PDA

View Full Version : Why does it have to be this way?????



Peck
02-12-2006, 06:37 PM
I don't have time for a game recap at the moment, I'll try & work on one later this P.M.

But I get on here & I see nothing but threads about how Rick blew the game, how Jax blew the game, how A.J. blew the game, etc., etc.

We just took the defending W.C. to the wire in a very exciting playoff atmosphere type game.

Manu misses that running 28' shot after our stellar defense & we would be looking at a differant end result.

I'm proud as hell of the Pacers today.

Am I dissapointed we lost? Yes. Does it hurt? Hell yes.

But I take that pain as a sign of life, I care. If I didn't care then this loss wouldn't hurt so bad.

Were there goats at the end of the game? Sure, but some of those same goats got you the lead to begin with.

We left it all on the floor & that is all that I ever ask of our team.

BTW, on the bench front today from what I could see, Jermaine & Jamaal both were big time supporters from the sidelines.

I feel bad for our guys but I don't want a dang one of them to hang thier heads in shame.

They battled as hard as they could & I assure you the Spurs didn't walk off of the floor without feeling like they had been in a war.

So, for today, could we not analyze this to death? We played, we fought & we lost to the defending champs who are on a roll.

Will Galen
02-12-2006, 06:42 PM
I didn't get to see the game as it wasn't showing where I live. I did notice that it was worse than usual here on the Digest with the blame game.

sweabs
02-12-2006, 06:45 PM
I didn't get to see the game as it wasn't showing where I live. I did notice that it was worse than usual here on the Digest with the blame game.

That's because we had this game. It was right there in front of us.

And it all just collapsed in the last 2 minutes.

When that happens, against the World Champs no less, then it's a tough loss to take and I think you can appreciate that.

Knucklehead Warrior
02-12-2006, 06:47 PM
So, for today, could we not analyze this to death? We played, we fought & we lost to the defending champs who are on a roll.

Well said. No drama queens for a day.

It must be something about human nature. Every time someone has a bad game he goes on the trading block. Every time someone has a great game as a backup, he needs to start. :-p We're either a contender for the ECF or not making the playoffs. yawn.

rexnom
02-12-2006, 06:48 PM
It's the pain of the game. If you lose game seven of the NBA Finals you don't get excited because you got to game seven of the NBA Finals...rather you get mad as hell for not winning. Remember Miami's reaction after their game seven ECF loss? They overreacted to the point of overhauling their team not to mention blaming every single player on the team including D-Wade and Shaq...the bigger the loss the more it hurts. Of course this loss is going to hurt more than a loss in the losing streak for example.

HOWEVER, when the emotions go away then you'll see cooler heads prevail and people will realize what a game we played and that this team is really getting there.

ghost
02-12-2006, 06:49 PM
Yes, it was a good game, but stupid decision making at the end (by coach and players) cost it.

D-BONE
02-12-2006, 07:04 PM
I don't have time for a game recap at the moment, I'll try & work on one later this P.M.

But I get on here & I see nothing but threads about how Rick blew the game, how Jax blew the game, how A.J. blew the game, etc., etc.

We just took the defending W.C. to the wire in a very exciting playoff atmosphere type game.

Manu misses that running 28' shot after our stellar defense & we would be looking at a differant end result.

I'm proud as hell of the Pacers today.

Am I dissapointed we lost? Yes. Does it hurt? Hell yes.

But I take that pain as a sign of life, I care. If I didn't care then this loss wouldn't hurt so bad.

Were there goats at the end of the game? Sure, but some of those same goats got you the lead to begin with.

We left it all on the floor & that is all that I ever ask of our team.

BTW, on the bench front today from what I could see, Jermaine & Jamaal both were big time supporters from the sidelines.

I feel bad for our guys but I don't want a dang one of them to hang thier heads in shame.

They battled as hard as they could & I assure you the Spurs didn't walk off of the floor without feeling like they had been in a war.

So, for today, could we not analyze this to death? We played, we fought & we lost to the defending champs who are on a roll.

EXACTLY! Well said. Hurt like hell but you have to focus on the positives. Manu's bomb was a friggin miracle. He hits that maybe 1 out of 100 times in that situation. The important thing is it was a fabulous TEAM effort and the resiliency shown. They could have packed it in at several points, especially after getting behind double digits right off the bat. If we can compete like that with the Spurs and throw in a win vs. Detriot, just shows how good we can be. Focus on maintaining this level of play and team dynamic and we will be fine.

Jermaniac
02-12-2006, 07:09 PM
Because thats how it is on PD. Pacers win a game and all people talk about is how Jermaine O'Neal looked on a bench or if Jamaal Tinsley was smiling on the bench.

Unclebuck
02-12-2006, 07:12 PM
Peck:

Thank you, thank you, Thank you

You said exactly what needed to be said

sweabs
02-12-2006, 07:28 PM
Manu's bomb was a friggin miracle.

Although, we gave the miracle a chance.

masobczyk
02-12-2006, 07:39 PM
it was a hard fought game by our guys and for that i'm proud of them. i was disappointed in the coaching decisions rc made at the end of the game but we still had opprotunities to pull it out. both players and the coach will learn from this one. and it was an awesome game to watch. i love the way this team plays.

Bball
02-12-2006, 07:42 PM
I tried not to be too critical in my comments precisely because we did take the world champs to the wire.

I did have to question Rick's subs in the waning moments but overall I thought we played well. I had to defend AJ earlier when I thought Jermaniac was being a little too critical earlier in the game... and then later I felt I had to explain myself a little because my comments would seem to imply I was fine with AJ at the end (when in fact I made my comments prior to the end). I wanted to be clear I felt Sarunas should've stayed in the game during the 4th and been in at the end. He was more effective than AJ at that point.

I think Carlisle did sub in a 'prevent defense' kind of way... looking to lock down the win with defense... and it bit him because our defense actually slipped and our offensive flow went away. If anything, his move backfired and I think most here would've figured it would've played out that way. The game was just too close and it was no time to mess with the continuity of the team (it's not like we were bringing in the All-NBA defensive team).

The technical and Ginobli's 3 were killer.

-Bball

Suaveness
02-12-2006, 07:58 PM
Couldn't have put it better myself. The fact that this team has beaten Detroit and nearly SA tells me we are on the right track.

317Kim
02-12-2006, 08:04 PM
PD is a emotional crowd. If PD was a person, PD would be a female, because of all the modd swings.

:tsk: Not all females have mood swings.

I also think we're on the right track but it was hard to see this game slip away and have our streak snapped.

SoupIsGood
02-12-2006, 08:04 PM
PD is a emotional crowd. If PD was a person, PD would be a female, because of all the modd swings.



Genius! :brilliant:

Los Angeles
02-12-2006, 08:16 PM
Yeah, you can dog me for that. I cant even spell "mood" corectly
Or "correctly".

:-p

317Kim
02-12-2006, 08:18 PM
Or "correctly".

:-p

I was just going to say that. VA you need to watch out for that jonk!

D-BONE
02-12-2006, 08:47 PM
Although, we gave the miracle a chance.

I suppose. At the same time, you can easily imagine the reverse worst case scenario (which we've all seen happen on occasion). Defender agressively closes out, loses balance ever so slightly bumping the shooter, and zebra calls a ridiculous touch foul. 3 shots or a 4-pt play. I know. It's remote, but not much more remote than the chances of Manu hitting the shot he took. Kinda sounds like the phantom AD-Grandma-ma 4 pt play of Pacer lore. At any rate, I respect your point. I personally would not identify it as a central reason why we lost the game, however.

Harmonica
02-12-2006, 08:50 PM
So, for today, could we not analyze this to death?

Why? Why is this game any different than the games you break down and "analyze to death" (which I enjoy, I might add)? You heap praise and lay blame in those threads. The emotions you see on display here are an indication that we actually expected to win this game. I don't see a problem with it. True, there's a lot to like about our effort today, but we should have won that game and there are legitimate arguments to be made and discussions to be had about why we didn't.

Jon Theodore
02-12-2006, 08:52 PM
this is why I didnt come post after the game. I WAS SOOOOOOO MAD. We win the game if Sarunas finished the 4h quarter, but regardless its not worth talking about.

sixthman
02-12-2006, 08:56 PM
BTW, on the bench front today from what I could see, Jermaine & Jamaal both were big time supporters from the sidelines.

Hope JO doesn't have a case of acid reflux or diarrhea when you are checking out his emotions. :)

Good effort, by the way, is a way for losers to console themselves. I doubt the Pacers are content with today's results. I'm not. For whatever reason the Pacers were shut down when it counted by the Spurs. Hasn't Carlisle figured out a play coming out of a time out that can put the ball in scoring position in Peja's hands?

I booed when Sarunas and Peja were taken out of the game. Neither was near tired and both were on a roll. My coaching book says when in doubt you go with the hot hand - particularly when the players you are subbing in are sometimes iffy.

Carlisle says he put in Jackson over Peja for defensive reasons. Oh really? If it was defense he wanted where was Granger who is infinitely better defensively as a small forward than either Peja or Jackson?

