PDA

View Full Version : A Dale Davis Question



Bball
07-21-2005, 01:51 AM
There's been talk of what we could offer Dale and what we should offer Dale and it is based on expectations for next season.

But did we really pay him enough last season for coming in and helping to save the Pacers' bacon? Dale was a big part of the push to get the team into the playoffs. Without Dale we probably are watching somebody else in the playoffs.

Does he deserve a bump for that?

People (me) have talked about DW being loyal to a fault... will he do it here? Obviously he doesn't have to and Dale isn't Reggie Miller (or Rik Smits) so I doubt Walsh would bend over backwards to make it happen... But does he go above and beyond as a 'thank you' for last season and the bargain Dale was to us?

-Bball

foretaz
07-21-2005, 02:01 AM
i have been of the school that they had broached the subject of this contract when he was discussing coming here to begin with....

i would be somewhat surprised if they didnt already have a pretty good idea of what this contract would look like when he decided to come play for us again....

my only question is, are they second guessing that....if so, i dont think they are reconsidering because they(the pacers) want to up the salary....my guess is they are a little leary of the amount or the length, or even both....

Anthem
07-21-2005, 09:08 AM
When you talk about Donnie being loyal to a fault, it's always a criticism, not a compliment.

If Dale gets 2mil for a year or so, I'll nod and go on my way. Anything more than that and it's too much.

Unclebuck
07-21-2005, 09:33 AM
People (me) have talked about DW being loyal to a fault... will he do it here? Obviously he doesn't have to and Dale isn't Reggie Miller (or Rik Smits) so I doubt Walsh would bend over backwards to make it happen... But does he go above and beyond as a 'thank you' for last season and the bargain Dale was to us?

-Bball


I don't know if he overpays for Dale. My best guess is he won't. With Jeff, Scot, and DH, the Pacers have the position pretty well covered.


But Bball, you, perhaps by accident, caught my attention with your paragraph above. "Obviously he doesn't have to and Dale isn't Reggie Miller (or Rik Smits)"

Are you suggesting that Rik Smits was more important to the Pacers franchise let's say from 1994 - 2000 than Dale was? I would strongly disagree with that.

indygeezer
07-21-2005, 09:48 AM
I don't know if he overpays for Dale. My best guess is he won't. With Jeff, Scot, and DH, the Pacers have the position pretty well covered.


But Bball, you, perhaps by accident, caught my attention with your paragraph above. "Obviously he doesn't have to and Dale isn't Reggie Miller (or Rik Smits)"

Are you suggesting that Rik Smits was more important to the Pacers franchise let's say from 1994 - 2000 than Dale was? I would strongly disagree with that.


If he isn't, I am. AD could be subbed in for DD without missing a beat. We had no legit sub for Rik.

Unclebuck
07-21-2005, 09:59 AM
If he isn't, I am. AD could be subbed in for DD without missing a beat. We had no legit sub for Rik.


I think DD was the backbone of that team. He set the physical tone, and he really helped offset all of Rik's weaknesses.


AD subbed for DD and not missed a beat. I can't really argue with that but Rik was in foul trouble or injured so often the Pacers needed both Davis to be the team they were.

ChicagoJ
07-21-2005, 10:04 AM
If you said 1997 - 2000, I might agree with you although I think that would be underestimating Jalen's contributions (and that *never* happens around here :rolleyes: )

But Rik was the best player on the team in the 1995 playoffs.

Its gets lost in the hoopla, because Reggie did that 8-points in 8 seconds thing that everybody remembers, but we won that series because Rik outplayed Patrick over seven games, including a phenomenal Game #1 that nobody remembers.

grace
07-21-2005, 10:09 AM
But did we really pay him enough last season for coming in and helping to save the Pacers' bacon? Dale was a big part of the push to get the team into the playoffs. Without Dale we probably are watching somebody else in the playoffs.

Does he deserve a bump for that?



Yes, we paid Dale enough last year. No, he doesn't deserve a bump because number one I'm not convinced he can play effectively for an entire season.

MagicRat
07-21-2005, 10:18 AM
Yes, we paid Dale enough last year. No, he doesn't deserve a bump because number one I'm not convinced he can play effectively for an entire season.

Number Two: You're not going to have tickets, so you can't ogle.
Number Three: Kegboy wouldn't share the binoculars even if you still had tickets.

Bball
07-21-2005, 10:52 AM
Are you suggesting that Rik Smits was more important to the Pacers franchise let's say from 1994 - 2000 than Dale was? I would strongly disagree with that.

I think Reggie and Rik were favorites of DW and either would have gotten pretty much whatever they wanted. I'm not suggesting Rik was more important than Dale from my point of view.

-Bball

grace
07-21-2005, 11:14 AM
Number Two: You're not going to have tickets, so you can't ogle.
Number Three: Kegboy wouldn't share the binoculars even if you still had tickets.

There's this thing called TV. When you add TiVo to it I can do all the ogling I want. :tongue:

Reason 12,485 why we don't have tickets for next year: the binoculars broke.

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 11:37 AM
I think DD was the backbone of that team. He set the physical tone, and he really helped offset all of Rik's weaknesses.


AD subbed for DD and not missed a beat. I can't really argue with that but Rik was in foul trouble or injured so often the Pacers needed both Davis to be the team they were.


Unclebuck, you said: "The Pacers needed both Davis to be the team they were."

They did?

I could have sworn the Pacers' best success came in 2000 with just one Davis. If you would have put Antonio Davis in Dale's place on the 2000 team, I think you get the same results. They were both bruisers, if Antonio gets Dale's minutes, I think he's just as effective.

The Pacers backbone was Reggie Miller, Rik, and Jalen in the later years. You go as far as your stars can take you. Reggie and Jalen fueled that 2000 team. IMO, all you needed was one bruiser up there. It didn't matter if it were Dale or Antonio, IMO.

Like Jay mentioned, Rik totally ouplayed Ewing in 1995. There was no replacing Rik in our runs.

But anyway, to answer Bball's original question, I'm certainly not for a thank you contract for any player. I wasn't for a "thank you contract" 2 years ago with Reggie, and I certainly don't approve of one for Dale Davis. "Thank you" contracts are a joke, IMO.

Bball
07-21-2005, 11:41 AM
I guess my question is two pronged...
A: Would -you- give Dale a 'thank you' contract of any kind?
B: Do you think -Walsh- would?

-Bball

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 11:48 AM
I guess my question is two pronged...
A: Would -you- give Dale a 'thank you' contract of any kind?
B: Do you think -Walsh- would?

-Bball


I certainly wouldn't give any player a "thank you contract." However, I have no doubt in my mind that Donnie would, because he has done it before.

Reggie's contract was a "thank you" contract, whether we want to admit it or not. No one else on the market would have paid Reggie anything close to what he got here.

I'll always wonder how loyal Reggie would have been had the Pacers offered him fair market value in 2003. I certainly think he would have tested the waters in LA, and definitely would have looked hard at playing for his buddy Byron Scott in New Jersey.

I was ticked off when Reggie made that cheapshot at Karl Malone 2 years ago. I'll always have a ton of respect for the mailman for playing as cheap as possible to allow his team to have a chance at a ring.

Reggie looked hard at New York in 1996, but after New York went with the younger Allen Houston, he certainly wasn't going to go there.

Diamond Dave
07-21-2005, 11:49 AM
What if Dale Davis is your starter for all this year? What if Harrison can't play under control, and Jeff goes back to not being able to hit layups and people figure him out like Marcus Camby?

If this is the championship year, as many of you believe that it is. Then shouldn't you pay your starting center at least half of what the rest of the starters get for one year?

:twocents:

Diamond Dave
07-21-2005, 11:55 AM
I guess my question is two pronged...
A: Would -you- give Dale a 'thank you' contract of any kind?
B: Do you think -Walsh- would?

-Bball

A: I wouldn't give him a "thank-you" contract. I would pay him fairly for the amount of help he will provide the Pacers, which in my mind is still quite a bit. Centers as a rule are paid more for less talent, as quality centers are few and far between.

B: Walsh doesn't hold that special place in his heart for Dale as he did with Rik and Reg. Dale left on less the good terms. However Donnie will recognize that we needed Dale last year and he provided, and that we will need Dale the same way this year as we did last year. So I think Donnie will pay fairly.

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 12:08 PM
What if Dale Davis is your starter for all this year? What if Harrison can't play under control, and Jeff goes back to not being able to hit layups and people figure him out like Marcus Camby?

