The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Not even close. Boiler up all the way.and not many understand the full T-Will story aside from us die-hards, which leads me to believe that Seth is a Cards fan himself (are ya? Lol).
It's simple, 2 years ago I was at a PD draft get together and here are all these names and I realized I just didn't really know what I thought about most of them, which makes it pretty boring. Every expert finds something great to say about most of them that night, then 4 years later most of them are long gone.
Seeing that Indy was headed for trouble and would probably draft in the lottery I made a point to find out about next year's prospects. I took the mocks from NOV/DEC, found when all these guys would be on TV (ESPN, majors, some Fox regional) and loaded up the Tivo.
I was watching L'ville for Clark when I noticed Williams making these plays. I started focusing on him and saw his game as I've described it. When you scout 1-2 guys rather than watching the flow of the game you pick up on stuff I think.
You must watch off the ball and think about the available decisions to only that player. It helps if you can get a couple of these prospects on the court together to compare size, speed and game intelligence.
Last night's AZ/L'ville game was a gold mine of that which has been rare. Last year it seemed like every game was a prospect matchup. Apart from the Big East it's been thinner on those types of games. It helped a lot to see guys like Mayo vs Rose or Weaver vs Westbrook.
We did get Blair vs Thabeet which was one of the best examples of the gaping holes in Thabeet's game.
The dude is a nasty off ball defender especially. I'm into the first half of the game last night and Chase gets doubled up and throws it to TWill. However you look at how it comes about and see that the double means that TWill is guarding TWO OPTIONS, one on the wing, one on the baseline.I'm pretty sure that he's considered to be one of the best, if not the best, wing defender in college basketball.
Chase looks to the wing and draws TWill off which leaves, he thinks, the baseline backdoor open. TWill reads his read and pounces all over it, coming in with a strong leaping step back into that passing lane. He makes it look easy, like he was just waiting there for the pass.
You have to watch off ball to see that stuff, and a Tivo is a massive help. I could never figure out some of this stuff without going back and stepping through points to see how it got to that stage.
BTW, I want to see the rest of this game but my early read on how the big 4 looked here so far:
Twill
Chase
Hill
Clark
The only thing with Chase is that AZ has him playing so far out of the play, a bit like you get with Clark. You'd like to see your star right in the mix pressuring teams all the time. But damn does the kid have hops and pretty good instincts. This is no Croshere here. Really he's more like what I hope to see Singler become. I can't get over how much better Chase is than he was last year, it's drastic.
I like Hill's fundamentals, he looks coached, but his read of the game just isn't very good. Since this is true of damn near every big coming out, including Thabeet, I still like him as a prospect. I actually like him much more than Thabeet in fact.
The reason I'm still down on Clark is he just plays dumb. He's so awful in their zone. It was even pointed out by the color guy on one play where he doesn't clamp down on Chase sneaking in behind him. Gives him the free rim basically. That's where Twill and Clark differ. TWill knows his role AND he understands the goal of the zone as well as it's weakpoints.
You notice during the game that it's Twill directing the zone on one end and Chase directing it at the other.
Golden St - I'm painfully going to have to agree that Nelson is going to jump all over TWill. Mother *****************
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Thabeet if he's out there with Troy, Jeff, Danny.
Hmm, well Jeff is good about turning guys and slowing them up, so I think he could still lead guys into Thabeet. However sometimes Jeff just gets shot right over so that keeps Beet out of the play.
Troy. Seems like Troy gets beat off the dribble out top quite a bit, so I think Thabeet helps that. My concern there is that it comes pretty quick and would he get there in time to avoid fouling?
Danny. Danny really bites fakes, just horrible still. I think Thabeet helps there, but I think you have a guy with early space rather than a shoulder on his man going by (as with Troy) so it would make Thabeet suspectible to getting passed behind to the man he's leaving or a cutter.
So you set it up so Thabeet will be drawn to Danny's man coming from the arc, then you run a 3rd guy down the lane behind Thabeet and when he bites a 2nd shot fake (1st on Danny) you dump right behind him for an easy 2. As a Pacer fan you hope he doesn't reach back and foul.
And that's a danger with a guy that does nothing but block shots. He's going to want to do what he does, go to his comfort zone early on, and so he's going to be going after lots of stuff from guys that know how to deal with shot blockers. Think of Hulk's flying escapades. Thabeet does still get off his feet too often for a guy his size.
I don't know, you can't deny his athletic ability but cripes has he failed to develop any real game in 2 years of high quality basketball surroundings. These are formative years and I'm not sure what's really formed for him.
To run back to Twill, look at his progression instead. He's smart now because he improved so much each year. Being young isn't the only requirement for potential. You have to be a guy that absorbs stuff and grows too. This is why Danny keeps getting better despite being older.