I think the subtitution that came from Rick was more out of concern of the feelings of AJ and Jackson. There I said it - No proof, but it's my only explanation for taking Peja and Sarunas out of the ball game with less than 5 minutes left when they and the team were playing so well and the House was electric with excitement.

Jermaniac
02-12-2006, 09:00 PM
Thats exactly what it was. He didnt want Jack and AJ to be mad at him so he put them back in and thats another one of his flaws. Who the hell does that? You think Pop would have put Parker in if Van Exel was lighting our *** up? Nope. Only our coach thinks about that.

Harmonica
02-12-2006, 09:10 PM
I think the subtitution that came from Rick was more out of concern of the feelings of AJ and Jackson.

I said the same thing to Kstat right after the game and he basically laughed at me.

Fireball Kid
02-12-2006, 09:15 PM
I think the subtitution that came from Rick was more out of concern of the feelings of AJ and Jackson. There I said it - No proof, but it's my only explanation for taking Peja and Sarunas out of the ball game with less than 5 minutes left when they and the team were playing so well and the House was electric with excitement.
If thats the case, then Rick should be fired.

brichard
02-12-2006, 09:17 PM
Who are you and what have you done with Peck!!!

Peck is the person who brings darkness in the time of light, so obviously you are a :spy:!!!

sixthman
02-12-2006, 09:23 PM
I said the same thing to Kstat right after the game and he basically laughed at me.

Well, in that event, we need to reevaluate our thinking. I mean it's Kstat after all. :D

What else is the explanation? Why take Peja and Sarunas out of a game when he they are our best players on the floor? Jermainiac said it really well, "You think Pop would have put Parker in if Van Exel was lighting our *** up? Nope."

McKeyFan
02-12-2006, 09:26 PM
This thread makes me a little uneasy.

I think criticizing Rick for what were bad substitutions IMO at a crucial time in the game is PRECISELY what PD is supposed to do. You certainly can't read such criticism in the Star or pacers.com.

I hope some on this board are not starting to get ashamed of good ol' solid unrepentant criticism because the likes of Mark Boyle and others are known to reguarly read the forum.

I've been an investigative journalist for many years. It's the very saltiness and ruthlessness that makes you powerful and effective. No need to be ashamed of it.

McKeyFan

grace
02-12-2006, 09:28 PM
Public message to VA and Soup:

Here's a mood for you. :finger:

(I was going to post :slap: :punch: :whip2: :kicknuts: but I decided that might be too violent.)

sixthman
02-12-2006, 09:29 PM
If thats the case, then Rick should be fired.

I'm not in that camp. Although I think he'd be a great fit at IU, but that's another story for later. ;)

I think Rick deserves some slack here. He is doing a credible job in building a team, a team in the best sense of the word. He's still learning about his players, in this case AJ, Sarunas, Peja and Jack. But this time I think by not doing the obvious and easy, he may have cost a game. Nothing fatal, if something is learned.

Hicks
02-12-2006, 09:37 PM
I don't have time for a game recap at the moment, I'll try & work on one later this P.M.

But I get on here & I see nothing but threads about how Rick blew the game, how Jax blew the game, how A.J. blew the game, etc., etc.

We just took the defending W.C. to the wire in a very exciting playoff atmosphere type game.

Manu misses that running 28' shot after our stellar defense & we would be looking at a differant end result.

I'm proud as hell of the Pacers today.

Am I dissapointed we lost? Yes. Does it hurt? Hell yes.

But I take that pain as a sign of life, I care. If I didn't care then this loss wouldn't hurt so bad.

Were there goats at the end of the game? Sure, but some of those same goats got you the lead to begin with.

We left it all on the floor & that is all that I ever ask of our team.

BTW, on the bench front today from what I could see, Jermaine & Jamaal both were big time supporters from the sidelines.

I feel bad for our guys but I don't want a dang one of them to hang thier heads in shame.

They battled as hard as they could & I assure you the Spurs didn't walk off of the floor without feeling like they had been in a war.

So, for today, could we not analyze this to death? We played, we fought & we lost to the defending champs who are on a roll.

Thank you. I feel exactly the same way. This team is for real, folks. It's time to stop analyzing and criticizing everything to death, and start being what we all started out being: Fans that cheer on our team for the good things that they do. It's time to get excited, not dissect everything until there's nothing pretty left to look at.

Dancing fruit! :dance: :mango:

:boomer:

Peck
02-12-2006, 09:51 PM
Oh this is rich.

I have people lecturing me on the fact that it is ok to be critical of the team.

:buddies:

The fact of the matter is that when I got home & read the board there wasn't one single thread up that even mentioned we were within a few seconds of beating the Spurs.

All I saw was Rick was at fault or the other thread where the anti-Johnson factor was going "see I told ya so, he sucks".

I just thought that someone from the sunshine brigade, I guess that being me today, needed to say that it was ok to lose to the defending W.C. I've had to suffer from losses to the Hawks, the bobcats & the Bucks I think I would rather lose a close one to the Spurs.

Peck
02-12-2006, 09:54 PM
Why? Why is this game any different than the games you break down and "analyze to death" (which I enjoy, I might add)? You heap praise and lay blame in those threads. The emotions you see on display here are an indication that we actually expected to win this game. I don't see a problem with it. True, there's a lot to like about our effort today, but we should have won that game and there are legitimate arguments to be made and discussions to be had about why we didn't.


Well, fair enough.

I now stand waiting to see your argument as to why we should have won that game.

MagicRat
02-12-2006, 09:56 PM
Everyone in favor of Peck being the new president of the Sunshine Brigade say "wOOt!!".......................:woot2:

Anthem
02-12-2006, 09:58 PM
Oh this is rich.

I have people lecturing me on the fact that it is ok to be critical of the team.
I've been laughing about that through this whole thread.

Would I have liked to beat the Spurs? Heck yes.

We don't always get what we want. In the interim, I'm happy to hear that we're still playing the right way.

Anthem
02-12-2006, 09:58 PM
Everyone in favor of Peck being the new president of the Sunshine Brigade say "wOOt!!".......................:woot2:
:woot2: :woot2:

sixthman
02-12-2006, 09:59 PM
It's time to get excited, not dissect everything until there's nothing pretty left to look at.

:boomer:

Except for a few dark days before the Artest trade, for years I have stayed excited about Pacers basketball. It's a love and a passion. And it remains so today. Especially so today. I like this new team that is developing.

I began posting here again regularly recently because of your exact point: there was so much bashing of the Pacers going on, that there was, as you say it so well, the danger of having "nothing pretty left to look at."

From my viewpoint some of the personal attacks on the character of players were to the point of being unconscionable. But I would think questioning a coaching decision in this afternoon's loss hardly seems like a place to get a conscience. Rick has been wrong before and has been right many other times. He is more than capable of defending himself and his players. Questioning his decisions would seem a valid enterprise for a fan.

rexnom
02-12-2006, 10:00 PM
I just want to add something here...I watched the Manu 3 about 10 times again and it wasn't as bad as I originally thought. There were 3 secs left. Jack went back to the 3pt line...Manu just decided to pull up from 28ft. If that doesn't go in then Pop yells at him for poor shot selection in the next timeout. They got a bit lucky. How is Jack supposed to know Manu would be crazy enough to take that kind of shot?

Arcadian
02-12-2006, 10:20 PM
I fully agree that PD should find some moderation so that we can celebrate the Pacers' successes and be able to speak critically about what is right and wrong with the team.

I was excited when the Pacers won 61 games and when we beat Detriot this year. Some people weren't. :whoknows:

Shade
02-12-2006, 10:31 PM
Hear hear, Peck. Our team fought and scrapped and I'm damn proud of every one of them. No negativity from me today. :sunshine:

Harmonica
02-12-2006, 10:58 PM
Well, fair enough.

I now stand waiting to see your argument as to why we should have won that game.

I think Rick must have called Marty Shottenhiemer during one of those late timeouts and asked him what he thought he should do. He went into prevent mode. As someone else pointed out, why take Peja and Sarunas out of the ball game with less than 5 minutes left when they and the team are playing so well and the place is electric?

I now stand waiting to see your response.

SoupIsGood
02-12-2006, 11:10 PM
I was critical mainly because I'm worried this has become a recurring problem for Rick. I actually expected him to make those stupid substitutions. Like Harm has said, I worry that his system has become the "Martyball" of the NBA.


However, we probably shouldn't worry about this until we have a stable roster, winning starting five, and a chance at winning something big. Until then, we need someone capable of dealing with the chaos, and that is Rick. Maybe, hopefully, he is the guy to win us the big games also, sometime. We'll have to see.

Peck
02-12-2006, 11:17 PM
I think Rick must have called Marty Shottenhiemer during one of those late timeouts and asked him what he thought he should do. He went into prevent mode. As someone else pointed out, why take Peja and Sarunas out of the ball game with less than 5 minutes left when they and the team are playing so well and the place is electric?

I now stand waiting to see your response.


No one has mentioned this yet but Peja was hit in the head just prior to being taken out of the game, I'm pretty sure I saw him wave to the bench as though he wanted to come out. But honestly I didn't have a good view so that is just conjecture on my part.