If this is the championship year, as many of you believe that it is. Then shouldn't you pay your starting center at least half of what the rest of the starters get for one year?

:twocents:


I believe that if we win a title, it will be because of JO, Ron, Jax, and Tins, not because of Dale and Jeff.

Any playoff series we win, it will be because our core has led us there. Our team will only go as far as those guys can take us. It doesn't matter how strong Dale is playing, if JO and Ron aren't getting the job done, then the Pacers aren't going anywhere.

You can only go as far in the playoffs as your best players take you. Dale is going to play the same no matter what. It will take JO and Ron to rise to the occasion for this team to get anywhere. Dale Davis won't make the difference on us winning or losing a series.

If JO, Ron, Jax, and Tinsley play to their full potential, it doesn't matter if Dale, Jeff, or Greg Kite is your starting center.

Bball
07-21-2005, 01:03 PM
Those who believe this is the championship year(i'm not one of them) believe it is because of JO, Ron, Jax, and Tinsley.......not because of Dale or Jeff.

Any playoff series we win, it will be because our core has led us there. Our team will only go as far as those guys can take us. It doesn't matter how strong Dale is playing, if JO and Ron aren't getting the job done, then the Pacers aren't going anywhere.

You can only go as far in the playoffs as your best players take you. Dale is going to play the same no matter what. It will take JO and Ron to rise to the occasion for this team to get anywhere. Dale Davis won't make the difference on us winning or losing a series.

If JO, Ron, Jax, and Tinsley play to their full potential, it doesn't matter if Dale, Jeff, or Greg Kite is your starting center.


I disagree to a point. Your role players HAVE to be able to play their roles. JO and Artest could be monsters but if we then expect Bender or some other undersized or injury prone player to slowdown Shaq then we are in trouble.

IOW if you need a role player to be a muscleman then that is what you'll need. Artest and JO can only play two positions on the court no matter how well they play them. You can't just plug anyone into the other 3 spots (plus the bench) and think Artest and JO's play will somehow make the others 'good enough'.

It's the same thing if we know the other team is going to take away our inside scoring... Then we know we'll need someone in the role of outside sniper.

If we know we need to limit the other team's possessions then we know we need offensive rebounding... by the same token if the game is on the line and it is a game tying or winning shot then we need a player capable of getting an offensive rebound and getting the ball back out for another chance.

The rols are defined (sometimes by the situation/opponent) but not just anyone can play that role.

-Bball

beast23
07-21-2005, 01:09 PM
Those who believe this is the championship year(i'm not one of them) believe it is because of JO, Ron, Jax, and Tinsley.......not because of Dale or Jeff......

If JO, Ron, Jax, and Tinsley play to their full potential, it doesn't matter if Dale, Jeff, or Greg Kite is your starting center.Wait a minute. I'm one who believes that the Pacers will contend this season. So please don't answer for me.

I think that having Artest back is huge, as is the acquisition of Granger. But, although I don't exactly consider DD to be our "X-factor", as Rasheed was for the Pistons, without him we are lacking in the frontcourt.

With our mix, winning a championship will require "numbers" in the frontcourt, and the toughness and moxy (read that as screen-setting ability) that Dale brings is something lacking among the rest of our PFs and Cs.

I also believe that we were lacking the same thing in 2000. I stated then that giving up Antonio cost us a championship. We lacked one more big man in the frontcourt then, and without Dale, we would suffer the same thing now.

Bball
07-21-2005, 01:11 PM
Wait a minute. I'm one who believes that the Pacers will contend this season. So please don't answer for me.

I think that having Artest back is huge, as is the acquisition of Granger. But, although I don't exactly consider DD to be our "X-factor", as Rasheed was for the Pistons, without him we are lacking in the frontcourt.

With our mix, winning a championship will require "numbers" in the frontcourt, and the toughness and moxy (read that as screen-setting ability) that Dale brings is something lacking among the rest of our PFs and Cs.

I also believe that we were lacking the same thing in 2000. I stated then that giving up Antonio cost us a championship. We lacked one more big man in the frontcourt then, and without Dale, we would suffer the same thing now.


:amen:

-Bball

Suaveness
07-21-2005, 01:13 PM
Didn't Dale get money from his old team last year? So I don't think money was a problem for him last year...


I know Dale is good and all, but the man is old, and to believe that he'll last the entire year without getting tired....well, look at last year. He didn't play much most of the year and got tired late.

ChicagoJ
07-21-2005, 01:27 PM
-snip- With our mix, winning a championship will require "numbers" in the frontcourt, and the toughness and moxy (read that as screen-setting ability) that Dale brings is something lacking among the rest of our PFs and Cs.

I also believe that we were lacking the same thing in 2000. I stated then that giving up Antonio cost us a championship. We lacked one more big man in the frontcourt then, and without Dale, we would suffer the same thing now.

I agree with what you're saying. But I don't think Dale is the guy that can do what you're asking for, anymore.

beast23
07-21-2005, 01:28 PM
I don't believe that any of us that want DD back would say that we expect him to play 30-35 minutes per game. Heck, if we look at Foster's minutes through the years, he hasn't even played that number of minutes.

What I want from Dale is 20 minutes per game. The rest of the minutes can go to Foster, Harrison, et. al.

In fact, if we are playing a particularly weak opponent or have the game well in hand, then don't play Dale.

But this team will need a player like Dale winding down the season and during the playoffs.

indygeezer
07-21-2005, 01:48 PM
As I said at the party, barring injury, I expect Harrison to start by Christmas, Foster to be BU, and DD to be getting 5-8 min/game or DNP-CD (IOW..Cro minutes). Now, what do you pay someone getting Cro minutes (omitting Cro from the calculation)?

Bball
07-21-2005, 01:51 PM
As I said at the party, barring injury, I expect Harrison to start by Christmas, Foster to be BU, and DD to be getting 5-8 min/game or DNP-CD (IOW..Cro minutes). Now, what do you pay someone getting Cro minutes (omitting Cro from the calculation)?

I guess over 6 mil per year then.... since you'd be paying for more on court action than Bender gives us and he's up there in the 6-7mil range (last I looked).

-Bball ;)

ChicagoJ
07-21-2005, 01:55 PM
I don't believe that any of us that want DD back would say that we expect him to play 30-35 minutes per game. Heck, if we look at Foster's minutes through the years, he hasn't even played that number of minutes.

What I want from Dale is 20 minutes per game. The rest of the minutes can go to Foster, Harrison, et. al.

In fact, if we are playing a particularly weak opponent or have the game well in hand, then don't play Dale.

But this team will need a player like Dale winding down the season and during the playoffs.


Unless you're going to give him a few months off, that's still 1,600 minutes. I don't think he's got that kind of mileage left.

foretaz
07-21-2005, 02:01 PM
As I said at the party, barring injury, I expect Harrison to start by Christmas, Foster to be BU, and DD to be getting 5-8 min/game or DNP-CD (IOW..Cro minutes). Now, what do you pay someone getting Cro minutes (omitting Cro from the calculation)?

im in the camp where id like to see dale play no more than 10 minutes from the very start of the season...ive said id like harrison to start immediately, though i think its unlikely....

either way, dont play dale much more than 10 minutes a game for the whole season....

id like him to be fresh and able to contribute for the playoffs....where i think we would then see a bit more of him....more in the 15-20 minute range then....i think dale can be a valuable commodity in the playoffs....

how much for him????i dunno exactly....ive thought for quite some time that the pacers probably talked about giving him half of the MLE when he rejoined us last season...

if that were for 2 years i wouldnt have a major problem with that....of course, for selfish reasons id prefer to see him sign for the vet minimum....if not that, then maybe a deal for the 1mill exception (about 1.6 or so) for 3 years....with the idea he probably will only play 2, but we could do this, if we need more of the MLE to sign someone else....

and i really think this will take a while....cause i dont think he will play for the vet min...and i think the pacers would only do the 3 year deal on the 1mill exception as a last resort, considering u can only use that every other year....with players being released via amnesty as late as october, i could see them waiting to see how those players released pan out, with an understanding to dale that a deal will be worked out one way or another

Los Angeles
07-21-2005, 02:03 PM
There are so many intangibles here.

Remember, The Pacers management team, more than any other, places tremendous stock in the wishes of thier fan base. They also are deeply committed to rewarding loyalty and humility in thier players. That's why Reggie was the mold for all things Pacers: he dedicated himself to the city, he worked his butt off and he seldom - if ever - questioned authority.

As far as I'm concerned, bringing back Dale is not about minutes, production, money, or on-court needs. All those things are considerations, don't get me wrong.

