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

2009 Rookie Watch

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

  • #31
    Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

    BTW, my (old) sig looks dumb right now. Clearly there are enough guys starting out solid to make the draft a decent one at the very least. I should change it to "we needed to trade down badly".

    edit - it just dawned on me that my sig is wrong, this is the old one

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Fixed. Not everyone just listened to scouts.
      Yes Seth, but we're not all professional talent scouts like you. We didn't get to attend 12 of Jennings' games in Italy last season.

      It also needs to be pointed out that Jennings was hyped due to his potential for brilliance as a passer, yet it's his scoring and not his passing which is turning heads. No one saw that coming. Not the scouts, not the hype, not the bandwagoners - probably not even Brandon Jennings.
      Last edited by Lance George; 11-17-2009, 01:29 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

        I'm impressed with Budinger's performance with Houston. He's getting a pretty big role backing up Ariza and Battier.

        I'd also like to throw in here that I don't regret drafting Tyler and I'm sure most if not everyone here will agree with me on this. The doubts of him being the "man among boys" in college was true and he is bringing it to the NBA. We got a draft night steal here, IMO.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          Yes Seth, but we're not all professional talent scouts like you. We didn't get to attend 12 of Jennings' games in Italy last season.
          You're trifling.

          I evaluate every player with the same flawed casual fan system: I read scouting reports and watch Youtube highlight videos. Based off of these reports and the videos, I found Jennings to be a great pass-first PG is what appeared at the time to be a draft full of hot garbage. I used the same methodology on every player. FWIW, I was a fan of the Hansbrough pick and defended him passionately in the days after the draft, but I guess I was just buying into his hype, too. If you ever read what I post, you'd know that I have a complete aversion to shoot first PG's and love guys who can distribute the ball. Jennings has been much more of a shooter than I thought he would be, but you can't lie that he hasn't shown NBA talent. So I am partially correct at best.

          Most of the sour grapes on Jennings have to do that he didn't go to the on size fits all NCAA system like everyone else.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

            he is a better offensive player than Foster
            No. 36% FG from a power forward is embarrassingly awful. When you factor in how many of those were monster blocks it looks worse.

            BECOME. Maybe he will become better. But what he has done so far is one thing, one I've been shouting about since the summer - he draws fouls with his crazy energy contact.

            He's scored 31 points. 13 of those came from the line, and that's 42% of his points. Let's compare that with 4 other guys, great scorers who don't exactly have to go begging to get a foul call:

            Kobe 75 of 301 pts = 25%
            Lebron 81 of 275 pts = 29.5%
            Wade 88 of 267 pts = 33%
            Melo 92 of 297 pts = 31%

            In other words Tyler's main scoring "move" is to hope for the foul call. That means that your 5th offensive player when TH is on the floor is actually the ref. How good is that offense going to be in a clutch road game down the stretch? How good was it vs Boston when he only drew 2 FTs?

            I lover scorers who draw fouls ALSO. I don't feel good about guys who go begging for fouls with out of control contact. That kind of play often ends up in misses with swallowed whistles or even a foul on the offensive player (see the GS game).


            BTW, for reference in the last 6 seasons Foster shot:
            54, 52, 55, 47, 55, 50 (FG PCT)

            The year prior to this run was 36%, the only time he shot below 45% in his career and well below his career average of 50%.

            By the way, Foster and the prior Pacers PF Dale both scored significantly less from the line than the field. Jeff - 22% and Dale - 17%. They are both physical inside players but both were able to score a few times per game to maintain a solid FG% and not just live and die at the line.

            Maybe drawing fouls exclusively in an unprecedented manner is a skill nearly unique to Tyler. I just can't call that "good offensive player" yet.

            IT IS EARLY, I REALIZE THIS. My point is that people are commenting on the same early play and stats that I am and are seeing something totally different. When Tyler is scoring from the field like crazy and shooting 54% with some nice putback dunks, scoring so many FGs that only 25% of his points come from the line...THEN I'll say he's a strong or solid offensive player (depending on volume).