Also, refresh me here, didn't Jones go out at about the same time? You will notice that once again today Rick would not leave Saras on the floor without Fred in there. I can't explain it other than to say that deep down inside Rick doesn't trust Saras.

In a game last week, I don't remember which, but Rick took out Jeff & Scot who were both playing brilliantly at the time & replaced them with David & Danny. It was a risk that paid off at the time.

This was another calculated risk that did not pay off for him.

I don't think it had anything to do with the feelings of the players on the bench. Which I find ironic that that person brought that up since they seem to have a seizure whenever I make any kind of report on Jermaines demeanor. I guess it's ok for some to speculate & not others but oh well...

So your contention is that we lost this game because Saras & Peja were taken out?

I could also argue that not playing Harrison down the stretch was not brilliant either as he was playing very smartly in the game but I just don't see the point.

They are the champs for a reason.

Harmonica
02-12-2006, 11:18 PM
By the way, Peck, if my memory serves me correctly, weren't you criticizing JO's bench behavior (of all things) right after the Detroit victory? Do I take this to mean that if we win, it's okay to be critical of something we didn't like, but if we lose and put forth a good effort, it's not okay to be critical of something we didn't like?

Hicks
02-12-2006, 11:18 PM
I just started a thread to mention Peja getting hit, Peck. I'm surprised no one else caught that until now.

Unclebuck
02-12-2006, 11:18 PM
Why? Why is this game any different than the games you break down and "analyze to death" (which I enjoy, I might add)? You heap praise and lay blame in those threads. The emotions you see on display here are an indication that we actually expected to win this game. I don't see a problem with it. True, there's a lot to like about our effort today, but we should have won that game and there are legitimate arguments to be made and discussions to be had about why we didn't.



There is a difference between level headed well thought out analysis, (whether you disagree with the point being made or not) and knee jerk ripping of the coach

SoupIsGood
02-12-2006, 11:19 PM
Was Harrison really playing that well? I can't even remember him being on the floor (I missed chunks of the game though)

Peck
02-12-2006, 11:22 PM
Was Harrison really playing that well? I can't even remember him being on the floor (I missed chunks of the game though)


Yes, on defense he was playing very well. He limited body contact a lot & held the fouls to a min.

He altered more than one shot by the Spurs & actually rejected a couple of others.

He didn't score a lot but I thought he did very well.

Harmonica
02-12-2006, 11:29 PM
Also, refresh me here, didn't Jones go out at about the same time? You will notice that once again today Rick would not leave Saras on the floor without Fred in there. I can't explain it other than to say that deep down inside Rick doesn't trust Saras.

In a game last week, I don't remember which, but Rick took out Jeff & Scot who were both playing brilliantly at the time & replaced them with David & Danny. It was a risk that paid off at the time.

This was another calculated risk that did not pay off for him.

I don't think it had anything to do with the feelings of the players on the bench. Which I find ironic that that person brought that up since they seem to have a seizure whenever I make any kind of report on Jermaines demeanor. I guess it's ok for some to speculate & not others but oh well...

So your contention is that we lost this game because Saras & Peja were taken out?

Freddie, too. I'll take your word for it about Peja, but if you look at the last few pages of the game thread, you'll see where I was "praying" that Rick wouldn't let AJ finish when Sarunas had the hot hand. Rick should have been more in the moment. Instead he reverted to habit. It reminded me of the time I was yelling at the television for Grady Little to pull an obviously-tired Pedro Martinez in the ALCS a few years back against the Yankees. They lost because Grady didn't hear me either. ;)

sweabs
02-12-2006, 11:34 PM
How is Jack supposed to know Manu would be crazy enough to take that kind of shot?

Um...because the shotclock is fast approaching 1 second? All you have to do is body up.

I'm done with that shot though...I'm letting it go...:D

Peck
02-12-2006, 11:34 PM
By the way, Peck, if my memory serves me correctly, weren't you criticizing JO's bench behavior (of all things) right after the Detroit victory? Do I take this to mean that if we win, it's okay to be critical of something we didn't like, but if we lose and put forth a good effort, it's not okay to be critical of something we didn't like?


Let me ask this.

Would it make a differance what I said?

If I would have come on here & threw a fit about Rick's coaching my guess is that you would have been on here asking me why I was being so critical.

Unclebuck
02-12-2006, 11:36 PM
So the Spurs score 20 points in the last 3:49, and 11 points in the last 1:35 and people are complaining about the Pacers offense in the last part of the game.

Interesting

Bball
02-12-2006, 11:38 PM
The fact of the matter is that when I got home & read the board there wasn't one single thread up that even mentioned we were within a few seconds of beating the Spurs.



http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=344932&postcount=18


I've thought Carlisle has played Sarunas a little 'short' in the last few games. Today it bit us. Sarunas has been in a bit of a slump lately so Carlisle got away with putting him on a short leash but today he was having a good game and deserved to stay in during the 4th qtr IMHO. To get the maximum benefit from a player like Sarunas, Carlisle is going to have to live with some things.

I thought Harrison could've gotten more minutes as well.

I don't think AJ was playing bad but today he was nothing special either. I suppose Carlisle would argue he had to pull Sarunas for defensive reasons during the last minutes of the game. That type of use of Sarunas, and when JO returns and going back to the JO ISOball game, will be why this is Carlisle's last season:eek:

I don't think he and Bird are on the same page. It's just a feeling I am getting from their comments. I'm not all that confident in my above prediction... But if we see us going back to JO ISOball upon his return then I'll feel fairly confident in that prediction (and I feel fairly confident we'll be going that direction because that is Rick's 'thing').

That all said... I don't have too many complaints about today. It was a close, competitive game. The defending champs had the moxie down the stretch to pull it out. Once again we played some good basketball without JO in the lineup.

No longer than this team has been together it isn't an embarassment to lose to the defending champs in the closing seconds. It was a shame though... because we had this game. I can't say we were outcoached... we were overcoached is more like it. Pop didn't do anything special to win... he let us lose it.

-Bball

Hicks
02-12-2006, 11:42 PM
This is pure psychology: If you'd start putting the bold part of your post at the start of your post instead of the end, it would come across much more positively.

Harmonica
02-12-2006, 11:47 PM
Let me ask this.

Would it make a differance what I said?

If I would have come on here & threw a fit about Rick's coaching my guess is that you would have been on here asking me why I was being so critical.

Depends on how you stated it.

Bball
02-12-2006, 11:52 PM
This is pure psychology: If you'd start putting the bold part of your post at the start of your post instead of the end, it would come across much more positively.

I don't think it matters. It only depends on what someone wants to focus on.

And I didn't slam any players at all.

I thought I was pretty balanced :blush:

I probably just posted it too soon.

-Bball

Suaveness
02-13-2006, 12:00 AM
So the Spurs score 20 points in the last 3:49, and 11 points in the last 1:35 and people are complaining about the Pacers offense in the last part of the game.

Interesting

Well yeah, if we had scored more pts we could have won...our offense wasn't doing enough....


....

PacerFan31
02-13-2006, 12:04 AM
Amen!

I'm so proud of this team for the way they've been playing. This loss, just makes me even more proud of them.

sixthman
02-13-2006, 12:49 AM
Was Harrison really playing that well? I can't even remember him being on the floor (I missed chunks of the game though)

David is continuing to improve but he has a long way to go. He is still underachieving as a rebounder - Nazr Mohammed had nearly ten rebounds on the offensive glass and I'd say a majority of them came while David was on the floor.

I'm a fan of David's but I wouldn't have him playing at the end of a game yet in these circumstances. Danny Granger might be a different story. I'd like to have seen he and Peja guarding Ginobili and Bowen at the end of the game.

arenn
02-13-2006, 12:52 AM
Sorry, I don't buy into the "I'm just happy to be here" mode. I don't think anyone is upset about the Pacers effort today. But the Pacers execution down the stretch? That's a different story. Do you think Carlisle is satisfied with the loss? It isn't panic mode to point out that the Pacers made some errors down the stretch, most notably on defense, that caused them to lose the game after not only being close to San Antonio, but being up 7 in the closing minutes.

The only person I would really criticize is Stephen Jackson. Not just because of this game. As I said, I can accept a streak shooter. One can argue that even Reggie fell into that camp. But SJ's extreme selfishness and ball hogging is unacceptable. This is not something that's a result of this game and his late 4th quarter forces. It's something that's been a trait of his since day one on this team. Even Kobe can't win titles as a one man superstar band, much less someone like Jackson. He's not even close to being the type of player of who could justify his black hole style of play. If he is not going to play team ball, he should be gone. Having an off night? No problem, everybody does. Blowing the defense on Ginobili? That stuff happens. But deciding that no matter what you are going to shoot and won't pass it to save your life? That's a terrible basketball attitude that can't be tolerated. Unless he radically changes his way, that guy has got to go.

sixthman
02-13-2006, 01:18 AM
So the Spurs score 20 points in the last 3:49, and 11 points in the last 1:35 and people are complaining about the Pacers offense in the last part of the game.