I think more than anything, it's about veteran presence in the lockerroom (and on the court), fan familiarity, forgiving Dale of past transgressions and rewarding him for coming home and helping out however he can. For all I know, they like him and want him to retire a Pacer and that's all the excuse they need.

Peck
07-21-2005, 02:29 PM
Well I was going to stay out of this until the Antonio part came up.

Let me just state some facts.

During the Antonio & Dale Davis times on our team we had two coach's, both named Larry.

Both started Dale Davis every game he was available to play, barring one time Brown benched him in the first half of a game for being late to a practice & anther Bird benched him for being late to a team flight.

When Antonio gave his ultimatum to either start him or trade him Walsh went to Bird and asked him if he would start Antonio over Dale, Bird replied that he would not. This was stated in the press (both tv & paper) back during the 99 season.

Thus Antonio was granted his trade request.

Dale Davis then went on to be an all-star, the Pacers went to the finals.

These are all undisputable facts.

Now where we went wrong IMO was the fact that Rik Smits had been telling everybody for at least 2-3 years was that his feet were causing him to not be able to play. IMO, we should have benched Smits & started both Davis's.

To say we'd not miss a beat without Dale is just not the case.

Tony could do one thing better than Dale, he could shoot. That's it.

Everything else Dale did better & in some cases he did it a lot better.

Now let's look at last seasons production shall we?

Did he slow down around playoff time? I don't know. But he still set the screens that Reggie used. He still battled for tough rebounds he still defended the post.

Is he worth more than the mid-level? Probably not.

One more fact to put back into this. When he was here he started every single game even when Foster & O'Neal were back to relative decent health.

Carlisle seems to be a big fan of Dale Davis's as well.

indytoad
07-21-2005, 02:38 PM
I think someone suggested having Dale play the first six minutes of the game and the last six. I think that's a capital idea. Not too many minutes, and plenty of rest during the game so he'll be ready to go in the stretch run. I'm worried Carlisle will play Davis quite a bit more than that though - since he's the "safest" big man we have - even up until and past the point where he's completely exhausted.

IndyToad
Not your father's Minx

Bball
07-21-2005, 02:40 PM
Now where we went wrong IMO was the fact that Rik Smits had been telling everybody for at least 2-3 years was that his feet were causing him to not be able to play. IMO, we should have benched Smits & started both Davis's.



:amen:

-Bball

ChicagoJ
07-21-2005, 02:48 PM
Except that conventional wisdom - and I've had plantaar fascitis and I agree with this - was that Rik needed to play when his feet were "warm."

foretaz
07-21-2005, 02:48 PM
Well I was going to stay out of this until the Antonio part came up.

Let me just state some facts.

During the Antonio & Dale Davis times on our team we had two coach's, both named Larry.

Both started Dale Davis every game he was available to play, barring one time Brown benched him in the first half of a game for being late to a practice & anther Bird benched him for being late to a team flight.

When Antonio gave his ultimatum to either start him or trade him Walsh went to Bird and asked him if he would start Antonio over Dale, Bird replied that he would not. This was stated in the press (both tv & paper) back during the 99 season.

Thus Antonio was granted his trade request.

Dale Davis then went on to be an all-star, the Pacers went to the finals.

These are all undisputable facts.

Now where we went wrong IMO was the fact that Rik Smits had been telling everybody for at least 2-3 years was that his feet were causing him to not be able to play. IMO, we should have benched Smits & started both Davis's.

To say we'd not miss a beat without Dale is just not the case.

Tony could do one thing better than Dale, he could shoot. That's it.

Everything else Dale did better & in some cases he did it a lot better.

Now let's look at last seasons production shall we?

Did he slow down around playoff time? I don't know. But he still set the screens that Reggie used. He still battled for tough rebounds he still defended the post.

Is he worth more than the mid-level? Probably not.

One more fact to put back into this. When he was here he started every single game even when Foster & O'Neal were back to relative decent health.

Carlisle seems to be a big fan of Dale Davis's as well.

i so agree with u with regard to the rik and antonio thing....i actually was that way for some time....i wasnt the huge smits fan most were...

he was the ultimate situational player, IMO...the pacers were much more consistently dangerous with ad and dd on the floor...

but thats all yesterdays news...

we both love dale...that i have no doubt about...but two things of note....

did dale slow down around playoff time? u dont know? yes u do ;) ;)

dale worth more than the MLE...ummm...no..and thats not even the question....noone in this league, no matter how much big men are overpaid, will pay dale even remotely close to the MLE...dale might find someone to pay him about 3 mill for a couple years....the key from a money standpoint would be if they would pay him too many years....just like in mark jacksons case...if u play dale significant minutes at this point, it appears u will drain the rest of his career out of him pretty quick like...

id prefer to milk two years out of him....next year play 10 or less and the playoffs...then year 2 be the guy that gets a lot of dnpcd and plays a bit in the playoffs....

indygeezer
07-21-2005, 02:50 PM
I cannot dispute much of what you say Peck. Not with facts only perceptions. IMO there ws little if any fall off when AD came into the game. He was a bruising rebounder who could clog the middle too. One thing about DD, and I cannot remember the year, but there was a time when DD was scoring and rebounding with the best. Then right before AS balloting, he was injured and wasn't quite the same after that. The point is 1) he was scoring like an AS PF at the time 2) he would have been an AS that year barring that danged injury.

I am hopeful that I'm wrong about his minutes and that the end of the year drop-off was due to the long lay-out he had in GS. Perhaps with proper conditioning (game conditioning) his body won't give out like it appeared to do last spring. But if last spring was an indication of the future, I'd say he can give us a good 5-8 minutes per game before stretching it too much for the entire season.

And I still think Harrison starts by Christmas...maybe Thanksgiving. (Unless someone slaps him up against the side of his head)

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 05:09 PM
I disagree to a point. Your role players HAVE to be able to play their roles. JO and Artest could be monsters but if we then expect Bender or some other undersized or injury prone player to slowdown Shaq then we are in trouble.

IOW if you need a role player to be a muscleman then that is what you'll need. Artest and JO can only play two positions on the court no matter how well they play them. You can't just plug anyone into the other 3 spots (plus the bench) and think Artest and JO's play will somehow make the others 'good enough'.

It's the same thing if we know the other team is going to take away our inside scoring... Then we know we'll need someone in the role of outside sniper.

If we know we need to limit the other team's possessions then we know we need offensive rebounding... by the same token if the game is on the line and it is a game tying or winning shot then we need a player capable of getting an offensive rebound and getting the ball back out for another chance.

The rols are defined (sometimes by the situation/opponent) but not just anyone can play that role.

-Bball

I'm a firm believer that your role players shine when your superstars shine. I think Role players clearly feed off of superstars in deep playoff runs.

Look at guys like Horry and Kerr. Horry fed off of Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan....and was in positions to come through in the clutch because those guys led the team that far.

Same with Kerr playing off of MJ and Duncan

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 05:12 PM
Wait a minute. I'm one who believes that the Pacers will contend this season. So please don't answer for me.

I think that having Artest back is huge, as is the acquisition of Granger. But, although I don't exactly consider DD to be our "X-factor", as Rasheed was for the Pistons, without him we are lacking in the frontcourt.

With our mix, winning a championship will require "numbers" in the frontcourt, and the toughness and moxy (read that as screen-setting ability) that Dale brings is something lacking among the rest of our PFs and Cs.

I also believe that we were lacking the same thing in 2000. I stated then that giving up Antonio cost us a championship. We lacked one more big man in the frontcourt then, and without Dale, we would suffer the same thing now.

I apologize if I tried to "answer for you", i re-worded my post. I'm a firm believer that your team only goes as far as your stars can take you. Guys like Dale and Jeff aren't going to be useful if guys like JO and Ron can't put them in a position to make a difference in some big games.

Please, tell me how the Pacers giving up Antonio cost them a championship. Antonio Davis would not have made a difference on Shaquille O'Neal. Shaquille O'Neal was going to destroy everything in his path in his spectacular 2000 season........He certainly wasn't going to let Antonio Davis get in his way.

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 05:21 PM
Well I was going to stay out of this until the Antonio part came up.

Let me just state some facts.

During the Antonio & Dale Davis times on our team we had two coach's, both named Larry.

Both started Dale Davis every game he was available to play, barring one time Brown benched him in the first half of a game for being late to a practice & anther Bird benched him for being late to a team flight.