The odd thing with Thabeet is that they are talking about how much he loves to play Scrabble. So you assume at least some decent intelligence there.
So ultimately I think Thabeet would have a rough first year in Indy, but as the rest of the team developed, and hopefully as Hibbert developed, you'd see a good defensive front line form. Just not next year at all.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
1. Rubio
2. Griffin
3. Evans
4. Harden
5. Jennings
6. Derozan
7. Holiday
8. T-Will
9. Aldrich
10. Henderson
3 of your 10 seem unlikely to be in this draft. Rubio has said as much, but could change his mind I guess. Jrue would go much higher if he just stays one more year where he is the showcase instead of Collison. Not sure Aldrich is ready to come out himself.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Hey, look what I found at Express for Kevin Love. What a great feature that I never used before, the mock draft history on a prospect.
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/...draft-history/
Quis and I are both right. He had a pre-season high ranking then immediately dropped when the season really got going. Then he slowly climbed back up all year long.
Talk about off the radar, Westbrook wasn't getting mocked at all till about FEB last year and even then they had him as a 2009 guy till about April.
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/...draft-history/
And why you should be very careful about too much stock in pre-draft workouts, Joe Alexander. How does a guy's stock jump drastically AFTER GAMES ARE DONE?!? Wow, he really showed us something when he didn't have to play the sport itself. Sheesh.
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/...draft-history/
Good stuff.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
If only somebody else had found this....Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...&postcount=468
Originally posted by count55 View PostComment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
The mocks are just dreadful in many cases. I never realized this till last year. I had to drastically adjust who I was paying attention to as the season wore on.Originally posted by Anthem View Post
So yes TWill was mocked low, but he's already climbing. Henderson and Chase have seen similar climbs a bit sooner, Henderson really around early FEB I think, but TWill is going Westbrook on us right now. By the end of the tourney and certainly by the end of workouts he's going to be mocked ahead of the Pacers spot.
As I said at the bottom of a post above, how can he possibly go past Nelson's pick which is all but certain to be above Indy's. Let's trade him back Dun for the pick, is it too late to return Ike?
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
um...Originally posted by count55 View Post
oh boy
edit - yep, read right past that, right through that whole section with the Johnson debate and stuff. Even when I was doing my own searching, the answer was sitting right there from you. Pathetic. I need to slow my roll when it comes to rushing off to respond, make sure I read everything.Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-28-2009, 10:41 AM.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
My 11 using earlier point system with potential comparable:Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
1. Griffin..........3 possibly 4 (Duncan)
2. Thabeet.........3 possibly 4 (Hakeem)
3. Aminu.........3 (Beasley)
4. Harden..........2 possible 3 (Billups)
5. Jennings........2 possible 3 (Conley)
6. Curry..........2 possible 3 (R Allen)
7. Henderson......2 possible 3 (Pierce)
8. Clark.......2 (Harrington)
9. Hill............2 (Horford)
10. Evans.............. 2 (Quis)
11. Monroe............. 2 (Murphy)
others to consider:
12 Lawson
13 TWIll
14 Hansbrough
15 Flynn
Based on where we pick....we likely will decide between Steph Curry and Gerald Henderson which is fine with me....but makes the Brandon Rush selection all teh more disastorous..........but we knew that 5 minutes after the pick anyway.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
Yes, we all did and still do.............
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
yes, mocks can be pretty far off most of the time but let's not get carried away thinking a player's rookie season is his ONLY season.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View PostComment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
are those your comparisons in parenthesis? if so, i'd say your pretty far off in most of those comparisons...if the pacers draft curry, we might as well kiss this franchise goodbye.Originally posted by Plax80 View PostComment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Have you had a chance to re-watch Pendergraph? I really like him so I'm hoping I missed on my read.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
*edit* My thin slice on him was "why isn't this guy rated higher in the mock drafts?" followed by "oh."Last edited by imawhat; 03-28-2009, 01:09 PM.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Yes.......but those comparisons are the ceilings not the likely case. And although everybody has been dissing this draft, and rightfully so.........I personally think its a much better class than last year especially the first 8-10 picks. Gerld Henderson, Tyreke Evans , james Harden, Brandon Jennings and Curry are much better prospects than Jarryd Bayless, Eric Gordon, Brandon Rush, Russell Westbrook and the Knicks' import IMO .......which means the Pacers have a chance of adding a legit second piece to pair with Granger. And maybe Hibbert develops enough to supplement them.Originally posted by croz24 View PostComment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
What?Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
How can you say this years group of guys is better than last years when Henderson, Evans, Harden, Jennings, and Curry haven't even played a single NBA game? I have a hard time believing any of those guys will have a more successful transition to the professional game than Gordon and Westbrook did this year.Comment
Tweet
Comment