Interesting

This is a good point. While the offense was not fluid, we did score some points. The alleged defensive substitutions, however, were for naught. Jackson didn't come close to getting the job done defensively. Both Bruce Bowen and Ginobili burned him in the final minutes. Pollard went brain dead.

Raskolnikov
02-13-2006, 02:42 AM
:tsk: Not all females have mood swings.

I also think we're on the right track but it was hard to see this game slip away and have our streak snapped.
*Watch out everyone, I think she's about to have one of her mood swings again*


:whistle:

waterjater
02-13-2006, 05:56 AM
Peck,

You are misinterpreting most people with that opening statement. I for one, loved the effort and the fact that we've beaten Detroit and others...and this one was ours to lose...and we did just that.

All the hustle and effort we gave disappeared with that last major substitution. Rick made some poor decisions and needs to evaluate his performance and learn from it.

So, the criticism of the coaches decision is absolutely a topic worthy of discussion. This isn't the first time he's made lousy substitutions late and puts in a team that can't score at the end OR make FTs.

He needs to coach the end of the game the way he coaches the middle...and that is in attack mode vs. playing "prevent defense" which as in football, just seems to let the other team score.

Water

PacersHeat
02-13-2006, 06:57 AM
We led by 5 in 1:31 but lost it with few careless plays against world champions at home. Shooot!

Sarunas and Peja played great. Thought that Sarunas shouldn't have been pulled in the late 4th quarter. Granger seem playing good. Pollard is Pollard.

So again we played w/o JO for both defense and offense and Artest for his defense (and of his trade). That's rather so quite amazing.

4 out 5 wins included Detriot and Lakers but lost to Spurs close is more than satisfactory. At least we should be proud of them and still look forward to their improvement to continue ahead.

Making it more questionable to see how they goes especially how JO and Tinsley play along. Both of these players had been slowing us down at times.

Only the better way for JO is adjusting in instead of them adjusting to his playing. Also that JO has to release ball off fast more often especially on the uptempo offense. That's the only way he has to when he returns back.

owl
02-13-2006, 08:04 AM
If this game is not analyzed, and I am quite sure the coaches will analyze it
what will you have learned from the loss? Nothing? If this team wants to
improve and win this type of game the next time they had better analyze it.
No doubt I love the effort and team play. It makes them fun to watch,
but now that we have seen what they are capable of it is time to refine
what they are doing so that the next time they come out with a win.
It was a great game but it was the Pacers game to win. They let it slip away
more than SA won it IMHO.


owl

Black Sox
02-13-2006, 09:37 AM
The Pacers didn't deserve to win. Maybe after this loss the players will learn that against a great team you can't have a chance to build a lead and turn the ball over every other possesion. However, on a positive note if the Pacers can learn from thier mistakes this should be a really good team in the 2nd half of the season.

beast23
02-13-2006, 10:17 AM
So the Spurs score 20 points in the last 3:49, and 11 points in the last 1:35 and people are complaining about the Pacers offense in the last part of the game.

InterestingWow. I knew they scored a flurry of points in the last 80-90 seconds. But 20 points in the last 3:49, that's amazing (for them anyway).

I aproached this game a little differently that the last 4-5 games. I really didn't care whether we won or lost. What I wanted to see is how we would perform against the Spurs.

And, despite a lousy start (behind 11-0), we gave them all they could handle.

Were mistakes made? Well, I would have chosen to do things differently. It was pretty obvious that Carlisle was making an effort to use free throws as a means of substituing in players. Face it, he was trying his best to maintain some offensive continuity while also trying to get the players onto the court during stoppages that might be able to prevent the Spurs from scoring.

I can say that I would have done things differently, but I can't really say that what Rick did was totally illogical. Just a way of trying to address the defensive problems we were having while also trying to score some points.

But I can't really fault Rick either way. He rolled the dice with his decions, and they didn't work out... this time. We performed very well after giving up the initial lead, and there's a good chance that having Jermaine available at the end, a player who could have provided both the defensive presence and the offensive continuity that Rick needed, could have made a big difference.

FrenchConnection
02-13-2006, 10:26 AM
Couldn't have put it better myself. The fact that this team has beaten Detroit and nearly SA tells me we are on the right track.

Yes! If I were to have told you after the Washington game that we would be 4 out of 5 at this point with wins over the Lakers and Pistons, you would have all told me that I was nuts. The Pistons beat the Spurs twice this year; does that mean that the Spurs should enter a rebuilding mode? Heck, the Pistons just got beat by the Heat. Does that mean that the Heat are now a lock to come out of the EC? Its just a regular season game people, and the fact there we were in there until the end says something about the team that we have now. By the way, the game on Wednesday against the Bucks is a much bigger game for this team anyway. GO PACERS!!!

waxman
02-13-2006, 11:59 AM
Nice game , nice effort... the irritating thing is, after all the noticeable changes that have been made and all the conjecture about if these changes will stick. We saw our coach and some of our players revert to their old ways when it got into an intense playoff type high level game.

ChicagoJ
02-13-2006, 12:11 PM
I don't have time for a game recap at the moment, I'll try & work on one later this P.M.

But I get on here & I see nothing but threads about how Rick blew the game, how Jax blew the game, how A.J. blew the game, etc., etc.

We just took the defending W.C. to the wire in a very exciting playoff atmosphere type game.

Manu misses that running 28' shot after our stellar defense & we would be looking at a differant end result.

I'm proud as hell of the Pacers today.

Am I dissapointed we lost? Yes. Does it hurt? Hell yes.

But I take that pain as a sign of life, I care. If I didn't care then this loss wouldn't hurt so bad.

Were there goats at the end of the game? Sure, but some of those same goats got you the lead to begin with.

We left it all on the floor & that is all that I ever ask of our team.

BTW, on the bench front today from what I could see, Jermaine & Jamaal both were big time supporters from the sidelines.

I feel bad for our guys but I don't want a dang one of them to hang thier heads in shame.

They battled as hard as they could & I assure you the Spurs didn't walk off of the floor without feeling like they had been in a war.

So, for today, could we not analyze this to death? We played, we fought & we lost to the defending champs who are on a roll.

I don't know if I agree or not.

One of the beauties of this place is the discussions when we do analyze the games. That, IMO, is the most interesting aspect of basketball.

Now, it clearly works better within certain boundaries - analyzing "reasonable" but different viewpoints is of course essential.

I just can't believe you, of all people, is pulling the "let's celebrate a moral victory" card. I'd rather process what happened (which does not always have to be the "blame game" and admittedly that's a big part of the problem at PD right now) than pretend this was a win and I should be happy with it.

Happy with the effort? Yes.

Happy with the exectution? No.

Happy with our mental toughness and compsoure? No.

Unhappy enough to lay a big pile of blame on anyone for the Pacers? Not really - I mostly blame Ginobolli & Co. for just playing like champions down the stretch.

But the lack of execution, and the related lack of composure should be fair game for "reasonable" commentary.

Some of the over-the-top commentary and the "blame game" have been driving valued posters to post less. I don't know if anybody actually considers me to be a valued poster or not, but I know there is a large percentage of threads that I'm just "too busy" to read, whereas in the past I'd make the time to read them all.

Its interesting, for the longest time, there were just a handful of us that would harp on the one huge problem that we saw - and a few other posters also had their "pet" problems that they would talk about. But right now, the team is in flux, and frankly, disarray. And they will continue to be in flux and disarray until after the deadline and until after Croshere, Tinsley and JO return to the mix and we see what everyone's roles will be on the "new" Pacers. And yet there are about a brazillion (ask George Bush how big that number is :D ) unreasonable theories around PD right now for who or what will work when the entire "new" Pacers team finally gets together.

Hell, I'm really looking forward to a Tinsely - Peja - Granger - JO - Harrison starting lineup. I think that could be a great combination if they could all stay healthy.

Until they all return, and until the trading deadline passes, isn't it a bit premature for us to decide who fits in and who doesn't with the "new" Pacers?

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This game, and our performance down the stretch, deserve to be analyzed in a "reasonable" way.

Will Galen
02-13-2006, 12:41 PM
How is Jack supposed to know Manu would be crazy enough to take that kind of shot?


A player will take a shot from anywhere when the shot clock is running out. That's not crazy, it's expected.

Skaut_Ech
02-13-2006, 01:00 PM
Well, in that event, we need to reevaluate our thinking. I mean it's Kstat after all. :D

What else is the explanation? Why take Peja and Sarunas out of a game when he they are our best players on the floor? Jermainiac said it really well, "You think Pop would have put Parker in if Van Exel was lighting our *** up? Nope."

You know when I realize something is obvious during the game? When my wife notices it. :-o

She's not a fan of sports, but will pay some attention to the game when I have it on and she's not in the other room watching Americn Idol, Judging Amy, or some other quality television. :smirk:

She walked into the room late in the game and asked the situation. I told her. After she sat for a little bit, she asked me a question.

"You keep saying the new guy is our new Reggie, right?"

"Yup."

"And you really like Jasekar..Jessie Cava....that guy from europe? And he's like our best three point shooter, right?"

"Uh...yeah. I guess."

"So how come they aren't in the game?"