When Antonio gave his ultimatum to either start him or trade him Walsh went to Bird and asked him if he would start Antonio over Dale, Bird replied that he would not. This was stated in the press (both tv & paper) back during the 99 season.

Thus Antonio was granted his trade request.

Dale Davis then went on to be an all-star, the Pacers went to the finals.

These are all undisputable facts.

Now where we went wrong IMO was the fact that Rik Smits had been telling everybody for at least 2-3 years was that his feet were causing him to not be able to play. IMO, we should have benched Smits & started both Davis's.

To say we'd not miss a beat without Dale is just not the case.

Tony could do one thing better than Dale, he could shoot. That's it.

Everything else Dale did better & in some cases he did it a lot better.

Now let's look at last seasons production shall we?

Did he slow down around playoff time? I don't know. But he still set the screens that Reggie used. He still battled for tough rebounds he still defended the post.

Is he worth more than the mid-level? Probably not.

One more fact to put back into this. When he was here he started every single game even when Foster & O'Neal were back to relative decent health.

Carlisle seems to be a big fan of Dale Davis's as well.


Let me start by saying that I agree with you on how many things Dale Davis brings to the table.

But I think in 2000, the Pacers would have gone to the finals with Antonio inplace of Dale.

The point I'm trying to make is, a team is only going to go as far as its best players can take it. Dale was hugely important to the Pacers, but he couldn't "put the team on his back" and will them to a victory, that was Reggie and Jalen's job in 2000. As solid as Dale was, if Reggie and Jalen were off, Dale's contributions were going to go to waste.

Dale Davis was as solid a player in 1994, 1995, 1998, and 1999 as he was in 2000. What made the difference in the Pacers getting to the finals? 2000 was the one year that I thought that Reggie literally willed the Pacers over teams. Reggie made sure that the Pacers were getting to the finals, he was on fire. Not to mention Jalen was too.

In 1995, Reggie got 12 points in game 7 against Orlando. It didn't matter what Dale did, because with Reggie having a crappy game, the Pacers were finished.

My whole point is, I believe that if you put Antonio in place of Dale in 2000, the Pacers still get to the finals because Reggie and Jalen were on fire. No eastern team was going to stop them.

Reggie put everything on the line in those must win games of game 5 against Milwaukee(yes Dale was solid as hell down the stretch, but if Reggie doesn't have 41 points, it doesnt matter...if you put Antonio in that game, we still win)......and game 6 against New York.

Game 6 against New York was Reggie's best playoff performance ever. Buzzer beaters don't compare to taking over the fourth quarter and willing your team to the finals.

foretaz
07-21-2005, 05:25 PM
i think the difference maker enabling the pacers to finally get to the finals was bender.... :D :-o :D :D :-o

Peck
07-21-2005, 07:37 PM
Let me start by saying that I agree with you on how many things Dale Davis brings to the table.

But I think in 2000, the Pacers would have gone to the finals with Antonio inplace of Dale.

The point I'm trying to make is, a team is only going to go as far as its best players can take it. Dale was hugely important to the Pacers, but he couldn't "put the team on his back" and will them to a victory, that was Reggie and Jalen's job in 2000. As solid as Dale was, if Reggie and Jalen were off, Dale's contributions were going to go to waste.

Dale Davis was as solid a player in 1994, 1995, 1998, and 1999 as he was in 2000. What made the difference in the Pacers getting to the finals? 2000 was the one year that I thought that Reggie literally willed the Pacers over teams. Reggie made sure that the Pacers were getting to the finals, he was on fire. Not to mention Jalen was too.

In 1995, Reggie got 12 points in game 7 against Orlando. It didn't matter what Dale did, because with Reggie having a crappy game, the Pacers were finished.

My whole point is, I believe that if you put Antonio in place of Dale in 2000, the Pacers still get to the finals because Reggie and Jalen were on fire. No eastern team was going to stop them.

Reggie put everything on the line in those must win games of game 5 against Milwaukee(yes Dale was solid as hell down the stretch, but if Reggie doesn't have 41 points, it doesnt matter...if you put Antonio in that game, we still win)......and game 6 against New York.

Game 6 against New York was Reggie's best playoff performance ever. Buzzer beaters don't compare to taking over the fourth quarter and willing your team to the finals.

If scoring was all that mattered then your post would be 100% correct.

Go with me now, down the fond trail of memorys, harken back to a time right after the Pacers eliminated the Bucks from the playoffs. Come to the post game press conferance with George Karl.

Coach why did you lose the series, asked the reporter from the Milwaukee newspaper.

Dale Davis, replied Coach Karl. But what about Reggie Millers 41 points, asked the reporter from WTHR. Yes that was huge but we had no one who could match Davis on the inside and he just dominated us the entire series, replied Karl.

So while we should never discount the contributions of Reggie in that series & he was huge, Dale also had an equal role in taking them out of the series.

Defense will win a game just as well as offense, some of us beleive that you can't win without a good defense. Rebounding was also key.

To say that Dale Davis wouldn't have mattered vs. Antonio Davis is just wrong, IMO. But it's not my opinion alone, it's also the opinion of Bird & Walsh who traded Tony away & kept Dale.

Tony is not nearly the defender that Dale is. He's not the rebounder Dale is. He's not the shot blocker Dale is. He is a better scorer than Dale is though.

NOw to your theory that role players only shine because of the stars. Let's just say I disagree.

You use Horry & Kerr as examples. They are good examples of role players because they can do their jobs & they do them so well that the stars don't have to worry about them doing their part to win.

Replace the name Robert Horry with Maurice Taylor & replace the name Steve Kerr with Jamison Brewer & tell me that you get the same results.

I will now once again use one of Fortaz's favorite sayings here, because it applies to this almost more than anything.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. So no matter how good Michael Jordan was if he didn't have the talent around him he wasn't going to win, same for Shaq, LeBron, Jermaine or whoever.

Never discount the importance of players who can contribute.

A role player has become somewhat of a dirty word & truth be told it's not even an accurately used word in these cases.

Role players have become known for tough defense & rebounding ala Dale Davis, P.J. Brown, etc.

But truth be told Reggie Miller was a role player, Rip Hamilton is a role player. They only excell at one role as well & that is to shoot. Neither is a defensive stopper & neither will every be confused with Magic Johnson when it comes to passing.

Give Reggie his 41 but let the Bucks big men dominate the boards or the post area & you can take his 41 & throw it out the window.

Defensive players are just as important as offensive players.

Bball
07-21-2005, 07:48 PM
Lots of good comments in this thread and we've now veered from the original question but that is OK.

I agree with most if not everything that Peck has said. I don't know that I could unequivocably state that replacing Dale with Antonio would've hurt us badly but I wouldn't have wanted to find out. Replacing Rik and letting both AD and DD start together would've been just fine by me. In the end what we did was GIVE Antonio away. Great trade getting the 5th pick in the draft for him... awful pick tho (and for a lot of reasons besides the fact Bender has been a bust).

I especially liked Peck's comments about 'role' players.

Beast23 seems to be close in thoughts to mine.

This whole thread has given me an idea for another question and I might ask it later tonight.

-Bball

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 08:01 PM
If scoring was all that mattered then your post would be 100% correct.

Go with me now, down the fond trail of memorys, harken back to a time right after the Pacers eliminated the Bucks from the playoffs. Come to the post game press conferance with George Karl.

Coach why did you lose the series, asked the reporter from the Milwaukee newspaper.

Dale Davis, replied Coach Karl. But what about Reggie Millers 41 points, asked the reporter from WTHR. Yes that was huge but we had no one who could match Davis on the inside and he just dominated us the entire series, replied Karl.

So while we should never discount the contributions of Reggie in that series & he was huge, Dale also had an equal role in taking them out of the series.

Defense will win a game just as well as offense, some of us beleive that you can't win without a good defense. Rebounding was also key.

To say that Dale Davis wouldn't have mattered vs. Antonio Davis is just wrong, IMO. But it's not my opinion alone, it's also the opinion of Bird & Walsh who traded Tony away & kept Dale.

Tony is not nearly the defender that Dale is. He's not the rebounder Dale is. He's not the shot blocker Dale is. He is a better scorer than Dale is though.

NOw to your theory that role players only shine because of the stars. Let's just say I disagree.

You use Horry & Kerr as examples. They are good examples of role players because they can do their jobs & they do them so well that the stars don't have to worry about them doing their part to win.

Replace the name Robert Horry with Maurice Taylor & replace the name Steve Kerr with Jamison Brewer & tell me that you get the same results.

