ardee wrote:Quotatious, can you move these posts?
Done.
Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

ardee wrote:Quotatious, can you move these posts?
Quotatious wrote:ardee wrote:Quotatious, can you move these posts?
Done.
Dr Spaceman wrote:Also, just in case people don't know: click the wrench-like button at the bottom of the thread next to "post reply" and you can subscribe to the topic, which means you get notified every time there's a new post.
EDIT: I'm referring to the draft thread of course
ronnymac2 wrote:Full judge's disclosure before posters start picking:
1. I'm pretty lenient about pre-1980 players using the 3-point shot effectively. I mean, keep it within reason. Don't tell me your guy is making 5 3-pointers per game at a 45% clip. But all you need to do is point to some basic evidence that a guy would be at least a threat from 3-point range, and I'll probably be cool with that.
2. I'm pretty familiar with most ABA guys, especially the ones that will likely be useable in a tourney like this. There are a few hidden gems in the ABA that are perfect for this format actually.
3. I appreciate 3-point shooting to create spacing, but I also appreciate creating spacing through means other than 3-point shooting. Pick-n-roll finishers, cutters, offensive rebounding machines, great passers, floor generals, elite screen-setters, etc.
4. Pre-shot clock players who proved they were great against 1960's megastars are cool. I am skeptical about pre-shot clock players who did not compete against 1960's megastars or who looked way worse once 1960's megastars entered the fray. It doesn't mean I'm not open to them excelling in certain roles here if explained well enough.
5. Have fun. Talk trash. Learn. Build some sweet-ass teams. Enjoy.
micahclay wrote:Man, this is a tough second pick. I'm torn between so many options.
.
Dr Spaceman wrote:micahclay wrote:Man, this is a tough second pick. I'm torn between so many options.
Hmm... This is tough.
Just FYI, in the future it's bad form to talk about anyone still on the board. Right now it obviously doesn't matter, but in the future it will.
I totally relate to the agony of this choice though. And I think Doc was feeling the same. I was desperately hoping I wouldn't get one of the top picks, because I think there's a big disconnect between the most dominant players and the most build-around-able in a game like this.
micahclay wrote:Dr Spaceman wrote:micahclay wrote:Man, this is a tough second pick. I'm torn between so many options.
Hmm... This is tough.
Just FYI, in the future it's bad form to talk about anyone still on the board. Right now it obviously doesn't matter, but in the future it will.
I totally relate to the agony of this choice though. And I think Doc was feeling the same. I was desperately hoping I wouldn't get one of the top picks, because I think there's a big disconnect between the most dominant players and the most build-around-able in a game like this.
Oh... Whoops.

Dr Spaceman wrote:micahclay wrote:Man, this is a tough second pick. I'm torn between so many options.
.
Just FYI, in the future it's bad form to talk about anyone still on the board. Right now it obviously doesn't matter, but in the future it will.
I totally relate to the agony of this choice though. And I think Doc was feeling the same. I was desperately hoping I wouldn't get one of the top picks, because I think there's a big disconnect between the most dominant players and the most build-around-able in a game like this.
ardee wrote:
orlandotill wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Hey where's the link to the last project and specifically the list of players drafted?
ardee wrote:Would anyone be averse to reducing the pick window to 6 hours to get this moving faster?