The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I'm back after being a complete ghost for the past four months. My PS3 internet went to ****, and I finally got a new computer today. So now I can actually write real replies instead of pointless little paragraphs. So heres who I've been impressed with since my absense.
DeMarcus Cousins - An obvious choice after going from a fouling, chucking, and overall not very good to a beast everywhere on the court. He has simply been great. A double double machine with the quickness combined with the strength to get his shot off whenever he wants to in the low post. He really needs to just polish his overall game, and he could be an extremely good player in the NBA.
Scottie Reynolds - He is the #1 player on the #2 team, and is currently ranked #60 on NBAdraft.net. This is the AJ Price 2.0. Whoever picks him up will have an extremely solid player for years to come. He has quickness, range, ability to draw fouls, the "it" factor, along with the passing skills, and leadership to be a very good point guard in the NBA. As to why he is ranked so low just flabbergasts me. How can such a solid player be ranked so low in the draft? He is playing out of his mind right now vs. WVU.
Sherron Collins - Again just like Reynolds, he runs the team, gets his shots, hits them, and while he doesn't average alot of assists, he gets the ball where the other players want the ball. However, unlike Scotty Reynolds he is ranked as a mid-late first rounder. Whoever gets him will have be very, very pleased.
Evan Turner - The next big thing in this league. His shot-making and ability to make big plays happen, along with the ability to make players better is just amazing. I absolutely love his smooth style of play, from his cocky, yet humble attitude to his excellent fundamentals and understanding of the game. One thing he doesn't get enough credit for is his basketball I.Q. His I.Q. is off the charts, which really sets him and other players on his team up for success. His style of play could really complement AJ Price, Tyler Hansbrough, and Mike Dunleavy if he ever remembers how to make a shot.
Wes Johnson - Wesley Johnson has that uncanny ability to square up, clear space, and shoot over anyone just like someone by the name of Kevin Durant. While obviously not talented, there are alot of things that you can take from his game and compare to Kevin's. He actually will likely be more of a Wilson Chandler, a defensive minded player that is excellent at help defense that can, and will develop a very reliable and dominant game. I would love to have me some Wesley Johnson on this sad and sorry team. We'll see what happens.
Luke Harangoody - He will be the steal of the draft. He is a very crafty offensive player that can score in many ways, shapes, and forms. He gets to the line, rebounds decently, but plays awful defense. Keep him away from us. However, whoever picks him up will be very satisfied with their choice. If a contender gets him, he'll be an immediate boost to their offense. People on these boards won't like him because of his soft and all around horrible defense, but if a team like Boston, Portland, or Utah gets him, he will instantly provide a nice boost off the bench, like Rasho would do years ago with Toronto, and like DeJuan Blair is doing now in San Antonio.
James Anderson - This little known player from Oklahoma State is very good on offense. I was in awe of his performance vs. Texas. I'll keep a "footnote" on him. I don't have much to say because I haven't seen him much, but he's officially on watch.
Derrick Favors - Derrick, while hasn't neccesarily wowed alot of basketball fans, continues to be solid, and a beast on the boards that is unmatched, even though he is only a freshman. He has amazing defensive potential, and is showing glimpses of a very nice offensive game. He actually reminds me of a less soft Jermaine O'Neal pre-jumpshot era. I'd still take him over Cousins, and that is really saying something. He as all-defense potential, and very good at guarding the PnR, which we will have to address with Roy in the middle. If you want the perfect player to complement Roy, here he is, waiting for you to draft him."I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games
Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Marcus Morris and his brother(Kansas) are two really good PF's they are not in any mock draft yet, but if they keep playing like this for the rest of the year they could be a good pick, Marcus is a beast, the guy can do almost anything, he is strong, can block shots and has a nice 10footer jumper, here is a nice article about the brothers
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketb...yhoo&type=lgns@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
I called it in a thread a week or two ago. I just think that if Wall cruises and Turner plays the way he is. That it will come down to workouts. Espcecially if Kentucky stalls in the tourney with Wall playing the way he is.
Without Turner I don't think the Buckeyes make the tourney.
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...4&postcount=15Last edited by Major Cold; 02-09-2010, 07:36 AM.
Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Even though NJ/Brooklyn will only have a 25% chance at the #1 pick, it may very well be a dilemma for them re Wall/Turner. Wall will be great, but D. Harris is a solid point guard and E. Turner would be a very solid piece of a talented young core. BTW, for my fellow old-timers, D. Cousins bears a striking resemblance to Darryl Dawkins as a player. Almost the same exact size, both from Florida, both athletically gifted for their mass, and the same old bugaboo - maturity issues. Cousins seems to have a mean streak though. Dawkins was one of the ultimate "what might have been" cases. He would put together incredible streaks where he was simply unstoppable, looking like a man playing against 14 year olds at times. But he just couldn't maintain that aggressiveness. He was immature in a goofy way, kind of like he was afraid to hurt anybody. Cousins, on the other hand, seems to be immature in a darker way. IF he's able to somehow harness that mean streak of his, he's going to be something else.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Yeah, he'd just take his frustrations out on the glass (-shattering) backboards instead.Originally posted by RomanGabriel View Post
"He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."
- Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
There's no way Turner goes #1. He has too many things working against him, and John Wall is too good. If we look at recent history of G/Fs with similar games to Turner, and where they went in the draft, I think it's close to 100% certainty that he ends up going 3-6. Wall will go #1, one of the young post players (Cousins, Favors, Davis) will go #2, then it becomes a crap-shoot.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I concede to you and VNZLA.Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
I still think a lot of us are ahead of the curve on this one. It strikes me as so similar to the Rose/Beasley thing, and really Durant/Oden though that wasn't as far apart to start as I recall.
Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I loved Kevin Love, a true crafty big. But IMO Harangody's game is almost entirely non-applicable at the next level. I've viewed his game and Tyler's as almost the same for the last 3 years. Luke, also like Tyler, has made almost no collegiate development. Lotta slop below the shoulders for scoring and I don't think that stuff cuts it in the NBA.
Collins got by with speed the last 3 years and frankly should be running games at this point, but he doesn't. Much like Aldrich, he's not really the guy the team leans on. As a group they are great, but I don't see any one of them showing a game that stands out enough to make a big NBA mark.
I just disagree that Collins has been running the team, and I also don't think he's developed much as a player. I EXPECTED him to be better, ditto for Aldrich. Collins was good enough to draw my attention 2 years ago, so it's not like I didn't have interest or hope for him.
Dawkins vs Cousins - interesting point, I like it.
I don't think it works that way. I think teams learn from their mistakes. Teams stop chasing bigs with no skill set in hopes of developing them, they stop chasing every Euro that has a good Olympic outing, and they stop passing on guys for various reasons too.If we look at recent history of G/Fs with similar games to Turner,
So if Turner looks like Roy and teams reflect on how they passed over Roy, reflect on how Portland went for size vs Durant's shooting, and how Chicago did well by drafting by need (Rose) rather than pre-season hype (Beasley), I think it's very possible they say "why not" to Turner.
This is again dependent on how he and Wall play for about 6-7 more weeks, that's a lot of games. Conference tourney and 1-3 NCAA games for a lot of guys are included here. Turner leading Ohio St to the Big 10 tourney title and then the Final 4 with Kentucky getting knocked out by West Va in the Sweet 16, that would change things I think.
Just like Wall kicking butt as KY won it all would solidify his slot.
We are saying "I can see a developing trend here with a surprise result", and that's not the same as "100% will happen for sure". The last couple of weeks are trending very well for Turner.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View PostI concede to you and VNZLA.
I still think a lot of us are ahead of the curve on this one. It strikes me as so similar to the Rose/Beasley thing, and really Durant/Oden though that wasn't as far apart to start as I recall.
Yeah I was thinking the Rose/Beasley stand point as well. Beasley had the most intrigue, but when it came closer to the draft...Rose's demeanor and talent really out shined Beasley.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I see so much Joe Johnson in Turner. I understand the Roy analogy, but I see Joe Johnson more so.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Harangoody and Hansbrough are 'exactly the same' yet one was usually projected 20th in the 1st round, while the other is projected about 20th in the 2nd round. Gee, maybe that's not entirely true.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Yeah, I really don't think so. Unless John Wall blows out a knee, he is the top pick. Personally, I think you guys are overthinking this one.Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View PostI concede to you and VNZLA.
I still think a lot of us are ahead of the curve on this one. It strikes me as so similar to the Rose/Beasley thing, and really Durant/Oden though that wasn't as far apart to start as I recall.Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Wall is to out of control to me, he would give a team headaches, ofcourse I would not mind getting a guy like him, but if I have a choice to choose between him and Tuner I pick Evan. I think is kind of like deciding between D Rose and B Roy, I rather have B Roy(Not saying that Evan is Roy even though they are just similar to me)@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!Comment
-
Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
And what was Evan Turner like as a freshman?Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
I don't mind your comparisons, but a key thing to me is that I think Wall will be slightly better than Rose, and I don't think Turner will ever be quite as good as Brandon Roy.Comment
Tweet
Comment