I will now once again use one of Fortaz's favorite sayings here, because it applies to this almost more than anything.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. So no matter how good Michael Jordan was if he didn't have the talent around him he wasn't going to win, same for Shaq, LeBron, Jermaine or whoever.

Never discount the importance of players who can contribute.

A role player has become somewhat of a dirty word & truth be told it's not even an accurately used word in these cases.

Role players have become known for tough defense & rebounding ala Dale Davis, P.J. Brown, etc.

But truth be told Reggie Miller was a role player, Rip Hamilton is a role player. They only excell at one role as well & that is to shoot. Neither is a defensive stopper & neither will every be confused with Magic Johnson when it comes to passing.

Give Reggie his 41 but let the Bucks big men dominate the boards or the post area & you can take his 41 & throw it out the window.

Defensive players are just as important as offensive players.


I'm not discounting the importance of Dale Davis at all, and I certainly agree that Bob Horry is better than Mo Taylor, and Steve Kerr better than Jamison Brewer.

Robert Horry would not be the name it is today if he didn't play with Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan. If Horry had played for say, the Hawks his entire career, his name is just a footnote. Same for Steve Kerr. If Kerr is on a garbage team, he's never in the position to hit huge shots that make a name for him.

You have to have a major offensive contributor to win in the playoffs. If you can play defense and rebound, but can't put up points, you aren't going to win.

In crunch time in the playoffs, I believe that offensive is easily the most important thing. If the Pacers did not have Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose's ability to outscore teams so greatly in the 2000 playoffs, it doesn't matter how great Dale's Defense and Rebounding are.

You can counter that by saying that if there isn't the defense and rebounding presence of Dale Davis, then Reggie and Jalen can't take the team anywhere. Let me just say, I think they had a better chance of winning a game with fabulous scoring from Reggie and Jalen and a lack of rebounding and defense than vice versa.

There's the saying that "defense wins championships", I just don't buy into it. You have to have special players that can outscore teams. Does anyone think that the 2000-2002 Lakers were that great of defensive teams? No way. Sacramento didn't really have much trouble scoring on the Lakers. The Lakers found a way to outdo them on the offensive end of the court, and that's why they won the series. I believe that if you have spectacular offense and decent defense you'll have a great shot.

Peck, you said "But it's not my opinion alone, it's also the opinion of Bird and Walsh who traded Tony away and kept Dale"

Walsh traded Tony away because he pretty much demanded he be traded.

And if by "Kept Dale", you meant by keeping him around 1 more year before trading him for an unproven 22 year old, then yes, they did keep him.

Look, I love what Dale Davis brings to the table. He's the best bruiser you could ask for on a team. I just don't believe that the Pacers would have been damned without him in 2000. All the Pacers needed was a player that fit the mode of Dale, combined with the brilliance of Rose, and especially Miller.....and they'd have gone to the finals.

foretaz
07-21-2005, 08:37 PM
I'm not discounting the importance of Dale Davis at all, and I certainly agree that Bob Horry is better than Mo Taylor, and Steve Kerr better than Jamison Brewer.

Robert Horry would not be the name it is today if he didn't play with Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan. If Horry had played for say, the Hawks his entire career, his name is just a footnote. Same for Steve Kerr. If Kerr is on a garbage team, he's never in the position to hit huge shots that make a name for him.

You have to have a major offensive contributor to win in the playoffs. If you can play defense and rebound, but can't put up points, you aren't going to win.

In crunch time in the playoffs, I believe that offensive is easily the most important thing. If the Pacers did not have Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose's ability to outscore teams so greatly in the 2000 playoffs, it doesn't matter how great Dale's Defense and Rebounding are.

You can counter that by saying that if there isn't the defense and rebounding presence of Dale Davis, then Reggie and Jalen can't take the team anywhere. Let me just say, I think they had a better chance of winning a game with fabulous scoring from Reggie and Jalen and a lack of rebounding and defense than vice versa.

There's the saying that "defense wins championships", I just don't buy into it. You have to have special players that can outscore teams. Does anyone think that the 2000-2002 Lakers were that great of defensive teams? No way. Sacramento didn't really have much trouble scoring on the Lakers. The Lakers found a way to outdo them on the offensive end of the court, and that's why they won the series. I believe that if you have spectacular offense and decent defense you'll have a great shot.

Peck, you said "But it's not my opinion alone, it's also the opinion of Bird and Walsh who traded Tony away and kept Dale"

Walsh traded Tony away because he pretty much demanded he be traded.

And if by "Kept Dale", you meant by keeping him around 1 more year before trading him for an unproven 22 year old, then yes, they did keep him.

Look, I love what Dale Davis brings to the table. He's the best bruiser you could ask for on a team. I just don't believe that the Pacers would have been damned without him in 2000. All the Pacers needed was a player that fit the mode of Dale, combined with the brilliance of Rose, and especially Miller.....and they'd have gone to the finals.

we ultimately lost the 2000 finals because of our defense....not our offense....

we simply were unable to stop or control the lakers, most notably shaq with kobe being a close second...

that offense the pacers had was about as good as it gets from something resembling a set offense....

when u take a look at the perimeter shooting that was available there were just too many weapons....

despite that great offense, we still lost... because we werent good enuff defensively....

Bball
07-21-2005, 08:43 PM
Offense vs Defense. Defense should be a constant. With offense you must battle yourself and the other team's defense. Even if the other team doesn't stop you somebody on the team will miss some shots.

There is a reason the saying "Offense fills the seats, defense wins championships" exists and that is because it is true.

Until a team shoots 100% for the game... and averages something close to that for the season... I will believe defense is what wins championships. A good offense doesn't hurt, but that alone won't win it.

-Bball

Peck
07-21-2005, 09:04 PM
I'm not discounting the importance of Dale Davis at all, and I certainly agree that Bob Horry is better than Mo Taylor, and Steve Kerr better than Jamison Brewer.

Robert Horry would not be the name it is today if he didn't play with Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan. If Horry had played for say, the Hawks his entire career, his name is just a footnote. Same for Steve Kerr. If Kerr is on a garbage team, he's never in the position to hit huge shots that make a name for him.

You have to have a major offensive contributor to win in the playoffs. If you can play defense and rebound, but can't put up points, you aren't going to win.

In crunch time in the playoffs, I believe that offensive is easily the most important thing. If the Pacers did not have Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose's ability to outscore teams so greatly in the 2000 playoffs, it doesn't matter how great Dale's Defense and Rebounding are.

You can counter that by saying that if there isn't the defense and rebounding presence of Dale Davis, then Reggie and Jalen can't take the team anywhere. Let me just say, I think they had a better chance of winning a game with fabulous scoring from Reggie and Jalen and a lack of rebounding and defense than vice versa.

There's the saying that "defense wins championships", I just don't buy into it. You have to have special players that can outscore teams. Does anyone think that the 2000-2002 Lakers were that great of defensive teams? No way. Sacramento didn't really have much trouble scoring on the Lakers. The Lakers found a way to outdo them on the offensive end of the court, and that's why they won the series. I believe that if you have spectacular offense and decent defense you'll have a great shot.

Peck, you said "But it's not my opinion alone, it's also the opinion of Bird and Walsh who traded Tony away and kept Dale"

Walsh traded Tony away because he pretty much demanded he be traded.

And if by "Kept Dale", you meant by keeping him around 1 more year before trading him for an unproven 22 year old, then yes, they did keep him.

Look, I love what Dale Davis brings to the table. He's the best bruiser you could ask for on a team. I just don't believe that the Pacers would have been damned without him in 2000. All the Pacers needed was a player that fit the mode of Dale, combined with the brilliance of Rose, and especially Miller.....and they'd have gone to the finals.

But if Horry played on Houston would Hakeem been nothing more than a Nate Thurmond or a Pat Ewing? In other words a great center who never had a title?

I think you are putting to much onus on one player & on offense.

Domonique Wilkins was a scorer like no other, so was George Gervin, but neither has a title & neither ever competed for a title. That's because neither ever had the team around them to contend. It can also be argued that they weren't good enough to make other better & I won't argue against that.

Now back to Dale specifically.

Remember Travis hitting that last second shot vs. the Buck to win the game? You wanna guess how he got that shot off? Yes it was a pass from Jalen but Jalen got that ball from Dale Davis who rebounded an offensive shot.

Dale doesn't get that rebound, Jalen never passes to Travis & we lose that game. Big time offensive rebound are not an accident with Dale. Think to just this year alone.

Remember Jax nailing that three vs. Miami to tie the game? Well he got that pass from Austin Croshere who got the ball from Dale who once again had gotten an offensive rebound (this time over Shaq).

