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

Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

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

  • Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

    On a beautiful Sunday afternoon in Indiana, I present the 5th of the draft analysis articles of 2009, an in depth study of Syracuse PG Jonny Flynn. Previously, I've written about Ty Lawson, Gerald Henderson, JaRue Holiday, and DeJuan Blair....you can find those discussions elsewhere on this site.

    Flynn is one of many in a relatively deep and strong point guard class of 2009. Coming out of Syracuse University, Flynn got alot of exposure playing in the meat grinder that was the Big East Conference a year ago. Flynn started the year projected much lower than he is currently slated to be drafted, as his athleticism and blazing quickness is seemingly enthralling many different NBA executives, thereby shooting him up draft boards, perhaps into the top 10 if some rumors turn out to be correct.

    There are those who love Jonny Flynn, and think he has star type qualites and tremendous upside potential. He clearly has some talents that will translate into the NBA level, there is no doubt about that. But while his strengths are easily apparent to the naked eye, there are in my view quite a few weaknesses that would have to give a team reasons to doubt him. So once again, like many kids in this draft, you have a mixed bag.

    Let's review his strengths as a player first.

    Flynn is exceptionally quick with the dribble. Much like Ty Lawson, Flynn changes ends of the floor with the ball in his hands with extreme quickness...in fact, I have no way to tell but I think he might even be faster slightly than Lawson is. Lawson often dribled to a pre-determined spot or area in the UNC system numbered break, where Flynn played in a more unstructured fast break under Jim Boeheim, the Orange long time hall of fame coach. Lawson also benefitted from better teammates and a player in Tyler Hansborough that consistently ran with him...where sometimes Jonny Flynn sped up the floor and found himself alone. Still, Flynn's speed dribble can't be overlooked as a skill, even though no one can tell how helpful it will be to him at the NBA level.

    I hate to try and apply too many "intangible" things in an evaluation like this, because there are just too many things I can't see on tape to verify what I "feel" as I am watching a player in terms of vague buzzwords like "leadership" and "toughness"....I instead would rather go by what I can actually see on the floor on tape. But having said that, I do believe that Flynn seems to have the kind of engaging personality that other players would tend to gravitate to. Flynn is so confident in his own skills and abilities (bordering on cocky) that it has the effect of giving confidence to his own teammates as well. The word that comes to mind watching Flynn on film is "fearless".

    Now, I can debate whether "fearlessness" is the exact description you'd want of a point guard you are pauing millions of dollars to. And while Flynn seems to be extraordinariy confident of his own abilities, that particular strength of his also can be his own worst enemy.

    Flynn is very small for his position. Checking in under 6'0". Flynn nevertheless likes to drive into the paint and challenge bigger guys at or near the rim. Flynn has very good basketball handles, and is elusive with the basketball, enabling him to get into the paint with ease, especially as he turns the corner on ballscreens. But his lack of size along with his lack of discretion means he tries to finish plays that he has no chance of making, which he does way too often for my taste. This is doubly bad, because not only does he miss alot of shots he shouldn't be taking, it also means he is missing passing opportunities to others while he bull headedly drives and shoots, plus it puts him out of position to get back on defense. On the positive side, he will be a force I think in getting opposing slower bigs in foul trouble, and Flynn can make his foul shots.

    Flynn also shows no fear in taking outside shots off the dribble. And, he does have the ability to make tough shots against the clock, able to shake and bake himself free to launch a jumper. But that very confidence that he CAN make shots like that also means that he takes way, way too many of them, jacking up more bad shots than a point guard should ever be taking.

    Flynn can make all the basic passes you would want a player to make at his position, and he handles the ball very well. He actually has good shooting form as well. The reason his percentage is as low as it is is that he takes bad shots, and I think he often decides what he is going to do ahead of time, meaning he isn't reading the defense or the exact situation well. Again, its nice that he believes he CAN make big plays, and because of the swagger he plays with his teammates (and fans of his) WANT to believe he can make them....but often he will be more mistake prone trying to make big plays than you can tolerate. Flynn turns the ball over way too much, usually unforced trying to make a great play when an easy play would do. Flynn likes to pound and pound the basketball, dribbling more while accomplishing nothing more than any guard east of UCLA's Darren Collison.

