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

  • #46
    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.

    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.
    Did Brandon Jennings **** in your cheerios? What is your problem with the kid.

    Oh and to answer your question, Jennings is averaging more assists per game at 5.5 than any other rookie point guard... thats just because hes playing more minutes, you say. Oh, ok, well he is also averaging more assists PER 40 than any other rookie PG...

    PER 40

    jennings 6.4 assists

    Flynn 4.6 assists

    Lawson 5.7 assists

    Evans 5.1 assists

    That is while he is scoring a rediculous 25 points per game, and not to mention, he isn't exactly surrounded by a lot of offensive talent. Yea, I would say his passing is just fine. He is the only reason that team is 5-2 right now.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
      Other rookies:



      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.
      I read the original scouting report on him on draft express and thought... "sounds like a poor mans TJ Ford". never got what the big deal was about him.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        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).

        You are over anaylzing this whole Tyler thing. Tyler can hit a jumpshot, therefore, he is a better offensive player than Jeff. Jeff can barely hit an open layup, Its pretty cut and dry. You can't anaylize a rookies first three games shooting percentage and think you can extrapolate that out into some sort of meaningful analysis.

        Keep in mind I'm not one of the people saying he has proven hes PF of the future after three games either, but you are being quite the buzz kill.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

          Seth, I'm really beginning to think you WANT to see Hansbrough fail, and well frankly I don't get it. We know you didn't like the pick/our strategy in the first round. We've heard it 1000 times by now it just seems like you're putting it back up here to get a rise out of people and start something over Hansbrough. We have no freaking clue how TH is gonna turn out just like we have no freaking clue what will happen with Brandon Jennings.

          I'd remind everyone of another extremely talented PG that dropped due to attitude concerns and other things of that nature, that came out of the gates his rookie year setting the league on fire and then fizzled into an average PG. His name is Jamaal Tinsley.

          I'm not saying Jennings will be Tinsley, I'm merely making the point that it is way too early for people to be running around saying I told you so, about players that have only been on the court for 8-10 games. Give them at least a full season before everyone starts telling each other how right they were about this guy or that guy.


          Comment


          • #50
            Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            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.
            Great post. I plan on stealing most of your comments, hope that is OK.

            Seth, I know this point has been made to you plenty of times already , but you seem to be grading Tyler as if we are expecting him to be a great player, a franchise player. Why do you expect him to be a great player when you don't seem to do so with Rush or Roy - I group them together because they were all taken in middle of first round.

            If someone told me right now that in three seasons Tyler will be an above average sixth man on a team that is a 50 win team, I would be thrilled. Seems like you are grading him as if everyone is expecting him to be the best player on a 50 win team.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-17-2009, 04:13 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Great post. I plan on stealing most of your comments, hope that is OK

              I'm honored!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                Originally posted by Indy View Post

                I'd remind everyone of another extremely talented PG that dropped due to attitude concerns and other things of that nature, that came out of the gates his rookie year setting the league on fire and then fizzled into an average PG. His name is Jamaal Tinsley.

                I'm not saying Jennings will be Tinsley, I'm merely making the point that it is way too early for people to be running around saying I told you so, about players that have only been on the court for 8-10 games. Give them at least a full season before everyone starts telling each other how right they were about this guy or that guy.
                The one thing about Jenning's supposed "attitude concerns" is I think there was absolutley nothing to them. The kid always seemed humble and well spoken in interviews... and whats more, never complained about his lack of playing time, even when it was killing his draft stock.

                The only "attitude" on display was some people's feelings about a kid who would have the audacity to blow off the NCAA and earn a paycheck in Europe.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                  Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                  The one thing about Jenning's supposed "attitude concerns" is I think there was absolutley nothing to them. The kid always seemed humble and well spoken in interviews... and whats more, never complained about his lack of playing time, even when it was killing his draft stock.

