Tweet
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Peskoe97 and the Lakers are on the clock.
Peskoe97 and the Lakers are on the clock.
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
-
"A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman Rushdie -
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
I shave with it most everyday.Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
P.S. I repeat: Keep an eye/ear on the swell in romance for Mullens' athleticism. I think it might lead to a parallel opportunity to the pick swap from last year.Last edited by DrFife; 06-02-2009, 11:28 AM.
"He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."
- Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
My first thought of your suggested pick for the Hornets was that they were continuing their long search for yet another backup Frontcourt Player to play next to David West. A few years ago, they went with Hilton Armstrong...this time...BJ Mullens.Originally posted by iPACER View PostAsh from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Lakers Current Depth Chart:
Bynum/Mbenga
Gasol/Odom/Powell
Ariza/Odom/Walton/Morrison
Bryant/Vujacic/Yue
Fisher/Brown/Farmar
Free Agents:
Trevor Ariza - Unrestricted
Shannon Brown - Option on restriction
Kobe Bryant - Early termination option
Didier Ilunga-Mbenga - Unguaranteed
Lamar Odom - Unrestricted
Josh Powell - Unguaranteed
Sun Yue - Unguaranteed
Players Available:
Marcus Thornton
Darren Collison
DaJuan Summers
Derrick Brown
Taj Gibson
Omri Casspi
Rodrigue Beaubois
Toney Douglas
Jeff Adrien
With this crop of free agents, there are going to be a few holes to fill on my roster in 2009-2010. Both Odom and Ariza have a good chance of signing elsewhere next season, which leaves my roster short-handed at the 3 spot. My roster could also use an infusion of toughness - especially if Ariza leaves. I feel very fortunate that one of the toughest players in the draft is still on my board and might just be the best available player at this point in time. That being said, with the 29th pick in the 2009 NBA draft, the Los Angeles Lakers select Omri Casspi from Maccabi Tel Aviv.
Casspi, by all accounts, was one of the toughest players in the Euroleague last year. He also draws comparison to Matt Harpring on a few draft sites, which is one of the toughest players in the NBA. Casspi also fills an important need for our team at the 3 spot. Casspi is rumored to be a diva and have a bad attitude but he is going to a situation where he can be put in check by Kobe and Phil.Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
My brother played in a band at Purdue called Morgan's Canon, which is similar to Occam's Razor.Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
Every now and then, the blind squirrel finds a nut.Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
After finishing the regular season with a league-best 66 wins and walking its way through the first two rounds with eight wins in double-digits, the Cavaliers franchise is nothing but disappointed. This was supposed to be the year when a hometown kid would erase 45 years of heartbreak and despair by taking the Cavs to the promise land in what shouldve been an epic matchup between arguably what many will call two best players since Jordan.
Instead, it's back to the drawing board after a balanced and unappreciated Magic team easily dismantled the Cavs. With more questions to the roster than they had coming into the season, and with no answers available to better position themselves in the 2010 LeBron Sweepstakes this offseason, the Cavs front office head into the draft with low esteem and low expectations.
In a perfect world, there would be a big, physical, low-post presence who can provide some semblance of interior offensive power available at pick #30. This is clearly the Cavs' biggest need.
In a less perfect, but still peachy world, there would be a guard or wing with an NBA body who could help create and try to alleviate some of the pressure on LeBron.
Danny Ferry and co. were praying for Gani Lawal to fall to them, but just like many Cavs fans this season, their prayers were not answered. They considered the likes of Jeff Adrien, Josh Heytvelt, Derrick Brown, Jermaine Taylor, a dark horse in Milan Macvan, and Marcus Thornton.
Adrien is just simply too undersized. Heytvelt is too soft, has shaky character issues, and probably can't spell defense, let alone play it. Derrick Brown is an explosive player with an NBA body, has an incredible wingspan and standing reach; however he seems to be a bit of a tweener, maybe being better suited for the 3. Inconsistency and commitment to defense are other issues surrounding Brown. The little known Jermaine Taylor was also an intriguing option. Taylor is a deadly scorer with terrific slashing ability, tremendous athleticism, and has NBA size at the 2-guard. But he still proves to be too much of a liability on both ends of the floor. Shaky shot selection, tendency to turn the ball over, lack of intensity on D, and unproven against top competition as well as the ability to carry his teammates ultimately had Ferry looking the other way. Milan Macvan wouldve been the perfect match if he could so much as jump over a centipede. He has an insanely high basketball IQ, runs the pick and roll to perfection, has 3-point range, and has great court vision and passing ability. Watching LeBron run the pick-and-roll with this cat could be insanely fun to watch..... Problem is he is less athletic than my grandfather, plays far too below the rim, has no upside, and is probably a bit of a reach at #30. Marcus Thornton, while limited in his ability to create for himself, has proven to be a more than capable scorer who plays solid defense. He couldve been a great kick-out option for LeBron.
