PDA

View Full Version : Pointing out the obvious...



denyfizle
02-02-2006, 12:42 AM
We don't need Jackson and Tinsley to win games. As much as I feel for Jack for going down like that, on a basketball standpoint I guess this game just showed us the obvious. I know it's just one game but the trend has always been like this. Jones is playing well, Danny has stepped up. It's time to move on with our players and team structure.

DG-33
02-02-2006, 12:47 AM
I'm not gonna do the research on it, but other posters have pointed out how much better our record is with Tinsley in the lineup. So no, we're not better wihtout one of the most well-rounded (15/6/8/3 steals in 35 mpg) point guards in the league. As for Stephen Jackson, when hes playing like he has the last few games, he's a negative. However he's still a deadly scorer when he's on, and his size from the 2-guard spot can't be replaced by anyone currently on our team. So that would be another no.

18to88
02-02-2006, 12:48 AM
Wow! One Game! Let's trade everyone who didn't play in this one game that we won after, what, 6 losses. We don't need JO, Croshere, Tinsley, or Jackson (who did play) to win a game. Let's just keep those unstoppable rookies who should be all-stars this year and dump everyone else.

Pacesetter
02-02-2006, 12:49 AM
http://aol.nba.com/media/pacers/060201_gallery2_jackson.jpg

http://.nba.com/media/pacers/060201_gallery2_jackson.jpg

Shot in the dark has new meaning?!?!?! ;) :D

denyfizle
02-02-2006, 03:41 PM
Wow! One Game! Let's trade everyone who didn't play in this one game that we won after, what, 6 losses. We don't need JO, Croshere, Tinsley, or Jackson (who did play) to win a game. Let's just keep those unstoppable rookies who should be all-stars this year and dump everyone else.

Not just one game. We play better on the court without Jack and with our PG dilemma and JTs consistent injuries and TO prone game I think they're really expendable to our team. I've said it since the beginning it's just that this game highlighted it so much more. It's either JT or AJ but Jack is a given. Jack hogs the ball too much and shoots tons of bad shots every game- even if they go in sometimes. We can win without these two. The 6 losses started after re-inserting JT into the rotation. Jacko really is expendable with the emergence of Freddy Jones. It's not as dumb as you make it sound.

Roy Munson
02-02-2006, 05:24 PM
Not just one game. We play better on the court without Jack and with our PG dilemma and JTs consistent injuries and TO prone game I think they're really expendable to our team. I've said it since the beginning it's just that this game highlighted it so much more. It's either JT or AJ but Jack is a given. Jack hogs the ball too much and shoots tons of bad shots every game- even if they go in sometimes. We can win without these two. The 6 losses started after re-inserting JT into the rotation. Jacko really is expendable with the emergence of Freddy Jones. It's not as dumb as you make it sound.

I agree, and I'll take it one blasphemous step further and say the Pacers don't need JO either.

But before attacking me, let me say that I think they ought to try to find a rebounding beast of a PF that they could get in an exchange for JO. A Buck Williams type of player. I'm not sure if such a player exists in the NBA right now, but I think that's what the team really needs.

JO is too much of a low-post black hole, and I'm still not sold on his maturity or leadership skills. Sure, he's the first person to tell everyone that he is mature and the leader of the team, but I'm not sure I believe it. I don't see enough of a difference in the team's play with JO in the lineup or JO out of the lineup. At least not enough of a difference to consider him to be untouchable.

rexnom
02-02-2006, 05:59 PM
Just curious guys. Do we win that Boston series last year without Tinsley? Exactly. What about the year before? How about the fact that he is the only one the Pistons don't seem to have an answer for? Say what you want about Jack. Swingmen are a dime a dozen but good pgs (injury-prone or not) are almost as rare as good big guys.

18to88
02-02-2006, 06:09 PM
Not just one game. We play better on the court without Jack and with our PG dilemma and JTs consistent injuries and TO prone game I think they're really expendable to our team. I've said it since the beginning it's just that this game highlighted it so much more. It's either JT or AJ but Jack is a given. Jack hogs the ball too much and shoots tons of bad shots every game- even if they go in sometimes. We can win without these two. The 6 losses started after re-inserting JT into the rotation. Jacko really is expendable with the emergence of Freddy Jones. It's not as dumb as you make it sound.

Jack has played all 44 games.

Moses
02-02-2006, 06:17 PM
We don't need Jack. I think if Tinsley ever manages to stay healthy and we run a semi-open offensive game, Tinsley will be a beast.

denyfizle
02-02-2006, 07:25 PM
Just curious guys. Do we win that Boston series last year without Tinsley? Exactly. What about the year before? How about the fact that he is the only one the Pistons don't seem to have an answer for? Say what you want about Jack. Swingmen are a dime a dozen but good pgs (injury-prone or not) are almost as rare as good big guys.