I couldn't really answer her. Especially in the last seconds, We had the ball. Throw three three point shooters at them, THEN Fred came drive the lane, which should be more open.

Not to monday morning quarterback, but yes, I was pissed at the sub patterns. And yes, I expected to win. Go figure. There was a lot to hang our hat on, but the one constant I'm hearing, win or lose, is Rick's subbing of late: sitting hot guys, playing to thye other team, rather than making them play to us...it just seemed this game was a good encapsulation of that.

I guess I'm with Jay. Screw the moral victory stuff. You have ANYBODY down like that, world champs or cellar dwellers, and let them up for air, I'm gonna discount a lot of what came before, because at that point, I fully expect a win. :grumble:

I can stand losing. I can't abide choking. :swear:

sixthman
02-13-2006, 01:06 PM
Hell, I'm really looking forward to a Tinsely - Peja - Granger - JO - Harrison starting lineup. I think that could be a great combination if they could all stay healthy.

I'd sure like to see Rick give that lineup a chance. Doesn't have to be Harrison yet as I can live with Pollard starting. I think I'd rather see Jeff Foster used as the backup at power forward on most days, but that could depend on matchups.

sweabs
02-13-2006, 01:17 PM
One positive thing that I took away from this game, was the outstanding job Pollard did on Duncan on the defensive end. He did an excellent job of putting a body on him, and staying with him down low, without biting for his fakes, and contesting every single shot.

I haven't seen too much discussion on it, but he just really impressed me. He even had a nasty block on Tony Parker I believe as he tried coming into the lane. After seeing him play like this, I'll be a little disappointed to see him leave after this season...

Will Galen
02-13-2006, 01:35 PM
Again I didn't see the game, however when I came on here I thought posters were being overly critical. Now that I've had a chance to read both pros and cons, I think the criticism might be warranted.

Rick's M.O. is win with defense. He lost the Milwaukee game earlier this year when he didn't play our two best free throw shooters down the stretch. We missed 9(?)freebies and Milwaukee won on a buzzer beating three pointer.

Rick also does not seem to care if a player has a hot hand. He sticks with his rotations anyway.

Knowing this, it's understandable that people would be upset and feel Rick lost us another game with poor substitutions. Especially when they are yelling at their TV for Rick not to make a certain move and he does it.

CableKC
02-13-2006, 01:37 PM
You know when I realize something is obvious during the game? When my wife notices it. :-o

She's not a fan of sports, but will pay some attention to the game when I have it on and she's not in the other room watching Americn Idol, Judging Amy, or some other quality television. :smirk:

She walked into the room late in the game and asked the situation. I told her. After she sat for a little bit, she asked me a question.

"You keep saying the new guy is our new Reggie, right?"

"Yup."

"And you really like Jasekar..Jessie Cava....that guy from europe? And he's like our best three point shooter, right?"

"Uh...yeah. I guess."

"So how come they aren't in the game?"
Skaut....you're a lucky man.....my wife keeps on questiong why I still root for a team like the Pacers after all these years. At least she knows who Jessie Cava-whats-his-name is......:blush:

Unclebuck
02-13-2006, 03:26 PM
Rick also does not seem to care if a player has a hot hand. He sticks with his rotations anyway.



Not true. There is hardly a game where Rick does not pull a guy back from the scorers because the player who is supposed to be coming out may have just hit a shot. It happens probably at least one time per game. In the games I see in person.


On the more general point: Let me get their straight. Most of you wanted the pacers to play peja and Saras in the last 5 minutes of the game. So you are OK with Saras guarding Parker during the last 5 minutes. Well I'm not.


The only question in my mind was who to play between Jax, Fred, and Peja, which two of those guys do you play. That is a tough call. In fact Rick went back and forth on that and played all three.

Harmonica
02-13-2006, 03:38 PM
Again I didn't see the game, however when I came on here I thought posters were being overly critical. Now that I've had a chance to read both pros and cons, I think the criticism might be warranted.

Rick's M.O. is win with defense. He lost the Milwaukee game earlier this year when he didn't play our two best free throw shooters down the stretch. We missed 9(?)freebies and Milwaukee won on a buzzer beating three pointer.

Rick also does not seem to care if a player has a hot hand. He sticks with his rotations anyway.

Knowing this, it's understandable that people would be upset and feel Rick lost us another game with poor substitutions. Especially when they are yelling at their TV for Rick not to make a certain move and he does it.

Sums up my feelings well. I think for Rick to get to that next level, he is going to have to develop more presence in the moment than relying too much on fixed rotations or what he feels more comfortable with. Sarunas was clearly having more success against the Spurs than AJ and should have definitely finished the game.

waterjater
02-13-2006, 03:38 PM
One positive thing that I took away from this game, was the outstanding job Pollard did on Duncan on the defensive end. He did an excellent job of putting a body on him, and staying with him down low, without biting for his fakes, and contesting every single shot.

I haven't seen too much discussion on it, but he just really impressed me. He even had a nasty block on Tony Parker I believe as he tried coming into the lane. After seeing him play like this, I'll be a little disappointed to see him leave after this season...

Yes, I also noticed how effective Pollard was against Duncan and how great a game he played. Heck, he can even hit the jumper and FTs when called upon. He's earned his minutes and should continue to get them. I like his hustle and attitude.

waterjater
02-13-2006, 03:42 PM
On the more general point: Let me get their straight. Most of you wanted the pacers to play peja and Saras in the last 5 minutes of the game. So you are OK with Saras guarding Parker during the last 5 minutes. Well I'm not.
.

Yes, i'm ok with Saras being in there because the only way we were going to lose (just like the Milwaukee game) is if we QUIT SCORING. And we did. 1 Freaking point to end the game. 3 points wins.

Saras, Peja and whoever else was in at the time had no trouble stopping Parker or Duncan, SO again...absolutely have no problem with Saras guarding Parker. Our defense is built around "help" defense and it shouldn't be a problem.

Funny how our quote un quote defenders (AJ and Jax) come in late in the game and
1) Don't Score and most suprisingly 2) Don't get stops??!?!

Water

Unclebuck
02-13-2006, 03:59 PM
Yes, i'm ok with Saras being in there because the only way we were going to lose (just like the Milwaukee game) is if we QUIT SCORING. And we did. 1 Freaking point to end the game. 3 points wins.

Saras, Peja and whoever else was in at the time had no trouble stopping Parker or Duncan, SO again...absolutely have no problem with Saras guarding Parker. Our defense is built around "help" defense and it shouldn't be a problem.

Funny how our quote un quote defenders (AJ and Jax) come in late in the game and
1) Don't Score and most suprisingly 2) Don't get stops??!?!

Water



So 20 points in the last 3:49 minutes doesn't mean anything to you.

The Pacers scored 26 pints in the 4th, that is a lot of points against the Spurs, it was the Pacers best scoring quarter.

Bball
02-13-2006, 04:03 PM
On the more general point: Let me get their straight. Most of you wanted the pacers to play peja and Saras in the last 5 minutes of the game. So you are OK with Saras guarding Parker during the last 5 minutes. Well I'm not.




Yes, I'm absolutely fine with Saras in the game at the end in this circumstance. Stopping them would've been nice but in the final minutes we only needed to trade baskets and we still win the game.

And Saras was part of the reason we were up.

And Saras does seem to have a knack for making a basketball play in those clutch moments. Whether it is knocking the basketball away from his man, getting a hand in the passing lane on a pass, or getting or tipping a rebound into our hands.

As I said, we'll have to live with some stuff to get maximum benefit from Sarunas. Rick will as well.

It's not like AJ had been on fire or was a defensive demon this game.

-Bball

Bball
02-13-2006, 04:05 PM
So 20 points in the last 3:49 minutes doesn't mean anything to you.

The Pacers scored 26 pints in the 4th, that is a lot of points against the Spurs, it was the Pacers best scoring quarter.


Which side of the argument are you on? You seem to be making points for the opposite side I thought you were on....


-Bball

Outlaw
02-13-2006, 04:11 PM
On the more general point: Let me get their straight. Most of you wanted the pacers to play peja and Saras in the last 5 minutes of the game. So you are OK with Saras guarding Parker during the last 5 minutes. Well I'm not.




I seem to remember that earlier this season you claimed Sarunas needed to start and run the team?:confused: But now he is not good enough to finish?:hmm: Maybe I'm wrong and you didn't say such.

Unclebuck
02-13-2006, 04:20 PM
Which side of the argument are you on? You seem to be making points for the opposite side I thought you were on....


-Bball



The Spurs scored 20 points in the last 3:49 of the game (that is on pace for a 70 point quarter) that was the reason the Pacers lost, not the Pacers offense. That is my point

Unclebuck
02-13-2006, 04:21 PM
I seem to remember that earlier this season you claimed Sarunas needed to start and run the team?:confused: But now he is not good enough to finish?:hmm: Maybe I'm wrong and you didn't say such.


You'll have to ask MR, he is the keeper of my past opinions.

ChicagoJ
02-13-2006, 04:24 PM
Classic. :laugh:

Harmonica
02-13-2006, 04:24 PM
The Spurs scored 20 points in the last 3:49 of the game (that is on pace for a 70 point quarter) that was the reason the Pacers lost, not the Pacers offense. That is my point

So what you're saying then is that there was nothing we could have done differently to win the game.