    Basically, I think Flynn likes to make the highlight play instead of the simple play, and would rather make the winning basket than make the winning play. I don't think Flynn is selfish offensively, I just think he doesn't know his own weaknesses.

    Someone once told me that a man can learn everything he needs to know by quoting lines from Clint Eastwood movies. In Flynn's case, the movie line he needs to tape to his locker and memorize would be "A man's got to know his limitations."

    Defensively, I have no real idea how anyone can claim that Flynn will be a good NBA defender. Disregard concerns about his height or size, I'd be worried about the fact that Syracuse plays so much 2-3 zone that Flynn hasn't played consistent long term man to man defense since high school.
    Flynn would certainly SEEM to be able to be a pesky, ball pressuring defender on opposing point guards, but how can you tell at this point? He hasn't been asked to do so, so we have no idea how well he will move his feet against a dribbler, how well he can fight thru a screen, or how he will be in helpside. Anyone who writes or says that Flynn will be a good to great defender at this level is guessing.

    On the other hand, I can't say he will be a bad defender either. I did like some defensive things he showed on film. I thought Flynn seemed to talk well to his teammates, I thought he played his responsibilties within the scheme well, I thought he closed out well on the ball, and I liked that he stayed in a low defensive stance most of the time. He tried to close out well, but his lack of height made that an almost academic exercise, as teams normally could easily shoot over him. He seems to have quick enough hands that are active and alert, and he didnt appear to be lazy within the zone all that often, which is a tendency to watch zone players have.

    So, where does that leave us with Flynn?

    Flynn is a confident, charismatic point guard who is mistake prone and makes bad decisions with the basketball way too much. He likes to overdribble, keeping the ball in his hands when he should be getting rid of it. He will make some great plays and great shots, but also turn it over and take shots that make you want to scream. He will excel in getting to the paint, and he will make alot of free throws by crashing into slower big guys.

    Defensively, it's a mystery at this point. More than likely he will be pretty decent on the ball with enough effort, and he should develop into a pesky, full court pressuring defender. My guess would be that he will struggle getting thru screens, struggle against bigger guards, and struggle in help situations. He will probably gamble some and get some steals with his quick hands, but also get beaten from time to time when he loses his man or position with help side defense mistakes.

    Flynn needs to play for a point guard oriented coach who can help him become a smarter, tougher player. The ideal situation would be for him to apprentice under a veteran, smart, savvy point guard who knows the ropes and can take him under his wing. Flynn seems to be the kind of kid who could be coached to me, and the kind that most teammates could gravititate to. Fans of whatever team he ends up will probably like his enthusiasm, fire, and swagger. Flynn fits much better with a team that values scoring from its point guard, plays up tempo, and/or wants to have its point guard handle the ball more than most teams.

    Long term, I do not think he is a starting level point guard for an average or above NBA team. He looks like a backup, energy guy to me, playing in the ideal world about 20 minutes a game or so long term. He will have big games occasionally where he gets hot and makes big shots, and when that happens his team and its fans will love him for it, but he won't be able to do it on a regular basis. Flynn has more potential upside than this of course, but only if he is coached properly and ends up being a better defender than I think you can safely predict he ends up being. Like many players, the system they end up will make a huge difference, and there are some ideal scenarios that could occur for Flynn where he could up being a starter eventually.