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

              The problem of course is that this is based on only three samples. Is the 3-12 night against GSW an off night or normal? Was it a rookie night or were the other two nights the unusual ones? If it is an outlier he's much closer to 50% at 3-7 and 3-6. If it is normal, you are right.

              We will see as the season goes on - if he is truly such a bad shooter that he doesn't need to be guarded and therefore fouled, teams will stop fouling him. However, as of now, teams are doubling him regularly - that says that someone else out there thinks he can be dangerous. If he continues to be able to draw fouls and hit free throws then he is making a contribution. No, he isn't Kobe or LBJ or Wade or Melo. To make those comparisons is ludicrous, as if to say, "see, these league superstars score this way, if Tyler doesn't score that way then he stinks and should be out of here." There's a lot of room between "star" and "stinks".

              The reason people on both sides need to calm down is that there are too many definitive statements being tossed around when there simply isn't enough data either way.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                Yes Seth, but we're not all professional talent scouts like you. We didn't get to attend 12 of Jennings' games in Italy last season.
                Oh hyperbole, friend of internet rants.

                YOU COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE SAME STUFF I DID. Did you? If not then how is this even a debate. Clips were linked in the prospect thread last year for all to see and comment on.

                It doesn't take 1000 minutes of viewing a guy. You can see bits and pieces of telling choices and skill, especially if some of it is bland or even unflattering regular gameplay that includes lots of play without the ball.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                  There's a ton to like about Tyler's first 3 games, anything else is nitpicking.

                  Not a big enough body of work, of course. For sure, some things he does can translate at this level though. For sure, some things he has to adjust to.

                  Like I said before, he's physical, he's plays very hard, he's not afraid or intimidated in any way, and looks like he belongs on the floor. What's not to like.

                  I'm not even going pick at what he's doing after 3 games. Again, he's physical, plays hard, and isn't afraid, that's enough to start out with, for me.

                  Now in February, we can look at things he needs to do in a much more specific way and a big picture way too. Then at the end of the season.

                  Lastly, I think he's a smart guy or at least a decent B ball IQ, nothing makes me think otherwise. This means I think he can make some adjustments. I haven't seen physical limitations that makes me think he can't adjust to the NBA game.

                  Getting to the foul line-yep Danny called it scoring gold and I agree with Seth, I like my scorers getting to the line. Hanbrough made his living there in college. He probably can't do it to that level or fashion in the NBA. So let's say he stops trying to draw fouls and stops getting stuffed. HE'S STILL a valuable player. He can score in transition, he can hit the 17 footer. I mean, him being a low post scorer via foul shots isn't the only valuable skill he seems to have.

                  I actually think he can get to the line and will put pressure on defenses to stop him going to the rack. However, so what he gets his stuff thrown, he's being agressive and it still has put the onus on the defender to stop him.

                  I mean it's fun to block a guys shot and whoop and hollar, but it's not as much fun to get your chest caved in by catching a forearm in trying to do it the 3rd time or the 4th or maybe the 5th time your slightly out of position and it's an And One.

                  My point is again, Tyler is doing things through commission, not ommission. I'm for that.

                  With all that said, he'll still have to adjust and get better, but I do NOT want him to stop being super physical and aggressive.

                  That physical presence and aggressiveness is EXACTLY what this team has been missing in recent history, EXACTLY.
                  Last edited by Speed; 11-17-2009, 02:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                    if he is truly such a bad shooter that he doesn't need to be guarded and therefore fouled, teams will stop fouling him. However, as of now, teams are doubling him regularly
                    As I just said in all caps, I realize it's early. I've clearly given Tyler an "out" toward success. He must improve his post scoring and his vert game. I don't think any of the blocks in the GS game came in doubles. In fact 3-4 at least were where he faced up and drove hard to attempt a two handed dunk, only to have it blocked.