Hicks
02-13-2006, 04:25 PM
The Spurs scored 20 points in the last 3:49 of the game (that is on pace for a 70 point quarter) that was the reason the Pacers lost, not the Pacers offense. That is my point

What Bball is trying to say is, yes we did give up those points. With the guys supposedly fit to make stops. So wouldn't it be logical to think that if you let Peja and Sarunas play instead, while those buckets still get scored, we have a much better chance at answering those scores to keep our lead? I think so.

Will Galen
02-13-2006, 05:18 PM
Not true. There is hardly a game where Rick does not pull a guy back from the scorers because the player who is supposed to be coming out may have just hit a shot. It happens probably at least one time per game. In the games I see in person.

Okay so he does pull people back.

Which brings up the question, why is Rick having to pull people back at least once a game? Is it not because he sticks to his rotations to firmly?

The point is he shouldn't be pulling the hot player, ever, without a very good reason, but he does, or people wouldn't complain about it.

And I've noted he's pulls Saras even when Saras has the team rolling.

ChicagoJ
02-13-2006, 05:22 PM
UncleBuck, it is okay to "match baskets" with the opponent when you've got the lead. In fact, that's what we call "playing to win" instead of "playing not to lose."

Harmonica
02-13-2006, 05:55 PM
UncleBuck, it is okay to "match baskets" with the opponent when you've got the lead. In fact, that's what we call "playing to win" instead of "playing not to lose."

Well put. Again, I'm reminded of Marty Shottenhiemer reading this.

Jermaniac
02-13-2006, 07:24 PM
I seem to remember that earlier this season you claimed Sarunas needed to start and run the team?:confused: But now he is not good enough to finish?:hmm: Maybe I'm wrong and you didn't say such.His opinions change after everygame

Peck
02-13-2006, 08:06 PM
Look when I said let's not analyze this I mis-spoke. What I wanted to relay was that I thought that there was to much gnashing of teeth & frankly just plain all out b!tching at Carlisle for a close hard fought game.

Obviously I did not mean for there to not be any type of criticism or analitical thinking about the game.

As I've said several several times in this thread. When I started my post I did not see anybody even mentioning anything positive at all about what I considered to be a wonderfull game. Now Bball has posted his but I honestly didn't see it.

Everybody on here knows I'm not a moral victory type of guy, but my guess is that we weren't going to win every game the rest of the season so I would rather lose to the Spurs than the Bucks.

Fireball Kid
02-13-2006, 08:08 PM
What Bball is trying to say is, yes we did give up those points. With the guys supposedly fit to make stops. So wouldn't it be logical to think that if you let Peja and Sarunas play instead, while those buckets still get scored, we have a much better chance at answering those scores to keep our lead? I think so.
:thumbup:

Unclebuck
02-13-2006, 08:51 PM
What Bball is trying to say is, yes we did give up those points. With the guys supposedly fit to make stops. So wouldn't it be logical to think that if you let Peja and Sarunas play instead, while those buckets still get scored, we have a much better chance at answering those scores to keep our lead? I think so.



I see your point.

The Spurs scored on every possesion over the last 3:49, so a group of us could have allowed the Spurs to do that.

Well if Rick knew the Spurs were going to score on every possession, then yes he might as well had gone with his best offensive team, but Rick didn't know it was going to turn out like that. He thought if the Pacers better "defensive team" was on the floor and could have gotten a few stops then they win the game.

Pacers did score 9 points over the last 3:49, that is pretty good against the Spurs. That is on pace 28 points in a quarter.

So if someone had asked me at the 3:49 mark of the 4th quarter should the Pacers use their best defensive team, I would have said yes, especially if I know the better defensive team would score 9 points, I would have garanteed a victory. Who knew the Spurts would go on a 20-9 run.

sixthman
02-13-2006, 09:33 PM
What Bball is trying to say is, yes we did give up those points. With the guys supposedly fit to make stops. So wouldn't it be logical to think that if you let Peja and Sarunas play instead, while those buckets still get scored, we have a much better chance at answering those scores to keep our lead? I think so.

I think Peja would have done better than Jack on Bowen. Granger would have done better than Peja.

Don't forget Rick substituted not 2, but 3 players, from the unit that was on a role with a little over four minutes left - Saras, Peja, and Danny G.

sixthman
02-13-2006, 09:40 PM
Well if Rick knew the Spurs were going to score on every possession, then yes he might as well had gone with his best offensive team, but Rick didn't know it was going to turn out like that. He thought if the Pacers better "defensive team" was on the floor and could have gotten a few stops then they win the game.


But do you really think that Freddie at "2" and Jack at "3" are our best defensive matchups against Ginobili and Bowen? That's what Rick wound up with his substitutions. I didn't like it at the time he did it, and I don't like it now.

MagicRat
02-13-2006, 09:56 PM
You'll have to ask MR, he is the keeper of my past opinions.



Sorry. All I've got left is "Unclebuck does not like third person thread titles"..........

owl
02-13-2006, 10:02 PM
Peck said..."I would rather lose to the Spurs than the Bucks"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

Frankly I would prefer the opposite of that.


owl

Bball
02-13-2006, 10:36 PM
I see your point.

The Spurs scored on every possesion over the last 3:49, so a group of us could have allowed the Spurs to do that.

Well if Rick knew the Spurs were going to score on every possession, then yes he might as well had gone with his best offensive team, but Rick didn't know it was going to turn out like that. He thought if the Pacers better "defensive team" was on the floor and could have gotten a few stops then they win the game.

You've just described playing "not to lose".

Hicks pretty much described my point. I should add that the team on the court was playing San Antonio fairly well. They had the momentum and seemed to have a good flow going. What Rick did was blow a hole right in that continuity in the name of going to a 'prevent defense'... and it backfired. We didn't just sub one player.

At some point it doesn't matter what the eggtimer says or what the security blanket says... you have to go with the moment. We had the defending champs on the ropes, if not the mat, and instead of going at them we backed off and tried to wait for the bell. They got some daylight, and their breath, and then laid a haymaker on us instead.

-Bball

Arcadian
02-13-2006, 10:51 PM
My personal thought is that Rick could have put seven guys out there and the Spurs would have still won. They are champions for a reason. What great teams do is they close out games and win them in the final minutes. The Spurs are great; the Pacers aren't. Sometimes the better team just has to be better in the final minutes of the game to win. That is what they did.

Bball
02-13-2006, 11:25 PM
My personal thought is that Rick could have put seven guys out there and the Spurs would have still won. They are champions for a reason. What great teams do is they close out games and win them in the final minutes. The Spurs are great; the Pacers aren't. Sometimes the better team just has to be better in the final minutes of the game to win. That is what they did.


You're right... why'd we even play the game? We had no chance. In fact it was actually a blowout.

-Bball

Fireball Kid
02-13-2006, 11:35 PM
My personal thought is that Rick could have put seven guys out there and the Spurs would have still won. They are champions for a reason. What great teams do is they close out games and win them in the final minutes. The Spurs are great; the Pacers aren't. Sometimes the better team just has to be better in the final minutes of the game to win. That is what they did.

:shakehead

brichard
02-14-2006, 12:58 AM
I didn't see the game, but statistically it doesn't look like AJ had that bad of a game did he? Sarunas was a little more proactive offensively, but he was 4-8 and AJ was 4-9. AJ had more assists, but granted he had more minutes.

Was there really that much of a disparity in the play? If so, why isn't it showing up more in the stats or am I missing something?

Harmonica
02-14-2006, 01:09 AM
10 points in 16 minutes vs. 9 points in 31.

Arcadian
02-14-2006, 01:47 AM
You're right... why'd we even play the game? We had no chance. In fact it was actually a blowout.

-Bball

Well, JO wasn't playing so I guess we were really the better "team".

Will Galen
02-14-2006, 05:08 AM
You've just described playing "not to lose".

Hicks pretty much described my point. I should add that the team on the court was playing San Antonio fairly well. They had the momentum and seemed to have a good flow going. What Rick did was blow a hole right in that continuity in the name of going to a 'prevent defense'... and it backfired. We didn't just sub one player.

At some point it doesn't matter what the eggtimer says or what the security blanket says... you have to go with the moment. We had the defending champs on the ropes, if not the mat, and instead of going at them we backed off and tried to wait for the bell. They got some daylight, and their breath, and then laid a haymaker on us instead.

-Bball

This quote from Rick confirms he was going to a prevent defense.

"We wanted to get A.J. back on (Spurs point guard Tony) Parker," Carlisle said. "The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint. That group had been able to get the ball in the basket when they had to. We did a lot of mixing it up down the stretch because of matchups and situations."

I thought coaches at the NBA level were smart enought to stay with the guys that got them the lead.

Of course I thought it was a cardinal rule that you have your best free throw shooters in at the end too.

This shows he didn't learn anything from the Milwaukee game he lost earlier. Not only did he take out the guys that got him the lead, they were also his best free throw shooters.

waterjater
02-14-2006, 05:23 AM
This quote from Rick confirms he was going to a prevent defense.