                  The only "attitude" on display was some people's feelings about a kid who would have the audacity to blow off the NCAA and earn a paycheck in Europe.
                  Remind me how Tinsley came across as arrogant as opposed to humble in interviews, or how that's the official test for some kind of attitude problem, or furthermore how articulation translates one way or the other in regards to attitude?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Remind me how Tinsley came across as arrogant as opposed to humble in interviews, or how that's the official test for some kind of attitude problem, or furthermore how articulation translates one way or the other in regards to attitude?
                    All I am getting at is this. People keep bringing up "attitude" concerns with Jennings, when there was nothing to substantiate it. I was saying this at the time, I am saying it now. I think a single comment about Rubio was about the only thing anyone had to go on with this whole "attitude" angle. I just never understood it.
                    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                    - ilive4sports

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                      Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                      The one thing about Jenning's supposed "attitude concerns" is I think there was absolutley nothing to them. The kid always seemed humble and well spoken in interviews... and whats more, never complained about his lack of playing time, even when it was killing his draft stock.

                      The only "attitude" on display was some people's feelings about a kid who would have the audacity to blow off the NCAA and earn a paycheck in Europe.
                      I can pull up the mag article on Tins busting his *** to get to Iowa State from his final year in college. Something about Jennings rubbed people the wrong way. It's not like I'm sitting here calling the kid a mass murderer. Everyone KNEW he had talent. People raved about his passing, but something made them skittish. Was it playing overseas as opposed to college? I seriously doubt that. The NBA gladly drafts players that have never even stepped foot on American soil. There was something else, who knows, but Jennings had to have some red flag.

                      The kid can play ball. Obviously, he can score, but right now he's just about the only perimeter scoring option on that Bucks team. I want a larger sample size than 8 games before having to hear about how great he is or is going to be. That's all I'm saying.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                        Originally posted by Indy View Post
                        I can pull up the mag article on Tins busting his *** to get to Iowa State from his final year in college. Something about Jennings rubbed people the wrong way. It's not like I'm sitting here calling the kid a mass murderer. Everyone KNEW he had talent. People raved about his passing, but something made them skittish. Was it playing overseas as opposed to college? I seriously doubt that. The NBA gladly drafts players that have never even stepped foot on American soil. There was something else, who knows, but Jennings had to have some red flag.

                        The kid can play ball. Obviously, he can score, but right now he's just about the only perimeter scoring option on that Bucks team. I want a larger sample size than 8 games before having to hear about how great he is or is going to be. That's all I'm saying.

                        Exactly, and I think the whole skipping college thing was a huge part of it. In all honesty though, it was probably skipping that draft camp thing. I think that really rubbed scouts the wrong way. Either way, I feel like he got a bad rap that he did not deserve. There surely hasn't been any evidence of any attitude concerns yet, Skiles hasn't had anything but high praise for him so far.

                        "It's hard to say this when he gets 29 points in a quarter, but it's not greedy," Skiles said. "He's open, he's knocking down shots. He hit three or four in a row and yet they came off and helped and he pitched it to Charlie Bell in the corner. He's still playing basketball out there. He's not out there searching for his own. He's trying to help us win the game." - Scott Skiles

                        http://www.nba.com/games/20091114/GSWMIL/gameinfo.html


                        PS: It almost seems that the argument I am hearing is "Because there was not clear evidence of attitude concerns for Tinsley before the draft, and he ended up having an attitude problem..... that somehow this is evidence that Jennings could have an attitude problem. I don't follow the logic.
                        Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 11-17-2009, 04:53 PM.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                          Originally posted by Indy View Post

                          The kid can play ball. Obviously, he can score, but right now he's just about the only perimeter scoring option on that Bucks team. I want a larger sample size than 8 games before having to hear about how great he is or is going to be. That's all I'm saying.
                          This is fair, however, given what we have seen so far, there is a lot of good evidence he is going to succeed. Imagine if this kid was doing this for the Pacers, this board would flipping out with Joy.

                          Keep in mind, its not just the numbers, the team has been winning. That says a lot to me.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                            Originally posted by Indy View Post
                            I can pull up the mag article on Tins busting his *** to get to Iowa State from his final year in college. Something about Jennings rubbed people the wrong way. It's not like I'm sitting here calling the kid a mass murderer. Everyone KNEW he had talent. People raved about his passing, but something made them skittish. Was it playing overseas as opposed to college? I seriously doubt that. The NBA gladly drafts players that have never even stepped foot on American soil. There was something else, who knows, but Jennings had to have some red flag.