                    As for the double team angle, it actually says 1 of 2 very different things:

                    1) You are so good and proven that unless we put 2 guys on you we can't hope to stop you

                    2) You are a weak player and we want to attack you hard when you touch the ball because we think you will give it up or make a bad choice. Killer defenses looking for TOs lie in wait for those moments when the weak link gets it, especially you can be trapped against a line.

                    Roy and Diogu both see/saw double teams. The reasons are/were clearly different.

                    I love to see Roy doubled because I know his passing is brilliant. I worry when I see Tyler doubled because he sometimes even struggled with that in college. His style is attack early and often before the defense is ready for you. That's a nice quality, but he needs more for the NBA game.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The reason people on both sides need to calm down is that there are too many definitive statements being tossed around when there simply isn't enough data either way.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        I love to see Roy doubled because I know his passing is brilliant. I worry when I see Tyler doubled because he sometimes even struggled with that in college. His style is attack early and often before the defense is ready for you. That's a nice quality, but he needs more for the NBA game.
                        I don't necessarily disagree with this, but we won't see a lot of Tyler passing out of those double teams until he stops being able to draw the fouls. One hopes they are working it in practice, but in games you dance with the one who brung ya'.

                        I think to summarize the moderate position:

                        1) It is pleasant to see Tyler being reasonably successful on the floor and also with the fan base.
                        2) There are legitimate (there's that word again...) concerns about whether this success will continue once defenses have him figured out.
                        3) There are no reasons to assume the worst simply because he currently sticks with what he is best at. It does not necessarily mean he brings nothing else to the table, it just means that (so far) he needs nothing else.
                        4) The data just isn't yet there for any other conclusion.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          YOU COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE SAME STUFF I DID. Did you? If not then how is this even a debate. Clips were linked in the prospect thread last year for all to see and comment on.

                          It doesn't take 1000 minutes of viewing a guy. You can see bits and pieces of telling choices and skill, especially if some of it is bland or even unflattering regular gameplay that includes lots of play without the ball.
                          Those pre-draft clips told you nothing about why Brandon Jennings has been such a smashing success. You were raving over his passing ability, yet as I've already pointed out, Jennings great play is entirely due to his scoring ability, scoring ability no one knew he had.

                          You and the other bandwagoners may have got it right on Jennings being great, but you got it right for all the wrong reasons. Sounds like a case of getting lucky to me.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I suspect once defenses start paying attention, he will not look so good.
                            Well, if he keeps looking this good, he'll be a MVP contender by the end of the season.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Jennings is a big time scorer. Heck he's more than that. He can board and assist...the real deal...but I wonder if the Warriors were playing any defense...you know, pressuring management to get that trade done.

                            He did score 25 more tonight but took 22 shots.

                            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                            For all the people saying "I told you so!" regarding Brandon Jennings - congratulations, your bandwagon-hopping has finally panned out.

                            Jennings landed in a perfect situation with Milwaukee, a team so void of offensive talent (sans oft-injured Redd) that it's allowed a 20 year old rookie to come in and throw up 20 shots a night. To Jennings credit, he's been remarkably efficient and the Bucks are winning (5-3), so he'll likely remain one of Milwaukee's top scoring options for the rest of the season and beyond. Still, it's obvious he's playing way over his head. Once Redd takes some of his shots away and his hot shooting streak ends, he'll dip back down to Earth and finish the season at around 17 ppg on something along the lines of 45/35/80 shooting. Tyreke Evans and Blake Griffith should both give him a strong run for his money when it comes to Rookie of the Year.

                            This was a very deep draft.
                            A few points:

                            - Jennings is a streaky shooter with an iffy shot-selection. He's going through a hot patch right now, but I don't think it's sustainable. But if he finishes the season with "around 17 ppg on something along the lines of 45/35/80 shooting" and he keeps his pace of 6 assists/5 rebounds/1 steal, that would still be an amazing line for a rookie PG - only comparable to Chris Paul in the recent years.

                            - Right now, only two of Jennings team-mates have career scoring averages above two digits (Bogut, 11ppg / Warrick, 10 ppg). And Bogut creates most of his own shots. I don't think he has another option besides trying to score a lot.