"We wanted to get A.J. back on (Spurs point guard Tony) Parker," Carlisle said. "The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint. That group had been able to get the ball in the basket when they had to. We did a lot of mixing it up down the stretch because of matchups and situations."

I thought coaches at the NBA level were smart enought to stay with the guys that got them the lead.

Of course I thought it was a cardinal rule that you have your best free throw shooters in at the end too.

This shows he didn't learn anything from the Milwaukee game he lost earlier. Not only did he take out the guys that got him the lead, they were also his best free throw shooters.

Agree COMPLETELY and this has been my points as well. Criticized for it, but accurate. He goes to defense to end games and for some reason we "don't score and we don't defend either. go figure.

Water

waterjater
02-14-2006, 05:27 AM
I see your point.

So if someone had asked me at the 3:49 mark of the 4th quarter should the Pacers use their best defensive team, I would have said yes, especially if I know the better defensive team would score 9 points, I would have garanteed a victory. Who knew the Spurts would go on a 20-9 run.


But once again, it is our supposedly "GREAT" defensive unit that continues to give up tons of points at the end of games AND they don't score. Bad combination.

Rick, please learn from this!

Water

waterjater
02-14-2006, 05:35 AM
The Spurs scored 20 points in the last 3:49 of the game (that is on pace for a 70 point quarter) that was the reason the Pacers lost, not the Pacers offense. That is my point

Its funny how Rick goes for defense and they allow TWENTY points over the final 3:49 and hardly score any points. That makes the twenty points even worse because they didn't offset it with any scoring.

You are making my point for me :) Thanks!

Bball
02-14-2006, 06:29 AM
"The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint."

Would that be the same starters that spotted San Antonio an 11-0 lead? I could certainly see why he was chomping at the bit to get that kind of defensive and offensive production back onto the court for the final few minutes. :crazy:

-Bball

Bball
02-14-2006, 06:36 AM
This quote from Rick confirms he was going to a prevent defense.

"We wanted to get A.J. back on (Spurs point guard Tony) Parker," Carlisle said. "The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint. That group had been able to get the ball in the basket when they had to. We did a lot of mixing it up down the stretch because of matchups and situations."

I thought coaches at the NBA level were smart enought to stay with the guys that got them the lead.

Of course I thought it was a cardinal rule that you have your best free throw shooters in at the end too.

This shows he didn't learn anything from the Milwaukee game he lost earlier. Not only did he take out the guys that got him the lead, they were also his best free throw shooters.


Carlisle needs to step back from the matchup thing. It was US with the lead and the momentum AND the clock on our side. Let them try and matchup with what we were doing... if they could...

At least wait until something happens that forces his hand.

I can't fault anyone too much because we had the defending champs on the ropes but I do think Coach Carlisle over-coached those final minutes and played right into the Spurs' hands. And I think it is a bit of a trend.

-Bball

Unclebuck
02-14-2006, 08:40 AM
Wait a minute. So going with your best defensive lineup, which essentially is the starters, plus Fred Jones, who was playing very well, is "prevent defense". That is absurd.

Some of you are acting like Rick pulled 3 guys off the bench who hadn't played in two weeks and are defensive specialist only.

I'll say it again I agree with the lineup Rick went with, the only question I had was which two should be played out of Jax, Fred and Peja

btowncolt
02-14-2006, 08:46 AM
Wait a minute. So going with your best defensive lineup, which essentially is the starters, plus Fred Jones, who was playing very well, is "prevent defense". That is absurd.

Some of you are acting like Rick pulled 3 guys off the bench who hadn't played in two weeks and are defensive specialist only.

I'll say it again I agree with the lineup Rick went with, the only question I had was which two should be played out of Jax, Fred and Peja

Hey, at least this is more fun than arguing about Artest.

Harmonica
02-14-2006, 10:06 AM
Hey, at least this is more fun than arguing about Artest.
And to think, Peck wanted to prevent this discussion from happening.

Harmonica
02-14-2006, 10:07 AM
Would that be the same starters that spotted San Antonio an 11-0 lead? I could certainly see why he was chomping at the bit to get that kind of defensive and offensive production back onto the court for the final few minutes. :crazy:

-Bball

Buck?

sixthman
02-14-2006, 10:42 AM
I didn't see the game, but statistically it doesn't look like AJ had that bad of a game did he? Sarunas was a little more proactive offensively, but he was 4-8 and AJ was 4-9. AJ had more assists, but granted he had more minutes.

Was there really that much of a disparity in the play? If so, why isn't it showing up more in the stats or am I missing something?

The difference Sarunas was making in the game Sunday can't be seen in the box score anyway. It was the chemistry and the ability to keep the Spurs off balance that was disrupted when the three substitutions were made.

naptownmenace
02-14-2006, 11:17 AM
PD is a emotional crowd. If PD was a person, PD would be a female, because of all the mood swings.

Or Ron Artest.

BTW, that is so going in my signature. :cool:

Suaveness
02-14-2006, 11:40 AM
You've just described playing "not to lose".

Hicks pretty much described my point. I should add that the team on the court was playing San Antonio fairly well. They had the momentum and seemed to have a good flow going. What Rick did was blow a hole right in that continuity in the name of going to a 'prevent defense'... and it backfired. We didn't just sub one player.

At some point it doesn't matter what the eggtimer says or what the security blanket says... you have to go with the moment. We had the defending champs on the ropes, if not the mat, and instead of going at them we backed off and tried to wait for the bell. They got some daylight, and their breath, and then laid a haymaker on us instead.

-Bball


I don't see how that's playing to lose. Playing your starters because they are more defensive minded is still "playing to win" for me. How do you play to lose? By not playing with 100% of energy. If you play hard, then I have no problem playing defensively. If you look at that situation, I would think only 1 or 2 more stops would have won the game.

Yes, we could have gone full out offensive. But who's to say it would have continued to work? You have to remember that the Spurs are a very good defensive team. Frankly, if I had to count on a single aspect of the game to rely on at the end, I would pick defense 99/100 times.

Unclebuck
02-14-2006, 11:48 AM
Well I hope this settles it.

The players who should have played at crunch time according to the all important plus/minus stat

Fred +11
DG +6
DH +3
Saras +2
and only because we need 5 players on the court.
Peja -3.


Can we close the thread

Harmonica
02-14-2006, 12:02 PM
Well I hope this settles it.

The players who should have played at crunch time according to the all important plus/minus stat

Fred +11
DG +6
DH +3
Saras +2
and only because we need 5 players on the court.
Peja -3.


Can we close the thread

So you're saying the wrong line-up was in there? I agree. And why close the thread? Because you don't like Rick being questioned?

naptownmenace
02-14-2006, 12:12 PM
BTW, I disagree with anyone who says that you don't substitute defensively in a close game.

I have no problem at all with the substitutions RC made against the Spurs. The only problem I have is how ineffective the defense against Ginobilli was (I'm not mad about it, though because other than D. Wade and Kobe, I fear no one more than Ginobilli).

Will Galen
02-14-2006, 12:17 PM
I don't see how that's playing to lose. Playing your starters because they are more defensive minded is still "playing to win" for me. How do you play to lose? By not playing with 100% of energy. If you play hard, then I have no problem playing defensively. If you look at that situation, I would think only 1 or 2 more stops would have won the game.

Yes, we could have gone full out offensive. But who's to say it would have continued to work? You have to remember that the Spurs are a very good defensive team. Frankly, if I had to count on a single aspect of the game to rely on at the end, I would pick defense 99/100 times.

He didn't say Rick was playing to lose. He said he was 'playing NOT to lose.'

You do that by playing to hold on to your advantage instead of continuing to play the way that got you that advantage.

Rick took out players that got the advantage, thinking more defensive minded players could hang on to the lead.

Unclebuck
02-14-2006, 12:29 PM
So you're saying the wrong line-up was in there? I agree. And why close the thread? Because you don't like Rick being questioned?

I was trying to be funny. The plus minus stats work against my argument.

For the record, I have no problem with criticism of Rick, but when I think the criticism is unfair I am going to comment. Even during the Isiah days and even though I thought he was a terrible coach, I still did not criticize him for who he had in the game at certain points of the game. I was extremely critical of his lack of regular subst pattern.

But I jut get tired of the old "the coach should have had different players in the game" whenever your team loses.

Harmonica
02-14-2006, 12:49 PM
But I jut get tired of the old "the coach should have had different players in the game" whenever your team loses.

I didn't think that's what we were doing. It has more to do with a pattern in Rick's substitutions and coaching style that we're questioning.

RWB
02-14-2006, 12:58 PM
I didn't think that's what we were doing. It has more to do with a pattern in Rick's substitutions and coaching style that we're questioning.

Could this be the reason Rick's favorite song is Mr. Roboto by Styx?

Suaveness
02-14-2006, 01:01 PM
He didn't say Rick was playing to lose. He said he was 'playing NOT to lose.'

You do that by playing to hold on to your advantage instead of continuing to play the way that got you that advantage.

Rick took out players that got the advantage, thinking more defensive minded players could hang on to the lead.

