PDA

View Full Version : So, Bball...



Hicks
01-16-2006, 06:08 PM
:whistle:

How 'bout them JO-less Pacers?

;)

GetOdom
01-16-2006, 06:11 PM
Does Bball hate JO? :confused:

Jermaniac
01-16-2006, 06:13 PM
I was just going to make this thread Hicks.

Hey BBall, sure could have used that post scoring and shot blocking today, dont you think? But who cares we are a better team, we lost but boy did that ball swing around the 3 point line like never before. This team is not good with out Jermaine its actually very bad, the 3 doesnt fall and they are going to lose the game its easy to see.

Jermaine plays we win this game by 10, you are out of your mind if you think we are a better team without our best player.

Jermaniac
01-16-2006, 06:14 PM
Does Bball hate JO? :confused:
JO,Tinsley,Bender,Jack,Ron,Jeff,Cro,Saras,David,Gi ll,Granger, Freddie,Pollard, and AJ.

Bball
01-16-2006, 06:24 PM
Does Bball hate JO? :confused:


I think JO is overused. He's not Tim Duncan or Shaq but we use him like he is. ...And pay him that way too.

The difference he makes to this team IMHO is not nearly as profound as some think... or we all hope would be.

I said we play better all around basketball without JO. JO adds some things to the team, certainly... He also takes some things away. He's not one to make players around him better. And for the money he makes he has to be one of the mentally weakest players in the game as far as his ability to not let players or refs get in his head.

UB tells me that we just play a style that is more enjoyable to watch without JO but are better with him.

-Bball

Jermaniac
01-16-2006, 06:26 PM
Boy that game that we just played was sure enjoyable to watch.

Shade
01-16-2006, 07:05 PM
I think JO is overused. He's not Tim Duncan or Shaq but we use him like he is. ...And pay him that way too.

The difference he makes to this team IMHO is not nearly as profound as some think... or we all hope would be.

I said we play better all around basketball without JO. JO adds some things to the team, certainly... He also takes some things away. He's not one to make players around him better. And for the money he makes he has to be one of the mentally weakest players in the game as far as his ability to not let players or refs get in his head.

UB tells me that we just play a style that is more enjoyable to watch without JO but are better with him.

-Bball

UB is wise, because that's exactly right.

Mourning
01-16-2006, 07:19 PM
UB :bowdown:

:king:

Pig Nash
01-16-2006, 07:26 PM
I agree with Bball. This is probably the only thing we agree on Pacers wise. I just don't think we could do any better than him. I do hope that Rick changes how he uses him. But it's Rick, so that's just a pipe dream.

Anthem
01-16-2006, 07:33 PM
PN, your avatar rocks. Questionable Content rules!

Pig Nash
01-16-2006, 07:35 PM
I agree; although if you didn't have sigs turned off, as your sig indicates, you would already know that I like it.

Kegboy
01-16-2006, 08:58 PM
Well, can anybody tell me whose fault tonight's loss is?

I bet it's Gill. :sadyes:

Frank Slade
01-16-2006, 09:51 PM
Well, can anybody tell me whose fault tonight's loss is?

I bet it's Gill. :sadyes:

Samaki's !!! :(

Kaufman
01-16-2006, 09:58 PM
I'm starting to buy into the lack of hype surrounding JO. Sadly.

Hicks
01-16-2006, 10:18 PM
I've felt for a while that he's a notch below Duncan/Garnett, but there's no shame in that, and that still makes him the best NBA player we've ever had if you figure in he's not a nutball like Artest (who WOULD be the best we've ever had if he'd not been a nut). Between what he is, what he strives to be, and his (mostly) improving attitude each year, I'm still very happy to call him a Pacer. I just think he'll need a slightly better cast than Duncan has if we're to win titles. Not much better, but slightly better. Frankly I'd still feel good about pairing him with someone around the level of Artest, only one that's not nuts. That may be enough if we have a good enough supporting cast to go with them.

SoupIsGood
01-16-2006, 10:20 PM
I've felt for a while that he's a notch below Duncan/Garnett, but there's no shame in that, and that still makes him the best NBA player we've ever had if you figure in he's not a nutball like Artest (who WOULD be the best we've ever had if he'd not been a nut). Between what he is, what he strives to be, and his (mostly) improving attitude each year, I'm still very happy to call him a Pacer. I just think he'll need a slightly better cast than Duncan has if we're to win titles. Not much better, but slightly better. Frankly I'd still feel good about pairing him with someone around the level of Artest, only one that's not nuts. That may be enough if we have a good enough supporting cast to go with them.

That is how I feel. We've got a pretty good supporting cast, we just need that second star. I want a perimeter player to pair with JO! :)

Pig Nash
01-16-2006, 10:21 PM
And hopefully DG will be that not nuts player.

Hicks
01-16-2006, 10:25 PM
Possibly. If his offense blossoms next season he damn well could be.

Kaufman
01-16-2006, 10:27 PM
I don't see DG going crazy, he's too grounded in his faith.

Pig Nash
01-16-2006, 10:27 PM
I've already seen things he's improved on this year. He's gone from a liability to one of the players I'm most comfortable with when they have the ball. He is the antiFred. He always looks in control out there.

Shade
01-16-2006, 11:13 PM
Well, can anybody tell me whose fault tonight's loss is?

I bet it's Gill. :sadyes:

The blame lies with Ron, just like every loss since his trade demand.

Anthem
01-16-2006, 11:19 PM
I just think he'll need a slightly better cast than Duncan has if we're to win titles. Not much better, but slightly better.
I'm not sure that's true. If JO had had Manu and Parker, he might already have a title.

Shade
01-16-2006, 11:24 PM
I'm not sure that's true. If JO had had Manu and Parker, he might already have a title.

That's very possible.

Though I think a healthy Tinsley is better than Parker. Jack, sadly, is no Manu -- not even at the top of his game.

Anthem
01-17-2006, 02:22 AM
That's very possible.

Though I think a healthy Tinsley is better than Parker. Jack, sadly, is no Manu -- not even at the top of his game.
Parker's off and on. For a while, he looked like the best PG in the game (better than Payton, Kidd, and Marbury). Other times, he's looked distinctly human.

I will say, though, that his team's system fits him better than Carlisle's fits Tinsley. Also, he's been more durable.

But I definitely like Tinsley a lot as a PG. I just wish he could stay healthy.

DisplacedKnick
01-17-2006, 07:04 AM
Well, can anybody tell me whose fault tonight's loss is?

I bet it's Gill. :sadyes:

Uh, Jason Kidd's. You can combine that with your defense giving up too many open perimeter shots vs a team with little post offense (except you made Krstic look like an all-star) but who thought Kidd would shoot like Ray Allen?

I'm starting to see what makes Peck all weak in the knees over Croshere. Really good game from him.