As to Tony demanding a trade? Yes, in part. If you will recall he demanded to either start or a trade. The Pacers would not start Antonio over Dale so Tony was granted his request.

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 09:20 PM
Offense vs Defense. Defense should be a constant. With offense you must battle yourself and the other team's defense. Even if the other team doesn't stop you somebody on the team will miss some shots.

There is a reason the saying "Offense fills the seats, defense wins championships" exists and that is because it is true.

Until a team shoots 100% for the game... and averages something close to that for the season... I will believe defense is what wins championships. A good offense doesn't hurt, but that alone won't win it.

-Bball


I can counter that by saying that until a team holds another team to 0 points in a game, and opponents average 10-20 against them for a season, I'll believe it's offense that wins championships.

Look, I'm not going to argue that you have to have a strong defense. If you have a poor defense, you probably won't win it all. But if you have a spectacular offense and an average defense(like the Lakers), you stand a great chance to win the title.

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 09:23 PM
But if Horry played on Houston would Hakeem been nothing more than a Nate Thurmond or a Pat Ewing? In other words a great center who never had a title?

I think you are putting to much onus on one player & on offense.

Domonique Wilkins was a scorer like no other, so was George Gervin, but neither has a title & neither ever competed for a title. That's because neither ever had the team around them to contend. It can also be argued that they weren't good enough to make other better & I won't argue against that.

Now back to Dale specifically.

Remember Travis hitting that last second shot vs. the Buck to win the game? You wanna guess how he got that shot off? Yes it was a pass from Jalen but Jalen got that ball from Dale Davis who rebounded an offensive shot.

Dale doesn't get that rebound, Jalen never passes to Travis & we lose that game. Big time offensive rebound are not an accident with Dale. Think to just this year alone.

Remember Jax nailing that three vs. Miami to tie the game? Well he got that pass from Austin Croshere who got the ball from Dale who once again had gotten an offensive rebound (this time over Shaq).

As to Tony demanding a trade? Yes, in part. If you will recall he demanded to either start or a trade. The Pacers would not start Antonio over Dale so Tony was granted his request.

Obviously it's a team game and no player can win it all alone.

I just believe that role players feed off of great players. I agree with you 100% that great role players are a must in advancing deep into the playoffs. I just believe that great role players feed off of superstars. If superstars don't max out to their potential, the role players aren't in situations to shine.

I know how important Dale was in 2000. I'm not debating that. But if Reggie Miller doesn't have a spectacular game in game 5, there is no clutch situation where Dale has to grab a big board down the stretch. The Bucks easily win the game if Reggie Miller doesn't show up that night.

Bball
07-21-2005, 11:20 PM
I can counter that by saying that until a team holds another team to 0 points in a game, and opponents average 10-20 against them for a season, I'll believe it's offense that wins championships.

Look, I'm not going to argue that you have to have a strong defense. If you have a poor defense, you probably won't win it all. But if you have a spectacular offense and an average defense(like the Lakers), you stand a great chance to win the title.

It's hard to really discuss this and make much ground because it's hard to define the terms we're working off of. I don't think (my idea of an) average defense will win a championship.... but then you start off the paragraph saying you have to have a strong defense. And my idea of a strong defense is exactly what you need. I don't think you necessarily need the best defense or the strongest but I'm not sure an average defense will get it done.

I think you might be selling the Lakers defense a little short. ...And I don't remember their offense being 'spectacular'.... just efficient (are we talking 2000 Lakers? That is what I thought we were talking about).

Your offense might set the bar but somebody will figure out how to stop it or slow it down. ...And if you don't have defense to fall back on... you lose.

-Bball

Sollozzo
07-21-2005, 11:52 PM
It's hard to really discuss this and make much ground because it's hard to define the terms we're working off of. I don't think (my idea of an) average defense will win a championship.... but then you start off the paragraph saying you have to have a strong defense. And my idea of a strong defense is exactly what you need. I don't think you necessarily need the best defense or the strongest but I'm not sure an average defense will get it done.

I think you might be selling the Lakers defense a little short. ...And I don't remember their offense being 'spectacular'.... just efficient (are we talking 2000 Lakers? That is what I thought we were talking about).

Your offense might set the bar but somebody will figure out how to stop it or slow it down. ...And if you don't have defense to fall back on... you lose.

-Bball

I don't have much time right now, but the Lakers offense was extremely spectacular. Shaquille O'Neal was a dominating force that no team could stop for 3 years. He destroyed teams, averaged 38 or so against us, 33 against Philly, and 36 against New Jersey.

Kobe could score at will too, as we all found out.

For 3 years, it was the best offense in the league when it was crunch time. They won because of that offense.

Bball
07-22-2005, 12:05 AM
I don't have much time right now, but the Lakers offense was extremely spectacular. Shaquille O'Neal was a dominating force that no team could stop for 3 years. He destroyed teams, averaged 38 or so against us, 33 against Philly, and 36 against New Jersey.

Kobe could score at will too, as we all found out.

For 3 years, it was the best offense in the league when it was crunch time. They won because of that offense.

Again, I think we're just talking a matter of definitions...
I don't think the 2000 Lakers' offense that they ran was 'spectacular' (by my definition) but I don't argue that Shaq was spectacular and Kobe was very good as well. So, individually, they had some very good play.

But the Pistons beat them... and did it with defense. And Shaq still scored bundles. The Pistons just decided that Shaq couldn't beat them by himself and focused elsewhere.

-Bball

Hicks
07-22-2005, 12:07 AM
True, and Detroit did it the way you should, but Shaq 2000 >> Shaq 2004. The D on Kobe was beautiful, though.

Suaveness
07-22-2005, 12:11 AM
True, and Detroit did it the way you should, but Shaq 2000 >> Shaq 2004. The D on Kobe was beautiful, though.

Hicks 007??

:bond:



And we just got so unlucky with Shaq and Kobe being the best that they've ever played in a finals series IMO.

Sollozzo
07-22-2005, 12:29 AM
Hicks 007??

:bond:



And we just got so unlucky with Shaq and Kobe being the best that they've ever played in a finals series IMO.


Well, they swept the Nets in 2002 with ease..........But it's pretty easy to argue that we were a stronger team in 2000 than the Nets were in 2002.

Peck
07-22-2005, 12:41 AM
Obviously it's a team game and no player can win it all alone.

I just believe that role players feed off of great players. I agree with you 100% that great role players are a must in advancing deep into the playoffs. I just believe that great role players feed off of superstars. If superstars don't max out to their potential, the role players aren't in situations to shine.

I know how important Dale was in 2000. I'm not debating that. But if Reggie Miller doesn't have a spectacular game in game 5, there is no clutch situation where Dale has to grab a big board down the stretch. The Bucks easily win the game if Reggie Miller doesn't show up that night.


I think that we need to define what a role player is.

You see, I considered Reggie Miller a role player (gasp!!!) & I don't mean that as a disparaging remark towards Reggie.

But to me Reggie only had one role to fill, shoot.

He was decent at defense, he was horrid at rebounding & he was only ok as a passer.

So to me he only served one role, scoring. Now you may consider that to be a great role, maybe even the most important role. But to me it's still just a role.

Jordan (I'll use him because he is an extreme example) could do it all. Shaq was a multi-purpose player as well. Let's not forget that not only was he scoring 38 ppg vs. us he was grabbing almost 20 rbg & blocking a crap load of shots.

So do you consider Reggie a role player or not?

If he is, then why is he more important than Dale on those teams when Dale was leading the team in rebounding, shot blocking & defense?

Before anybody blows a gasket here I'm not trying to claim Dale was more important than Reggie, but I am saying he was just as important.

Shack80
07-22-2005, 12:49 AM
If we can get dale for a deal that is not out of this world we need him, if not for his playing time and talent, then for his veteran preseance. Having lost Reggie I think we need some one like him to guide the younger players through the season.

Sollozzo
07-22-2005, 01:01 AM
I think that we need to define what a role player is.

You see, I considered Reggie Miller a role player (gasp!!!) & I don't mean that as a disparaging remark towards Reggie.

But to me Reggie only had one role to fill, shoot.

He was decent at defense, he was horrid at rebounding & he was only ok as a passer.

So to me he only served one role, scoring. Now you may consider that to be a great role, maybe even the most important role. But to me it's still just a role.

Jordan (I'll use him because he is an extreme example) could do it all. Shaq was a multi-purpose player as well. Let's not forget that not only was he scoring 38 ppg vs. us he was grabbing almost 20 rbg & blocking a crap load of shots.