                            - Jennings is clearly more ready than most of the other rookies. Entering the pro-game one year earlier, practising twice a day with much better players and playing against much better competition gave him a poise and a demeanour on court that most rookie PGs lack. He was much more tentative one year ago.

                            - He developed his game a lot during his stay in Europe. This got somehow lost within all the talk about his struggles. For example, overall, he was an inefficient scorer. But in the Italian League, his 2pt FG% raised from 44% in the first round of the league to 54% in the second one; his 3pt% from 15% to 30% (he ought to improve, his developmental coach is one of the best shooting coaches in Europe). His pick'n'roll game was non-existent at the start of the season, but by the end of the Euroleague season he was already playing it well (European teams spend an awful amount of time practising the ballscreen game).

                            - In my view, a GM that says he didn't get a "feel" for Jennings game didn't do his work properly, unless I'm misunderstanding what Walsh means. I saw most of his Euroleague games (where he averaged 19mpg, which may sound little but it's within the range top rotation players for good teams play - guys making the All-Euroleague teams play around 20 mpg) and some stuff was pretty evident: his outstanding quickness with the ball, his lateral quickness, the great handling, his court-vision and ability to find passing angles (and make the pass), his active hands on defence, a good motor. He struggled, but there are lot of former college stars or former NBAers who also struggle to adapt to the European game, let alone an inexperienced 19 years old PG. His game and body type is a better fit to the NBA - in Europe defences are more stringent, physically tougher, hand-checking in the perimeter is allowed (a nightmare for a small and slim kid like Jennings), there are no defensive 3 seconds, the court is more congested. You factor this and you could see all the things he was able to do very well. Then, his work ethic and coachability (is this a word?) were also well-known. I remember some GM being disappointed because he decided to pass the pre-draft camps. Well, some teams sent scouts to attend practices of his former team in order to see him in action and check his progression (he didn't make the playoff roster). If others waited for too long and didn't seize any chance they had to see the kid in action, they could have done better.

                            - In any case, nobody could have foreseen exactly how well he'd playing at this point. Not even the Bucks, Flynn was the first in their draft board. Personally, I strongly underestimated his readiness and how easily would it be to him to get inside the lane in the NBA (something he wasn't able to do in Europe).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                              Other rookies:

                              Evans is going to be very good, but not exactly as a PG. No surprise here, I think.

                              Triangle or not, I'm not impressed with Flynn after watching 5 or so of his games. His self-confidence is well above his skill-set, IMO. He's very small, completely lost defensively (maybe because his college team played zones?) and he tries to do too much on the other side. His jumper looks good, but he takes too many bad ones (and too many outside ones) and forces the issue too much~, driving in traffic and running out of options (a la TJ Ford). Let's see how he does when he's surrounded by more talent, but so far I'm not convinced he can be the starting PG for a good team.

                              Beaubois has an opportunity to be very good. Great athleticism, excellent defender with a tremendous wingspan and quick feet, very good pick'n'roll player, good shooter. If he learns how to run a team, his collection of skills will make him a very good PG. Excellent pick by the Mavs.

                              Seth makes a good point about Lawson and his sometimes careless dribbling. I'd expect to take him a bit to learn to play slower but he's been playing very well - he's being asked to push the ball and that he can really do. He's shooting the ball better than in college, he's an excellent finisher at the rim for his height and if he keeps it up I see him as a future starter in the short term.

                              Lot to like about Hansbrough so far, I agree. His motor, fastness and physicality are going to be tough to deal with. He's a black hole right now, but that's to be expected, I believe. I'm not exactly sure how can he play that way, jumping on people all the time and attacking the rim like a lunatic 82 games per season, and how much his rebounding will constitute a weakness remains to be seen when we have a bigger sample, but so far he's met the reasonably optimistic expectations.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                                Has Sacramento been starting Evans at SG and Udrih at PG?

                                Also has anyone watched DeRozan play with Toronto yet?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X