My mistake. But either way, I disagree. Playing with a defensive strategy is playing to win in my book. Like I said, we have no clue what would have happened if offensive team had stayed out.

I have no problems with Rick's substitutions. Now saying this, I would have like to see Peja/Fred in the game. However, that doesn't mean I disagree with what Rick did.

ChicagoJ
02-14-2006, 01:05 PM
I dunno, naptown. I hate offense-defense substitutions down the stretch. I know its supposed to be "smart" to play it that way. But I'd rather just have five guys that I can count on at both ends of the court. Maybe I'll give up a little offense and a little defense, but I believe they can make up for it by being cohesive.

But I also hate timeouts before every possession in the last few minutes. Do these NBA coaches really think the players don't know just how important those possessions are?

Damn control freaks.

McKeyFan
02-14-2006, 02:18 PM
I hate offense-defense substitutions down the stretch. I know its supposed to be "smart" to play it that way. But I'd rather just have five guys that I can count on at both ends of the court. Maybe I'll give up a little offense and a little defense, but I believe they can make up for it by being cohesive.

I think there's some good insight there.

McKeyFan
02-14-2006, 02:19 PM
Well I hope this settles it.

The players who should have played at crunch time according to the all important plus/minus stat

Fred +11
DG +6
DH +3
Saras +2
and only because we need 5 players on the court.
Peja -3.


Can we close the thread

You were being funny, but, yes, I would be thrilled to have that linup at the end of the game. It's pretty close, if not exactly, the unit that got us the six point lead.

McKeyFan
02-14-2006, 02:21 PM
I was trying to be funny. The plus minus stats work against my argument.

For the record, I have no problem with criticism of Rick, but when I think the criticism is unfair I am going to comment. Even during the Isiah days and even though I thought he was a terrible coach, I still did not criticize him for who he had in the game at certain points of the game. I was extremely critical of his lack of regular subst pattern.

But I jut get tired of the old "the coach should have had different players in the game" whenever your team loses.

I'm not just criticizing Rick on this particular sub strategy in this specific game. I've been questioning his limited use of Runi over AJ since day one, as have many others.

Also, someone else made the point that Runi adds a chemistry and flow, not just points. Couldn't agree more. He makes three plays that help us and then one that flops. It's that flopper that drives Mr. Control nuts.

Bball
02-14-2006, 02:22 PM
I don't believe anyone but me is using the word 'continuity' and that is what I feel is at play here. By the 4th qtr you need to worry about continuity.. not the eggtimer... not 'prevent defense'... not a 'security blanket mentality'... and certainly not players' feelings .

-Bball

owl
02-14-2006, 02:44 PM
Suaveness said...."My mistake. But either way, I disagree. Playing with a defensive strategy is playing to win in my book. Like I said, we have no clue what would have happened if offensive team had stayed out. "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

Well, one thing we know for sure is the Pacers lost. What we also know for
sure is if the offensive minded team would have stayed in is the Pacers
might have won......or lost also. I would still choose option B, in hindsight
of course. :-))


owl

FrenchConnection
02-14-2006, 03:01 PM
I'm not just criticizing Rick on this particular sub strategy in this specific game. I've been questioning his limited use of Runi over AJ since day one, as have many others.

Also, someone else made the point that Runi adds a chemistry and flow, not just points. Couldn't agree more. He makes three plays that help us and then one that flops. It's that flopper that drives Mr. Control nuts.

This is the reason that Saras has not been as successful here as he could have been. In order to play the way that he does, he needs to take some risks. When they do not work out, he needs to feel free to go back to the well, but he does not because Rick just counts turnovers. For some reason, Rick seems to fear TOs so much that he loses track of the fact that sometimes the reward is worth the risk. For example, Steve Nash leads the league in turnovers as well as assists. You cannot have one without the other. I am not putting Saras in the same league as Steve Nash, but players that take risks with passes will commit a high number of TOs.

waxman
02-14-2006, 03:27 PM
Its not as much about who Rick substituted... as when...

He makes those defensive changes to protect the lead with way too much time left. A 5-7 point lead with 4 minutes left is no lead at all especially considering the opponent. The shot clock is not your friend at this point...

You have to keep your offensive momentum going.... and if you still have that 5-7 point lead with a minute or so left... then bring in your defensive matchups.

Of course its easy to be an arm-chair coach. Right Jay ....;)

I would hate to think the substitutions were made in order to keep Jack and AJ free from a bout of pouty-itis... but that crossed my mind as well, and I don't get it. There are plenty of games for everyone to get a chance to be the Hero.

brichard
02-14-2006, 11:19 PM
The difference Sarunas was making in the game Sunday can't be seen in the box score anyway. It was the chemistry and the ability to keep the Spurs off balance that was disrupted when the three substitutions were made.


Well, you'll have to explain it a bit more to me. I get that Saras was scoring more, but he was shooting at a much faster clip than AJ. Saras put up a lot more shots in a shorter time period. And if nobody could/would shoot... maybe that was why he was needed.

The only thing I want to know is if you were evaluating both sides of the ball as you watched. I think the number one error people make in evaluating players is that they always give greater consideration to the offensive side of the ball. And quite frankly, I fall into the same trap.

I think it is quite clear that Saras is superior offensively to AJ. When people are evaluating the impact that Saras is making, I just want to make sure people are looking at both sides of the ball with equal weight? Do you feel like you did that? I'm not judging, becauese I often don't do it myself.

However, I do appreciate your observations b/c I know that stats. only tell part of the story.

Big Smooth
02-14-2006, 11:27 PM
We left it all on the floor & that is all that I ever ask of our team.

That is pretty much how I felt. It was very frustrating to lose that game but at the same time, I felt proud of the effort and didn't see any particular one thing by coaches or players that overwhelmed my overall pride in the performance.

But my fists are currently healing from multiple bruises after punching inanimate objects! ;)

pacerwaala
02-15-2006, 01:13 AM
We are probably overanalyzing Rick and this game. San Antonio won on a freak three pointer by Manu on a broken play. I doubt that they would have won if not for that bomb from 28 feet. I agree with Rick's substitutions becaue Tony Parker and Manu Gnobli are too quick for Saras and Peja. Granted that it did not work but you win some and lose some. In my book, Rick gets a pass or the benefit of the doubt just for what he has done these past couple of years with the talent that he had. I think people on this board take Rick's coahing for granted and fail to give him the credit he deserves. I just wish Rick stops going to SJax at the end of games but he may be privy to info about SJax that I do not know. All SJax does is take a few dribbles, waste time on the shot clock, break plays and launches 19 or 23 fadeaway jump shots like nobody's business.

I might be biased on this becos I just never liked SJax even from the beiginning.

waterjater
02-15-2006, 01:13 AM
Well, you'll have to explain it a bit more to me. I get that Saras was scoring more, but he was shooting at a much faster clip than AJ. Saras put up a lot more shots in a shorter time period. And if nobody could/would shoot... maybe that was why he was needed.

The only thing I want to know is if you were evaluating both sides of the ball as you watched. I think the number one error people make in evaluating players is that they always give greater consideration to the offensive side of the ball. And quite frankly, I fall into the same trap.

I think it is quite clear that Saras is superior offensively to AJ. When people are evaluating the impact that Saras is making, I just want to make sure people are looking at both sides of the ball with equal weight? Do you feel like you did that? I'm not judging, becauese I often don't do it myself.

However, I do appreciate your observations b/c I know that stats. only tell part of the story.

On the defensive side when Saras and Company were in, the Spurs were NOT scoring and we were. So, the continuity, chemistry, help defense (whatever you want to call it) was excellent with that group. Duncan and Parker BOTH were not scoring and neither was Manu at the time.

AJ is a better one on one defender, but Ricks defense has a lot of "help" principles and this is why a team that can score and defend relatively well by working together is a much better solution to end an NBA game!

Remember back to Milwaukee when Rick made the SAME substitution, we lost a HUGE lead because we couldn't SCORE! We score a few baskets ot Free Throws and that game is an easy win.

In this game, if we had played the same help defense that got us the lead and scored through the motion offense, we also win.

When you have a lead in the NBA, YOU MUST KNOCK DOWN JUMP SHOTS, the team behind ALWAYS MAKES A RUN and the team in the lead doesn't seem to get the calls late. That's why it is crucial to have players in the game late that can knock down shots despite contact.

BY THE WAY....I like this discussion and the associated debate. It makes for some interesting reading and gives different perspectives on how the Pacers play!! :)

Water

waterjater
02-15-2006, 01:15 AM
Would that be the same starters that spotted San Antonio an 11-0 lead? I could certainly see why he was chomping at the bit to get that kind of defensive and offensive production back onto the court for the final few minutes. :crazy:

-Bball

LOL, that gave me a good laugh. And I agree :)

D-BONE
02-15-2006, 07:50 AM
Criticism of coaching decisions is certainly fair game and naturally leads directly to discussion of rationale for said decisions. The only point along those lines I cannot buy into is that Rick plays certain guys in situations based on not wanting to damage their egos. I give Rick credit that his moves, whether they succeed or fail, are motivated by what he thinks gives us the best chance to win games.