    As a fit in Indiana, like with Lawson, picking Flynn only makes sense if they have plans to move TJ Ford somewhere, as these 2 players would be somewhat redundant. He fits with Indiana as far as tempo is concerned, but he would likely struggle in our current "passing game/motion" offense is concerned, as almost all of Flynn's value is with the ball in his hands dribbling. Flynn, like Lawson will, would struggle with a team that played in slower half court style, although I see Flynn being more able to adapt his game than Lawson, although I view Lawson to be a slightly better player overall especially right now.

    In other words, I think Lawson is safer, and is better right this second as a basketball player. Flynn I think has more room to grow, and has more long term potential.....although I don't think he will reach it I at least acknowledge it is there.

    Having said that, I do not believe that the Pacers will select Jonny Flynn if he is available. However, I do think it would make some sense to send out a smokescreen that we would take him, because I think there are teams behind us who would covet the diminutive, charismatic spark plug from Syracuse and trade up to get him, enabling us to maybe manuever the draft to our benefit in some way.

    Flynn fits in perfectly I think with 2 different teams: The Knicks at #8, and the Suns picking directly behind us at #14. I also think he is good but not great fit for the 76'ers picking at #17. My guess is that he ends up with Pheonix, being the apprentice for Steve Nash for a season, where his skill set sets up well for the fast paced, spread out attack they employ. In fact, I think if Flynn ends up there he will put up big numbers per minute played, and likely Bird will hear some unjustified criticism for not taking him.

    Far from a finished product, with considerable upside but also with some questions and risks, Jonny Flynn will likely be a controversial player to be talked about on draft night, on this message board especially if we pass as I think we are likely to do. And trust me, we won't be the only message board who will be debating the merits of one Jonny Flynn this summer and beyond.

    NBA comparison right now would be Jose Berea of the Dallas Mavericks, or maybe Jannero Pargo, formerly of New Orleans, or possibly Ramon Sessions of the Bucks.

    My past NBA comparison was a bit harder for me to come up with, many of you might have a better selection than this one I came up with:

    Michael Williams, former NBA point guard who had a productive stint with Indiana in the Bob Hill era Pacers, although Williams admittedly lacked the charisma I think Flynn has.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

    It sorta seems like he's a young tj ford.
    Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

      Originally posted by pianoman View Post
      It sorta seems like he's a young tj ford.
      Agreed with this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

        I just think it's hard to be an NBA starter at any position when you're 6' or shorter. Like Tbird said, those guys usually become the energy guys off the bench. Sort of like a change of pace back in the NFL.

        I mentioned my PG opinion after the Ty Lawson analysis. Lawson is the only small PG I would understand the Pacers picking, and that's only if they are planning on moving TJ and resigning Jack.

        The more I learn about this draft, the more I think the Pacers will come away with a wing player or one of the bigger PG's. Of course there's always the chance of a trade like last year that might bring a veteran big. Can't wait for draft day!
        Turn out the lights, this party's over!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

          Can you start doing analysis on the players you actually like? Marking names off the list of possibilities isn't as much fun.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

            Originally posted by Swingman View Post
            Can you start doing analysis on the players you actually like? Marking names off the list of possibilities isn't as much fun.

            I can't say that I've really done a super negative profile on anyone yet, at least in my opinion. I just try to list the strengths and weaknesses of the players as I see them, and try to figure out how they will fit together with the Pacers both now and in the future. I'm sure when we re-read these a year from now, there will be a few I have been wrong about at least in part, on each side of the equation.

            As far as this year goes, I actually have thought so far I've been fairly positive about the 5 players I've profiled to this point....all of them I think will productive NBA players in varying degrees in the right circumstances. Have I really been that hard on Lawson, Henderson, Holliday, Blair, and Flynn unfairly?

            Time will tell.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

              Wasn't trying to imply that, just that the players so far don't strike me as what the pacers will want, especially at #13. Might be a sign of the weak draft but I'm hoping for a diamond in the rough.

              I love reading your analysis though. Hoping for one though that will make me think: Man, I hope we get that guy

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                Whereas I had suggested that Lawson appears to be a "pass first" version of Ford.....it would seem tha Flynn is a clone of Ford.