However, it is time to reveal the man of choice for Ferry and the Cavaliers.
With the 30th pick in the 2009 "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft, the Cleveland Cavaliers select JEFF PENDERGRAPH from Arizona State University.
Pendergraph has limited potential and average athleticism; however he brings a high basketball IQ, size and energy down low, and an offensive option around the rim for LeBron to play with. He will be a joy for Mike Brown to coach, as he understands what he can and cannot do, he always executes the offense as it was designed, and is extremely coachable. He knows exactly what to do in pick and roll situations and can finish around the basket. Pendergraph will be a terrific role player that will bring some much needed offensive ability to the Cleveland interior.Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
That was a lot of fun. Thanks everybody."A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman RushdieComment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Thank YouOriginally posted by mellifluous View PostComment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Just putting this up as a summary at this end of the thread.
Originally posted by mellifluous View Post"Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Guess what TPTB did over at Pacers.com...
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/fan_m...ft_090603.html
Pacers fans gathered on June 3 for our first Live Mock Draft. Fans were assigned teams based on their requests on a first-come, first-served basis. We will host another Live Mock Draft the week of June 15, so please check Pacers.com for updates.
PACERS FANS MOCK DRAFT
June 3, 2009
1. Clippers -- Blake Griffin, PF, Oklahoma
2. Grizzlies -- Hasheem Thabeet, C, Georgetown
3. Thunder -- James Harden, SG, Arizona State
4. Kings -- Ricky Rubio, PG, Spain
5. Wizards -- Jordan Hill, PF, Arizona
6. Timberwolves -- Stephon Curry, G, Davidson
7. Warriors -- Jrue Holiday, PG, UCLA
8. Knicks -- Jonny Flynn, PG, Syracuse
9. Raptors -- Tyreke Evans, G, Memphis
10. Bucks -- DeJuan Blair, PF, Pittsburgh
11. Nets -- Earl Clark, PF, Louisville
12. Bobcats -- DeMar DeRozan, SG/SF, USC
13. Pacers -- Brandon Jennings, PG, Italy
14. Suns -- Jeff Teague, PG, Wake Forest
15. Pistons -- Eric Maynor, PG, VCU
16. Bulls -- James Johnson, F, Wake Forest
17. Sixers -- Ty Lawson, PG, North Carolina
18. Timberwolves -- B.J. Mullens, C, Ohio St.
19. Hawks -- Austin Daye, SF, Gonzaga
20. Jazz -- Tyler Hansbrough, PF, North Carolina
21. Hornets -- Gerald Henderson, SG/SF, Duke
22. Mavericks -- Terrence Williams, SG/SF, Louisville
23. Kings -- Omri Casspi, SF, Israel
24. Blazers -- Chase Budinger, SF/SG, Arizona
25. Thunder -- DaJuan Summers, F, Georgetown
26. Bulls -- Wayne Ellington, SG, North Carolina
27. Grizzlies -- Gani Lawal, PF, Georgia Tech
28. Timberwolves -- Sam Young, SF, Pittsburgh
29. Lakers -- Toney Douglas, PG, Florida St.
30. Cavs -- Vladimir Davis, PF/SF, MontenegroComment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Hmm I wonder where they got that idea from?Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
Some really strange picks here. If I were a Thunder fan I'd be angry to pick James Harden of all people over Ricky Rubio. I also can't see guys like Teague, Maynor, Mullens, Daye, and Hansborough going over guys like Henderson and T-Will.
People need to cut it out with this idea of the Pacers possibly getting Brandon Jennings. Stop giving me false hope people.
Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
I would rather have Harden than Rubio, if I were the Thunder. Harden is tearing it up in workouts and moves the ball well for a wing. Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Green, Astiff is a decent young core.
Rubio and Westbrook can't shoot that well, and teams would sag off of them to pressure Durant. Harden keeps teams more honest.
Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
To me the Stephen Curry pick is the most unrealistic pick in that draft. I just don't see him being a good fit at all for what's going on in Minnesota.
The Austin Daye to the Hawks pick is nothing short of hilarious."A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman RushdieComment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
What drives me crazy is that Pacers.com says FANS pick Jennings, which is so misleading, and make you believe multiple fans vote or something.Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
I actually stopped in and glanced at the process, and they pretty much did what we did. Assigned picks on a 1st come 1st serve basis, and that person selected a player.
It would be like us posting Pacers Fans pick Lawson, when it was really just Dukie D.
That mock was a little off throughout, and a lot of the "GMs" didn't agree on each other picks. Which is understandable
Comment
-
Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Bruno does not like Jennings, cause he didn't "tear it up" in Europe. Am I wrong, but isn't that league highly competitive. Bruno likes Blair though.Comment
Comment