have been talking about brandon bass. im sure the mavs are picking around 20.
                          Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Although it's a matter of opinion from NBADraft.net....but they guy writing the profile of AJ Price compares him ( last year ) to Tinsley .

                            I don't know if that is a good or bad thing

                            But given that he's coming from one of the top College Basketball programs in the country, hopefully the analogy isn't entirely accurate.

                            I've been reading his profile on DX and it mentions a serious Knee injury that he suffered last year. Is there any concern there?
                            I always make this argument when this statement is made. I think as knowledgeable fans of the game, we have to be able to separate Jamaal's basketball ability from his off court issues. Whenever I see a college PG likened to Jamaal's basketball abilities, I'm good with that. As far as basketball ability goes (not talking about attitude, citywide shootouts, or the like), Jamaal is a good player. And if A J Price has that, and can be had in the 2nd round, someone is going to be happy when they get him. Especially as a backup PG.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              But he's good enough to start for as a rookie for Miami. OK?

                              Oh, Ford's size and health caused his penetration into the paint to be stiffled by the opponents. Hopefully, next year he won't be a Pacer.
                              I think Chalmers is adequate enough to play beside DWade. But the key is that he's playing beside DWade. Miami doesn't have very many PG options anyway, but it's not like Chalmers is garbage. I'm not upset that we didn't take him. I think as a long term solution to a team's PG position, Chalmers is limited. But he's nice to have on the roster, and can be solid if needed to start. I just don't know how effective he'd be if DWade wasn't playing in the next slot over.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by indricity View Post
                                we could find a way to move back in the draft and get Patty Mills. dude has speed like Parker and can take it to the hoop.

                                maybe trade our pick and someone else in for a pick around 20 and a PF.
                                I know people have been talking about brandon bass. im sure the mavs are picking around 20.
                                Do you guys think Minnesota would be open to swapping picks 18 and 28 for the 13th pick?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X