                I haven't watched any footage of Flynn, but does Flynn have good decision skills to back his "fearlessness"?

                It sounds like he has a tendency to dribble the ball into the "nooks and crannies" of a forest of Big Men inside the paint then get stuck in a situation where he has to pass the ball out and likely turning it over. I've seen this plenty of times from Ford...and really don't want to acquire another PG that would do the same.
                Last edited by CableKC; 05-31-2009, 09:25 PM.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                  Thanks for the analysis. There are quite a few things I didn't catch from watching him, but then again I've only seen limited play.

                  His read does sound pretty similar to TJ Ford, as mentioned earlier. Good shot form, lowered percentages due to poor shot selection.

                  Flynn's shooting percentages are still decent, even with his poor selection. For example, he shot 46% FG, 33% 3FG for two years, while TJ Ford was 40.6% FG, 22.8% 3FG for two years. Their turnovers are very similar, but TJ had 1/2 more assists per game

                  We've seen a player eliminate turnovers by learning to make simple plays (Jack), but the over-dribbling worries me. Flynn's charisma can be negated by his unwillingness to pass the ball (Ford).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                    Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                    Wasn't trying to imply that, just that the players so far don't strike me as what the pacers will want, especially at #13. Might be a sign of the weak draft but I'm hoping for a diamond in the rough.
                    In my opinion, this is the weakest draft since 2001. There really aren't any diamonds in the rough that fit the Pacers' needs at #13.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      In my opinion, this is the weakest draft since 2001. There really aren't any diamonds in the rough that fit the Pacers' needs at #13.
                      I agree 100%. Teams aren't having much of a choice as far as heights go. No one over 7 feet is really in this draft.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                        Originally posted by pianoman View Post
                        It sorta seems like he's a young tj ford.
                        we do need to get younger than 26..there's not much more ford can learn at that age....I really don't see the need for the pacers to draft a pg in this draft just because that's the deepest position this year. That really isn't saying that much. Personally if we keep Jack whether we lose Deiner or not, its not worth spending a first round pick on a pg to replace him. I think we could sign an un drafted Levance Fields for a 3rd string guard and he would be plenty adequate.

                        If the pacers plan on keeping Ford and Jack I think drafting a pg this year would be a waste of time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                          It was well known last year this draft was going to be heavy with PG's. I'm not interested in any PG in the 1st round that "might" be available at #13 unless it's Jrue. Jrue & Tyreke are up grades with size over Ford, so I'm not really interested in drafting a cheaper copy of Ford. I'd be interested in Price in the 2nd round if he was available.

                          Nothing that I see that would be available at #13, unless someone falls, really excites me other than T'Will or Jrue. There are a few in the 18-25 category that is intersting, but a #13 pick is too high. Trade down or get another pick in order to get them would be fine. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see Bird trade out of this draft all together if he could come up with the right player or players in doing so.
                          Last edited by Justin Tyme; 06-01-2009, 08:51 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                            I think Flynn's predetermined flight plan was the result of playing a lot of 2-3 defenses.

                            That scares me, because Marcus Williams has struggled in the NBA. Many people wanted him over Rondo. Big East PGs scare me as a whole.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #5: Jonny Flynn

                              Originally posted by pianoman View Post
                              It sorta seems like he's a young tj ford.
                              There are two fairly significant differences. 1. He's a much better shooter than TJ was coming out of college. 2. He seems, and has been reported, to have some top notch leadership qualities which TJ lacks.

                              Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                              Can you start doing analysis on the players you actually like? Marking names off the list of possibilities isn't as much fun.
                              Read Count55's analysis of what to expect from a #13 draft pick and then combine that with the fact that this is a weak draft as many have mentioned. Then take into account that Tbird is only profiling players who have a possibility of being around at #13. He's not going to be able to write a truly glowing review of anybody. If he is, they won't be there at #13.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X