                            The kid can play ball. Obviously, he can score, but right now he's just about the only perimeter scoring option on that Bucks team. I want a larger sample size than 8 games before having to hear about how great he is or is going to be. That's all I'm saying.
                            This was reported over and over again. A lot of teams didn't go over and scout him extensively. Most teams saw only small glimpses of him, and often he was playing the two. A lot of teams banked on seeing him in the Eurocamp, and when he pulled out, his stock dropped. Most claimed, like Walsh, that they didn't want to take a risk on a guy that they didn't get to seen enough in 5-on-5 play. At one point, they were talking about him falling completely out of the lottery.

                            However, once individual workouts started, his stock started to rise again. Come draft night, it seemed pretty impossible that he'd drop past Milwaukee, which is where he went.

                            There are certainly questions about Jennings, but they are far from huge black marks. I thought this section from a Chad Ford column was interesting:

                            One scout, who claimed to have watched Jennings in person during "at least a dozen games" and "tons of practices" (the most of any person I spoke with), was particularly adamant. He felt strongly that Jennings was one of the two or three best prospects in the draft.

                            "I ask two questions about every prospect. First, do they have the talent to play in the NBA? Second, have they gotten better? I think Jennings gets two huge check marks on both accounts.

                            "First, Jennings is a crazy athlete. He's as quick as anyone in the draft. No one is going to be able to stay in front of him. He explodes around the basket and he's a clever passer when he wants to be. We saw all of that in high school and if you watched him enough in Europe, you saw it there too. Yeah, he needs to get stronger and work on some stuff. But the raw talent is totally there."

                            OK, that's talent. Now here's the thing. What did he need to work on?

                            "Defense. He's become a much better and more committed defender this year. Everyone who has watched him play would acknowledge that.

                            "Basketball IQ. The European game is a thinking game. He's had to learn all sorts of things that most college kids aren't confronted with. There's no way you can argue his IQ hasn't increased.

                            "Understanding the team concept. That's what Europe is all about and Jennings has made great strides there. He's not perfect, but he's much better than when he came.

                            "Shooting. You can't just look at his shooting numbers for the year. His shot is getting better. I don't think it's broken and he's been taking a lot of shots.

                            "Maturity. Many four-year college players come overseas and can't handle the dramatic change in lifestyle. They are home before Christmas. This kid stuck it out. He left his friends and his life behind. Things didn't go his way with the team he chose. He wasn't pampered. He felt disrespected. He didn't complain. He showed up every day and worked his tail off. He kept getting better. What else do you want?

                            "In every area he's gotten better. You can't say the same thing about Jrue Holiday or Jonny Flynn or whoever you want to put up there. This kid's learning curve has been dramatic. The numbers are just a part of the story."

                            That opinion was more typically shared by scouts who had seen Jennings a lot, less so by GMs who may have seen him play only once or twice.
                            Besides the stuff that I had seen, I always liked the fact that the people who had seen him more, liked him more.

                            But, ultimately, this probably sums up why he didn't go higher:

                            "I'm not sure how you take a kid without a real body of work that high," one NBA GM in Treviso said. "I know this is a weak draft, but are we really taking kids who have struggled to produce in college or Europe in the lottery? I'm all for upside, but it's ridiculous. If Jennings can't get on the floor in Italy, how does he help my team in the next couple of years? How do you take him over some really talented college kids who have proven they can play? Jonny Flynn, Ty Lawson, Steph Curry. Those guys are talented too and they have track records."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              No. 36% FG from a power forward is embarrassingly awful.
                              Maybe if he gets that number down to 32.5% he can become a nice part of a 5 man group like TWill.......
                              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                                Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post


                                Jeff can barely hit an open layup,

                                He misses more bunnies than Elmer Fudd does. He's the epitome of a 1 trick pony. Even with my screaming during games at him, that can be heard blocks away, he's a decent rotational player for his age and health problems, BUT was "given" a contract for far more than he's worth. I still believe his best attribute to the Pacers at this point is as trade bait.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X