So do you consider Reggie a role player or not?

If he is, then why is he more important than Dale on those teams when Dale was leading the team in rebounding, shot blocking & defense?

Before anybody blows a gasket here I'm not trying to claim Dale was more important than Reggie, but I am saying he was just as important.

He was more important, IMO for one simple reason, he was able to will the team to victory on the offensive in. Dale's rebounds and blocks don't matter against Milwaukee if Reggie doesn't go off for 41.

As important as Dale's rebounding, shot blocking, and defense were, they're useless if Reggie doesnt explode for the team. The Pacers needed them both, but I'd wager that the Pacers had a better chance of winning a game if Reggie was on fire and Dale was off, then vice versa.

Maybe your definition of Reggie as a role player is correct, I've never really given it much thought.....but how many other "role players" could take over games like that.

Dale was going to be a bruiser each and every night, win or lose. But Reggie was the difference maker. If Reggie scores 12 points in a must win playoff game like he did in game 7 against Orlando in 1995, the Pacers dont have a shot at winning the game. It doesn't matter how many rebounds or blocks Dale gets.

Reggie going off like he did against Milwaukee and New York, that's what made the difference. Of course Dale was a huge part in winning, but the whole point I was trying to make was that if Reggie isn't willing the Pacers to victory offensively, it doesnt matter if Dale is getting 35 rebounds and 15 blocks.

So, I disagree with you when you say they were equally important. Without Reggie going off, the team doesnt have a prayer. If Reggie is going off, and you have another bruiser in place of Dale, I still think you get the same result.

Bball
07-22-2005, 01:24 AM
If Reggie scores 12 points in a must win playoff game like he did in game 7 against Orlando in 1995, the Pacers dont have a shot at winning the game. It doesn't matter how many rebounds or blocks Dale gets.
.

Did Orlando's defense have anything to do with Reggie only getting 12 points?

-Bball

Sollozzo
07-22-2005, 01:30 AM
Did Orlando's defense have anything to do with Reggie only getting 12 points?

-Bball

According to Reggie in his book, Orlando "had a guy on him" everywhere he went.

Reggie was able to score that entire season, but in game 7 he wasn't able to.

Orlando led the league in scoring in 1994-1995, and went to the finals. They were just an average defensive team. They jumped out on teams early and killed them on the offensive end with their deadly shooters in Anderson and Scott.....an awesome Penny Hardaway, and a Young Shaq that killed teams.

SycamoreKen
07-22-2005, 01:42 AM
I would hope they are able to sign Dale for a resonable contract and let him finish his run here. I also hope they give him the Horry treatment during the regular season in that he plays sparringly and is freash for the playoffs.

foretaz
07-22-2005, 02:19 AM
According to Reggie in his book, Orlando "had a guy on him" everywhere he went.

Reggie was able to score that entire season, but in game 7 he wasn't able to.

Orlando led the league in scoring in 1994-1995, and went to the finals. They were just an average defensive team. They jumped out on teams early and killed them on the offensive end with their deadly shooters in Anderson and Scott.....an awesome Penny Hardaway, and a Young Shaq that killed teams.

so with this number 1 offense they played the pacers even thru the first 6 games and only when they stepped up their defense by 'having a guy on reggie everywhere he went' did they win the series....and win very convincingly i might add....

Bball
07-22-2005, 02:32 AM
so with this number 1 offense they played the pacers even thru the first 6 games and only when they stepped up their defense by 'having a guy on reggie everywhere he went' did they win the series....and win very convincingly i might add....

And then went on to win the NBA Championship.... errrrr wait.... nevermind...

-Bball

Peck
07-22-2005, 02:46 AM
He was more important, IMO for one simple reason, he was able to will the team to victory on the offensive in. Dale's rebounds and blocks don't matter against Milwaukee if Reggie doesn't go off for 41.

As important as Dale's rebounding, shot blocking, and defense were, they're useless if Reggie doesnt explode for the team. The Pacers needed them both, but I'd wager that the Pacers had a better chance of winning a game if Reggie was on fire and Dale was off, then vice versa.

Maybe your definition of Reggie as a role player is correct, I've never really given it much thought.....but how many other "role players" could take over games like that.

Dale was going to be a bruiser each and every night, win or lose. But Reggie was the difference maker. If Reggie scores 12 points in a must win playoff game like he did in game 7 against Orlando in 1995, the Pacers dont have a shot at winning the game. It doesn't matter how many rebounds or blocks Dale gets.

Reggie going off like he did against Milwaukee and New York, that's what made the difference. Of course Dale was a huge part in winning, but the whole point I was trying to make was that if Reggie isn't willing the Pacers to victory offensively, it doesnt matter if Dale is getting 35 rebounds and 15 blocks.

So, I disagree with you when you say they were equally important. Without Reggie going off, the team doesnt have a prayer. If Reggie is going off, and you have another bruiser in place of Dale, I still think you get the same result.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree but I'll leave it at this. Dale Davis doesn't get that last min. offensive rebound over Thomas & Johnson then Reggie's 41 point performance would have just been a career high in a losing game.

Also there may never have been more of a duo that needed each other than Dale & Reggie. Reggie was not Jordan, he for the most part could not create his own shot. But once he'd come off of a Dale screen then it was bombs away.

On a side note, do you have any idea how hard it is for me to type about Reggie in the past tense? I've had to go back several times & make sure I'm speaking of him as a former player & not a current one. Damn that feels funny.

Unclebuck
07-22-2005, 09:24 AM
Let's discuss the 1994 and the 1995 Pacers teams. But in order to do so you have to go back and look at the previous few seasons. Reggie was on the team and so was Rik abd they were a .500 team that never won a playoff series. What changed in 1994. New coach, Larry Brown, new players, AD, Workman, Byron Scott, and McKey.

How did the team go from a .500 team to a 50 win team that got to the ECF game 7 two years in a row. Reggie and Rik got better as they were entering their primes. But if the other changes weren't made, the team would have stayed a .500 team.

If you ask me it was the combination of everything. But one thing I know for sure without the tough defensive approach that Larry Brown brought along with DD, AD and McKey, that team would have stayed a .500 team.

Having said all this, I've said many times over the years without Reggie the pacers never would have won a playoff series.

Sollozzo
07-22-2005, 11:04 AM
Let's discuss the 1994 and the 1995 Pacers teams. But in order to do so you have to go back and look at the previous few seasons. Reggie was on the team and so was Rik abd they were a .500 team that never won a playoff series. What changed in 1994. New coach, Larry Brown, new players, AD, Workman, Byron Scott, and McKey.

How did the team go from a .500 team to a 50 win team that got to the ECF game 7 two years in a row. Reggie and Rik got better as they were entering their primes. But if the other changes weren't made, the team would have stayed a .500 team.

If you ask me it was the combination of everything. But one thing I know for sure without the tough defensive approach that Larry Brown brought along with DD, AD and McKey, that team would have stayed a .500 team.

Having said all this, I've said many times over the years without eggie the pacers never would have won a playoff series.


I agree. You have to have a strong defense, but I believe that you have to have agreat offense to put you over the top in close playoff games.

Sollozzo
07-22-2005, 11:07 AM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree but I'll leave it at this. Dale Davis doesn't get that last min. offensive rebound over Thomas & Johnson then Reggie's 41 point performance would have just been a career high in a losing game.

Also there may never have been more of a duo that needed each other than Dale & Reggie. Reggie was not Jordan, he for the most part could not create his own shot. But once he'd come off of a Dale screen then it was bombs away.

On a side note, do you have any idea how hard it is for me to type about Reggie in the past tense? I've had to go back several times & make sure I'm speaking of him as a former player & not a current one. Damn that feels funny.


A single rebound isn't spectacular as a 41 point performance over a game. There are other players that can get you a rebound in a situation like that, but how many players can take over a game like Reggie did in game 5?

I'm not discounting the performance of Dale Davis whatsoever. But if Reggie doesn't go out and light the Bucks up that game, there is no rebound for Dale to get in crunch time, because Milwaukee easily wins the game.

Dale was put in the situation to grab a board like that because Reggie dominated the entire game. I don't think you can equate the 2.

Diamond Dave
07-22-2005, 11:10 AM
I agree. You have to have a strong defense, but I believe that you have to have agreat offense to put you over the top in close playoff games.

Well I'll certainly agree with that. Unlike in the NFL, you have to be able to score in the NBA. That was our problem last year. We would always have 5 minute droughts with no scoring.