I am a Tinsley fan to an extent, but because of him:
*being injury/turnover prone and
*because of RC's system and that
*we have sufficient PGs already that can win for us,
*and since he is our highest paid PG, he is expendable.
It's either he goes or AJ goes because our PG rotation is almost more of a problem than a luxury when all of them healthy. They have a hard time getting into a groove and warm up and seems like long-term they just grow more and more unhappy.

Conflict
02-02-2006, 07:28 PM
Why is everyone against Jackson, oke by times he makes wrong choices, but admit he has won games for us. There are a couple of games at my home that Miller couldn't bring what we want from him and Jackson saved us. I don't say he is the most important man on our roster but I think he deserves better than the opinion on this board!

Moses
02-02-2006, 08:40 PM
Why is everyone against Jackson, oke by times he makes wrong choices, but admit he has won games for us. There are a couple of games at my home that Miller couldn't bring what we want from him and Jackson saved us. I don't say he is the most important man on our roster but I think he deserves better than the opinion on this board!
We are talking about this year, not 2004-05. This is the same Jackson shooting 42% from the field while shooting 36% from the 3 point line. This is the Jackson who turns the ball over regularly in games because he holds onto it to long and realizes that he has 5 seconds to try and drive into the lane and shoot it. I used to support Jackson 100% and I love his game when he isn't a focal point in the offense, but he absolutely positively cannot be a #1 or even #2 scoring option in this offense. I'm almost ready to bring him in off the bench but he is the only guy on our team who has the size to guard 2s. We probably have one of the worst SHOOTING guards in the NBA because he tries to do to much.

denyfizle
02-02-2006, 08:54 PM
Why is everyone against Jackson, oke by times he makes wrong choices, but admit he has won games for us. There are a couple of games at my home that Miller couldn't bring what we want from him and Jackson saved us. I don't say he is the most important man on our roster but I think he deserves better than the opinion on this board!

He made 4 errors in the first half yesterday!!! He always makes dumb errors. Forces shots which still make you cringe even when they go in. His decision-making, court awareness and complaining hurts the team. If there was a stat that records the times players complained about an idiot error they made and his man goes ahead and scores on a fastbreak or initiates one that leads to an easy deuce, Jackson would lead it. If you really look at his game closely all the time you'll probably get it. I commend him for being healthy and like I've said in past threads that Jack is my opposite of Ron (love ron in the court, hate the outside stuff/love jack outside d court/hate his game) seriously he's just not doing enough good to cover up his cons.

rexnom
02-03-2006, 08:14 AM
I thought Jack was starting to play better yesterday...He started off kinda poor with some TOs but in the end he hit a few shots (4 of 9 by the end which isn't terrible) and he did keep Kobe down. Also, he did have 4 assists. That's not too bad.

Overall, Jack is just really inconsistent. Maybe he should be traded but regardless, he is not a terrible SG. Especially now that he is the number 3 option.

Black Sox
02-03-2006, 09:12 AM
With Jackson and Tinsley healthy the Pacers are a contender enough said.

Coach
02-03-2006, 09:27 AM
Just curious guys. Do we win that Boston series last year without Tinsley? Exactly. What about the year before? How about the fact that he is the only one the Pistons don't seem to have an answer for? Say what you want about Jack. Swingmen are a dime a dozen but good pgs (injury-prone or not) are almost as rare as good big guys.


When he is healthy! The problem is he is healthy 50% of the time. I would rather have someone with 70% his ability and healthy 95% of the time. By the way, Ben seemed to be the answer to Tins in the Detroit series. I think Tins went at him 3 possessions in a row and got to eat his spalding sandwich every time.

rexnom
02-03-2006, 09:34 AM
When he is healthy! The problem is he is healthy 50% of the time. I would rather have someone with 70% his ability and healthy 95% of the time. By the way, Ben seemed to be the answer to Tins in the Detroit series. I think Tins went at him 3 possessions in a row and got to eat his spalding sandwich every time.

Tinsley came back last year at what looked like 60% health. Fact is that kid plays tough even when injured in the playoffs. He is a key to this team's success. Regardless of health, he'll tough it out and play this year too. That doesn't mean that I don't question his durability...it's just that I still don't want to give up on him. Am I holding on too long? Maybe. But on the off chance that I'm not, Tinsley is a keeper.

denyfizle
02-05-2006, 01:15 PM
I admired Jack's effort last night. If only he played like this more consistently, attacking the basket more often. Although he did complain to the refs, at least it wasn't to the point that he was compromising his defense.