Thats why you need people who can create their own shot. Jackson is the only one on this team who can do it consistently. Everyone is now trying to say that Artest was great at that, but I disagree. I remember him lumbering into the land and shooting from the hip alot, but thats about it. Like most of our players he got many of his points off of good screens for jumpers, offensive rebounds, and good ball movement.

Thats why if we are needing more scoring this year I'm in favor of trading Ron for Paul Pierce. However if we are not suffering these scoring droughts, then I'll be fine with Ron.

Unclebuck
07-22-2005, 11:14 AM
Sure you need a strong offense, but the Pacers teams of 1991 through 1993 were better offensive teams than in 1994. Well 1993 after MW and Chuck had been traded the offense was not quite as good.

Diamond Dave
07-22-2005, 11:14 AM
A single rebound isn't spectacular as a 41 point performance over a game. There are other players that can get you a rebound in a situation like that, but how many players can take over a game like Reggie did in game 5?

I'm not discounting the performance of Dale Davis whatsoever. But if Reggie doesn't go out and light the Bucks up that game, there is no rebound for Dale to get in crunch time, because Milwaukee easily wins the game.

Dale was put in the situation to grab a board like that because Reggie dominated the entire game. I don't think you can equate the 2.

Its a chicken and the egg problem. Dale's rebound would have been useless had Reggie not scored 41, but Reggie's points would have been useless had Dale not come up with the rebound.

And there are not a whole lot of players who can consistently come up with the clutch rebounds that Dale does. If the Pacers absolutely need a rebound, chances are that Dale's gonna go get it.

Diamond Dave
07-22-2005, 11:18 AM
Sure you need a strong offense, but the Pacers teams of 1991 through 1993 were better offensive teams than in 1994. Well 1993 after MW and Chuck had been traded the offense was not quite as good.

Well obviously this year proved you need balance. SA has great balance. Phoenix does not. And IMO we are weighted more on the defensive side, and I'd like to see us do one more adjustment towards offense to balance out.

Unclebuck
07-22-2005, 11:35 AM
I agree we need great balance, and that is just one reason why Artest is so valuable.

Sollozzo
07-22-2005, 11:40 AM
I agree we need great balance, and that is just one reason why Artest is so valuable.


I agree 100%.

My only problems with Artest have been worrying about him doing something stupid that will hurt the team.

On the court, he's the perfect player.

Sollozzo
07-22-2005, 11:42 AM
On a side note, do you have any idea how hard it is for me to type about Reggie in the past tense? I've had to go back several times & make sure I'm speaking of him as a former player & not a current one. Damn that feels funny.


Yeah, no kidding.

I was born in the summer of 1987, when Reggie was drafted. I have never been alive in a season where Reggie didn't play for the Pacers, so I don't have a clue to what it will be like to watch a game without Reggie.

ChicagoJ
07-22-2005, 12:55 PM
Sure you need a strong offense, but the Pacers teams of 1991 through 1993 were better offensive teams than in 1994. Well 1993 after MW and Chuck had been traded the offense was not quite as good.

And Larry Brown, the great defensive coach that he is, once said, had that trade not been made, and the Pacers used Micheal Williams to make the Mark Jackson trade "work", that the Pacers might've had enough firepower to get past the Knicks, Magic, and Rockets.

IOW, our teams under Larry Brown weren't going to win for the exact same reason our teams under Bo Hill weren't going to win: they weren't well balanced. Great defense with bad offense will get you a little further in the playoffs than great offense with okay defense. But neither case will get you a championship.

What was the biggest difference, BTW, between the 1993-1995 teams, and the teams that immediately preceeded it? It wasn't coaching. Yes, Brown was an upgrade, but not as much as some of you make it out to be. It was Byron Scott, and his leadership (and three rings.)

Unclebuck
07-22-2005, 01:46 PM
What was the biggest difference, BTW, between the 1993-1995 teams, and the teams that immediately preceeded it? It wasn't coaching. Yes, Brown was an upgrade, but not as much as some of you make it out to be. It was Byron Scott, and his leadership (and three rings.)


If I had to make a ranking of what took the team from a .500 team to an ECF team. (I'm only considering new players or coach) Here it is, I really didn't want to do this.

1) Larry Brown
2) Derrick McKey
3) Antonio Davis
4) Byron Scott
5) Workman

Peck
07-22-2005, 01:54 PM
If I had to make a ranking of what took the team from a .500 team to an ECF team. (I'm only considering new players or coach) Here it is, I really didn't want to do this.

1) Larry Brown
2) Derrick McKey
3) Antonio Davis
4) Byron Scott
5) Workman


Wow, I want to disagree with you on where Workman fits into this but I am having a hard time justifying it.

I'm going to put Woody above Byron only because we had a winning record when he joined the club & Haywood was the starter for our team.

I can't even deny Satan's role in the 94 season.

Bball
07-22-2005, 01:59 PM
Wow, I want to disagree with you on where Workman fits into this but I am having a hard time justifying it.

I'm going to put Woody above Byron only because we had a winning record when he joined the club & Haywood was the starter for our team.

I can't even deny Satan's role in the 94 season.

Anybody willing to entertain the thought that besides the coaching just the fact there was a major lineup shakeup helped shake loose the team regardless of whether we'd gotten McKey or another player? Not saying I agree with that, just throwing it out there because I've said I am a believer in trading just to make trades in some cases (because it energizes the fanbase and also can keep things from getting stale).

-Bball

Peck
07-22-2005, 02:17 PM
And Larry Brown, the great defensive coach that he is, once said, had that trade not been made, and the Pacers used Micheal Williams to make the Mark Jackson trade "work", that the Pacers might've had enough firepower to get past the Knicks, Magic, and Rockets.

IOW, our teams under Larry Brown weren't going to win for the exact same reason our teams under Bo Hill weren't going to win: they weren't well balanced. Great defense with bad offense will get you a little further in the playoffs than great offense with okay defense. But neither case will get you a championship.

What was the biggest difference, BTW, between the 1993-1995 teams, and the teams that immediately preceeded it? It wasn't coaching. Yes, Brown was an upgrade, but not as much as some of you make it out to be. It was Byron Scott, and his leadership (and three rings.)


Before Larry Brown became our coach I honestly thought coach's were purly for decoration. I was convinced that this was a players league & no matter who was the coach it was all dependant on the players.

That changed after the first game of the 93/94 season. You could tell there was an entire differant style of play that we were using & that our players were reacting differantly to defensive scenarios.

Byron bringing in the three rings certainly was a motivator, but the foundation was laid by Brown.

Chest Rockwell
07-22-2005, 02:41 PM
I can't see any way DD is ahead of Foster on the depth chart. A healthy Foster can change a game on the offensive boards in a way only a few other players in the league can. This doesn't even take into account the (knocks on wood) emergence of Harrison, who will be able to provide the type of low post scoring that this team has lacked since Smits. I like Dale to play 15-20 minutes neutralizing an opponent's big man, but any more than that will cause him to break down by the all star break.

As for his pay, he's worth a shade over the veteran's minimum, but I'd understand giving him a little more than that just to ensure he doesn't end his career in Milwaukee or something.

ChicagoJ
07-22-2005, 05:21 PM
I disagree. That team was playing differently, but still looking lost at times, until Byron came along. That team needed a red-hot last month of the season to get above 0.500, and they piggy-backed off that into an electric playoff run.

I think one of the things that's gradually gone wrong in the NBA over the past decade or so is that the coaches have succeeded at slowing the game down, making it less of a players' game and more of a coaches' game. If I wanted to watch a slow game where the coach is the star, I've already got the option to watch college ball. ( :sleep: )

When did Terry Pluto write "Falling from Grace". I remember that Brownie was still with the Pacers the first time I read it. I started to dislike him even before "The season we do not discuss" so I guess you should always take that with a grain of salt.

I'd rank Byron, Derrick and Woody all as more important than Brownie in 1993-94. I'd also rank, as #1a right behind the Byron Scott signing, that Reggie - for the first time ever - was going to be the go-to guy in the fourth quarter and that was a big improvement over Schrempf (still not convinced Reggie was any better in the clutch than Chuck, but Reggie certainly got more opportunities while in the national spotlight), and #1b was that Reggie - also for the first time ever - was even willing to do the dirty work that Brownie, Bo Hill, Versace, and Jack Ramsay had all been asking him to do all along. Okay, Versace was an idiot, but it makes me laugh that everybody just assumes that the Pacers' poor defense in the early 1990s was a function of bad coaching.